id
int64 1
361k
| content
stringlengths 1
23.3M
⌀ | title
stringlengths 1
271
| appendix
bool 1
class | paper_arxiv_id
stringlengths 10
13
| section_in_paper_id
float64 1
294
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
95,360
|
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we present DiffSpectra, a novel spectrum-conditioned diffusion framework for molecular structure elucidation. By integrating a continuous-time variational diffusion model with a Transformer-based molecular graph backbone, DiffSpectra is capable of generating molecular graphs with consistent 2D and 3D structures under spectral conditions. To encode spectral conditions, we introduce SpecFormer, a multi-spectrum Transformer encoder, which is further pre-trained via masked patch reconstruction and contrastive learning to align spectra with molecular structures. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that DiffSpectra achieves superior performance in recovering molecular structures from spectra, benefiting from the incorporation of pre-trained SpecFormer and multi-modal spectral inputs. In addition, our analysis shows that a model-based SE(3) equivariant architecture provides robust geometric consistency, while proper sampling temperature helps balance stochasticity and accuracy in generation.
Our work paves the way for several promising directions for future research. Firstly, expanding the diversity and quantity of molecular spectra data could further boost the performance of spectral-conditioned generation. Secondly, extending the framework to handle even more complex spectra modalities, such as NMR or mass spectra, could generalize the method toward broader applications in analytical chemistry. Lastly, adapting DiffSpectra to larger biomolecular or materials systems may open opportunities for molecular identification in drug discovery and materials science, especially when combined with high-throughput experimental pipelines. We believe DiffSpectra represents a significant step toward trustworthy and accurate molecular structure elucidation conditioned on spectral data.
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06853
| 3
|
95,361
|
\label{sec:method}
\subsection{Diffusion Model for Molecular Structure Elucidation}
We adopt a continuous-time diffusion probabilistic model to generate molecular graphs in a joint space that integrates 2D topology and 3D geometry. Each molecule is represented as a graph $\mathcal{G} = (\mathbf{H}, \mathbf{A}, \mathbf{X})$\mathcal{G} = (\mathbf{H}, \mathbf{A}, \mathbf{X}), where $\mathbf{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_1}$\mathbf{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_1}N \times d_1 denotes node-level attributes such as atom types and charges, $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_2}$\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_2}N \times N \times d_2 encodes pairwise edge features such as bond existence and bond types, and $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 3}$\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 3}N \times 3 corresponds to the 3D coordinates of the atoms. Here, $N$N represents the number of atoms in the molecule, $d_1$d_1 denotes the dimensionality of the node features, and $d_2$d_2 denotes the dimensionality of the edge features.
We adopt the mathematical formulation of the Variational Diffusion Model (VDM)~\citep{VDM,ProgressiveDistillation,BlurringDiffusion} to define our diffusion and sampling processes, which follow a continuous-time diffusion probabilistic framework, as illustrated in \cref{fig:overview}(A). To streamline the presentation, we consider a generic graph component, namely the node features $\mathbf{H}$\mathbf{H}, the edge features $\mathbf{A}$\mathbf{A}, or the atomic coordinates $\mathbf{X}$\mathbf{X}, which we uniformly denote by a vector-valued variable $\mathbf{G} \in \mathbb{R}^d$\mathbf{G} \in \mathbb{R}^d. The subsequent formulas can then be applied independently to each component in a consistent manner.
\subsubsection{Forward Diffusion Process}
In the forward diffusion process, Gaussian noise $\bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI)$\bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI) is gradually added to the data over continuous time from $t=0$t=0 to $t=1$t=1. The noised sample $\bG_t$\bG_t is obtained by:
\begin{equation}
\bG_t = \alpha_t \bG_0 + \sigma_t \bG_\epsilon,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bG_t = \alpha_t \bG_0 + \sigma_t \bG_\epsilon,
\end{equation}
\bG_t = \alpha_t \bG_0 + \sigma_t \bG_\epsilon,
where $\alpha_t$\alpha_t and $\sigma_t$\sigma_t are signal and noise scaling functions, typically determined by cosine or linear schedules. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at time $t$t is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{SNR}(t) = \frac{\alpha_t^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathrm{SNR}(t) = \frac{\alpha_t^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
\end{equation}
\mathrm{SNR}(t) = \frac{\alpha_t^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
The SNR is strictly decreasing from $t = 0$t = 0 to $t = 1$t = 1, ensuring that the data is gradually corrupted into pure noise as $t \to 1$t \to 1.
Given two times $0 \leq s < t \leq 1$0 \leq s < t \leq 1, the conditional distribution of a noised graph at time $t$t given a less-noised graph at time $s$s, denoted $q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s)$q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s), is also Gaussian:
\begin{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_{t|s} \bG_s, \sigma_{t|s}^2 \bI),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_{t|s} \bG_s, \sigma_{t|s}^2 \bI),
\end{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_{t|s}t|s \bG_s, \sigma_{t|s}t|s^2 \bI),
where the intermediate scaling factor and conditional variance are defined as:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{t|s} = \frac{\alpha_t}{\alpha_s}, \quad
\sigma_{t|s}^2 = \sigma_t^2 - \alpha_{t|s}^2 \sigma_s^2.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\alpha_{t|s} = \frac{\alpha_t}{\alpha_s}, \quad
\sigma_{t|s}^2 = \sigma_t^2 - \alpha_{t|s}^2 \sigma_s^2.
\end{equation}
\alpha_{t|s}t|s = \frac{\alpha_t}{\alpha_s}, \quad
\sigma_{t|s}t|s^2 = \sigma_t^2 - \alpha_{t|s}t|s^2 \sigma_s^2.
This formulation allows the forward process to be implemented using analytically tractable Gaussian transitions, which also facilitates efficient computation of training objectives and reverse-time sampling.
\subsubsection{Reverse Denoising Process}
The reverse-time denoising process starts from a standard Gaussian sample $\bG_1 \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI)$\bG_1 \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI) and proceeds backward from $t = 1$t = 1 to $t = 0$t = 0. Let $0 \leq s < t \leq 1$0 \leq s < t \leq 1 denote two consecutive time steps. At each step, a data prediction model $d_\theta$d_\theta takes as input the noised sample $\bG_t$\bG_t, a self-conditioning~\cite{SelfConditioning} estimate $\tilde{\bG}_0$\tilde{\bG}_0, and the log signal-to-noise ratio $\log \mathrm{SNR}(t)$\log \mathrm{SNR}(t). The model predicts $\hat{\bG}_0 = d_\theta(\bG_t, \tilde{\bG}_0, \log \mathrm{SNR}(t))$\hat{\bG}_0 = d_\theta(\bG_t, \tilde{\bG}_0, \log \mathrm{SNR}(t)), which is then used to compute the denoised sample $\bG_s$\bG_s by:
\begin{gather}
\bar{\bG}_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0, \\
\bG_s = \bar{\bG}_s + \tau \cdot \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI),
\label{eq:sampling}
\end{gather}\begin{gather}
\bar{\bG}_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0, \\
\bG_s = \bar{\bG}_s + \tau \cdot \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI),
\label{eq:sampling}
\end{gather}
\bar{\bG}_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0, \\
\bG_s = \bar{\bG}_s + \tau \cdot \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI),
\label{eq:sampling}
where $\tau$\tau is a sampling temperature parameter, modulating the amount of stochasticity in the sampling process. Lower values of $\tau < 1$\tau < 1 reduce the influence of noise, leading to more deterministic outputs.
The self-conditioning mechanism, where the model reuses its previous prediction $\tilde{\bG}_0$\tilde{\bG}_0 as an additional input in the next step, enhances training stability and generation quality~\cite{SelfConditioning}.
\subsubsection{Training Objective}
To recover the original sample, we train a data prediction model $d_\theta$d_\theta that takes as input the noised graph $\mathbf{G}_t$\mathbf{G}_t, a self-conditioning estimate $\tilde{\mathbf{G}}_0$\tilde{\mathbf{G}}_0, and the log signal-to-noise ratio $\log \mathrm{SNR}(t)$\log \mathrm{SNR}(t). The model predicts the clean sample $\hat{\mathbf{G}}_0$\hat{\mathbf{G}}_0, where $\hat{\mathbf{G}}_0$\hat{\mathbf{G}}_0 refers to any component of $\hat{\mathcal{G}}_0 = (\hat{\mathbf{H}}, \hat{\mathbf{A}}, \hat{\mathbf{X}})$\hat{\mathcal{G}}_0 = (\hat{\mathbf{H}}, \hat{\mathbf{A}}, \hat{\mathbf{X}}). Therefore, the model is trained to minimize a weighted mean squared error:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}_{t, \mathbf{G}_0} \left[ \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_t}{\sigma_t}} \left( \lambda_1 \| \hat{\mathbf{A}} - \mathbf{A}_0 \|_2^2 + \lambda_2 \| \hat{\mathbf{X}} - \hat{\mathbf{X}}_0 \|_2^2 + \lambda_3 \| \hat{\mathbf{H}} - \mathbf{H}_0 \|_2^2 \right) \right],
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}_{t, \mathbf{G}_0} \left[ \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_t}{\sigma_t}} \left( \lambda_1 \| \hat{\mathbf{A}} - \mathbf{A}_0 \|_2^2 + \lambda_2 \| \hat{\mathbf{X}} - \hat{\mathbf{X}}_0 \|_2^2 + \lambda_3 \| \hat{\mathbf{H}} - \mathbf{H}_0 \|_2^2 \right) \right],
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}_{t, \mathbf{G}_0}t, \mathbf{G}_0 \left[ \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_t}{\sigma_t}} \left( \lambda_1 \| \hat{\mathbf{A}} - \mathbf{A}_0 \|_2^2 + \lambda_2 \| \hat{\mathbf{X}} - \hat{\mathbf{X}}_0 \|_2^2 + \lambda_3 \| \hat{\mathbf{H}} - \mathbf{H}_0 \|_2^2 \right) \right],
where $\hat{\mathbf{X}}_0$\hat{\mathbf{X}}_0 is obtained by aligning $\mathbf{X}_0$\mathbf{X}_0 to $\mathbf{X}_t$\mathbf{X}_t using the Kabsch algorithm~\cite{KabschAlign} to preserve SE(3)-equivariance. The loss coefficients $\lambda_i$\lambda_i balance the relative importance of each component.
\subsection{Diffusion Molecule Transformer (DMT)}
To parameterize the data prediction module $d_\theta$d_\theta, we employ a specialized architecture named \emph{Diffusion Molecule Transformer} (DMT)~\cite{JODO,NExT-Mol} as its backbone, to jointly model the noisy molecular graph’s node features, edge features, and 3D coordinates in our diffusion framework. The architecture is motivated by the need to recover the correlations among these three components, which are independently corrupted by noise during the forward diffusion process.
DMT is specifically tailored for molecular generation tasks and respects both permutation equivariance and SE(3)-equivariance.
At each time $t \in [0,1]$t \in [0,1] during the reverse process, DMT takes the noisy molecular graph $\mathcal{G}_t = (\mathbf{H}_t, \mathbf{A}_t, \mathbf{X}_t)$\mathcal{G}_t = (\mathbf{H}_t, \mathbf{A}_t, \mathbf{X}_t) as input, along with a self-conditioned estimate $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}_0$\tilde{\mathcal{G}}_0, and predicts a clean graph $\hat{\mathcal{G}}_0 = (\hat{\mathbf{H}}, \hat{\mathbf{A}}, \hat{\mathbf{X}})$\hat{\mathcal{G}}_0 = (\hat{\mathbf{H}}, \hat{\mathbf{A}}, \hat{\mathbf{X}}). The model performs denoising inference conditioned on both the current time step and the molecular spectra. The overall model architecture is illustrated in \cref{fig:overview}(B). For the sake of clarity, the self-conditioning mechanism is omitted in the figure.
A time embedding, obtained via sinusoidal encoding of $\log(\alpha_t^2/\sigma_t^2)$\log(\alpha_t^2/\sigma_t^2), is passed through learnable projections. Simultaneously, a spectra embedding is generated by the SpecFormer, which will be detailed in \cref{sec:specformer}. These two embeddings are then concatenated to form the conditioning vector $\bC$\bC, which is used throughout the network.
\textbf{Initial embeddings.}
The DMT module is composed of stacked Transformer-style equivariant blocks. In the first layer, the node features $\bH_t$\bH_t and the edge features $\bA_t$\bA_t are first concatenated with their corresponding self-conditioning estimates $\tilde{\bH}_0$\tilde{\bH}_0 and $\tilde{\bA}_0$\tilde{\bA}_0, respectively. For edge features, distance features $\mathbf{D}_0$\mathbf{D}_0 computed from the self-conditioned coordinates $\tilde{\bX}_0$\tilde{\bX}_0 are also concatenated. These concatenated features are then passed through linear projections to obtain the initial embeddings:
\begin{equation}
\bH^{(1)} = \mathrm{Linear}_{\mathrm{node}}\bigl(\left[\bH_t, \tilde{\bH}_0\right]\bigr) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_{h}},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bH^{(1)} = \mathrm{Linear}_{\mathrm{node}}\bigl(\left[\bH_t, \tilde{\bH}_0\right]\bigr) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_{h}},
\end{equation}
\bH^{(1)}(1) = \mathrm{Linear}_{\mathrm{node}}\mathrm{node}\bigl(\left[\bH_t, \tilde{\bH}_0\right]\bigr) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_{h}}N \times d_{h}h,
\begin{equation}
\bA^{(1)} = \mathrm{Linear}_{\mathrm{edge}}\bigl(\left[\bA_t, \tilde{\bA}_0, \mathbf{D}_0\right]\bigr) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_{a}},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bA^{(1)} = \mathrm{Linear}_{\mathrm{edge}}\bigl(\left[\bA_t, \tilde{\bA}_0, \mathbf{D}_0\right]\bigr) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_{a}},
\end{equation}
\bA^{(1)}(1) = \mathrm{Linear}_{\mathrm{edge}}\mathrm{edge}\bigl(\left[\bA_t, \tilde{\bA}_0, \mathbf{D}_0\right]\bigr) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_{a}}N \times N \times d_{a}a,
where $\left[\cdot,\cdot\right]$\left[\cdot,\cdot\right] denotes the concatenation operation, and $d_{h}$d_{h}h and $d_{a}$d_{a}a denote the hidden embedding dimensions for node and edge embeddings, respectively.
The coordinate stream initializes with the noisy positions $\bX^{(1)} = \bX_t$\bX^{(1)}(1) = \bX_t. In addition, adjacency matrices derived from chemical bonding patterns and distance cutoffs computed from $\tilde{\bX}_0$\tilde{\bX}_0 are extracted and concatenated to serve as auxiliary attention masks in subsequent layers.
\textbf{Three-stream update.}
Each DMT block consists of three interacting streams that are responsible for updating node features, edge features, and coordinates, respectively. These streams exchange information throughout the block. In the node stream, information is propagated across the molecular graph via a relational multi-head attention (MHA) mechanism~\cite{GTSurvey,GSLB}, enabling flexible message passing over fully connected molecular graphs. In particular, pairwise geometric distances computed from coordinates are transformed into radial basis encodings $\rho_{ij}^{(l)}$\rho_{ij}ij^{(l)}(l), and these are combined with edge features and geometric distances such as:
\begin{equation}
\bar{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)} = \left[ \bA_{ij}^{(l)};\, \|\bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j\|_2;\, \rho_{ij}^{(l)} \right],
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bar{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)} = \left[ \bA_{ij}^{(l)};\, \|\bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j\|_2;\, \rho_{ij}^{(l)} \right],
\end{equation}
\bar{\bA}_{ij}ij^{(l)}(l) = \left[ \bA_{ij}ij^{(l)}(l);\, \|\bX^{(l)}(l)_i - \bX^{(l)}(l)_j\|_2;\, \rho_{ij}ij^{(l)}(l) \right],
forming a geometry-aware relational representation. The queries, keys, and values for MHA are obtained by applying learnable linear projections to node features:
\begin{equation}
\bQ = \bH^{(l)} \bW^Q, \quad
\bK = \bH^{(l)} \bW^K, \quad
\bV = \bH^{(l)} \bW^V,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bQ = \bH^{(l)} \bW^Q, \quad
\bK = \bH^{(l)} \bW^K, \quad
\bV = \bH^{(l)} \bW^V,
\end{equation}
\bQ = \bH^{(l)}(l) \bW^Q, \quad
\bK = \bH^{(l)}(l) \bW^K, \quad
\bV = \bH^{(l)}(l) \bW^V,
where $\bW^Q$\bW^Q, $\bW^K$\bW^K, and $\bW^V$\bW^V are learned projection matrices. The attention weights are then defined as:
\begin{equation}
a_{ij} = \frac{ \tanh\bigl(\phi_0(\bar{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)})\bigr)\, \bQ_i\, \bK_j^\top }{ \sqrt{d_k} },
\quad
a = \mathrm{softmax}(a),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
a_{ij} = \frac{ \tanh\bigl(\phi_0(\bar{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)})\bigr)\, \bQ_i\, \bK_j^\top }{ \sqrt{d_k} },
\quad
a = \mathrm{softmax}(a),
\end{equation}
a_{ij}ij = \frac{ \tanh\bigl(\phi_0(\bar{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)})\bigr)\, \bQ_i\, \bK_j^\top }{ \sqrt{d_k} },
\quad
a = \mathrm{softmax}(a),
and the node-level aggregation proceeds as:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Attn}(\bH^{(l)}, \bar{\bA}^{(l)})_i
= \sum_{j=1}^N a_{ij}\, \tanh\bigl(\phi_1(\bar{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)})\bigr)\, \bV_j,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Attn}(\bH^{(l)}, \bar{\bA}^{(l)})_i
= \sum_{j=1}^N a_{ij}\, \tanh\bigl(\phi_1(\bar{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)})\bigr)\, \bV_j,
\end{equation}
\mathrm{Attn}(\bH^{(l)}(l), \bar{\bA}^{(l)}(l))_i
= \sum_{j=1}j=1^N a_{ij}ij\, \tanh\bigl(\phi_1(\bar{\bA}_{ij}ij^{(l)}(l))\bigr)\, \bV_j,
with $\phi_0$\phi_0 and $\phi_1$\phi_1 as learnable projections.
We extend the above attention mechanism to a multi-head framework, yielding the aggregated representation $\bM^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_m}$\bM^{(l)}(l) \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_m}N \times d_m, which serves as the intermediate node embeddings after relational multi-head attention.
To incorporate time-dependent and spectra-dependent conditioning, we apply adaptive layer normalization (AdaLN) to each stream, conditioned on a learned conditioning embedding $\mathbf{C}$\mathbf{C}: $\mathrm{AdaLN}(\vh, \mathbf{C}) = \left( 1 + \mathrm{FFN}_{\mathrm{scale}}(\mathbf{C}) \right) \cdot \mathrm{LN}(\vh) + \mathrm{FFN}_{\mathrm{bias}}(\mathbf{C})$\mathrm{AdaLN}(\vh, \mathbf{C}) = \left( 1 + \mathrm{FFN}_{\mathrm{scale}}\mathrm{scale}(\mathbf{C}) \right) \cdot \mathrm{LN}(\vh) + \mathrm{FFN}_{\mathrm{bias}}\mathrm{bias}(\mathbf{C}),
and use an adaptive scaling function: $\mathrm{Scale}(\vh, \mathbf{C}) = \mathrm{FFN}_{\mathrm{scale}}'(\mathbf{C}) \cdot \vh$\mathrm{Scale}(\vh, \mathbf{C}) = \mathrm{FFN}_{\mathrm{scale}}\mathrm{scale}'(\mathbf{C}) \cdot \vh
to modulate feature amplitudes. The node update is performed by:
\begin{equation}
\bH^{(l+1)'} = \mathrm{Scale}\bigl(\bM^{(l)}, \mathbf{C}\bigr) + \bH^{(l)},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bH^{(l+1)'} = \mathrm{Scale}\bigl(\bM^{(l)}, \mathbf{C}\bigr) + \bH^{(l)},
\end{equation}
\bH^{(l+1)'}(l+1)' = \mathrm{Scale}\bigl(\bM^{(l)}(l), \mathbf{C}\bigr) + \bH^{(l)}(l),
\begin{equation}
\bH^{(l+1)} = \mathrm{Scale}\left(
\mathrm{FFN}\bigl( \mathrm{AdaLN}(\bH^{(l+1)'}, \mathbf{C})\bigr),
\mathbf{C}
\right) + \bH^{(l+1)'}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bH^{(l+1)} = \mathrm{Scale}\left(
\mathrm{FFN}\bigl( \mathrm{AdaLN}(\bH^{(l+1)'}, \mathbf{C})\bigr),
\mathbf{C}
\right) + \bH^{(l+1)'}.
\end{equation}
\bH^{(l+1)}(l+1) = \mathrm{Scale}\left(
\mathrm{FFN}\bigl( \mathrm{AdaLN}(\bH^{(l+1)'}(l+1)', \mathbf{C})\bigr),
\mathbf{C}
\right) + \bH^{(l+1)'}(l+1)'.
Similarly, edge features are updated by first fusing node messages:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)} = \left( \bM^{(l)}_i + \bM^{(l)}_j \right) \bW_1,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\hat{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)} = \left( \bM^{(l)}_i + \bM^{(l)}_j \right) \bW_1,
\end{equation}
\hat{\bA}_{ij}ij^{(l)}(l) = \left( \bM^{(l)}(l)_i + \bM^{(l)}(l)_j \right) \bW_1,
with subsequent normalization and scaling:
\begin{equation}
\bA^{(l+1)'}_{ij} = \mathrm{Scale}\bigl( \hat{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)}, \mathbf{C} \bigr) + \bA^{(l)}_{ij},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bA^{(l+1)'}_{ij} = \mathrm{Scale}\bigl( \hat{\bA}_{ij}^{(l)}, \mathbf{C} \bigr) + \bA^{(l)}_{ij},
\end{equation}
\bA^{(l+1)'}(l+1)'_{ij}ij = \mathrm{Scale}\bigl( \hat{\bA}_{ij}ij^{(l)}(l), \mathbf{C} \bigr) + \bA^{(l)}(l)_{ij}ij,
\begin{equation}
\bA^{(l+1)}_{ij} = \mathrm{Scale}\left(
\mathrm{FFN}\bigl( \mathrm{AdaLN}(\bA^{(l+1)'}_{ij}, \mathbf{C})\bigr),
\mathbf{C}
\right) + \bA^{(l+1)'}_{ij}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bA^{(l+1)}_{ij} = \mathrm{Scale}\left(
\mathrm{FFN}\bigl( \mathrm{AdaLN}(\bA^{(l+1)'}_{ij}, \mathbf{C})\bigr),
\mathbf{C}
\right) + \bA^{(l+1)'}_{ij}.
\end{equation}
\bA^{(l+1)}(l+1)_{ij}ij = \mathrm{Scale}\left(
\mathrm{FFN}\bigl( \mathrm{AdaLN}(\bA^{(l+1)'}(l+1)'_{ij}ij, \mathbf{C})\bigr),
\mathbf{C}
\right) + \bA^{(l+1)'}(l+1)'_{ij}ij.
The parameter $\bW_1$\bW_1 is a learnable weight matrix that couples node and edge information.
For the coordinate stream, equivariant updates are achieved using directional vector fields, combining signals from node and edge streams:
\begin{equation}
e_{ij}^{(l+1)} = \mathrm{AdaLN}\left(
\bW_2
\left[
\bH_i^{(l+1)},
\bH_j^{(l+1)},
\bA_{ij}^{(l+1)},
\|\bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j\|_2
\right],
\mathbf{C}
\right),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
e_{ij}^{(l+1)} = \mathrm{AdaLN}\left(
\bW_2
\left[
\bH_i^{(l+1)},
\bH_j^{(l+1)},
\bA_{ij}^{(l+1)},
\|\bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j\|_2
\right],
\mathbf{C}
\right),
\end{equation}
e_{ij}ij^{(l+1)}(l+1) = \mathrm{AdaLN}\left(
\bW_2
\left[
\bH_i^{(l+1)}(l+1),
\bH_j^{(l+1)}(l+1),
\bA_{ij}ij^{(l+1)}(l+1),
\|\bX^{(l)}(l)_i - \bX^{(l)}(l)_j\|_2
\right],
\mathbf{C}
\right),
\begin{equation}
\bX_i^{(l+1)} = \bX^{(l)}_i + \sum_{j \ne i} \gamma^{(l)} \,
\frac{ \bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j }
{ \|\bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j\|_2 }
\, \tanh\bigl(\mathrm{FFN}( e_{ij}^{(l+1)} )\bigr),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bX_i^{(l+1)} = \bX^{(l)}_i + \sum_{j \ne i} \gamma^{(l)} \,
\frac{ \bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j }
{ \|\bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j\|_2 }
\, \tanh\bigl(\mathrm{FFN}( e_{ij}^{(l+1)} )\bigr),
\end{equation}
\bX_i^{(l+1)}(l+1) = \bX^{(l)}(l)_i + \sum_{j \ne i}j \ne i \gamma^{(l)}(l) \,
\frac{ \bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j }
{ \|\bX^{(l)}_i - \bX^{(l)}_j\|_2 }
\, \tanh\bigl(\mathrm{FFN}( e_{ij}ij^{(l+1)}(l+1) )\bigr),
where $\bW_2$\bW_2 is a learned projection and $\gamma^{(l)}$\gamma^{(l)}(l) is a trainable scalar that stabilizes the directional updates. Finally, coordinates are shifted to have zero center-of-mass by mean centering, ensuring translation invariance.
Overall, the DMT stacks $L$L such equivariant blocks, which collectively refine the graph features and spatial coordinates. Final output heads predict discrete atom and bond types as well as coordinates aligned to the canonical centered frame. Its design guarantees permutation equivariance and SE(3) equivariance, enabling robust molecule generation across both topological and geometric levels.
\subsection{Spectra Transformer (SpecFormer) for Spectra Encoding}\label{sec:specformer}
To enable DMT to incorporate molecular spectral information as a conditional input for molecular structure elucidation, we propose the Spectra Transformer (SpecFormer)~\cite{MolSpectra} to encode molecular spectra. We further pre-train SpecFormer using both molecular structure data and spectra data.
\subsubsection{Architecture of SpecFormer}
For each type of spectrum, we first segment the data independently into patches and encode these patches. The patch embeddings from all spectra are then concatenated and collectively processed by a Transformer-based encoder.
\textbf{Patching.}
Rather than encoding each frequency point individually, we divide each spectrum into several patches.
This design choice offers two key benefits: (\romannumeral 1) It allows the model to capture local semantic features—such as absorption peaks—more effectively by grouping adjacent frequency points; and (\romannumeral 2) it lowers the computational cost for the following Transformer layers.
Formally, a spectrum $\vs_i \in \mathbb{R}^{L_i}$\vs_i \in \mathbb{R}^{L_i}L_i (where $i = 1, \dots, |\mathcal{S}|$i = 1, \dots, |\mathcal{S}|) is split into patches of length $P_i$P_i with stride $D_i$D_i. If $0 < D_i < P_i$0 < D_i < P_i, patches overlap by $P_i - D_i$P_i - D_i points; if $D_i = P_i$D_i = P_i, patches are non-overlapping. The patching process yields a sequence $\vp_i \in \mathbb{R}^{N_i \times P_i}$\vp_i \in \mathbb{R}^{N_i \times P_i}N_i \times P_i, where $N_i = \left\lfloor \frac{L_i - P_i}{D_i} \right\rfloor + 1$N_i = \left\lfloor \frac{L_i - P_i}{D_i} \right\rfloor + 1 is the number of patches produced from $\vs_i$\vs_i.
\textbf{Patch and position encoding.}
Each patch sequence from the $i$i-th spectrum is projected into a latent space of dimension $d$d via a learnable linear transformation $\bW_i \in \mathbb{R}^{P_i \times d}$\bW_i \in \mathbb{R}^{P_i \times d}P_i \times d. To preserve the sequential order, a learnable position encoding $\bW_i^{\text{pos}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_i \times d}$\bW_i^{\text{pos}}\text{pos} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_i \times d}N_i \times d is added: $\vp_i' = \vp_i \bW_i + \bW_i^{\text{pos}}$\vp_i' = \vp_i \bW_i + \bW_i^{\text{pos}}\text{pos}, yielding the encoded representation $\vp_i' \in \mathbb{R}^{N_i \times d}$\vp_i' \in \mathbb{R}^{N_i \times d}N_i \times d for each spectrum. These representations serve as input to the SpecFormer encoder.
\textbf{SpecFormer: multi-spectrum Transformer encoder.}
Existing encoders such as CNN-AM~\citep{CNN-AM} utilize one-dimensional convolutions and are typically designed to process a single type of spectrum. In contrast, our model simultaneously considers multiple molecular spectra (e.g., UV-Vis, IR, Raman) as input. This multi-spectrum strategy is motivated by the presence of both \textit{intra-spectrum dependencies}—relationships among peaks within the same spectrum—and \textit{inter-spectrum dependencies}—correlations between peaks across different spectral modalities. These dependencies have been well documented, for example, in studies of vibronic coupling~\citep{Vibronic-Coupling}.
To effectively model these dependencies, we concatenate the encoded patch sequences from all spectra: $\hat{\vp} = \vp_1' \| \cdots \| \vp_{|\mathcal{S}|}' \in \mathbb{R}^{(\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{S}|} N_i) \times d}$\hat{\vp} = \vp_1' \| \cdots \| \vp_{|\mathcal{S}|}|\mathcal{S}|' \in \mathbb{R}^{(\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{S}|} N_i) \times d}(\sum_{i=1}i=1^{|\mathcal{S}|}|\mathcal{S}| N_i) \times d. This combined sequence is then passed through a Transformer encoder (see \cref{fig:overview}). In each attention head $h = 1, \ldots, H$h = 1, \ldots, H, queries, keys, and values are computed as $\bQ_h = \hat{\vp} \bW_h^Q$\bQ_h = \hat{\vp} \bW_h^Q, $\bK_h = \hat{\vp} \bW_h^K$\bK_h = \hat{\vp} \bW_h^K, and $\bV_h = \hat{\vp} \bW_h^V$\bV_h = \hat{\vp} \bW_h^V respectively, with $\bW_h^Q, \bW_h^K \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d_k}$\bW_h^Q, \bW_h^K \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d_k}d \times d_k and $\bW_h^V \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times \frac{d}{H}}$\bW_h^V \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times \frac{d}{H}}d \times \frac{d}{H}. The attention output for each head is:
\begin{equation}
\bO_h = \text{Attention}(\bQ_h, \bK_h, \bV_h) = \text{Softmax}\left(\frac{\bQ_h \bK_h^{\top}}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right)\bV_h.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bO_h = \text{Attention}(\bQ_h, \bK_h, \bV_h) = \text{Softmax}\left(\frac{\bQ_h \bK_h^{\top}}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right)\bV_h.
\end{equation}
\bO_h = \text{Attention}(\bQ_h, \bK_h, \bV_h) = \text{Softmax}\left(\frac{\bQ_h \bK_h^{\top}}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right)\bV_h.
Batch normalization, feed-forward networks, and residual connections are integrated as illustrated in \cref{fig:overview}. The outputs from all attention heads are combined to form $\vz \in \mathbb{R}^{(\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{S}|} N_i) \times d}$\vz \in \mathbb{R}^{(\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{S}|} N_i) \times d}(\sum_{i=1}i=1^{|\mathcal{S}|}|\mathcal{S}| N_i) \times d. Finally, a flattening layer and a projection head are applied to produce the molecular spectra representation $\vz_s \in \mathbb{R}^d$\vz_s \in \mathbb{R}^d.
\subsubsection{Pre-training of SpecFormer}
To enable more effective encoding of molecular spectra, we introduce a masked reconstruction pre-training objective. In addition, to overcome the scarcity of spectral pre-training data by leveraging large-scale molecular structure pre-training, we incorporate a contrastive learning objective to align spectral and structural representations. The complete pre-training framework is illustrated in \cref{fig:overview}(C).
\textbf{Masked patches reconstruction pre-training for spectra.}
To ensure that the spectrum encoder can effectively extract and represent information from molecular spectra, we adopt a masked patches reconstruction (MPR) pre-training strategy. Inspired by the effectiveness of masked reconstruction across multiple domains~\citep{Bert,MAE,GraphMAE,Mole-Bert,AUG-MAE,PatchTST}, MPR guides the learning of SpecFormer by encouraging it to reconstruct masked portions of spectral data.
After segmenting the spectra into patches, we randomly mask a fraction of these patches—according to a predefined ratio $\alpha$\alpha—by replacing them with zero vectors. The masked patch sequences then undergo patch and position encoding, which conceals their semantic content (such as absorption intensities at certain wavelengths) but retains their positional information, aiding the reconstruction task.
Once processed by SpecFormer, the encoded representations corresponding to the masked patches are passed through a reconstruction head specific to each spectrum. The original values of the masked patches are then predicted, with the mean squared error (MSE) between the reconstructed and true patch values serving as the training objective:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MPR}} = \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{S}|} \mathbb{E}_{p_{i,j} \in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_i} \|\hat{\vp}_{i,j}- \vp_{i,j}\|_2^2,
\end{aligned}
\label{sce}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MPR}} = \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{S}|} \mathbb{E}_{p_{i,j} \in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_i} \|\hat{\vp}_{i,j}- \vp_{i,j}\|_2^2,
\end{aligned}
\label{sce}
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MPR}}\mathrm{MPR} = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{|\mathcal{S}|}|\mathcal{S}| \mathbb{E}_{p_{i,j} \in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_i}p_{i,j}i,j \in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_i \|\hat{\vp}_{i,j}i,j- \vp_{i,j}i,j\|_2^2,
\label{sce}
where $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_i$\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_i is the set of masked patches for the $i$i-th type of spectrum, and $\hat{\vp}_{i,j}$\hat{\vp}_{i,j}i,j denotes the reconstruction for the masked patch $\vp_{i,j}$\vp_{i,j}i,j.
\textbf{Contrastive learning between 3D structures and spectra.}
To align spectral and 3D molecular representations, we introduce a contrastive learning objective in addition to the MPR. The 3D embeddings are learned under the guidance of a denoising objective~\cite{Coord,MolSpectra}. Here, the 3D embedding $\vz_x \in \mathbb{R}^d$\vz_x \in \mathbb{R}^d and spectra embedding $\vz_s \in \mathbb{R}^d$\vz_s \in \mathbb{R}^d of the same molecule are treated as positive pairs, while all other pairings are considered negative. The contrastive objective is designed to maximize similarity between positive pairs while minimizing similarity with negatives, using the InfoNCE loss~\citep{InfoNCE}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
% \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{$
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Contrast}} = -\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}_{p(\vz_x, \vz_s)} [ \log \frac{\exp(f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s))}{\exp(f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s)) + \sum_j \exp(f_x(\vz_x^j, \vz_s))} \\
+ \log \frac{\exp(f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x))}{\exp(f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x)) + \sum_j \exp(f_s(\vz_s^j, \vz_x))} ],
% $}
\label{eq:contrast}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
% \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{$
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Contrast}} = -\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}_{p(\vz_x, \vz_s)} [ \log \frac{\exp(f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s))}{\exp(f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s)) + \sum_j \exp(f_x(\vz_x^j, \vz_s))} \\
+ \log \frac{\exp(f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x))}{\exp(f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x)) + \sum_j \exp(f_s(\vz_s^j, \vz_x))} ],
% $}
\label{eq:contrast}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Contrast}}\text{Contrast} = -\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}_{p(\vz_x, \vz_s)}p(\vz_x, \vz_s) [ \log \frac{\exp(f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s))}{\exp(f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s)) + \sum_j \exp(f_x(\vz_x^j, \vz_s))} \\
+ \log \frac{\exp(f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x))}{\exp(f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x)) + \sum_j \exp(f_s(\vz_s^j, \vz_x))} ],
\label{eq:contrast}
where $\vz_x^j$\vz_x^j and $\vz_s^j$\vz_s^j denote negative samples, and $f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s)$f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s) and $f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x)$f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x) are scoring functions, implemented here as the inner product: $f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s) = f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x) = \langle \vz_x, \vz_s \rangle$f_x(\vz_x, \vz_s) = f_s(\vz_s, \vz_x) = \langle \vz_x, \vz_s \rangle.
\textbf{Two-stage pre-training pipeline.}
Although spectral datasets are scarce, there exists a wealth of large-scale unlabeled molecular structure datasets. By leveraging our proposed contrastive alignment framework between spectra and structures, we can transfer knowledge from large-scale pre-training on molecular structures to enhance the learning of SpecFormer.
To fully exploit both spectral and structural information, we adopt a two-stage training protocol: the first stage performs pre-training on a large dataset~\citep{PCQM} containing only 3D structures using the denoising objective, while the second stage utilizes a dataset with available spectra to jointly optimize the overall objective:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \beta_{\text{Denoising}} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Denoising}} + \beta_{\text{MPR}} \mathcal{L}_{\text{MPR}} + \beta_{\text{Contrast}} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Contrast}},
\label{eq:objective}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \beta_{\text{Denoising}} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Denoising}} + \beta_{\text{MPR}} \mathcal{L}_{\text{MPR}} + \beta_{\text{Contrast}} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Contrast}},
\label{eq:objective}
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \beta_{\text{Denoising}}\text{Denoising} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Denoising}}\text{Denoising} + \beta_{\text{MPR}}\text{MPR} \mathcal{L}_{\text{MPR}}\text{MPR} + \beta_{\text{Contrast}}\text{Contrast} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Contrast}}\text{Contrast},
\label{eq:objective}
where $\beta_{\text{Denoising}}$\beta_{\text{Denoising}}\text{Denoising}, $\beta_{\text{MPR}}$\beta_{\text{MPR}}\text{MPR}, and $\beta_{\text{Contrast}}$\beta_{\text{Contrast}}\text{Contrast} are weights for each component. In the second stage, SpecFormer is pre-trained exclusively on the QM9S training set to avoid data leakage.
\bibliography{main}
\clearpage
\captionsetup[figure]{labelformat=empty}labelformat=empty
\captionsetup[table]{labelformat=empty}labelformat=empty
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{Appendix Figure \arabic{figure}}
\renewcommand{\thetable}{Appendix Table \arabic{table}}
\begin{center}
\section*{\Large Appendix}
\end{center}\begin{center}
\section*{\Large Appendix}
\end{center}
|
Methods
| false
|
2507.06853
| 4
|
95,362
|
\vspace{2pt}
|
Appendix
| false
|
2507.06853
| 5
|
95,363
|
This appendix derives the reverse sampling formula for our continuous-time diffusion model, as applied to molecular graph generation. Our objective is to obtain an expression for sampling a less-noisy graph state $\cG_s$\cG_s from a more-noisy state $\cG_t = (\bH_t, \bA_t, \bX_t)$\cG_t = (\bH_t, \bA_t, \bX_t), given a model prediction of the original clean graph $\hat{\cG}_0 = (\hat{\bH}_0, \hat{\bA}_0, \hat{\bX}_0)$\hat{\cG}_0 = (\hat{\bH}_0, \hat{\bA}_0, \hat{\bX}_0). We assume a continuous time interval $[0, 1]$[0, 1], with $0 \leq s < t \leq 1$0 \leq s < t \leq 1.
To streamline the derivation, we consider a single graph component—either node features $\bH$\bH, edge features $\bA$\bA, or atomic coordinates $\bX$\bX—denoted generically as a vector-valued variable $\bG \in \mathbb{R}^d$\bG \in \mathbb{R}^d. The full derivation extends naturally by applying the result independently to each component.
\subsection{Forward Diffusion Process}
Following the formulation of VDM~\cite{VDM,ProgressiveDistillation,BlurringDiffusion}, the forward diffusion process is defined as:
\begin{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_0) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_t \bG_0, \sigma_t^2 \bI),
\label{eq:forward}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_0) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_t \bG_0, \sigma_t^2 \bI),
\label{eq:forward}
\end{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_0) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_t \bG_0, \sigma_t^2 \bI),
\label{eq:forward}
where the graph $\bG_t$\bG_t at time $t$t is a noisy version of the clean graph $\bG_0$\bG_0. Equivalently, it can be reparameterized as:
\begin{equation}
\bG_t = \alpha_t \bG_0 + \sigma_t \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bG_t = \alpha_t \bG_0 + \sigma_t \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI).
\end{equation}
\bG_t = \alpha_t \bG_0 + \sigma_t \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI).
Because $\alpha_t$\alpha_t decreases monotonically while $\sigma_t$\sigma_t increases, the information from $\bG_0$\bG_0 is gradually destroyed as $t$t increase. Assuming the process defined by~\cref{eq:forward} is Markovian, its transition distribution between two intermediate steps $s$s and $t$t with $0 \leq s < t$0 \leq s < t is:
\begin{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_{t|s} \bG_s, \sigma_{t|s}^2 \bI),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_{t|s} \bG_s, \sigma_{t|s}^2 \bI),
\end{equation}
q(\bG_t \mid \bG_s) = \mathcal{N}(\alpha_{t|s}t|s \bG_s, \sigma_{t|s}t|s^2 \bI),
where $\alpha_{t|s} = \frac{\alpha_t}{\alpha_s}$\alpha_{t|s}t|s = \frac{\alpha_t}{\alpha_s} and $\sigma_{t|s}^2 = \sigma_t^2 - \alpha_{t|s}^2 \sigma_s^2$\sigma_{t|s}t|s^2 = \sigma_t^2 - \alpha_{t|s}t|s^2 \sigma_s^2. A convenient property of this framework is that the time grid can be defined arbitrarily and does not depend on the particular spacing of $s$s and $t$t. We set $T = 1$T = 1 to denote the final diffusion step, where $q(\bG_T \mid \bG_0) \approx \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI)$q(\bG_T \mid \bG_0) \approx \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI) approximates a standard normal distribution. Unless otherwise specified, time steps are assumed to lie in the unit interval $[0, 1]$[0, 1].
This formulation describes the distribution of a more-noised state $\bG_t$\bG_t conditioned on a less-noised state $\bG_s$\bG_s, and serves as a key component of the variational framework.
\subsection{Reverse Denoising Process Posterior $q(\bG_s \mid \bG_t, \bG_0)$}
We now derive the posterior distribution $q(\bG_s \mid \bG_t, \bG_0)$q(\bG_s \mid \bG_t, \bG_0), which describes the distribution of an intermediate state $\bG_s$\bG_s conditioned on both the noisy future $\bG_t$\bG_t and the original clean graph $\bG_0$\bG_0. This distribution underlies the training of the reverse process.
From standard Bayesian inference for Gaussians, suppose prior $\vz \sim \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_p, \mathbf{\Sigma}_p)$\vz \sim \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{\mu}\mu_p, \mathbf{\Sigma}_p) and likelihood $\vy \mid \vz \sim \mathcal{N}(\bA \vz, \mathbf{\Sigma}_l)$\vy \mid \vz \sim \mathcal{N}(\bA \vz, \mathbf{\Sigma}_l). Then the posterior $p(\vz \mid \vy)$p(\vz \mid \vy) is Gaussian with:
\begin{gather}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\text{post}} = \left( \mathbf{\Sigma}_p^{-1} + \bA^\top \mathbf{\Sigma}_l^{-1} \bA \right)^{-1}, \\
\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\text{post}} = \mathbf{\Sigma}_{\text{post}} \left( \mathbf{\Sigma}_p^{-1} \boldsymbol{\mu}_p + \bA^\top \mathbf{\Sigma}_l^{-1} \vy \right).
\end{gather}\begin{gather}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\text{post}} = \left( \mathbf{\Sigma}_p^{-1} + \bA^\top \mathbf{\Sigma}_l^{-1} \bA \right)^{-1}, \\
\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\text{post}} = \mathbf{\Sigma}_{\text{post}} \left( \mathbf{\Sigma}_p^{-1} \boldsymbol{\mu}_p + \bA^\top \mathbf{\Sigma}_l^{-1} \vy \right).
\end{gather}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\text{post}}\text{post} = \left( \mathbf{\Sigma}_p^{-1}-1 + \bA^\top \mathbf{\Sigma}_l^{-1}-1 \bA \right)^{-1}-1, \\
\boldsymbol{\mu}\mu_{\text{post}}\text{post} = \mathbf{\Sigma}_{\text{post}}\text{post} \left( \mathbf{\Sigma}_p^{-1}-1 \boldsymbol{\mu}\mu_p + \bA^\top \mathbf{\Sigma}_l^{-1}-1 \vy \right).
In our case:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\vz = \bG_s, \quad \vy &= \bG_t, \quad \boldsymbol{\mu}_p = \alpha_s \bG_0, \quad \mathbf{\Sigma}_p = \mathbf{\sigma}_s^2 \bI, \\
\bA &= \alpha_{t|s} \bI, \quad \mathbf{\Sigma}_l = \sigma_{t|s}^2 \bI.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\vz = \bG_s, \quad \vy &= \bG_t, \quad \boldsymbol{\mu}_p = \alpha_s \bG_0, \quad \mathbf{\Sigma}_p = \mathbf{\sigma}_s^2 \bI, \\
\bA &= \alpha_{t|s} \bI, \quad \mathbf{\Sigma}_l = \sigma_{t|s}^2 \bI.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\vz = \bG_s, \quad \vy &= \bG_t, \quad \boldsymbol{\mu}\mu_p = \alpha_s \bG_0, \quad \mathbf{\Sigma}_p = \mathbf{\sigma}_s^2 \bI, \\
\bA &= \alpha_{t|s}t|s \bI, \quad \mathbf{\Sigma}_l = \sigma_{t|s}t|s^2 \bI.
Applying this, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
q(\bG_s \mid \bG_t, \bG_0) = \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_Q, \sigma_Q^2 \bI),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
q(\bG_s \mid \bG_t, \bG_0) = \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_Q, \sigma_Q^2 \bI),
\end{equation}
q(\bG_s \mid \bG_t, \bG_0) = \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{\mu}\mu_Q, \sigma_Q^2 \bI),
with:
\begin{gather}
\boldsymbol{\mu}_Q = \sigma_Q^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_s^2} \alpha_s \bG_0 + \frac{\alpha_{t|s}}{\sigma_{t|s}^2} \bG_t \right)
= \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_0, \\
\sigma_Q^2 = \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_s^2} + \frac{\alpha_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_{t|s}^2} \right)^{-1} = \frac{\sigma_s^2 \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
\end{gather}\begin{gather}
\boldsymbol{\mu}_Q = \sigma_Q^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_s^2} \alpha_s \bG_0 + \frac{\alpha_{t|s}}{\sigma_{t|s}^2} \bG_t \right)
= \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_0, \\
\sigma_Q^2 = \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_s^2} + \frac{\alpha_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_{t|s}^2} \right)^{-1} = \frac{\sigma_s^2 \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
\end{gather}
\boldsymbol{\mu}\mu_Q = \sigma_Q^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_s^2} \alpha_s \bG_0 + \frac{\alpha_{t|s}}{\sigma_{t|s}^2} \bG_t \right)
= \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_0, \\
\sigma_Q^2 = \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_s^2} + \frac{\alpha_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_{t|s}^2} \right)^{-1}-1 = \frac{\sigma_s^2 \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
The posterior mean is a convex combination of $\bG_t$\bG_t and $\bG_0$\bG_0, with weights determined by their respective noise scales. This provides the optimal denoised estimate of $\bG_s$\bG_s and forms the basis of the reverse sampling process.
\subsection{Reverse Denoising Process Approximation}
At inference time, the true $\bG_0$\bG_0 is unavailable, so we replace it with a model estimate $\hat{\bG}_0 = d_\theta(\bG_t, \tilde{\bG}_0, \log \mathrm{SNR}(t))$\hat{\bG}_0 = d_\theta(\bG_t, \tilde{\bG}_0, \log \mathrm{SNR}(t)). This yields the approximate reverse-time transition:
\begin{equation}
p(\bG_s \mid \bG_t) \approx \mathcal{N}(\bar{\bG}_s, \sigma_Q^2 \bI),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
p(\bG_s \mid \bG_t) \approx \mathcal{N}(\bar{\bG}_s, \sigma_Q^2 \bI),
\end{equation}
p(\bG_s \mid \bG_t) \approx \mathcal{N}(\bar{\bG}_s, \sigma_Q^2 \bI),
where:
\begin{gather}
\bar{\bG}_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0, \\
\sigma_Q^2 = \frac{\sigma_s^2 \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
\end{gather}\begin{gather}
\bar{\bG}_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0, \\
\sigma_Q^2 = \frac{\sigma_s^2 \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
\end{gather}
\bar{\bG}_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0, \\
\sigma_Q^2 = \frac{\sigma_s^2 \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2}.
We then sample from this distribution as:
\begin{equation}
\bG_s = \bar{\bG}_s + \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bG_s = \bar{\bG}_s + \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI).
\end{equation}
\bG_s = \bar{\bG}_s + \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon, \quad \bG_\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\b0, \bI).
Combining the above expressions, the complete reverse sampling step from $t$t to $s$s becomes:
\begin{equation}
\bG_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0 + \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bG_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0 + \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon.
\end{equation}
\bG_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0 + \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon.
This closed-form expression enables efficient ancestral sampling in the reverse-time generative process.
\subsection{Sampling with Temperature}
To control the stochasticity in the sampling process, we introduce a temperature parameter $\tau > 0$\tau > 0, which scales the noise component during sampling:
\begin{equation}
\bG_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0 + \tau \cdot \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\bG_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0 + \tau \cdot \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon.
\end{equation}
\bG_s = \frac{\alpha_{t|s} \sigma_s^2}{\sigma_t^2} \bG_t + \frac{\alpha_s \sigma_{t|s}^2}{\sigma_t^2} \hat{\bG}_0 + \tau \cdot \frac{\sigma_s \sigma_{t|s}}{\sigma_t} \bG_\epsilon.
The temperature parameter $\tau$\tau modulates the amount of stochasticity in the sampling process. When $\tau = 1$\tau = 1, the sampling follows the standard formulation. Lower values of $\tau < 1$\tau < 1 reduce the influence of noise, leading to more deterministic and potentially sharper outputs. Conversely, higher values of $\tau > 1$\tau > 1 increase the noise contribution, encouraging greater diversity at the cost of higher stochasticity. This flexibility allows practitioners to trade off between sample fidelity and variability based on downstream objectives.
|
Derivation of the Reverse Sampling Process
| false
|
2507.06853
| 6
|
95,364
|
We conduct experiments on the QM9S dataset~\cite{DetaNet,MolSpectra}, which augments the original QM9~\citep{QM9} molecular dataset with simulated spectra.
For each molecule, we extract its structure and corresponding IR, Raman, and UV-Vis spectra, forming a multi-modal spectral condition for our structure elucidation task.
The dataset contains 133{,},885 molecules in total.
Following the original setting in DetaNet~\citep{DetaNet}, we adopt the same training, validation, and test split strategy, which partitions the dataset into 90\% for training, 5\% for validation, and 5\% for testing.
|
Datasets
| false
|
2507.06853
| 7
|
95,365
|
Aiming to generating chemically valid and complete molecules, modeling accurate molecular distributions, and achieving achieve accurate sturcture elucidation from spectra, we elaborately design a series of evaluation metrics to reflect the generation quality.
Specifically, we introduce two categories of evaluation metrics. The first focuses on general molecular generation quality, emphasizing the validity and chemical soundness of the generated structures. The second targets molecular structure elucidation, evaluating the alignment between the predicted molecular structures—derived from spectral data—and the corresponding ground truth structures.
\subsection{Basic Metrics for Molecular Generation}
In the context of conditional molecule generation, these fundamental evaluation criteria serve as a prerequisite to guarantee that the generated structures are chemically meaningful and sufficiently diverse before evaluating their spectrum-conditioned structural accuracy.
\paragraph{Molecular Structure Validity Evaluation}Molecular Structure Validity Evaluation
The primary consideration is the chemical rationality of the generated molecular structures. The \textbf{Validity} metric ensures that the molecular structures conform to basic chemical rules, including chemically plausible valences (e.g., carbon atoms typically form four covalent bonds), and the overall bonding patterns are chemically reasonable (e.g., avoiding unrealistic bonds between atoms, maintaining aromatic delocalization). Building upon this, we introduce the \textbf{Validity and Complete (V\&C)} indicator, which not only requires chemical validity but also guarantees that the molecular graph forms a single connected entity instead of fragmented parts. This is particularly important for evaluating the model’s ability to generate fully connected, functional molecules.
To further assess the model’s capacity for innovation, we measure the proportions of molecules satisfying \textbf{Validity and Unique (V\&U)} and \textbf{Validity, Unique, and Novelty (V\&U\&N)} criteria. Uniqueness is determined by canonicalizing molecular representations and removing duplicates, thus ensuring diversity among the generated structures. Novelty is evaluated by comparing the generated molecules against the training set, reflecting the model’s ability to produce genuinely novel chemotypes rather than simply memorizing training data.
\paragraph{Molecular Structure Stability Evaluation}Molecular Structure Stability Evaluation
While structural validity is a necessary condition, it may not fully capture the chemical plausibility of a molecule. We additionally introduce a more stringent indicator of molecular stability. \textbf{Atom Stability} assesses whether each atom in the molecule has achieved an appropriate valence coordination, fully considering the influence of formal charges on the permissible bonding patterns. \textbf{Mol Stability} further requires that all atoms in the entire molecule satisfy the stability criteria, thereby providing a more comprehensive assessment of the chemical soundness of the generated molecules.
\paragraph{Distribution-based Structure Evaluation}Distribution-based Structure Evaluation
To evaluate the model's ability to learn the data distribution of real molecules, we adopt several distribution-based metrics. The Fréchet ChemNet Distance (\textbf{FCD}) measures the similarity between the distributions of generated molecules and reference molecules in a high-dimensional learned feature space. The \textbf{Similarity to Nearest Neighbor (SNN)} metric assesses the representativeness of the generated set by measuring the Tanimoto similarity between each generated molecule and its nearest neighbors in the test set, reflecting both diversity and coverage.
We additionally employ metrics based on molecular structural features: \textbf{Fragment Similarity (Frag)}, based on BRICS decomposition, evaluates distributional alignment at the functional group level; while \textbf{Scaffold Similarity (Scaf)}, using Bemis–Murcko scaffold analysis, quantifies similarity and diversity at the core-structure level. These complementary metrics jointly reflect the model’s ability to capture both local functional groups and global structural patterns, thereby characterizing the complexity of the generated molecular structures.
\paragraph{3D Geometry-based Structural Evaluation}3D Geometry-based Structural Evaluation
Beyond chemical rules in 2D representations, assessing the 3D geometric consistency of generated molecules is critical, especially for downstream applications such as molecular docking or molecular structure elucidation from spectra. We therefore introduce a set of geometric evaluation metrics based on fundamental molecular geometry features: bond lengths, bond angles, and dihedral angles.
\textbf{Bond} evaluation compares the distributions of bond lengths in the generated set against those in the reference set (test set molecules), capturing whether typical interatomic distances are preserved. \textbf{Angle} evaluation similarly assesses the distributions of bond angles, reflecting the local spatial arrangements of connected atoms and ring systems. \textbf{Dihedral} evaluation analyzes the distributions of torsional (dihedral) angles, providing insights into conformational consistency and stereochemical plausibility of the generated molecules.
To quantify the similarity between these geometric features of the generated and reference molecules, we employ maximum mean discrepancy (MMD), which measures the distance between two distributions in a kernel space. A lower MMD indicates that the generated molecules more faithfully reproduce realistic 3D geometries.
It is important to note that for all distribution-based and geometric metrics, the test set serves as the reference, while the novelty metric uses the training set as the reference to measure whether generated molecules are unseen. This distinction ensures a clear separation between distributional fidelity and generative innovation.
\subsection{Metrics for Molecular Structure Elucidation}\label{sec:metric2}
In the task of molecular structure elucidation, we introduce a set of precise metrics to evaluate the similarity between the ground-truth target structures and the generated candidate molecules under spectrum-conditioned generation. Here, a molecular structure is represented as a graph $\mathcal{G} = (\mathbf{H}, \mathbf{A}, \mathbf{X})$\mathcal{G} = (\mathbf{H}, \mathbf{A}, \mathbf{X}), where $\mathbf{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_1}$\mathbf{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_1}N \times d_1 denotes node-level attributes such as atom types and charges, $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_2}$\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_2}N \times N \times d_2 encodes pairwise edge features such as bond existence and bond types, and $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 3}$\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 3}N \times 3 corresponds to the 3D coordinates of the atoms.
\paragraph{Top-$K$ Accuracy}Top-$K$K Accuracy
The \textbf{Top-$K$ Accuracy} quantifies the model’s ability to recover the exact target structure among its top-$K$K generated candidates. For each condition characterized by a set of spectra, the model is sampled $K$K times to generate $K$K molecular structure candidates. If any of the $K$K candidates exactly matches the ground-truth structure, the prediction is considered correct. Formally, the metric is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{ACC@}K = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[ \mathbbm{1} \left( \exists\, i \in \{1, \ldots, K\}, \; \hat{\mathcal{G}}_i = \mathcal{G} \right) \right],
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\operatorname{ACC@}K = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[ \mathbbm{1} \left( \exists\, i \in \{1, \ldots, K\}, \; \hat{\mathcal{G}}_i = \mathcal{G} \right) \right],
\end{equation}
\operatorname{ACC@}ACC@K = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{G} \left[ \mathbbm{1}1 \left( \exists\, i \in \{1, \ldots, K\}, \; \hat{\mathcal{G}}_i = \mathcal{G} \right) \right],
where $\mathbbm{1}(\cdot)$\mathbbm{1}1(\cdot) is the indicator function, $\mathcal{G}$\mathcal{G} denotes the ground-truth molecular graph, and $\hat{\mathcal{G}}_i$\hat{\mathcal{G}}_i denotes the $i$i-th generated candidate. This metric reflects the probability that the correct structure appears at least once among the top-$K$K model outputs.
\paragraph{Maximum Common Edge Subgraph (MCES)}Maximum Common Edge Subgraph (MCES)
To quantify graph-structural overlap, we adopt the \textbf{Maximum Common Edge Subgraph (MCES)} metric:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{MCES} = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\max_{\mathcal{H} \subseteq \mathcal{G},\, \mathcal{H} \subseteq \hat{\mathcal{G}}} |E(\mathcal{H})|
\right],
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\operatorname{MCES} = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\max_{\mathcal{H} \subseteq \mathcal{G},\, \mathcal{H} \subseteq \hat{\mathcal{G}}} |E(\mathcal{H})|
\right],
\end{equation}
\operatorname{MCES}MCES = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{G} \left[
\max_{\mathcal{H} \subseteq \mathcal{G},\, \mathcal{H} \subseteq \hat{\mathcal{G}}}\mathcal{H} \subseteq \mathcal{G},\, \mathcal{H} \subseteq \hat{\mathcal{G}} |E(\mathcal{H})|
\right],
where $E(\mathcal{H})$E(\mathcal{H}) denotes the set of edges in the common subgraph $\mathcal{H}$\mathcal{H}. This indicator captures the extent of exact subgraph matching between the target and predicted molecular graphs, with higher values reflecting a greater degree of structural recovery.
\paragraph{Fingerprint-based Similarity Metrics}Fingerprint-based Similarity Metrics
We adopt several fingerprint-based similarity measures. Denote by $\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}}$\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}}\mathrm{Morgan} and $\hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}}$\hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}}\mathrm{Morgan} the binary Morgan fingerprint vectors of the target and predicted molecules, respectively, and by $\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}}$\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}}\mathrm{MACCS} and $\hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}}$\hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}}\mathrm{MACCS} their MACCS fingerprints. The \textbf{Tanimoto Similarity over Morgan fingerprints ($\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{Morgan}}$)} is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \land \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \right| }
{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \lor \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \right| }
\right],
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \land \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \right| }
{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \lor \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \right| }
\right],
\end{equation}
\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{Morgan}}\mathrm{Morgan} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{G} \left[
\frac{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \land \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \right| }
{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \lor \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \right| }
\right],
where $\land$\land and $\lor$\lor denote bitwise AND and OR over the fingerprint vectors. This score quantifies the overlap in local structural patterns. The \textbf{Cosine Similarity over Morgan fingerprints ($\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{Morgan}}$)} is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} }
{ \| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \| \, \| \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \| }
\right].
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} }
{ \| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \| \, \| \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \| }
\right].
\end{equation}
\operatorname{CosSim}CosSim_{\mathrm{Morgan}}\mathrm{Morgan} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{G} \left[
\frac{ \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} }
{ \| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \| \, \| \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{Morgan}} \| }
\right].
Likewise, the \textbf{Tanimoto Similarity over MACCS fingerprints ($\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MACCS}}$)} is:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \land \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \right| }
{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \lor \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \right| }
\right].
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \land \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \right| }
{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \lor \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \right| }
\right].
\end{equation}
\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MACCS}}\mathrm{MACCS} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{G} \left[
\frac{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \land \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \right| }
{ \left| \mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \lor \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{MACCS}} \right| }
\right].
These fingerprints capture interpretable functional patterns based on a set of predefined substructure keys, complementing the Morgan-based representations.
\paragraph{Fragment-based Similarity (Fraggle)}Fragment-based Similarity (Fraggle)
The \textbf{Fraggle Similarity} metric decomposes $\mathcal{G}$\mathcal{G} into a set of chemically meaningful fragments $\mathcal{F} = \{f_1, f_2, \dots, f_n\}$\mathcal{F} = \{f_1, f_2, \dots, f_n\} by strategies including double acyclic or exocyclic bond cuts with specified fragment size constraints. For each fragment $f_i$f_i, Fraggle computes two Tanimoto similarities over RDKit fingerprints between the target molecule $\mathcal{G}$\mathcal{G} and the predicted molecule $\hat{\mathcal{G}}$\hat{\mathcal{G}}: one based on the standard RDKit fingerprint over the entire molecule, and another based on a masked RDKit fingerprint where atoms outside $f_i$f_i with a Tversky similarity below 0.8 are replaced with wildcards. The fragment-level score is then taken as the maximum of these two values:
\begin{equation}
s_i = \max \left(
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}(\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}),
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}(\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{RDKit,mask}}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{RDKit,mask}})
\right).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
s_i = \max \left(
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}(\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}),
\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}(\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{RDKit,mask}}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{RDKit,mask}})
\right).
\end{equation}
s_i = \max \left(
\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{RDKit}}\mathrm{RDKit}(\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}\mathrm{RDKit}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{RDKit}}\mathrm{RDKit}),
\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{RDKit}}\mathrm{RDKit}(\mathbf{a}_{\mathrm{RDKit,mask}}\mathrm{RDKit,mask}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}_{\mathrm{RDKit,mask}}\mathrm{RDKit,mask})
\right).
The final Fraggle similarity is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{FraggleSim} = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\max_{f_i \in \mathcal{F}} s_i
\right].
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\operatorname{FraggleSim} = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\max_{f_i \in \mathcal{F}} s_i
\right].
\end{equation}
\operatorname{FraggleSim}FraggleSim = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{G} \left[
\max_{f_i \in \mathcal{F}}f_i \in \mathcal{F} s_i
\right].
This dual approach captures both global and local matching patterns
\paragraph{Functional Group-based Similarity}Functional Group-based Similarity
Lastly, to evaluate functional group consistency, we define a set of chemically significant functional groups (e.g., alkane, alcohol, amine, carboxylic acid, etc.) described by SMARTS patterns. For a pair of molecules $\mathcal{G}$\mathcal{G} (ground truth) and $\hat{\mathcal{G}}$\hat{\mathcal{G}} (prediction), we extract their respective functional group sets $FG(\mathcal{G})$FG(\mathcal{G}) and $FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}})$FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}}). The \textbf{Functional Group Similarity (FGSim)} is then computed as:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{FGSim} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \left| FG(\mathcal{G}) \cap FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \right| }
{ \left| FG(\mathcal{G}) \cup FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \right| }
\right].
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\operatorname{FGSim} =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} \left[
\frac{ \left| FG(\mathcal{G}) \cap FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \right| }
{ \left| FG(\mathcal{G}) \cup FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \right| }
\right].
\end{equation}
\operatorname{FGSim}FGSim =
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{G} \left[
\frac{ \left| FG(\mathcal{G}) \cap FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \right| }
{ \left| FG(\mathcal{G}) \cup FG(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \right| }
\right].
This interpretable metric is independent of molecular size, computationally efficient via substructure matching, and well-suited for comparative evaluation.
|
Metrics
| false
|
2507.06853
| 8
|
95,359
|
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Overview of DiffSpectra Framework}
To achieve accurate molecular structure elucidation from molecular spectra, we propose \themodel, a spectrum-conditioned diffusion framework that generates molecular structures guided by spectral information. The overall paradigm is illustrated in \cref{fig:overview}.
Formally, a molecule characterized by its structure and spectra is represented as $\mathcal{M} = (\mathcal{G}, \mathcal{S})$\mathcal{M} = (\mathcal{G}, \mathcal{S}). The molecular structure is modeled as a graph $\mathcal{G} = (\mathbf{H}, \mathbf{A}, \mathbf{X})$\mathcal{G} = (\mathbf{H}, \mathbf{A}, \mathbf{X}), where $\mathbf{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_1}$\mathbf{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d_1}N \times d_1 denotes node-level attributes such as atom types and charges, $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_2}$\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times d_2}N \times N \times d_2 encodes pairwise edge features including bond existence and bond types, and $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 3}$\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 3}N \times 3 corresponds to the 3D coordinates of the atoms. Here, $N$N is the number of atoms, $d_1$d_1 is the node feature dimensionality, and $d_2$d_2 is the edge feature dimensionality. The atomic ordering is consistent across $\mathbf{H}$\mathbf{H} and $\mathbf{X}$\mathbf{X} to preserve the correspondence between atom types and spatial positions.
Meanwhile, the molecular spectra are denoted as $\mathcal{S} = (\vs_1, \ldots, \vs_{|\mathcal{S}|})$\mathcal{S} = (\vs_1, \ldots, \vs_{|\mathcal{S}|}|\mathcal{S}|), where $|\mathcal{S}|=3$|\mathcal{S}|=3 in our setting, covering UV-Vis, IR, and Raman spectra. Concretely, $\vs_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{601}$\vs_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{601}601 records the UV-Vis spectrum from 1.5 to 13.5 eV with 0.02 eV intervals; $\vs_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{3501}$\vs_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{3501}3501 is the IR spectrum spanning 500–4000 cm$^{-1}$^{-1}-1 at 1 cm$^{-1}$^{-1}-1 resolution; and $\vs_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{3501}$\vs_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{3501}3501 is the Raman spectrum on the same range. Together, these modalities provide a comprehensive description of the molecular signatures.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/1_overview_v3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{(A) Overview of the \themodel framework, illustrating the continuous-time forward diffusion process and reverse denoising process. The Diffusion Molecule Transformer (DMT) is used as the denoising network, and spectra encoded by SpecFormer serve as conditional input.
(B) Architecture of the DMT, which processes node features, edge features, and atomic coordinates through three parallel streams with shared condition encoding, relational multi-head attention, and equivariant updates.
(C) Architecture and pre-training strategy of SpecFormer, which encodes multi-modal spectra (UV-Vis, IR, and Raman) through a unified transformer encoder. It is pre-trained via masked patch reconstruction (MPR) and contrastive learning with 3D molecular structures.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/1_overview_v3.pdf}
\caption{(A) Overview of the \themodel framework, illustrating the continuous-time forward diffusion process and reverse denoising process. The Diffusion Molecule Transformer (DMT) is used as the denoising network, and spectra encoded by SpecFormer serve as conditional input.
(B) Architecture of the DMT, which processes node features, edge features, and atomic coordinates through three parallel streams with shared condition encoding, relational multi-head attention, and equivariant updates.
(C) Architecture and pre-training strategy of SpecFormer, which encodes multi-modal spectra (UV-Vis, IR, and Raman) through a unified transformer encoder. It is pre-trained via masked patch reconstruction (MPR) and contrastive learning with 3D molecular structures.}
\label{fig:overview}
Within DiffSpectra, a continuous-time variational diffusion model progressively perturbs the molecular graph with Gaussian noise during the forward process, then denoises it in reverse, conditioned on spectra-derived information. A dedicated backbone, the Diffusion Molecule Transformer, parameterizes the denoising process while maintaining permutation and SE(3) equivariance. DMT is guided by spectral embeddings extracted by SpecFormer, a Transformer-based encoder pre-trained with both masked reconstruction and contrastive alignment to capture spectrum–structure correlations. This design allows the framework to achieve faithful and chemically meaningful structure elucidation, supported by physically grounded diffusion and rich spectral priors. More details of the full architecture and training objectives are presented in ~\cref{sec:method}.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{
Evaluation of basic metrics for molecular generation on the QM9S dataset.
Metrics include stability, validity, uniqueness, and novelty, as well as distribution-based and 3D geometry-based metrics.
The \textit{Train} row reports statistics from the training set as a reference distribution.
DiffSpectra is compared to unconditional molecular generative models.
}
\label{tab:validity}
\scriptsize
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
% \resizebox{1.1\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Metric-2D}} & Atom stable $\uparrow$ & Mol stable $\uparrow$ & V\&C $\uparrow$ & V\&U $\uparrow$ & V\&U\&N $\uparrow$ & FCD $\downarrow$ & SNN $\uparrow$ & Frag $\uparrow$ & Scaf $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\textit{Train} & 99.9\% & 98.8\% & 98.9\% & 98.9\% & 0.0\% & 0.063 & 0.490 & 0.992 & 0.946 \\
\midrule
CDGS~\cite{CDGS} & 99.7\% & 95.1\% & 95.1\% & 93.6\% & 89.8\% & 0.798 & 0.493 & 0.973 & 0.784 \\
JODO~\cite{JODO} & \textbf{99.9\%} & \textbf{98.8\%} & \textbf{99.0\%} & {96.0\%} & 89.5\% & {0.138} & {0.522} & {0.986} & {0.934} \\
\midrule
\themodel & \textbf{99.9\%} & 98.2\% & 98.4\% & \textbf{96.8\%} & \textbf{93.7\%} & \textbf{0.088} & \textbf{0.531} & \textbf{0.992} & \textbf{0.943} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
% }
}
\end{minipage}
\par\vspace{3pt}
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
% \resizebox{1.1\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Metric-3D}} & Atom stable $\uparrow$ & Mol stable $\uparrow$ & FCD $\downarrow$ & Bond $\downarrow$ & Angle $\downarrow$ & Dihedral $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
\textit{Train} & 99.4\% & 95.3\% & 0.877 & $5.44\text{e}{-4}$ & $4.65\text{e}{-4}$ & $1.78\text{e}{-4}$ \\
\midrule
E-NF~\cite{E-NF} & 84.7\% & 4.5\% & 4.452 & 0.6165 & 0.4203 & 0.0056 \\
G-SchNet~\cite{G-SchNet} & 95.7\% & 68.1\% & 2.386 & 0.3622 & 0.0727 & 0.0042 \\
G-SphereNet~\cite{G-SphereNet} & 67.2\% & 13.4\% & 6.659 & 0.1511 & 0.3537 & 0.0129 \\
EDM~\cite{EDM} & 98.6\% & 81.7\% & 1.285 & \textbf{0.1303} & 0.0182 & 6.64e-4 \\
MDM~\cite{MDM} & \textbf{99.2\%} & 89.6\% & 4.861 & 0.2735 & 0.0660 & 0.0239 \\
GeoLDM~\cite{GeoLDM} & 98.9\% & 89.7\% & 1.030 & 0.2404 & 0.0100 & 6.59e-4 \\
JODO~\cite{JODO} & \textbf{99.2\%} & \textbf{93.4\%} & \textbf{0.885} & 0.1475 & 0.0121 & 6.29e-4 \\
\midrule
\themodel & \textbf{99.2\%} & 92.9\% & 0.943 & 0.1792 & \textbf{0.0054} & \textbf{2.01e-4} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
% }
}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{
Evaluation of basic metrics for molecular generation on the QM9S dataset.
Metrics include stability, validity, uniqueness, and novelty, as well as distribution-based and 3D geometry-based metrics.
The \textit{Train} row reports statistics from the training set as a reference distribution.
DiffSpectra is compared to unconditional molecular generative models.
}
\label{tab:validity}
\scriptsize
{\textwidth}\textwidth
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
% \resizebox{1.1\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Metric-2D}} & Atom stable $\uparrow$ & Mol stable $\uparrow$ & V\&C $\uparrow$ & V\&U $\uparrow$ & V\&U\&N $\uparrow$ & FCD $\downarrow$ & SNN $\uparrow$ & Frag $\uparrow$ & Scaf $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\textit{Train} & 99.9\% & 98.8\% & 98.9\% & 98.9\% & 0.0\% & 0.063 & 0.490 & 0.992 & 0.946 \\
\midrule
CDGS~\cite{CDGS} & 99.7\% & 95.1\% & 95.1\% & 93.6\% & 89.8\% & 0.798 & 0.493 & 0.973 & 0.784 \\
JODO~\cite{JODO} & \textbf{99.9\%} & \textbf{98.8\%} & \textbf{99.0\%} & {96.0\%} & 89.5\% & {0.138} & {0.522} & {0.986} & {0.934} \\
\midrule
\themodel & \textbf{99.9\%} & 98.2\% & 98.4\% & \textbf{96.8\%} & \textbf{93.7\%} & \textbf{0.088} & \textbf{0.531} & \textbf{0.992} & \textbf{0.943} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
% }
}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Metric-2D}} & Atom stable $\uparrow$\uparrow & Mol stable $\uparrow$\uparrow & V\&C $\uparrow$\uparrow & V\&U $\uparrow$\uparrow & V\&U\&N $\uparrow$\uparrow & FCD $\downarrow$\downarrow & SNN $\uparrow$\uparrow & Frag $\uparrow$\uparrow & Scaf $\uparrow$\uparrow \\
\midrule
\textit{Train} & 99.9\% & 98.8\% & 98.9\% & 98.9\% & 0.0\% & 0.063 & 0.490 & 0.992 & 0.946 \\
\midrule
CDGS~\cite{CDGS} & 99.7\% & 95.1\% & 95.1\% & 93.6\% & 89.8\% & 0.798 & 0.493 & 0.973 & 0.784 \\
JODO~\cite{JODO} & \textbf{99.9\%} & \textbf{98.8\%} & \textbf{99.0\%} & {96.0\%}96.0\% & 89.5\% & {0.138}0.138 & {0.522}0.522 & {0.986}0.986 & {0.934}0.934 \\
\midrule
\themodel & \textbf{99.9\%} & 98.2\% & 98.4\% & \textbf{96.8\%} & \textbf{93.7\%} & \textbf{0.088} & \textbf{0.531} & \textbf{0.992} & \textbf{0.943} \\
\bottomrule
\par\vspace{3pt}
{\textwidth}\textwidth
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
% \resizebox{1.1\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Metric-3D}} & Atom stable $\uparrow$ & Mol stable $\uparrow$ & FCD $\downarrow$ & Bond $\downarrow$ & Angle $\downarrow$ & Dihedral $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
\textit{Train} & 99.4\% & 95.3\% & 0.877 & $5.44\text{e}{-4}$ & $4.65\text{e}{-4}$ & $1.78\text{e}{-4}$ \\
\midrule
E-NF~\cite{E-NF} & 84.7\% & 4.5\% & 4.452 & 0.6165 & 0.4203 & 0.0056 \\
G-SchNet~\cite{G-SchNet} & 95.7\% & 68.1\% & 2.386 & 0.3622 & 0.0727 & 0.0042 \\
G-SphereNet~\cite{G-SphereNet} & 67.2\% & 13.4\% & 6.659 & 0.1511 & 0.3537 & 0.0129 \\
EDM~\cite{EDM} & 98.6\% & 81.7\% & 1.285 & \textbf{0.1303} & 0.0182 & 6.64e-4 \\
MDM~\cite{MDM} & \textbf{99.2\%} & 89.6\% & 4.861 & 0.2735 & 0.0660 & 0.0239 \\
GeoLDM~\cite{GeoLDM} & 98.9\% & 89.7\% & 1.030 & 0.2404 & 0.0100 & 6.59e-4 \\
JODO~\cite{JODO} & \textbf{99.2\%} & \textbf{93.4\%} & \textbf{0.885} & 0.1475 & 0.0121 & 6.29e-4 \\
\midrule
\themodel & \textbf{99.2\%} & 92.9\% & 0.943 & 0.1792 & \textbf{0.0054} & \textbf{2.01e-4} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
% }
}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Metric-3D}} & Atom stable $\uparrow$\uparrow & Mol stable $\uparrow$\uparrow & FCD $\downarrow$\downarrow & Bond $\downarrow$\downarrow & Angle $\downarrow$\downarrow & Dihedral $\downarrow$\downarrow \\
\midrule
\textit{Train} & 99.4\% & 95.3\% & 0.877 & $5.44\text{e}{-4}$5.44\text{e}{-4}-4 & $4.65\text{e}{-4}$4.65\text{e}{-4}-4 & $1.78\text{e}{-4}$1.78\text{e}{-4}-4 \\
\midrule
E-NF~\cite{E-NF} & 84.7\% & 4.5\% & 4.452 & 0.6165 & 0.4203 & 0.0056 \\
G-SchNet~\cite{G-SchNet} & 95.7\% & 68.1\% & 2.386 & 0.3622 & 0.0727 & 0.0042 \\
G-SphereNet~\cite{G-SphereNet} & 67.2\% & 13.4\% & 6.659 & 0.1511 & 0.3537 & 0.0129 \\
EDM~\cite{EDM} & 98.6\% & 81.7\% & 1.285 & \textbf{0.1303} & 0.0182 & 6.64e-4 \\
MDM~\cite{MDM} & \textbf{99.2\%} & 89.6\% & 4.861 & 0.2735 & 0.0660 & 0.0239 \\
GeoLDM~\cite{GeoLDM} & 98.9\% & 89.7\% & 1.030 & 0.2404 & 0.0100 & 6.59e-4 \\
JODO~\cite{JODO} & \textbf{99.2\%} & \textbf{93.4\%} & \textbf{0.885} & 0.1475 & 0.0121 & 6.29e-4 \\
\midrule
\themodel & \textbf{99.2\%} & 92.9\% & 0.943 & 0.1792 & \textbf{0.0054} & \textbf{2.01e-4} \\
\bottomrule
\subsection{\themodel generates valid and stable molecular structures}
As summarized in \cref{tab:validity}, our proposed \themodel consistently achieves strong results in generating chemically valid and stable molecular structures under spectrum-conditioned settings. In the 2D evaluation, \themodel attains 99.9\% atom stability and 98.2\% molecular stability, demonstrating performance comparable to the training data distribution, while outperforming or matching general molecular generative models such as CDGS~\cite{CDGS} and JODO~\cite{JODO}. Moreover, \themodel maintains high structural uniqueness and novelty, with V\&U (valid and unique) at 96.8\% and V\&U\&N (valid, unique, and novel) at 93.7\%, significantly surpassing prior methods. In distribution-based metrics, \themodel achieves the lowest FCD, indicating a close distributional match to the reference test set. It also reaches the best SNN, Frag, and Scaf scores, demonstrating a strong capacity to cover diverse chemical substructures and scaffolds while maintaining validity.
In the 3D evaluation, \themodel demonstrates competitive geometric stability, with atom stability and molecular stability again comparable to the training set. Notably, \themodel achieves the best angle and dihedral MMDs, suggesting accurate recovery of bond angles and torsional angles, and achieves a bond distance MMD comparable to the top-performing baselines. This highlights \themodel’s effectiveness in reconstructing not only 2D connectivity but also realistic 3D molecular conformations.
The \textit{Train} row in \cref{tab:validity} reports the statistics of the training dataset as a reference distribution. For some metrics that measure similarity to the test set, such as SNN, Frag, Scaf, or geometric MMDs, the training data does not necessarily achieve the best possible scores, since the test distribution may differ from the training distribution. All other baselines listed in \cref{tab:validity}, including CDGS~\cite{CDGS}, JODO~\cite{JODO}, EDM~\cite{EDM}, and others, are unconditional molecular generative models, which sample from the general molecular space without explicit external guidance. In contrast, \themodel is specifically designed for molecular structure elucidation conditioned on spectra. The use of spectral signals as conditions provides external structural priors, enabling the model to generate results that better match the test set distribution. Therefore, the higher V\&U, V\&U\&N, SNN, Frag, Scaf, and MMD metrics achieved by \themodel compared to unconditional models are expected, as the conditioning naturally constrains the generation process toward structures consistent with the observed test samples.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/2_visualization_v2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Visualization of molecular structure elucidation results using DiffSpectra under different configurations. We compare single-spectrum inputs (IR, Raman, UV-Vis), multi-modal spectra, and the effect of incorporating the pre-trained SpecFormer. Ground-truth structures are shown on the left for reference.}
\label{fig:visualization}
\end{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/2_visualization_v2.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of molecular structure elucidation results using DiffSpectra under different configurations. We compare single-spectrum inputs (IR, Raman, UV-Vis), multi-modal spectra, and the effect of incorporating the pre-trained SpecFormer. Ground-truth structures are shown on the left for reference.}
\label{fig:visualization}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Structure elucidation performance of \themodel on the QM9S dataset.
We compare two configurations: one using a pre-trained SpecFormer as the spectral condition encoder, and one using an untrained SpecFormer.
Reported metrics include exact structure recovery, graph overlap, fingerprint-based similarities, fragment-level similarity, and functional group similarity.}
\label{tab:specformer}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}}& \makecell{Pre-trained\\SpecFormer} & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{DiffSpectra} & \cmark & \first{16.01\%} & \first{1.3552} & \first{0.7837} & \first{0.8421} & \first{0.9227} & \first{0.9481} & \first{0.9618} \\
~ & \xmark & 14.11\% & 1.7795 & 0.7205 & 0.7938 & 0.8924 & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Structure elucidation performance of \themodel on the QM9S dataset.
We compare two configurations: one using a pre-trained SpecFormer as the spectral condition encoder, and one using an untrained SpecFormer.
Reported metrics include exact structure recovery, graph overlap, fingerprint-based similarities, fragment-level similarity, and functional group similarity.}
\label{tab:specformer}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}}& \makecell{Pre-trained\\SpecFormer} & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{DiffSpectra} & \cmark & \first{16.01\%} & \first{1.3552} & \first{0.7837} & \first{0.8421} & \first{0.9227} & \first{0.9481} & \first{0.9618} \\
~ & \xmark & 14.11\% & 1.7795 & 0.7205 & 0.7938 & 0.8924 & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}1.05\textwidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}}& \makecell{Pre-trained\\SpecFormer} & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{DiffSpectra} & \cmark & \first{16.01\%} & \first{1.3552} & \first{0.7837} & \first{0.8421} & \first{0.9227} & \first{0.9481} & \first{0.9618} \\
~ & \xmark & 14.11\% & 1.7795 & 0.7205 & 0.7938 & 0.8924 & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}}& \makecell{Pre-trained\\SpecFormer}Pre-trained\\SpecFormer & ACC@1 $\uparrow$\uparrow & MCES $\downarrow$\downarrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{CosSim}CosSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MA}}\mathrm{MA} $\uparrow$\uparrow & FraggleSim $\uparrow$\uparrow & FGSim $\uparrow$\uparrow \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{DiffSpectra}DiffSpectra & \cmark & \first{16.01\%}16.01\% & \first{1.3552}1.3552 & \first{0.7837}0.7837 & \first{0.8421}0.8421 & \first{0.9227}0.9227 & \first{0.9481}0.9481 & \first{0.9618}0.9618 \\
~ & \xmark & 14.11\% & 1.7795 & 0.7205 & 0.7938 & 0.8924 & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
\bottomrule
\subsection{\themodel accurately elucidates molecular structures from spectra}
As shown in \cref{tab:specformer} and \cref{fig:visualization}, \themodel demonstrates strong performance in the challenging task of molecular structure elucidation from spectra. First, the top-1 accuracy (ACC@1) reaches 16.01\%, meaning that the model is able to recover the exact target structure among its predictions in a nontrivial fraction of cases. Beyond strict exact matches, the average MCES score is 1.3552, indicating that even when the model fails to generate an exact structure, it still preserves a substantial portion of the molecular graph connectivity.
In terms of fingerprint-based similarity metrics, \themodel achieves a Tanimoto similarity of 0.7837 and a cosine similarity of 0.8421 over Morgan fingerprints, reflecting high agreement on local structural features. The Tanimoto similarity over MACCS keys is even higher at 0.9227, highlighting good coverage of predefined chemical substructures. These results suggest that \themodel captures the key functional groups and local motifs characteristic of the target molecules.
Furthermore, the fragment-based Fraggle similarity reaches 0.9481, showing that large chemically meaningful fragments are well recovered. The functional group similarity (FGSim) is also high at 0.9618, confirming that the predicted molecules retain nearly all functional group types present in the ground-truth structures. Overall, these metrics collectively indicate that \themodel is able to accurately elucidate molecular structures from spectra, recovering both global connectivity and local functional features with high fidelity.
\subsection{Pre-trained SpecFormer facilitates more accurate structure elucidation}
To investigate the effect of pre-training the spectrum encoder, we conduct an ablation study comparing DiffSpectra with and without a pre-trained SpecFormer module, as summarized in \cref{tab:specformer}. When equipped with the pre-trained SpecFormer, DiffSpectra achieves a top-1 accuracy of 16.01\%, compared to 14.11\% without pre-training, indicating a clear improvement in correctly recovering the ground-truth molecular structures from spectra. Similarly, the MCES decreases from 1.7795 to 1.3552, suggesting that the molecular graphs predicted with pre-trained SpecFormer retain more of the correct connectivity of the target structures.
In addition, the fingerprint-based similarity scores also improve with pre-training. For example, the Tanimoto similarity over Morgan fingerprints rises from 0.7205 to 0.7837, and cosine similarity improves from 0.7938 to 0.8421. The Tanimoto similarity over MACCS keys also increases from 0.8924 to 0.9227. These gains indicate that the molecular structures generated with pre-trained SpecFormer more accurately capture both local substructural patterns and functional group motifs. Moreover, the Fraggle similarity improves from 0.9383 to 0.9481, and FGSim from 0.9490 to 0.9618, confirming that larger chemical fragments and functional groups are better preserved.
Overall, these results demonstrate that pre-training the SpecFormer encoder on spectral data provides beneficial inductive biases, allowing DiffSpectra to more effectively align spectral representations with molecular graph structures during conditional generation. This highlights the value of leveraging a well-trained spectrum encoder to facilitate accurate molecular structure elucidation from spectra.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Effect of spectral modalities on structure elucidation performance.
We report DiffSpectra's results on the QM9S dataset using different types of spectra as conditional input, including IR, Raman, UV-Vis, and their combination.
Metrics include exact structure recovery, graph overlap, fingerprint-based similarities, fragment-level similarity, and functional group similarity.}
\label{tab:modality}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Spectral Modalities & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{DiffSpectra} & All Spectra & \first{14.11\%} & \first{1.7795} & \first{0.7205} & \first{0.7938} & \first{0.8924} & \first{0.9383} & \first{0.9490} \\
~ & Only IR & 10.97\% & 2.4812 & 0.6246 & 0.7188 & 0.8460 & 0.9197 & 0.9269 \\
~ & Only Raman & 12.51\% & 2.1708 & 0.6778 & 0.7612 & 0.8701 & 0.9343 & 0.9315 \\
~ & Only UV-Vis & 0.10\% & 8.7909 & 0.1556 & 0.2625 & 0.3634 & 0.5581 & 0.4567 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Effect of spectral modalities on structure elucidation performance.
We report DiffSpectra's results on the QM9S dataset using different types of spectra as conditional input, including IR, Raman, UV-Vis, and their combination.
Metrics include exact structure recovery, graph overlap, fingerprint-based similarities, fragment-level similarity, and functional group similarity.}
\label{tab:modality}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Spectral Modalities & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{DiffSpectra} & All Spectra & \first{14.11\%} & \first{1.7795} & \first{0.7205} & \first{0.7938} & \first{0.8924} & \first{0.9383} & \first{0.9490} \\
~ & Only IR & 10.97\% & 2.4812 & 0.6246 & 0.7188 & 0.8460 & 0.9197 & 0.9269 \\
~ & Only Raman & 12.51\% & 2.1708 & 0.6778 & 0.7612 & 0.8701 & 0.9343 & 0.9315 \\
~ & Only UV-Vis & 0.10\% & 8.7909 & 0.1556 & 0.2625 & 0.3634 & 0.5581 & 0.4567 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}1.05\textwidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Spectral Modalities & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{DiffSpectra} & All Spectra & \first{14.11\%} & \first{1.7795} & \first{0.7205} & \first{0.7938} & \first{0.8924} & \first{0.9383} & \first{0.9490} \\
~ & Only IR & 10.97\% & 2.4812 & 0.6246 & 0.7188 & 0.8460 & 0.9197 & 0.9269 \\
~ & Only Raman & 12.51\% & 2.1708 & 0.6778 & 0.7612 & 0.8701 & 0.9343 & 0.9315 \\
~ & Only UV-Vis & 0.10\% & 8.7909 & 0.1556 & 0.2625 & 0.3634 & 0.5581 & 0.4567 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Spectral Modalities & ACC@1 $\uparrow$\uparrow & MCES $\downarrow$\downarrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{CosSim}CosSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MA}}\mathrm{MA} $\uparrow$\uparrow & FraggleSim $\uparrow$\uparrow & FGSim $\uparrow$\uparrow \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}4{*}*{DiffSpectra}DiffSpectra & All Spectra & \first{14.11\%}14.11\% & \first{1.7795}1.7795 & \first{0.7205}0.7205 & \first{0.7938}0.7938 & \first{0.8924}0.8924 & \first{0.9383}0.9383 & \first{0.9490}0.9490 \\
~ & Only IR & 10.97\% & 2.4812 & 0.6246 & 0.7188 & 0.8460 & 0.9197 & 0.9269 \\
~ & Only Raman & 12.51\% & 2.1708 & 0.6778 & 0.7612 & 0.8701 & 0.9343 & 0.9315 \\
~ & Only UV-Vis & 0.10\% & 8.7909 & 0.1556 & 0.2625 & 0.3634 & 0.5581 & 0.4567 \\
\bottomrule
\subsection{Multi-modal spectra outperform single-modality spectra for structure elucidation}
To further investigate the contribution of different spectral modalities, we conduct an ablation study where DiffSpectra is conditioned on individual or combined spectra types. As summarized in \cref{tab:modality}, using all spectra modalities (IR, Raman, UV-Vis) together achieves the best structure elucidation results, with a top-1 accuracy of 14.11\% and the lowest MCES of 1.7795, indicating improved graph connectivity recovery. The fingerprint-based metrics also show higher similarities when leveraging all spectra, with Tanimoto$_\text{MG}$_\text{MG} at 0.7205 and Cosine$_\text{MG}$_\text{MG} at 0.7938, suggesting better reconstruction of local molecular patterns. Likewise, the Tanimoto similarity on MACCS keys reaches 0.8924, and the Fraggle similarity is 0.9383, indicating strong preservation of meaningful chemical fragments.
Among individual modalities, Raman spectra alone outperform IR and UV-Vis, with ACC@1 of 12.51\% and reasonable similarity scores. IR spectra alone still provide useful chemical information, achieving 10.97\% top-1 accuracy, while UV-Vis alone performs poorly (0.1\% top-1 accuracy), reflecting its limited ability to uniquely identify molecular structures in the QM9S dataset. Overall, these results highlight that combining multiple spectra modalities provides complementary structural priors, enabling DiffSpectra to generate molecular structures with higher fidelity and consistency to ground-truth targets.
\subsection{Sampling multiple candidates improves structural hit accuracy}
\begin{wrapfigure}[22]{r}{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-1.3em}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/4_sampling_times.pdf}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{Accuracy@$K$ with increasing number of sampled candidates.
We evaluate the top-$K$ accuracy (ACC@$K$) as the number of generated candidates $K$ increases, comparing different variants of our model.
Across all settings, Accuracy@$K$ consistently improves with larger $K$, confirming that multiple sampling significantly increases the chance of recovering the correct molecular structure.}
\label{fig:sampling_times}
\end{wrapfigure}[22]{r}r{0.5\linewidth}0.5\linewidth
\centering
\vspace{-1.3em}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/4_sampling_times.pdf}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{Accuracy@$K$ with increasing number of sampled candidates.
We evaluate the top-$K$ accuracy (ACC@$K$) as the number of generated candidates $K$ increases, comparing different variants of our model.
Across all settings, Accuracy@$K$ consistently improves with larger $K$, confirming that multiple sampling significantly increases the chance of recovering the correct molecular structure.}
\label{fig:sampling_times}
Due to the inherently stochastic nature of diffusion models, each sampling process can produce a distinct yet plausible molecular structure. While a single sample may not always match the ground-truth structure exactly, generating multiple candidates increases the likelihood that at least one of them will align with the correct structure. This motivates the use of Top-$K$K Accuracy (ACC@$K$K) as a more comprehensive evaluation metric, which is formally defined in \cref{sec:metric2}.
We present in \cref{fig:sampling_times} the performance of different model variants under varying numbers of samples. Specifically, ACC@$K$K measures the proportion of test molecules for which the correct structure appears among the top $K$K generated candidates.
For instance, the ACC@1 reflects the exact match rate under single-sample generation, while ACC@$K$K ($K>1$K>1) demonstrate that allowing multiple guesses significantly boosts hit probability.
Across all model variants, we observe a consistent upward trend in Accuracy@$K$K as $K$K increases.
As $K$K increases, the model has more opportunities to generate a correct structure among its top-$K$K outputs. For example, the full model with all spectra and pre-trained SpecFormer improves from 16.01\% at $K=1$K=1 to 96.86\% at $K=20$K=20, showing that even a small sampling budget can significantly improve overall accuracy.
These results highlight an important property of diffusion-based molecular elucidation: even when the model may not always generate the correct structure in one shot, it maintains a strong ability to place the correct structure within a small number of plausible candidates. This aligns well with practical use cases, where a ranked list of likely structures can be provided for downstream validation or experimental testing.
The effectiveness of multi-sample inference further demonstrates how spectral conditioning constrains the generative space, enabling the model to consistently place the correct structure among top candidates.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Evaluation of different SE(3) equivariance strategies for DiffSpectra.
We compare a model-based equivariant architecture to data-based equivariance approaches, with or without data augmentation, on molecular structure elucidation metrics. Here, ``data aug'' refers to data augmentation.
}
\label{tab:equivariance}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & SE(3) Equivariance & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{DiffSpectra} & model-based & \first{14.11\%} & \first{1.7795} & 0.7205 & \first{0.7938} & \first{0.8924} & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
~ & data-based (w/ data aug) & 12.98\% & 1.8785 & \first{0.8882} & 0.7877 & 0.8882 & \first{0.9389} & \first{0.9456} \\
~ & data-based (w/o data aug) & 7.47\% & 3.6036 & 0.5117 & 0.6294 & 0.7575 & 0.8665 & 0.8607 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Evaluation of different SE(3) equivariance strategies for DiffSpectra.
We compare a model-based equivariant architecture to data-based equivariance approaches, with or without data augmentation, on molecular structure elucidation metrics. Here, ``data aug'' refers to data augmentation.
}
\label{tab:equivariance}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & SE(3) Equivariance & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{DiffSpectra} & model-based & \first{14.11\%} & \first{1.7795} & 0.7205 & \first{0.7938} & \first{0.8924} & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
~ & data-based (w/ data aug) & 12.98\% & 1.8785 & \first{0.8882} & 0.7877 & 0.8882 & \first{0.9389} & \first{0.9456} \\
~ & data-based (w/o data aug) & 7.47\% & 3.6036 & 0.5117 & 0.6294 & 0.7575 & 0.8665 & 0.8607 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\resizebox{1.05\textwidth}1.05\textwidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & SE(3) Equivariance & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{DiffSpectra} & model-based & \first{14.11\%} & \first{1.7795} & 0.7205 & \first{0.7938} & \first{0.8924} & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
~ & data-based (w/ data aug) & 12.98\% & 1.8785 & \first{0.8882} & 0.7877 & 0.8882 & \first{0.9389} & \first{0.9456} \\
~ & data-based (w/o data aug) & 7.47\% & 3.6036 & 0.5117 & 0.6294 & 0.7575 & 0.8665 & 0.8607 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & SE(3) Equivariance & ACC@1 $\uparrow$\uparrow & MCES $\downarrow$\downarrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{CosSim}CosSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MA}}\mathrm{MA} $\uparrow$\uparrow & FraggleSim $\uparrow$\uparrow & FGSim $\uparrow$\uparrow \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}3{*}*{DiffSpectra}DiffSpectra & model-based & \first{14.11\%}14.11\% & \first{1.7795}1.7795 & 0.7205 & \first{0.7938}0.7938 & \first{0.8924}0.8924 & 0.9383 & 0.9490 \\
~ & data-based (w/ data aug) & 12.98\% & 1.8785 & \first{0.8882}0.8882 & 0.7877 & 0.8882 & \first{0.9389}0.9389 & \first{0.9456}0.9456 \\
~ & data-based (w/o data aug) & 7.47\% & 3.6036 & 0.5117 & 0.6294 & 0.7575 & 0.8665 & 0.8607 \\
\bottomrule
\subsection{Comparing model-based and data-based SE(3) equivariance strategies}
Since our model performs diffusion generation on molecular 3D structures, it is essential to ensure SE(3) equivariance so that the model's predictions are consistent under rigid-body transformations of the input. To this end, we design and evaluate two strategies for achieving SE(3) equivariance: model-based equivariance and data-based equivariance. In the model-based design, geometric inductive biases are explicitly incorporated into the network architecture, for example through pairwise distance encoding and equivariant coordinate update mechanisms, ensuring equivariant behavior. In contrast, the data-based design does not include SE(3)-equivariant inductive biases in the model architecture. Instead, it relies on random rotation and translation data augmentation during training, encouraging the model to empirically learn equivariance from data.
As shown in \cref{tab:equivariance}, the model-based SE(3)-equivariant implementation of DiffSpectra achieves superior performance across most metrics. It attains a top-1 accuracy of 14.11\% and the lowest MCES (1.7795), indicating stronger recovery of molecular graph connectivity. The data-based approach with data augmentation achieves slightly lower top-1 accuracy (12.98\%) but shows competitive fingerprint-based and functional group similarities, with Tanimoto$_{\mathrm{MG}}$_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG}, FraggleSim, and FGSim comparable to the model-based design. Notably, when data augmentation is removed from the data-based design, performance degrades substantially across all metrics, confirming the critical role of data augmentation in enabling the model to generalize over molecular rotations and translations. Overall, these results demonstrate that while data-based equivariance with augmentation can help achieve some level of SE(3)-aware behavior, explicitly enforcing geometric inductive biases through model-based equivariance is a more robust and effective strategy for molecular structure elucidation from spectra.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Effect of sampling temperature on structure elucidation performance.
We report DiffSpectra results with different sampling temperature coefficients $\tau$, which scale the injected noise during diffusion sampling.
Moderate values of $\tau$ help balance diversity and accuracy, while extremely low or high $\tau$ degrade performance.}
\label{tab:temperature}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Temperature & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{DiffSpectra} & $\tau$=1.2 & 15.45\% & 1.4224 & 0.7739 & 0.8348 & 0.9197 & 0.9468 & 0.9604 \\
~ & $\tau$=1.0 & 16.01\% & \first{1.3552} & 0.7837 & 0.8421 & 0.9227 & 0.9481 & 0.9618 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.8 & \first{16.30\%} & 1.3643 & \first{0.7848} & \first{0.8429} & \first{0.9235} & \first{0.9491} & 0.9621 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.6 & 16.05\% & 1.4009 & 0.7794 & 0.8387 & 0.9220 & 0.9480 & \first{0.9627} \\
~ & $\tau$=0.4 & 15.86\% & 1.5081 & 0.7629 & 0.8261 & 0.9120 & 0.9442 & 0.9577 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.2 & 14.56\% & 1.9842 & 0.7005 & 0.7774 & 0.8743 & 0.9297 & 0.9323 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Effect of sampling temperature on structure elucidation performance.
We report DiffSpectra results with different sampling temperature coefficients $\tau$, which scale the injected noise during diffusion sampling.
Moderate values of $\tau$ help balance diversity and accuracy, while extremely low or high $\tau$ degrade performance.}
\label{tab:temperature}
\scriptsize
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{
\resizebox{1\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Temperature & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{DiffSpectra} & $\tau$=1.2 & 15.45\% & 1.4224 & 0.7739 & 0.8348 & 0.9197 & 0.9468 & 0.9604 \\
~ & $\tau$=1.0 & 16.01\% & \first{1.3552} & 0.7837 & 0.8421 & 0.9227 & 0.9481 & 0.9618 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.8 & \first{16.30\%} & 1.3643 & \first{0.7848} & \first{0.8429} & \first{0.9235} & \first{0.9491} & 0.9621 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.6 & 16.05\% & 1.4009 & 0.7794 & 0.8387 & 0.9220 & 0.9480 & \first{0.9627} \\
~ & $\tau$=0.4 & 15.86\% & 1.5081 & 0.7629 & 0.8261 & 0.9120 & 0.9442 & 0.9577 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.2 & 14.56\% & 1.9842 & 0.7005 & 0.7774 & 0.8743 & 0.9297 & 0.9323 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
}
\resizebox{1\textwidth}1\textwidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Temperature & ACC@1 $\uparrow$ & MCES $\downarrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$ $\uparrow$ & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$ $\uparrow$ & FraggleSim $\uparrow$ & FGSim $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{DiffSpectra} & $\tau$=1.2 & 15.45\% & 1.4224 & 0.7739 & 0.8348 & 0.9197 & 0.9468 & 0.9604 \\
~ & $\tau$=1.0 & 16.01\% & \first{1.3552} & 0.7837 & 0.8421 & 0.9227 & 0.9481 & 0.9618 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.8 & \first{16.30\%} & 1.3643 & \first{0.7848} & \first{0.8429} & \first{0.9235} & \first{0.9491} & 0.9621 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.6 & 16.05\% & 1.4009 & 0.7794 & 0.8387 & 0.9220 & 0.9480 & \first{0.9627} \\
~ & $\tau$=0.4 & 15.86\% & 1.5081 & 0.7629 & 0.8261 & 0.9120 & 0.9442 & 0.9577 \\
~ & $\tau$=0.2 & 14.56\% & 1.9842 & 0.7005 & 0.7774 & 0.8743 & 0.9297 & 0.9323 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\toprule
\textit{\textbf{Model}} & Temperature & ACC@1 $\uparrow$\uparrow & MCES $\downarrow$\downarrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{CosSim}_{\mathrm{MG}}$\operatorname{CosSim}CosSim_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} $\uparrow$\uparrow & $\operatorname{TaniSim}_{\mathrm{MA}}$\operatorname{TaniSim}TaniSim_{\mathrm{MA}}\mathrm{MA} $\uparrow$\uparrow & FraggleSim $\uparrow$\uparrow & FGSim $\uparrow$\uparrow \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}6{*}*{DiffSpectra}DiffSpectra & $\tau$\tau=1.2 & 15.45\% & 1.4224 & 0.7739 & 0.8348 & 0.9197 & 0.9468 & 0.9604 \\
~ & $\tau$\tau=1.0 & 16.01\% & \first{1.3552}1.3552 & 0.7837 & 0.8421 & 0.9227 & 0.9481 & 0.9618 \\
~ & $\tau$\tau=0.8 & \first{16.30\%}16.30\% & 1.3643 & \first{0.7848}0.7848 & \first{0.8429}0.8429 & \first{0.9235}0.9235 & \first{0.9491}0.9491 & 0.9621 \\
~ & $\tau$\tau=0.6 & 16.05\% & 1.4009 & 0.7794 & 0.8387 & 0.9220 & 0.9480 & \first{0.9627}0.9627 \\
~ & $\tau$\tau=0.4 & 15.86\% & 1.5081 & 0.7629 & 0.8261 & 0.9120 & 0.9442 & 0.9577 \\
~ & $\tau$\tau=0.2 & 14.56\% & 1.9842 & 0.7005 & 0.7774 & 0.8743 & 0.9297 & 0.9323 \\
\bottomrule
\subsection{Sampling temperature balances diversity and accuracy}
Since a given molecular spectrum corresponds to a unique molecular structure, the task of molecular structure elucidation from spectra requires high accuracy in the generated results. However, diffusion models inherently introduce stochasticity during sampling due to the injection of random noise, which is essential for promoting diversity in the generated results. To better understand the trade-off between stochasticity and accuracy, we investigate how controlling the level of stochasticity affects performance. Specifically, we introduce a sampling temperature parameter $\tau$\tau in \cref{eq:sampling}, which modulates the scale of the injected noise during the sampling process. Lower $\tau$\tau values reduce the influence of stochasticity, resulting in more deterministic outputs, while higher $\tau$\tau allows for greater exploration of the molecular space.
As shown in \cref{tab:temperature}, we evaluate DiffSpectra under varying $\tau$\tau values ranging from 0.2 to 1.2. We observe that moderate temperature values ($\tau=0.8$\tau=0.8 and $\tau=1.0$\tau=1.0) achieve the best balance between diversity and correctness. In particular, $\tau=0.8$\tau=0.8 obtains the highest top-1 accuracy of 16.30\%, while maintaining competitive similarity metrics, including a Tanimoto$_{\mathrm{MG}}$_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} of 0.7848, Cosine$_{\mathrm{MG}}$_{\mathrm{MG}}\mathrm{MG} of 0.8429, and Tanimoto$_{\mathrm{MA}}$_{\mathrm{MA}}\mathrm{MA} of 0.9235. Extremely low temperatures (e.g., $\tau=0.2$\tau=0.2) result in overly deterministic generations with reduced diversity and higher MCES (1.9842), while extremely high temperatures (e.g., $\tau=1.2$\tau=1.2) also degrade performance due to excessive stochasticity.
Overall, these results suggest that selecting a moderate $\tau$\tau helps DiffSpectra strike an effective trade-off between generating structurally diverse candidates and maintaining high similarity to the ground-truth molecules.
|
Results
| false
|
2507.06853
| 2
|
95,369
|
Now we want to define the notion of derivability for $R$R-expressions of arbitrary $R$R-degree.
Therefore, we define a calculus in which not only sequents but $R$R-expressions of arbitrary degree are allowed.
The following structural rules hold:
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.4cm}
\quad \infer[RF]{S\Rightarrow S}{}\hspace{7em}\infer[WL]{\Delta, T \Rightarrow S}{\Delta \Rightarrow S}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer[PL]{\Delta, T, S, \Gamma \Rightarrow U}{\Delta, S, T, \Gamma \Rightarrow U}\hspace{6em} \infer[CL]{\Delta, S \Rightarrow T}{\Delta, S, S \Rightarrow T }
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad \infer[Cut]{\Delta \Rightarrow T}{\Delta \Rightarrow S \qquad \Delta, S \Rightarrow T}
\end{center}\begin{center}
\vspace{0.4cm}
\quad \infer[RF]{S\Rightarrow S}{}\hspace{7em}\infer[WL]{\Delta, T \Rightarrow S}{\Delta \Rightarrow S}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer[PL]{\Delta, T, S, \Gamma \Rightarrow U}{\Delta, S, T, \Gamma \Rightarrow U}\hspace{6em} \infer[CL]{\Delta, S \Rightarrow T}{\Delta, S, S \Rightarrow T }
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad \infer[Cut]{\Delta \Rightarrow T}{\Delta \Rightarrow S \qquad \Delta, S \Rightarrow T}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.4cm}
\quad \infer[RF]{S\Rightarrow S}S\Rightarrow S{}\hspace{7em}\infer[WL]{\Delta, T \Rightarrow S}\Delta, T \Rightarrow S{\Delta \Rightarrow S}\Delta \Rightarrow S
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer[PL]{\Delta, T, S, \Gamma \Rightarrow U}\Delta, T, S, \Gamma \Rightarrow U{\Delta, S, T, \Gamma \Rightarrow U}\Delta, S, T, \Gamma \Rightarrow U\hspace{6em} \infer[CL]{\Delta, S \Rightarrow T}\Delta, S \Rightarrow T{\Delta, S, S \Rightarrow T }\Delta, S, S \Rightarrow T
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad \infer[Cut]{\Delta \Rightarrow T}\Delta \Rightarrow T{\Delta \Rightarrow S \qquad \Delta, S \Rightarrow T}\Delta \Rightarrow S \qquad \Delta, S \Rightarrow T
\noindent
We add two rules, which tell us how to introduce an $R$R-expression of arbitrary degree on the right and on the left side of $\Rightarrow$\Rightarrow:
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad \infer[RI^+]{\Gamma \Rightarrow (\Delta \Rightarrow S)}{\Gamma, \Delta \Rightarrow S}\quad\quad \infer[LI^+]{ \Gamma, (\Delta \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T}{\Gamma \Rightarrow \Delta \quad\quad \Gamma, S \Rightarrow T}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}\begin{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad \infer[RI^+]{\Gamma \Rightarrow (\Delta \Rightarrow S)}{\Gamma, \Delta \Rightarrow S}\quad\quad \infer[LI^+]{ \Gamma, (\Delta \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T}{\Gamma \Rightarrow \Delta \quad\quad \Gamma, S \Rightarrow T}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad \infer[RI^+]{\Gamma \Rightarrow (\Delta \Rightarrow S)}\Gamma \Rightarrow (\Delta \Rightarrow S){\Gamma, \Delta \Rightarrow S}\Gamma, \Delta \Rightarrow S\quad\quad \infer[LI^+]{ \Gamma, (\Delta \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T} \Gamma, (\Delta \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T{\Gamma \Rightarrow \Delta \quad\quad \Gamma, S \Rightarrow T}\Gamma \Rightarrow \Delta \quad\quad \Gamma, S \Rightarrow T
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent The expression $\Gamma \Rightarrow \Delta$\Gamma \Rightarrow \Delta is here to be read as $\Gamma \Rightarrow U_1;...;\Gamma \Rightarrow U_n$\Gamma \Rightarrow U_1;...;\Gamma \Rightarrow U_n where $\Delta$\Delta is the series of $R$R-expressions $U_1,...U_n$U_1,...U_n.
\noindent In line with our connexive understanding of inference, we define the refutability of $\Gamma \Rightarrow S$\Gamma \Rightarrow S by the refutability of $S$S under the assumption of the provability of $\Gamma$\Gamma and the refutability of $\Gamma \Rightarrow -S$\Gamma \Rightarrow -S by the provability of $S$S under the assumption of the provability of $\Gamma$\Gamma.
To formulate this as one rule, we can fix that $--S$--S stands for $S$S.
Then we have the following rule:
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad\infer[RI^-]{ \Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S)}{\Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}\begin{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad\infer[RI^-]{ \Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S)}{\Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad\infer[RI^-]{ \Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S)} \Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S){\Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S}\Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent If the reverse is demanded to hold as well, i.e.:
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer{\Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S)}{ \Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}\begin{center}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer{\Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S)}{ \Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer{\Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S)}\Delta \Rightarrow -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S){ \Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S} \Delta, \Gamma \Rightarrow -S
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent then we also obtain a condition on how to derive something \emph{from} $R$R-expressions of the form $-(\Gamma \Rightarrow S)$-(\Gamma \Rightarrow S):
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer[LI^-]{\Delta, -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T}{\Delta \Rightarrow \Gamma \quad\quad \Delta, -S \Rightarrow T}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}\begin{center}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer[LI^-]{\Delta, -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T}{\Delta \Rightarrow \Gamma \quad\quad \Delta, -S \Rightarrow T}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad\infer[LI^-]{\Delta, -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T}\Delta, -(\Gamma \Rightarrow S) \Rightarrow T{\Delta \Rightarrow \Gamma \quad\quad \Delta, -S \Rightarrow T}\Delta \Rightarrow \Gamma \quad\quad \Delta, -S \Rightarrow T
\vspace{0.2cm}
We will write $\Delta\vdash S$\Delta\vdash S to mean that there is a derivation from the $R$R-expressions of $\Delta$\Delta to $S$S, and we write $\Delta\vdash \Gamma$\Delta\vdash \Gamma to mean that $\Delta\vdash S$\Delta\vdash S for each $S$S from $\Gamma$\Gamma.
Now that we have our deductive framework, let us briefly outline the remainder of the paper.
First, we adopt von Kutschera's generalized introduction rules for arbitrary connectives.
We then give the introduction rules for the usual connectives for \texttt{C} and follow von Kutschera's argument step by step to obtain functional completeness for \texttt{C}, meaning that any connective expressible by the generalized schemata can be explicitly defined through the connectives of \texttt{C}.
Finally, we provide a way to translate this framework into a standard sequent calculus of \texttt{C} and obtain that a sequent is derivable in this framework iff its translation is derivable in \texttt{C}.
|
Higher-Order Derivability
| false
|
2507.06854
| 4
|
95,366
|
From the viewpoint of what would nowadays be called `(bilateralist) proof-theoretic semantics' Franz von Kutschera provided two very relevant and closely related papers \cite{Kutschera1968,Kutschera1969}, in which he proves functional completeness of, respectively, intuitionistic logic and what he calls `direct logic', nowadays better known as Nelson's constructive logic with strong negation, \texttt{N4}.
Proof-theoretic semantics is the view that it is the rules of logical connectives governing their use in a proof system that determine their meaning.\footnote{Not unwarrantedly, von Kutschera called this `Gentzen semantics', since this view's origins are usually attributed to Gentzen's famous paper \cite{Gentzen1934}. For more details on proof-theoretic semantics, see \cite{s-h} and \cite{Francez2015}.}
Von Kutschera commits to this view in these papers in that he assumes rule schemata to define connectives and in conducting the proofs for functional completeness purely proof-theoretically, i.e., without reference to model-theoretic notions.
The procedure is in both papers essentially the same.
In a nutshell, he considers generalized derivability schemata for unspecified logical operators and shows that the connectives of intuitionistic propositional logic and \texttt{N4}, respectively, are functionally complete when defined according to these rule schemata.
The aim of the present paper is to transfer this approach to show the functional completeness for the connectives of the connexive logic \texttt{C}.
As such, our paper is in a tradition of several others using von Kutschera's approach in one way or another; to name just a few:
Schroeder-Heister, combining von Kutschera's higher level derivability with Prawitz's natural deduction framework, shows completeness for intuitionistic propositional logic in such a system in
\cite{PSH1984b} and for an extension to intuitionistic quantifier logic in \cite{PSH1984a}.
Wansing uses von Kutschera's approach to show the functional completeness of operators for substructural subsystems of intuitionistic propositional logic \cite{Wansing1993a} and of \texttt{N4} \cite[Ch. 7]{Wansing1993b} and also for several normal modal and tense logics with respect to a representation of the generalized rules in display sequent calculi \cite{Wansing1996}.
Braüner \cite{Brauner2005} does the same for hybridized versions of certain modal logics.
It is especially von Kutschera's later paper \cite{Kutschera1969} that is interesting to consider from a \emph{bilateralist} proof-theoretic semantics point of view and also for the present purpose.\footnote{See \cite{TranslationKutschera} for a translation of this paper as well as \cite{Ayhancomment} for a comment on its relevance and its connection to \cite{Kutschera1968}.}
In this paper von Kutschera is concerned with giving a concept of refutation that is -- other than in intuitionistic logic -- not derivative on a concept of proof but on a par with it.
This is a very bilateralist stance, since bilateralism is the view that in proof-theoretic semantics it is not only the rules governing proofs of complex formulas but also the rules governing their refutations that need to be considered as meaning-determining and, importantly, that these concepts should be considered both as primitive, not one reducible to the other.\footnote{More often in bilateralism the terms `assertion' and `denial' are used as the relevant concepts but like von Kutschera we will stick to the terms `proof' and `refutation'.}
Accordingly, in \cite{Kutschera1969}, in order to define arbitrary $n$n-ary connectives, he gives generalized rule schemata not only to introduce \emph{proofs} but also to introduce \emph{refutations}.
We will start with a brief introduction to our system, considering the idea of connexive logics in general, the fact that \texttt{C} is a contradictory logic and the relevant differences to \texttt{N4} and to von Kutschera's approach (Section 2).
To provide a basis for our proof of functional completeness, we will firstly consider generalized derivability schemata for unspecified logical operators as von Kutschera's schemata but with a different background notion of higher-level refutability reflecting the connexive reading of consequence (Section 3-4).
Subsequently, we trace von Kutschera's proof of functional completeness for the \texttt{N4} connectives, yielding the result that the connectives of \texttt{C} are functionally complete for these generalized schemata (Section 5-6).
|
Introduction
| false
|
2507.06854
| 1
|
95,367
|
There has been a recent increase in attention with respect to studying connexive logics, resulting in a number of papers published on the subject.\footnote{See, e.g., the contributions in the special issue of \emph{Studia Logica} on \emph{Frontiers of Connexive Logic} \cite{OmoriWansingSI}.}
The general idea of connexivity that should be implemented by these systems, is that no formula provably implies or is implied by its own negation. Formally this is usually realized by validating so-called \emph{Aristotle's} (AT) and \emph{Boethius' Theses} (BT), while not validating symmetry of implication.
Hence, the following is the most common, agreed-upon definition:
\begin{definition}[Connexive logics]
A logic is connexive iff
1.) the following formulas are provable in the system:
\begin{itemize}
\item AT: ${\sim} ({\sim} A \rightarrow A)$,
\item AT': ${\sim} (A \rightarrow {\sim} A)$,
\item BT: $(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow {\sim}(A \rightarrow {\sim} B)$,
\item BT': $(A \rightarrow {\sim} B) \rightarrow {\sim}(A \rightarrow B)$, and
\end{itemize}
2.) the system satisfies non-symmetry of implication, i.e., $(A\rightarrow B) \rightarrow (B \rightarrow A)$ is not provable.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}[Connexive logics]
A logic is connexive iff
1.) the following formulas are provable in the system:
\begin{itemize}
\item AT: ${\sim} ({\sim} A \rightarrow A)$,
\item AT': ${\sim} (A \rightarrow {\sim} A)$,
\item BT: $(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow {\sim}(A \rightarrow {\sim} B)$,
\item BT': $(A \rightarrow {\sim} B) \rightarrow {\sim}(A \rightarrow B)$, and
\end{itemize}
2.) the system satisfies non-symmetry of implication, i.e., $(A\rightarrow B) \rightarrow (B \rightarrow A)$ is not provable.
\end{definition}
A logic is connexive iff
1.) the following formulas are provable in the system:
\item AT: ${\sim} ({\sim} A \rightarrow A)${\sim}\sim ({\sim}\sim A \rightarrow A),
\item AT': ${\sim} (A \rightarrow {\sim} A)${\sim}\sim (A \rightarrow {\sim}\sim A),
\item BT: $(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow {\sim}(A \rightarrow {\sim} B)$(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow {\sim}\sim(A \rightarrow {\sim}\sim B),
\item BT': $(A \rightarrow {\sim} B) \rightarrow {\sim}(A \rightarrow B)$(A \rightarrow {\sim}\sim B) \rightarrow {\sim}\sim(A \rightarrow B), and
2.) the system satisfies non-symmetry of implication, i.e., $(A\rightarrow B) \rightarrow (B \rightarrow A)$(A\rightarrow B) \rightarrow (B \rightarrow A) is not provable.
We will concentrate here on the system \texttt{C}, introduced in \cite{Wansing2005}, which is obtained by changing the falsification conditions of implication in Nelson's four-valued constructive logic with strong negation, \texttt{N4} \cite{AN1984, Nelson1949}.\footnote{To give more context and references for the system \texttt{C}: See, e.g., \cite{Wansing2024} and \cite{WansingWeber} for motivations for \texttt{C}, \cite{Olkhovikov2023}, where a direct completeness proof for 1st-order \texttt{C} is given, or \cite{FazioOdintsov2024} for an algebraic investigation of the system. For a sequent calculus for \texttt{C}, see Appendix.}
The following is a natural deduction calculus for the propositional fragment of \texttt{C}, which is adapted from a bilateral version given in \cite[p. 419f.]{Wansing2016}.
Although in the paper introducing this system \cite{Wansing2005}, the aim is to present a connexive \emph{modal} logic, we will not be concerned with modal operators here and rather concentrate on the way this system is constructed from \texttt{N4}.
\vspace{0.5cm}
{\Large\textbf{\texttt{NC}}}\Large\textbf{\texttt{NC}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for ${\sim}$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim {\sim}\sim I]{{\sim} {\sim} A}{\sim}\sim {\sim}\sim A{\infer*{A}{\Gamma}}\infer*{A}A{\Gamma}\Gamma
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim{\sim}\sim E]{A}A{
\infer*{{\sim} {\sim} A}{\Gamma}}
\infer*{{\sim} {\sim} A}{\sim}\sim {\sim}\sim A{\Gamma}\Gamma
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for $\wedge$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\wedge I]{A \wedge B}A \wedge B{\;\infer*{A}{\Gamma} \quad \quad \infer*{B}{\Delta}}\;\infer*{A}A{\Gamma}\Gamma \quad \quad \infer*{B}B{\Delta}\Delta
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\wedge E_{1}1]{A}A{\infer*{A \wedge B}{\Gamma}}\infer*{A \wedge B}A \wedge B{\Gamma}\Gamma
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\wedge E_{2}2]{B}B{\infer*{A \wedge B}{\Gamma}}\infer*{A \wedge B}A \wedge B{\Gamma}\Gamma
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\wedge I_{1}1]{{\sim}(A \wedge B)}{\sim}\sim(A \wedge B){\infer*{{\sim} A}{\Gamma}}\infer*{{\sim} A}{\sim}\sim A{\Gamma}\Gamma
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\wedge I_{2}2]{{\sim}(A \wedge B)}{\sim}\sim(A \wedge B){\infer*{{\sim} B}{\Gamma}}\infer*{{\sim} B}{\sim}\sim B{\Gamma}\Gamma
\quad
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\wedge E]{C}C{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\infer*{{\sim}(A \wedge B)}{\Gamma} \quad \infer*{C}{[{\sim} A], \Delta} \quad \infer*{C}{[{\sim} B], \Theta }}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\infer*{{\sim}(A \wedge B)}{\sim}\sim(A \wedge B){\Gamma}\Gamma \quad \infer*{C}C{[{\sim} A], \Delta}[{\sim}\sim A], \Delta \quad \infer*{C}C{[{\sim} B], \Theta }[{\sim}\sim B], \Theta
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for $\vee$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\vee I_{1}1]{A \vee B}A \vee B{\infer*{A}{\Gamma}}\infer*{A}A{\Gamma}\Gamma
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\vee I_{2}2]{A \vee B}A \vee B{\infer*{B}{\Gamma}}\infer*{B}B{\Gamma}\Gamma
\quad
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle\vee E]{C}C{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\infer*{A \vee B}{\Gamma} \quad \infer*{C}{ [A], \Delta} \quad \infer*{C}{[B], \Theta}}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\infer*{A \vee B}A \vee B{\Gamma}\Gamma \quad \infer*{C}C{ [A], \Delta} [A], \Delta \quad \infer*{C}C{[B], \Theta}[B], \Theta
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\vee I]{{\sim}(A \vee B)}{\sim}\sim(A \vee B){\;\infer*{{\sim} A}{\Gamma}\quad \quad\infer*{{\sim} B}{\Delta} }\;\infer*{{\sim} A}{\sim}\sim A{\Gamma}\Gamma\quad \quad\infer*{{\sim} B}{\sim}\sim B{\Delta}\Delta
\quad \quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\vee E_{1}1]{{\sim} A}{\sim}\sim A{\infer*{{\sim}(A \vee B)}{\Gamma}}\infer*{{\sim}(A \vee B)}{\sim}\sim(A \vee B){\Gamma}\Gamma
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\vee E_{2}2]{{\sim} B}{\sim}\sim B{\infer*{{\sim}(A \vee B)}{\Gamma}}\infer*{{\sim}(A \vee B)}{\sim}\sim(A \vee B){\Gamma}\Gamma
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for $\rightarrow$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\rightarrow I]{A \rightarrow B}A \rightarrow B{
\infer*{B}{[A],\Gamma}}
\infer*{B}B{[A],\Gamma}[A],\Gamma
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle\rightarrow E]{B}B{\infer*{A}{\Gamma} \ \quad \infer*{A \rightarrow B}{\Delta}}\infer*{A}A{\Gamma}\Gamma \ \quad \infer*{A \rightarrow B}A \rightarrow B{\Delta}\Delta
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\rightarrow I]{{\sim}(A \rightarrow B)}{\sim}\sim(A \rightarrow B){
\infer*{{\sim} B}{[A],\Gamma}}
\infer*{{\sim} B}{\sim}\sim B{[A],\Gamma}[A],\Gamma
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle{\sim}\sim\rightarrow E]{{\sim} B}{\sim}\sim B{\infer*{A}{\Gamma} \ \quad \infer*{{\sim}(A \rightarrow B)}{\Delta}}\infer*{A}A{\Gamma}\Gamma \ \quad \infer*{{\sim}(A \rightarrow B)}{\sim}\sim(A \rightarrow B){\Delta}\Delta
The difference between a natural deduction system for \texttt{N4}, as can be found in \cite[p. 97]{Prawitz1965}, for example, and \texttt{NC} lies in the rules for negated implication.
We obtain a connexive system by ${\sim\rightarrow} I${\sim\rightarrow}\sim\rightarrow I and ${\sim\rightarrow} E${\sim\rightarrow}\sim\rightarrow E, as given above, replacing these rules in \texttt{N4}:
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\sim\rightarrow I]{\sim(A \rightarrow B)}\sim(A \rightarrow B){{A}\quad\quad {\sim B}}{A}A\quad\quad {\sim B}\sim B
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\sim\rightarrow E_{1}1]{A}A{\sim(A \rightarrow B)}\sim(A \rightarrow B)
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle\sim\rightarrow E_{2}2]{\sim B}\sim B{\sim(A \rightarrow B)}\sim(A \rightarrow B)
Von Kutschera takes \texttt{N4} to express naturally a concept of direct refutation, represented by the connective ${\sim}${\sim}\sim, which we call `strong negation'.
However, with \texttt{C} being connexive, the interpretation of what it means to refute an implication $A \rightarrow B$A \rightarrow B is very different from \texttt{N4}, where this means to have a proof of $A$A and ${\sim} B${\sim}\sim B.
With a connexive implication refuting an implication $A \rightarrow B$A \rightarrow B means to derive a refutation of $B$B from the assumption $A$A.\footnote{To be more precise, actually this notion captures what is sometimes called a ``hyperconnexive'' understanding of implication, which is not only reflected in the validity of Boethius' thesis $(A\rightarrow B) \rightarrow {\sim}(A\rightarrow {\sim} B)$ as a characteristic principle of connexive logic, but also in the validity of its converse. For remarks and an overview on the differing terminology in connexive logic, see \cite{WansingOmori2024}.}
Thus, this needs to be reflected in a generalized conception of `higher-order' refutability, too.
Another peculiarity arising from this is that \texttt{C} is a \emph{contradictory logic}.
We use this term for logics going beyond paraconsistency by being not only not explosive but also containing contradictory formulas (here: formulas of the form $A$A and ${\sim} A${\sim}\sim A) in their set of theorems while still being non-trivial.\footnote{See, e.g., \cite{Wansingforthcoming}, where it is argued that it is theoretically rational to work with non-trivial negation inconsistent logics and a list of such logics is presented, or \cite{NikiWansing2023}, for examples and a classification of provable contradictions in \texttt{C} and an extension of \texttt{C}.} To give a simple example of such a provable contradiction in \texttt{C}:
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle \rightarrow I]{(A \wedge {\sim} A) \rightarrow A}{\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_1]{A}{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}}
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle {\sim}\rightarrow I]{\sim((A \wedge {\sim} A) \rightarrow A)}{\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_2]{{\sim} A}{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}}
\end{center}\begin{center}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle \rightarrow I]{(A \wedge {\sim} A) \rightarrow A}{\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_1]{A}{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}}
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle {\sim}\rightarrow I]{\sim((A \wedge {\sim} A) \rightarrow A)}{\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_2]{{\sim} A}{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}}
\end{center}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle \rightarrow I]{(A \wedge {\sim} A) \rightarrow A}(A \wedge {\sim}\sim A) \rightarrow A{\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_1]{A}{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}}\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_1]{A}A{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}[A \wedge {\sim}\sim A]
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle {\sim}\sim\rightarrow I]{\sim((A \wedge {\sim} A) \rightarrow A)}\sim((A \wedge {\sim}\sim A) \rightarrow A){\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_2]{{\sim} A}{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}}\infer[\scriptstyle \wedge E_2]{{\sim} A}{\sim}\sim A{{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}}{[A \wedge {\sim} A]}[A \wedge {\sim}\sim A]
The proof of functional completeness for \texttt{C} can essentially proceed in the fashion of von Kutschera's, so we do not think it is necessary to provide it in full length here but we will restrict the paper to a sketch of the proof while making the differences explicit.
There is one important conceptual point worth mentioning, though.
When discussing under what conditions we can give rules for refutations of arbitrary connectives, von Kutschera says that ``[o]bviously, these rules [for refutation] cannot be devised independently of [the rules for proofs] if the consistency of the Gentzen calculi is to be maintained when these rules are added'' \cite[p. 108, (translated by the authors)]{Kutschera1969}.
What he fails to mention in this context is that our conception of how precisely to refute inferences plays a crucial role here.
We also give the refutation rules dependently on the proof rules in the same manner as it is done in \cite{Kutschera1969} and we do get the completeness result for the \emph{inconsistent} logic \texttt{C}.
So, in light of our adjustments of von Kutschera's approach for \texttt{C} (Section 4), the dependence of the refutation rules on the proof rules seems to be an independent matter, separate from any considerations about consistency.
It is rather the underlying notion of refutation that is important here and with respect to \emph{that} our approaches are obviously essentially different.
While von Kutschera (without any further explanation or justification) assumes a notion of refutation that captures the, in many logics, usual way of interpreting a negated implication, i.e., the refutability of a derivation going from $A$A to $B$B is defined by the provability of $A$A and the refutability of $B$B, our notion will capture the connexive understanding of implication.
Thus, the refutability of a derivation going from $A$A to $B$B will be defined by the refutability of $B$B given the assumed provability of $A$A.
So, it is rather von Kutschera's underlying assumption that derivability should basically behave as implication does in \texttt{N4} that is critical for consistency, not the factor of dependent definitions between proofs and refutations.
|
The motivation: A contradictory logic that is functionally complete
| false
|
2507.06854
| 2
|
3
|
\label{TDA1D}
In this section, we sketch the basic ideas of the rapidly expanding field of topological data analysis by considering a simple application in one dimension that simultaneously advances the state of the art in the fundamental area of nonparametric statistical estimation and avoids much of the technical baggage of persistent homology.
\emph{Topological data analysis}\index{topological data analysis}topological data analysis (TDA) has had a profound effect on data science and statistics over the last 15 years. Perhaps the most widely recognized and utilized tool in TDA is \emph{persistent homology}\index{persistent homology}persistent homology \cite{zomorodian2005topology,Ghrist_2008,Carlsson2009,Edelsbrunner2010,GhristEAT,Oudot2015}. The basic idea (Figure \ref{fig:TDA}) is to associate an inclusion-oriented family (i.e., a \emph{filtration}\index{filtration}filtration) of simplicial complexes to a point set in a metric space. Each simplicial complex in the filtration is formed by considering the intersections of balls of a fixed radius about each data point. As the radius varies, different simplicial complexes are produced, and their homologies are computed.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[trim = 15mm 43mm 15mm 27mm, clip, keepaspectratio, width=\textwidth]{circles.pdf}
%%\centerline{\epsfig{figure=cat.eps,width=.5\textheight,height=.4\textwidth}}
\caption[Topological persistence]{The topology of a data set can be probed at different scales. Here, we consider a sample of 100 uniformly distributed points in a thin annulus about the unit circle. From left to right, we place disks of radius $0.1$, $0.15$, and $0.95$ around each point. The topology of the data set is morally that of a circle, and the (persistent) homology of simplicial complexes formed from the intersections of disks reveals this: a 1-homology class ``persists'' over an interval slightly bigger than $[.15, .95]$.}
\label{fig:TDA}
\end{figure}
\includegraphics[trim = 15mm 43mm 15mm 27mm, clip, keepaspectratio, width=\textwidth]{circles.pdf}
\caption[Topological persistence]{The topology of a data set can be probed at different scales. Here, we consider a sample of 100 uniformly distributed points in a thin annulus about the unit circle. From left to right, we place disks of radius $0.1$, $0.15$, and $0.95$ around each point. The topology of the data set is morally that of a circle, and the (persistent) homology of simplicial complexes formed from the intersections of disks reveals this: a 1-homology class ``persists'' over an interval slightly bigger than $[.15, .95]$.}The topology of a data set can be probed at different scales. Here, we consider a sample of 100 uniformly distributed points in a thin annulus about the unit circle. From left to right, we place disks of radius $0.1$0.1, $0.15$0.15, and $0.95$0.95 around each point. The topology of the data set is morally that of a circle, and the (persistent) homology of simplicial complexes formed from the intersections of disks reveals this: a 1-homology class ``persists'' over an interval slightly bigger than $[.15, .95]$[.15, .95].
\label{fig:TDA}
Although the theory of topological persistence involves a considerable amount of algebra for bookkeeping associated to the ``births'' and ``deaths'' of homology classes as a function of the radius/filtration parameter, in practice simply treating the Betti numbers as functions of that parameter gives considerable information. Along similar lines, we can consider how other topological invariants behave as a function of scale.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 40mm 109mm 40mm 100mm, clip, keepaspectratio, width=.48\textwidth]{tmeArea.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim = 40mm 109mm 40mm 100mm, clip, keepaspectratio, width=.48\textwidth]{tmeLine.pdf}
%%\centerline{\epsfig{figure=cat.eps,width=.5\textheight,height=.4\textwidth}}
\end{center}
\caption[Topological mixture estimation]{Topological mixture estimation. Left panels: area plots of (top) initial and (bottom) information-theoretically optimized unimodal decompositions of an estimated probability distribution. Right panels: line plots of the same decompositions. The bandwidth for the kernel density estimate \footnote{A kernel density estimate is a sort of ``smooth histogram'' that represents sample data by an average of copies of a ``kernel'' probability distribution centered around the data points. The bandwidth of a kernel density estimate is a scaling factor for the kernel: small bandwidths scale the kernel to be narrow and tall, and large bandwidths scale the kernel to be wide and short.} for the distribution and the number of unimodal mixture components are both determined using the same topological considerations.}
\label{fig:TME}
\end{figure}
\includegraphics[trim = 40mm 109mm 40mm 100mm, clip, keepaspectratio, width=.48\textwidth]{tmeArea.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim = 40mm 109mm 40mm 100mm, clip, keepaspectratio, width=.48\textwidth]{tmeLine.pdf}
\caption[Topological mixture estimation]{Topological mixture estimation. Left panels: area plots of (top) initial and (bottom) information-theoretically optimized unimodal decompositions of an estimated probability distribution. Right panels: line plots of the same decompositions. The bandwidth for the kernel density estimate \footnote{A kernel density estimate is a sort of ``smooth histogram'' that represents sample data by an average of copies of a ``kernel'' probability distribution centered around the data points. The bandwidth of a kernel density estimate is a scaling factor for the kernel: small bandwidths scale the kernel to be narrow and tall, and large bandwidths scale the kernel to be wide and short.} for the distribution and the number of unimodal mixture components are both determined using the same topological considerations.}Topological mixture estimation. Left panels: area plots of (top) initial and (bottom) information-theoretically optimized unimodal decompositions of an estimated probability distribution. Right panels: line plots of the same decompositions. The bandwidth for the kernel density estimate \footnote{A kernel density estimate is a sort of ``smooth histogram'' that represents sample data by an average of copies of a ``kernel'' probability distribution centered around the data points. The bandwidth of a kernel density estimate is a scaling factor for the kernel: small bandwidths scale the kernel to be narrow and tall, and large bandwidths scale the kernel to be wide and short.} for the distribution and the number of unimodal mixture components are both determined using the same topological considerations.
\label{fig:TME}
Call $\phi : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow [0,\infty)$\phi : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow [0,\infty) \emph{unimodal}\index{unimodal}unimodal if $\phi$\phi is continuous and the excursion set $\phi^{-1}([y,\infty))$\phi^{-1}-1([y,\infty)) is contractible (i.e., homotopy equivalent to a point) for all $0 < y \le \max \phi$0 < y \le \max \phi. For $n = 1$n = 1, contractibility means that these excursion sets are all intervals, which coincides with the intuitive notion of unimodality. For $f : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow [0,\infty)$f : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow [0,\infty) sufficiently nice, define the \emph{unimodal category}\index{unimodal!category}unimodal!category of $f$f to be the smallest number $M$M of functions such that $f$f admits a \emph{unimodal decomposition}\index{unimodal!decomposition}unimodal!decomposition of the form $f = \sum_{m=1}^M \pi_m \phi_m$f = \sum_{m=1}m=1^M \pi_m \phi_m for some $\pi > 0$\pi > 0, $\sum_m \pi_m = 1$\sum_m \pi_m = 1, and $\phi_m$\phi_m unimodal \cite{GhristEAT}.
The unimodal category is a topological (homeomorphism) invariant and a ``sweep'' algorithm due to Baryshnikov and Ghrist efficiently produces a unimodal decomposition in $n = 1$n = 1. \footnote{The case $n = 2$ is still beyond the reach of current techniques, and only partial results are known. Moreover, for $n$ sufficiently large, there is provably no algorithm for computing the unimodal category!} As Figure \ref{fig:TME} demonstrates, the unimodal category can be much less than the number of extrema.
The unimodal category of a kernel density estimate for a probability distribution can be used to select an appropriate bandwidth for sample data and, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:TME}, to decompose the resulting estimated distribution into well-behaved unimodal components \emph{using no externally supplied parameters whatsoever} \cite{Huntsman2018}. The key ideas behind \emph{topological mixture estimation}\index{topological mixture estimation}topological mixture estimation are to identify the most common unimodal category as a function of bandwidth and to exploit convexity properties of the mutual information between the mixture weights and the distribution itself. The result is an extremely general (though also computationally expensive) unsupervised learning technique in one dimension that can, e.g. automatically set thresholds for anomaly detectors or determine the number of clusters in data (by taking random projections).
|
Topological data analysis and unsupervised learning in one dimension
| false
|
2008.03299
| 3
|
5
|
\label{Conclusion}
We have only scratched the surface of topological techniques that can be fruitfully applied to problems in the cyber domain. Discrete Morse theory \cite{Scoville_2019}, the algebraic topology of finite topological spaces \cite{barmak2011algebraic}, and connections between simplicial complexes and partially ordered sets \cite{wachs2007poset} provide just a few opportunities for applications that we have not discussed at all here. For example, a notion of a weighted Dowker complex and an associated partial order can be used for \emph{topological differential testing}\index{topological differential testing}topological differential testing to discover files that similar programs handle inconsistently \cite{ambrose2020topological}.
More generally, both discrete and continuous topological methods can provide unique capabilities for problems in the cyber domain. The analysis of concurrent protocols and programs highlights this: while simplicial complexes have been used to solve problems in concurrency \cite{herlihy2014distributed}, the entire (recently developed) theory of directed topology traces its origin to static analysis of concurrent programs \cite{fajstrup2016directed}.
In short, while there are many cyber-oriented problems that present a large attack surface for mainstream topological data analysis, the space of applicable techniques is much larger. Cyber problems are likely to continue to motivate future developments in topology, both theoretical and applied.
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
The authors thank Samir Chowdhury, Fabrizio Romano Genovese, Jelle Herold, and Matvey Yutin for helpful discussions; Greg Sadosuk for producing Figure \ref{fig:intel_cfg} and its attendant code, and Richard Latimer for providing code and data relating to sorting networks.
This research was partially supported with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) via Federal contracts HR001115C0050 and HR001119C0072. The views, opinions, and/or findings expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{nsnam}
The {NS-2} network simulator.
\newblock {\tt http://www.nsnam.org/}.
\newblock Accessed: 2016-05-23.
\bibitem{Alves2016}
H.~Alves, B.~Fonseca, and N.~Antunes.
\newblock Software metrics and security vulnerabilities: dataset and
exploratory study.
\newblock In {\em IDCC}, 2016.
\bibitem{ambrose2020topological}
K.~Ambrose, S.~Huntsman, M.~Robinson, and M.~Yutin.
\newblock Topological differential testing.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00976}, 2020.
\bibitem{Arulselvan_2009}
A.~Arulselvan, C.~W. Commander, L.~Elefteriadou, and P.~M. Pardalos.
\newblock Detecting critical nodes in sparse graphs.
\newblock {\em Comp. Operations Res.}, 36(7):2193--2200, 2009.
\bibitem{Atkin1974}
R.~Atkin.
\newblock {\em Mathematical Structure in Human Affairs}.
\newblock Heinemann, 1974.
\bibitem{ballard2019geometry}
G.~Ballard, C.~Ikenmeyer, J.M. Landsberg, and N.~Ryder.
\newblock The geometry of rank decompositions of matrix multiplication {II}: 3
$\times$ 3 matrices.
\newblock {\em J. Pure Appl. Algebra}, 223(8):3205--3224, 2019.
\bibitem{barmak2011algebraic}
J.~A. Barmak.
\newblock {\em Algebraic Topology of Finite Topological Spaces and
Applications}.
\newblock Springer, 2011.
\bibitem{berger2019equivalent}
G.~O. Berger, , P.-A. Absil, L.~{De Lathauwer}, R.~M. Jungers, and M.~{Van
Barel}.
\newblock Equivalent polyadic decompositions of matrix multiplication tensors.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03950}, 2019.
\bibitem{Carlsson2009}
G.~Carlsson.
\newblock Topology and data.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 46:255--308, 2009.
\bibitem{Chiang_2007}
M.~Chiang, S.~Low, R.~Calderbank, and J.~Doyle.
\newblock Layering as optimization decomposition: a mathematical theory of
network architectures.
\newblock {\em Proc. IEEE}, 95(1), January 2007.
\bibitem{chokaev2018two}
B.~V. Chokaev and G.~N. Shumkin.
\newblock Two bilinear (3 $\times$ 3)-matrix multiplication algorithms of
complexity 25.
\newblock {\em Moscow U. Comp. Math. Cyber.}, 42(1):23--30, 2018.
\bibitem{Chowdhury2019}
S.~Chowdhury, T.~Gebhart, S.~Huntsman, and M.~Yutin.
\newblock Path homologies of deep feedforward networks.
\newblock In {\em ICMLA}, 2019.
\bibitem{Chowdhury2018}
S.~Chowdhury and F.~M\'emoli.
\newblock A functorial {D}owker theorem and persistent homology of asymmetric
networks.
\newblock {\em J. Appl. Comp. Topology}, 2(1):115, 2018.
\bibitem{courtois2011new}
N.~T. Courtois, G.~V. Bard, and D.~Hulme.
\newblock A new general-purpose method to multiply 3 $\times$ 3 matrices using
only 23 multiplications.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.2830}, 2011.
\bibitem{DiSumma_2011}
M.~{Di Summa}, A.~Grosso, and M.~Locatelli.
\newblock Complexity of the critical node problem over trees.
\newblock {\em Comp. Operations Res.}, 38(12):1766--1774, 2011.
\bibitem{dinh2012}
T.~N. Dinh, Y.~Xuan, M.~T. Thai, P.~M. Pardalos, and T.~Znati.
\newblock On new approaches of assessing network vulnerability: hardness and
approximation.
\newblock {\em IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking}, 20(2):609--619, 2012.
\bibitem{Dowker1952}
C.~H. Dowker.
\newblock Homology groups of relations.
\newblock {\em Ann. Math.}, 56:84, 1952.
\bibitem{Du2019}
X.~Du, B.~Chen, Y.~Li, J.~Guo, Y.~Zhou, Y.~Liu, and Y.~Jiang.
\newblock {LEOPARD}: identifying vulnerable code for vulnerability assessment
through program metrics.
\newblock In {\em ICSE}, 2019.
\bibitem{Dullien2009}
T.~Dullien and S.~Porst.
\newblock {REIL}: a platform-independent intermediate representation of
disassembled code for static code analysis.
\newblock In {\em CanSecWest}, 2009.
\bibitem{Duran2011}
D.~Duran, D.~Weston, and M.~Miller.
\newblock Targeted taint driven fuzzing using software metrics.
\newblock In {\em CanSecWest}, 2011.
\bibitem{Eagle2011}
C.~Eagle.
\newblock {\em The IDA Pro Book: The Unofficial Guide to the World's Most
Popular Disassembler}.
\newblock No Starch Press, 2011.
\bibitem{Ebert2016}
C.~Ebert and J.~Cain.
\newblock Cyclomatic complexity.
\newblock {\em IEEE Soft.}, 33:27, 2016.
\bibitem{Edelsbrunner2010}
H.~Edelsbrunner and J.~L. Harer.
\newblock {\em Computational Topology: An Introduction}.
\newblock AMS, 2010.
\bibitem{Erdmann2017}
M.~Erdmann.
\newblock Topology of privacy: lattice structures and information bubbles for
inference and obfuscation.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04130}, 2017.
\bibitem{fajstrup2016directed}
L.~Fajstrup, E.~Goubault, E.~Haucourt, S.~Mimram, and M.~Raussen.
\newblock {\em Directed Algebraic Topology and Concurrency}.
\newblock Springer, 2016.
\bibitem{Ghrist_2008}
R.~Ghrist.
\newblock Barcodes: the persistent topology of data.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 45(1):61, 2008.
\bibitem{GhristEAT}
R.~Ghrist.
\newblock {\em Elementary Applied Topology}.
\newblock Createspace, 2014.
\bibitem{Ghrist2012}
R.~Ghrist, D.~Lipsky, J.~Derenick, and A.~Speranzon.
\newblock Topological landmark-based navigation and mapping.
\newblock {\em preprint}, 2012.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2018}
A.~Grigor'yan, R.~Jimenez, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock On the path homology theory of digraphs and {Eilenberg-Steenrod}
axioms.
\newblock {\em Homology Homotopy Appl.}, 20:179, 2018.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2018b}
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, V.~Vershinin, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Path homology theory of multigraphs and quivers.
\newblock {\em Forum Math.}, 30:1319, 2018.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2014}
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Graphs associated with simplicial complexes.
\newblock {\em Homology Homotopy Appl.}, 16:295, 2014.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2017}
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homologies of graphs and {K}\"unneth formulas.
\newblock {\em Comm. Anal. Geom.}, 25:969, 2017.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2012}
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homologies of path complexes and digraphs.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.2834}, 2012.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2014b}
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homotopy theory for digraphs.
\newblock {\em Pure Appl. Math. Quart.}, 10:619, 2014.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2015}
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Cohomology of digraphs and (undirected) graphs.
\newblock {\em Asian J. Math.}, 19:887, 2015.
\bibitem{Gueye_2010}
A.~Gueye, J.~C. Walrand, and V.~Anantharam.
\newblock Design of network topology in an adversarial environment.
\newblock In {\em Decision and Game Theory for Security}, pages 1--20.
Springer, 2010.
\bibitem{Hatcher_2002}
A.~Hatcher.
\newblock {\em Algebraic Topology}.
\newblock Cambridge, 2002.
\bibitem{herlihy2014distributed}
M.~Herlihy, D.~Kozlov, and S.~Rajsbaum.
\newblock {\em Distributed Computing Through Combinatorial Topology}.
\newblock Morgan Kaufmann, 2014.
\bibitem{heule2019new}
M.~J.~H. Heule, M.~Kauers, and M.~Seidl.
\newblock New ways to multiply 3 $\times$ 3-matrices.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10192}, 2019.
\bibitem{Huntsman2018}
S.~Huntsman.
\newblock Topological mixture estimation.
\newblock In {\em ICML}, 2018.
\bibitem{Huntsman2020}
S.~Huntsman.
\newblock Generalizing cyclomatic complexity via path homology.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00944}, 2020.
\bibitem{Iozzo2010}
V.~Iozzo.
\newblock 0-knowledge fuzzing.
\newblock In {\em Black Hat DC}, 2010.
\bibitem{Jain_2003}
K.~Jain, J.~Padhye, V.~Padmanabhan, and L.~Qiu.
\newblock Impact of interference on multi-hop wireless network performance.
\newblock In {\em MobiCom}, 2003.
\bibitem{johnson1986noncommutative}
R.~W. Johnson and A.~M. McLoughlin.
\newblock Noncommutative bilinear algorithms for 3 $\times$ 3 matrix
multiplication.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Comp.}, 15(2):595--603, 1986.
\bibitem{Joslyn_2016}
C.~Joslyn, B.~Praggastis, E.~Purvine, A.~Sathanur, M.~Robinson, and
S.~Ranshous.
\newblock Local homology dimension as a network science measure.
\newblock In {\em SIAM Workshop on Network Science}, Boston, July 2016.
\bibitem{knuth1997art}
D.~E. Knuth.
\newblock {\em The Art of Computer Programming}, volume~3.
\newblock Pearson, 1997.
\bibitem{laderman1976noncommutative}
J.~D. Laderman.
\newblock A noncommutative algorithm for multiplying 3 $\times$ 3 matrices
using 23 multiplications.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 82(1):126--128, 1976.
\bibitem{landsberg2017geometry}
J.~M. Landsberg.
\newblock {\em Geometry and Complexity Theory}.
\newblock Cambridge, 2017.
\bibitem{Lee_2007}
J.-W. Lee, M.~Chiang, and R.~Calderbank.
\newblock Utility-optimal random-access control.
\newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm.}, 6(7):2741--2751, 2007.
\bibitem{makarov1986algorithm}
Oleg~M Makarov.
\newblock An algorithm for multiplying 3$\times$ 3 matrices.
\newblock {\em USSR Comp. Math. Math. Phys.}, 26(1):179--180, 1986.
\bibitem{McCabe1976}
T.~J. McCabe.
\newblock A complexity measure.
\newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng.}, SE-2:308, 1976.
\bibitem{Medeiros2017}
N.~Medeiros, N.~Ivaki, P.~Costa, and M.~Vieira.
\newblock Software metrics as indicators of security vulnerabilities.
\newblock In {\em ISSRE}, 2017.
\bibitem{Mesnard2016}
F.~Mesnard, \'E. Payet, and W.~Vanhoof.
\newblock Towards a framework for algorithm recognition in binary code.
\newblock In {\em PPDP}, 2016.
\bibitem{Nandagopal_2000}
T.~Nandagopal, T.-E. Kim, X.~Gao, and V.~Bharghavan.
\newblock Achieving {MAC} layer fairness in wireless packet networks.
\newblock In {\em MobiCom}, pages 87--–98, 2002.
\bibitem{nielson1992semantics}
H.~R. Nielson and F.~Nielson.
\newblock {\em Semantics with Applications}.
\newblock Springer, 1992.
\bibitem{Noubir_2004}
G.~Noubir.
\newblock On connectivity in \emph{ad hoc} networks under jamming using
directional antennas and mobility.
\newblock In {\em Wired/Wireless Internet Comm.}, pages 186--200. Springer,
2004.
\bibitem{Oudot2015}
S.~Y. Oudot.
\newblock {\em Persistence Theory: From Quiver Representations to Data
Analysis}.
\newblock AMS, 2015.
\bibitem{richardson1969some}
D.~Richardson.
\newblock Some undecidable problems involving elementary functions of a real
variable.
\newblock {\em J. Symb. Logic}, 33(4):514--520, 1969.
\bibitem{RobinsonGlobalSIP2014}
M.~Robinson.
\newblock Analyzing wireless communication network vulnerability with
homological invariants.
\newblock In {\em GlobalSIP}, 2014.
\bibitem{Robinson_2014}
M.~Robinson.
\newblock {\em Topological Signal Processing}.
\newblock Springer, 2014.
\bibitem{robinson2017sheaf}
M.~Robinson.
\newblock Sheaf and duality methods for analyzing multi-model systems.
\newblock In {\em Recent Applications of Harmonic Analysis to Function Spaces,
Differential Equations, and Data Science}, pages 653--703. Springer, 2017.
\bibitem{Scoville_2019}
N.~A. Scoville.
\newblock {\em Discrete Morse Theory}.
\newblock American Mathematical Society.
\bibitem{Shalaby2017}
M.~Shalaby, T.~Mehrez, A.~El-Mougy, K.~Abdulnasser, and A.~Al-Safty.
\newblock Automatic algorithm recognition of source-code using machine
learning.
\newblock In {\em ICMLA}, 2017.
\bibitem{strassen1969gaussian}
V.~Strassen.
\newblock Gaussian elimination is not optimal.
\newblock {\em Numerische Mathematik}, 13(4):354--356, 1969.
\bibitem{Taherkhani2010}
A.~Taherkhani, A.~Korhonen, and L.~Malmi.
\newblock Recognizing algorithms using language constructs, software metrics,
and roles of variables: an experiment with sorting algorithms.
\newblock {\em Computer J.}, 54:1049--1066, 2010.
\bibitem{wachs2007poset}
M.~L. Wachs.
\newblock Poset topology: tools and applications.
\newblock In E.~Miller, V.~Reiner, and B.~Sturmfels, editors, {\em Geometric
Combinatorics}.
\bibitem{winograd1971multiplication}
S.~Winograd.
\newblock On multiplication of 2 $\times$ 2 matrices.
\newblock {\em Linear Algebra Appl.}, 4(4):381--388, 1971.
\bibitem{Yang_2002}
X.~Yang and N.~Vaidya.
\newblock Priority scheduling in wireless \emph{ad hoc} networks.
\newblock In {\em MobiHoc}, 2002.
\bibitem{yanofsky2017galois}
N.~S. Yanofsky.
\newblock Galois theory of algorithms.
\newblock In {\em Rohit Parikh on Logic, Language and Society}, pages 323--347.
Springer, 2017.
\bibitem{zomorodian2005topology}
A.~J. Zomorodian.
\newblock {\em Topology for Computing}.
\newblock Cambridge, 2005.
\end{thebibliography}\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{nsnam}
The {NS-2} network simulator.
\newblock {\tt http://www.nsnam.org/}.
\newblock Accessed: 2016-05-23.
\bibitem{Alves2016}
H.~Alves, B.~Fonseca, and N.~Antunes.
\newblock Software metrics and security vulnerabilities: dataset and
exploratory study.
\newblock In {\em IDCC}, 2016.
\bibitem{ambrose2020topological}
K.~Ambrose, S.~Huntsman, M.~Robinson, and M.~Yutin.
\newblock Topological differential testing.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00976}, 2020.
\bibitem{Arulselvan_2009}
A.~Arulselvan, C.~W. Commander, L.~Elefteriadou, and P.~M. Pardalos.
\newblock Detecting critical nodes in sparse graphs.
\newblock {\em Comp. Operations Res.}, 36(7):2193--2200, 2009.
\bibitem{Atkin1974}
R.~Atkin.
\newblock {\em Mathematical Structure in Human Affairs}.
\newblock Heinemann, 1974.
\bibitem{ballard2019geometry}
G.~Ballard, C.~Ikenmeyer, J.M. Landsberg, and N.~Ryder.
\newblock The geometry of rank decompositions of matrix multiplication {II}: 3
$\times$ 3 matrices.
\newblock {\em J. Pure Appl. Algebra}, 223(8):3205--3224, 2019.
\bibitem{barmak2011algebraic}
J.~A. Barmak.
\newblock {\em Algebraic Topology of Finite Topological Spaces and
Applications}.
\newblock Springer, 2011.
\bibitem{berger2019equivalent}
G.~O. Berger, , P.-A. Absil, L.~{De Lathauwer}, R.~M. Jungers, and M.~{Van
Barel}.
\newblock Equivalent polyadic decompositions of matrix multiplication tensors.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03950}, 2019.
\bibitem{Carlsson2009}
G.~Carlsson.
\newblock Topology and data.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 46:255--308, 2009.
\bibitem{Chiang_2007}
M.~Chiang, S.~Low, R.~Calderbank, and J.~Doyle.
\newblock Layering as optimization decomposition: a mathematical theory of
network architectures.
\newblock {\em Proc. IEEE}, 95(1), January 2007.
\bibitem{chokaev2018two}
B.~V. Chokaev and G.~N. Shumkin.
\newblock Two bilinear (3 $\times$ 3)-matrix multiplication algorithms of
complexity 25.
\newblock {\em Moscow U. Comp. Math. Cyber.}, 42(1):23--30, 2018.
\bibitem{Chowdhury2019}
S.~Chowdhury, T.~Gebhart, S.~Huntsman, and M.~Yutin.
\newblock Path homologies of deep feedforward networks.
\newblock In {\em ICMLA}, 2019.
\bibitem{Chowdhury2018}
S.~Chowdhury and F.~M\'emoli.
\newblock A functorial {D}owker theorem and persistent homology of asymmetric
networks.
\newblock {\em J. Appl. Comp. Topology}, 2(1):115, 2018.
\bibitem{courtois2011new}
N.~T. Courtois, G.~V. Bard, and D.~Hulme.
\newblock A new general-purpose method to multiply 3 $\times$ 3 matrices using
only 23 multiplications.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.2830}, 2011.
\bibitem{DiSumma_2011}
M.~{Di Summa}, A.~Grosso, and M.~Locatelli.
\newblock Complexity of the critical node problem over trees.
\newblock {\em Comp. Operations Res.}, 38(12):1766--1774, 2011.
\bibitem{dinh2012}
T.~N. Dinh, Y.~Xuan, M.~T. Thai, P.~M. Pardalos, and T.~Znati.
\newblock On new approaches of assessing network vulnerability: hardness and
approximation.
\newblock {\em IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking}, 20(2):609--619, 2012.
\bibitem{Dowker1952}
C.~H. Dowker.
\newblock Homology groups of relations.
\newblock {\em Ann. Math.}, 56:84, 1952.
\bibitem{Du2019}
X.~Du, B.~Chen, Y.~Li, J.~Guo, Y.~Zhou, Y.~Liu, and Y.~Jiang.
\newblock {LEOPARD}: identifying vulnerable code for vulnerability assessment
through program metrics.
\newblock In {\em ICSE}, 2019.
\bibitem{Dullien2009}
T.~Dullien and S.~Porst.
\newblock {REIL}: a platform-independent intermediate representation of
disassembled code for static code analysis.
\newblock In {\em CanSecWest}, 2009.
\bibitem{Duran2011}
D.~Duran, D.~Weston, and M.~Miller.
\newblock Targeted taint driven fuzzing using software metrics.
\newblock In {\em CanSecWest}, 2011.
\bibitem{Eagle2011}
C.~Eagle.
\newblock {\em The IDA Pro Book: The Unofficial Guide to the World's Most
Popular Disassembler}.
\newblock No Starch Press, 2011.
\bibitem{Ebert2016}
C.~Ebert and J.~Cain.
\newblock Cyclomatic complexity.
\newblock {\em IEEE Soft.}, 33:27, 2016.
\bibitem{Edelsbrunner2010}
H.~Edelsbrunner and J.~L. Harer.
\newblock {\em Computational Topology: An Introduction}.
\newblock AMS, 2010.
\bibitem{Erdmann2017}
M.~Erdmann.
\newblock Topology of privacy: lattice structures and information bubbles for
inference and obfuscation.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04130}, 2017.
\bibitem{fajstrup2016directed}
L.~Fajstrup, E.~Goubault, E.~Haucourt, S.~Mimram, and M.~Raussen.
\newblock {\em Directed Algebraic Topology and Concurrency}.
\newblock Springer, 2016.
\bibitem{Ghrist_2008}
R.~Ghrist.
\newblock Barcodes: the persistent topology of data.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 45(1):61, 2008.
\bibitem{GhristEAT}
R.~Ghrist.
\newblock {\em Elementary Applied Topology}.
\newblock Createspace, 2014.
\bibitem{Ghrist2012}
R.~Ghrist, D.~Lipsky, J.~Derenick, and A.~Speranzon.
\newblock Topological landmark-based navigation and mapping.
\newblock {\em preprint}, 2012.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2018}
A.~Grigor'yan, R.~Jimenez, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock On the path homology theory of digraphs and {Eilenberg-Steenrod}
axioms.
\newblock {\em Homology Homotopy Appl.}, 20:179, 2018.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2018b}
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, V.~Vershinin, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Path homology theory of multigraphs and quivers.
\newblock {\em Forum Math.}, 30:1319, 2018.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2014}
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Graphs associated with simplicial complexes.
\newblock {\em Homology Homotopy Appl.}, 16:295, 2014.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2017}
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homologies of graphs and {K}\"unneth formulas.
\newblock {\em Comm. Anal. Geom.}, 25:969, 2017.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2012}
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homologies of path complexes and digraphs.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.2834}, 2012.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2014b}
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homotopy theory for digraphs.
\newblock {\em Pure Appl. Math. Quart.}, 10:619, 2014.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2015}
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Cohomology of digraphs and (undirected) graphs.
\newblock {\em Asian J. Math.}, 19:887, 2015.
\bibitem{Gueye_2010}
A.~Gueye, J.~C. Walrand, and V.~Anantharam.
\newblock Design of network topology in an adversarial environment.
\newblock In {\em Decision and Game Theory for Security}, pages 1--20.
Springer, 2010.
\bibitem{Hatcher_2002}
A.~Hatcher.
\newblock {\em Algebraic Topology}.
\newblock Cambridge, 2002.
\bibitem{herlihy2014distributed}
M.~Herlihy, D.~Kozlov, and S.~Rajsbaum.
\newblock {\em Distributed Computing Through Combinatorial Topology}.
\newblock Morgan Kaufmann, 2014.
\bibitem{heule2019new}
M.~J.~H. Heule, M.~Kauers, and M.~Seidl.
\newblock New ways to multiply 3 $\times$ 3-matrices.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10192}, 2019.
\bibitem{Huntsman2018}
S.~Huntsman.
\newblock Topological mixture estimation.
\newblock In {\em ICML}, 2018.
\bibitem{Huntsman2020}
S.~Huntsman.
\newblock Generalizing cyclomatic complexity via path homology.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00944}, 2020.
\bibitem{Iozzo2010}
V.~Iozzo.
\newblock 0-knowledge fuzzing.
\newblock In {\em Black Hat DC}, 2010.
\bibitem{Jain_2003}
K.~Jain, J.~Padhye, V.~Padmanabhan, and L.~Qiu.
\newblock Impact of interference on multi-hop wireless network performance.
\newblock In {\em MobiCom}, 2003.
\bibitem{johnson1986noncommutative}
R.~W. Johnson and A.~M. McLoughlin.
\newblock Noncommutative bilinear algorithms for 3 $\times$ 3 matrix
multiplication.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Comp.}, 15(2):595--603, 1986.
\bibitem{Joslyn_2016}
C.~Joslyn, B.~Praggastis, E.~Purvine, A.~Sathanur, M.~Robinson, and
S.~Ranshous.
\newblock Local homology dimension as a network science measure.
\newblock In {\em SIAM Workshop on Network Science}, Boston, July 2016.
\bibitem{knuth1997art}
D.~E. Knuth.
\newblock {\em The Art of Computer Programming}, volume~3.
\newblock Pearson, 1997.
\bibitem{laderman1976noncommutative}
J.~D. Laderman.
\newblock A noncommutative algorithm for multiplying 3 $\times$ 3 matrices
using 23 multiplications.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 82(1):126--128, 1976.
\bibitem{landsberg2017geometry}
J.~M. Landsberg.
\newblock {\em Geometry and Complexity Theory}.
\newblock Cambridge, 2017.
\bibitem{Lee_2007}
J.-W. Lee, M.~Chiang, and R.~Calderbank.
\newblock Utility-optimal random-access control.
\newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm.}, 6(7):2741--2751, 2007.
\bibitem{makarov1986algorithm}
Oleg~M Makarov.
\newblock An algorithm for multiplying 3$\times$ 3 matrices.
\newblock {\em USSR Comp. Math. Math. Phys.}, 26(1):179--180, 1986.
\bibitem{McCabe1976}
T.~J. McCabe.
\newblock A complexity measure.
\newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng.}, SE-2:308, 1976.
\bibitem{Medeiros2017}
N.~Medeiros, N.~Ivaki, P.~Costa, and M.~Vieira.
\newblock Software metrics as indicators of security vulnerabilities.
\newblock In {\em ISSRE}, 2017.
\bibitem{Mesnard2016}
F.~Mesnard, \'E. Payet, and W.~Vanhoof.
\newblock Towards a framework for algorithm recognition in binary code.
\newblock In {\em PPDP}, 2016.
\bibitem{Nandagopal_2000}
T.~Nandagopal, T.-E. Kim, X.~Gao, and V.~Bharghavan.
\newblock Achieving {MAC} layer fairness in wireless packet networks.
\newblock In {\em MobiCom}, pages 87--–98, 2002.
\bibitem{nielson1992semantics}
H.~R. Nielson and F.~Nielson.
\newblock {\em Semantics with Applications}.
\newblock Springer, 1992.
\bibitem{Noubir_2004}
G.~Noubir.
\newblock On connectivity in \emph{ad hoc} networks under jamming using
directional antennas and mobility.
\newblock In {\em Wired/Wireless Internet Comm.}, pages 186--200. Springer,
2004.
\bibitem{Oudot2015}
S.~Y. Oudot.
\newblock {\em Persistence Theory: From Quiver Representations to Data
Analysis}.
\newblock AMS, 2015.
\bibitem{richardson1969some}
D.~Richardson.
\newblock Some undecidable problems involving elementary functions of a real
variable.
\newblock {\em J. Symb. Logic}, 33(4):514--520, 1969.
\bibitem{RobinsonGlobalSIP2014}
M.~Robinson.
\newblock Analyzing wireless communication network vulnerability with
homological invariants.
\newblock In {\em GlobalSIP}, 2014.
\bibitem{Robinson_2014}
M.~Robinson.
\newblock {\em Topological Signal Processing}.
\newblock Springer, 2014.
\bibitem{robinson2017sheaf}
M.~Robinson.
\newblock Sheaf and duality methods for analyzing multi-model systems.
\newblock In {\em Recent Applications of Harmonic Analysis to Function Spaces,
Differential Equations, and Data Science}, pages 653--703. Springer, 2017.
\bibitem{Scoville_2019}
N.~A. Scoville.
\newblock {\em Discrete Morse Theory}.
\newblock American Mathematical Society.
\bibitem{Shalaby2017}
M.~Shalaby, T.~Mehrez, A.~El-Mougy, K.~Abdulnasser, and A.~Al-Safty.
\newblock Automatic algorithm recognition of source-code using machine
learning.
\newblock In {\em ICMLA}, 2017.
\bibitem{strassen1969gaussian}
V.~Strassen.
\newblock Gaussian elimination is not optimal.
\newblock {\em Numerische Mathematik}, 13(4):354--356, 1969.
\bibitem{Taherkhani2010}
A.~Taherkhani, A.~Korhonen, and L.~Malmi.
\newblock Recognizing algorithms using language constructs, software metrics,
and roles of variables: an experiment with sorting algorithms.
\newblock {\em Computer J.}, 54:1049--1066, 2010.
\bibitem{wachs2007poset}
M.~L. Wachs.
\newblock Poset topology: tools and applications.
\newblock In E.~Miller, V.~Reiner, and B.~Sturmfels, editors, {\em Geometric
Combinatorics}.
\bibitem{winograd1971multiplication}
S.~Winograd.
\newblock On multiplication of 2 $\times$ 2 matrices.
\newblock {\em Linear Algebra Appl.}, 4(4):381--388, 1971.
\bibitem{Yang_2002}
X.~Yang and N.~Vaidya.
\newblock Priority scheduling in wireless \emph{ad hoc} networks.
\newblock In {\em MobiHoc}, 2002.
\bibitem{yanofsky2017galois}
N.~S. Yanofsky.
\newblock Galois theory of algorithms.
\newblock In {\em Rohit Parikh on Logic, Language and Society}, pages 323--347.
Springer, 2017.
\bibitem{zomorodian2005topology}
A.~J. Zomorodian.
\newblock {\em Topology for Computing}.
\newblock Cambridge, 2005.
\end{thebibliography}{10}10
\bibitem{nsnam}nsnam
The {NS-2}NS-2 network simulator.
\newblock {\tt http://www.nsnam.org/}\tt http://www.nsnam.org/.
\newblock Accessed: 2016-05-23.
\bibitem{Alves2016}Alves2016
H.~Alves, B.~Fonseca, and N.~Antunes.
\newblock Software metrics and security vulnerabilities: dataset and
exploratory study.
\newblock In {\em IDCC}\em IDCC, 2016.
\bibitem{ambrose2020topological}ambrose2020topological
K.~Ambrose, S.~Huntsman, M.~Robinson, and M.~Yutin.
\newblock Topological differential testing.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00976}\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00976, 2020.
\bibitem{Arulselvan_2009}Arulselvan_2009
A.~Arulselvan, C.~W. Commander, L.~Elefteriadou, and P.~M. Pardalos.
\newblock Detecting critical nodes in sparse graphs.
\newblock {\em Comp. Operations Res.}\em Comp. Operations Res., 36(7):2193--2200, 2009.
\bibitem{Atkin1974}Atkin1974
R.~Atkin.
\newblock {\em Mathematical Structure in Human Affairs}\em Mathematical Structure in Human Affairs.
\newblock Heinemann, 1974.
\bibitem{ballard2019geometry}ballard2019geometry
G.~Ballard, C.~Ikenmeyer, J.M. Landsberg, and N.~Ryder.
\newblock The geometry of rank decompositions of matrix multiplication {II}II: 3
$\times$\times 3 matrices.
\newblock {\em J. Pure Appl. Algebra}\em J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 223(8):3205--3224, 2019.
\bibitem{barmak2011algebraic}barmak2011algebraic
J.~A. Barmak.
\newblock {\em Algebraic Topology of Finite Topological Spaces and
Applications}\em Algebraic Topology of Finite Topological Spaces and
Applications.
\newblock Springer, 2011.
\bibitem{berger2019equivalent}berger2019equivalent
G.~O. Berger, , P.-A. Absil, L.~{De Lathauwer}De Lathauwer, R.~M. Jungers, and M.~{Van
Barel}Van
Barel.
\newblock Equivalent polyadic decompositions of matrix multiplication tensors.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03950}\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03950, 2019.
\bibitem{Carlsson2009}Carlsson2009
G.~Carlsson.
\newblock Topology and data.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 46:255--308, 2009.
\bibitem{Chiang_2007}Chiang_2007
M.~Chiang, S.~Low, R.~Calderbank, and J.~Doyle.
\newblock Layering as optimization decomposition: a mathematical theory of
network architectures.
\newblock {\em Proc. IEEE}\em Proc. IEEE, 95(1), January 2007.
\bibitem{chokaev2018two}chokaev2018two
B.~V. Chokaev and G.~N. Shumkin.
\newblock Two bilinear (3 $\times$\times 3)-matrix multiplication algorithms of
complexity 25.
\newblock {\em Moscow U. Comp. Math. Cyber.}\em Moscow U. Comp. Math. Cyber., 42(1):23--30, 2018.
\bibitem{Chowdhury2019}Chowdhury2019
S.~Chowdhury, T.~Gebhart, S.~Huntsman, and M.~Yutin.
\newblock Path homologies of deep feedforward networks.
\newblock In {\em ICMLA}\em ICMLA, 2019.
\bibitem{Chowdhury2018}Chowdhury2018
S.~Chowdhury and F.~M\'emoli.
\newblock A functorial {D}Dowker theorem and persistent homology of asymmetric
networks.
\newblock {\em J. Appl. Comp. Topology}\em J. Appl. Comp. Topology, 2(1):115, 2018.
\bibitem{courtois2011new}courtois2011new
N.~T. Courtois, G.~V. Bard, and D.~Hulme.
\newblock A new general-purpose method to multiply 3 $\times$\times 3 matrices using
only 23 multiplications.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.2830}\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.2830, 2011.
\bibitem{DiSumma_2011}DiSumma_2011
M.~{Di Summa}Di Summa, A.~Grosso, and M.~Locatelli.
\newblock Complexity of the critical node problem over trees.
\newblock {\em Comp. Operations Res.}\em Comp. Operations Res., 38(12):1766--1774, 2011.
\bibitem{dinh2012}dinh2012
T.~N. Dinh, Y.~Xuan, M.~T. Thai, P.~M. Pardalos, and T.~Znati.
\newblock On new approaches of assessing network vulnerability: hardness and
approximation.
\newblock {\em IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking}\em IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, 20(2):609--619, 2012.
\bibitem{Dowker1952}Dowker1952
C.~H. Dowker.
\newblock Homology groups of relations.
\newblock {\em Ann. Math.}\em Ann. Math., 56:84, 1952.
\bibitem{Du2019}Du2019
X.~Du, B.~Chen, Y.~Li, J.~Guo, Y.~Zhou, Y.~Liu, and Y.~Jiang.
\newblock {LEOPARD}LEOPARD: identifying vulnerable code for vulnerability assessment
through program metrics.
\newblock In {\em ICSE}\em ICSE, 2019.
\bibitem{Dullien2009}Dullien2009
T.~Dullien and S.~Porst.
\newblock {REIL}REIL: a platform-independent intermediate representation of
disassembled code for static code analysis.
\newblock In {\em CanSecWest}\em CanSecWest, 2009.
\bibitem{Duran2011}Duran2011
D.~Duran, D.~Weston, and M.~Miller.
\newblock Targeted taint driven fuzzing using software metrics.
\newblock In {\em CanSecWest}\em CanSecWest, 2011.
\bibitem{Eagle2011}Eagle2011
C.~Eagle.
\newblock {\em The IDA Pro Book: The Unofficial Guide to the World's Most
Popular Disassembler}\em The IDA Pro Book: The Unofficial Guide to the World's Most
Popular Disassembler.
\newblock No Starch Press, 2011.
\bibitem{Ebert2016}Ebert2016
C.~Ebert and J.~Cain.
\newblock Cyclomatic complexity.
\newblock {\em IEEE Soft.}\em IEEE Soft., 33:27, 2016.
\bibitem{Edelsbrunner2010}Edelsbrunner2010
H.~Edelsbrunner and J.~L. Harer.
\newblock {\em Computational Topology: An Introduction}\em Computational Topology: An Introduction.
\newblock AMS, 2010.
\bibitem{Erdmann2017}Erdmann2017
M.~Erdmann.
\newblock Topology of privacy: lattice structures and information bubbles for
inference and obfuscation.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04130}\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04130, 2017.
\bibitem{fajstrup2016directed}fajstrup2016directed
L.~Fajstrup, E.~Goubault, E.~Haucourt, S.~Mimram, and M.~Raussen.
\newblock {\em Directed Algebraic Topology and Concurrency}\em Directed Algebraic Topology and Concurrency.
\newblock Springer, 2016.
\bibitem{Ghrist_2008}Ghrist_2008
R.~Ghrist.
\newblock Barcodes: the persistent topology of data.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 45(1):61, 2008.
\bibitem{GhristEAT}GhristEAT
R.~Ghrist.
\newblock {\em Elementary Applied Topology}\em Elementary Applied Topology.
\newblock Createspace, 2014.
\bibitem{Ghrist2012}Ghrist2012
R.~Ghrist, D.~Lipsky, J.~Derenick, and A.~Speranzon.
\newblock Topological landmark-based navigation and mapping.
\newblock {\em preprint}\em preprint, 2012.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2018}Grigoryan2018
A.~Grigor'yan, R.~Jimenez, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock On the path homology theory of digraphs and {Eilenberg-Steenrod}Eilenberg-Steenrod
axioms.
\newblock {\em Homology Homotopy Appl.}\em Homology Homotopy Appl., 20:179, 2018.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2018b}Grigoryan2018b
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, V.~Vershinin, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Path homology theory of multigraphs and quivers.
\newblock {\em Forum Math.}\em Forum Math., 30:1319, 2018.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2014}Grigoryan2014
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Graphs associated with simplicial complexes.
\newblock {\em Homology Homotopy Appl.}\em Homology Homotopy Appl., 16:295, 2014.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2017}Grigoryan2017
A.~Grigor'yan, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homologies of graphs and {K}K\"unneth formulas.
\newblock {\em Comm. Anal. Geom.}\em Comm. Anal. Geom., 25:969, 2017.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2012}Grigoryan2012
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homologies of path complexes and digraphs.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.2834}\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.2834, 2012.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2014b}Grigoryan2014b
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Homotopy theory for digraphs.
\newblock {\em Pure Appl. Math. Quart.}\em Pure Appl. Math. Quart., 10:619, 2014.
\bibitem{Grigoryan2015}Grigoryan2015
A.~Grigor'yan, L.~Yong, Yu. Muranov, and S.-T. Yau.
\newblock Cohomology of digraphs and (undirected) graphs.
\newblock {\em Asian J. Math.}\em Asian J. Math., 19:887, 2015.
\bibitem{Gueye_2010}Gueye_2010
A.~Gueye, J.~C. Walrand, and V.~Anantharam.
\newblock Design of network topology in an adversarial environment.
\newblock In {\em Decision and Game Theory for Security}\em Decision and Game Theory for Security, pages 1--20.
Springer, 2010.
\bibitem{Hatcher_2002}Hatcher_2002
A.~Hatcher.
\newblock {\em Algebraic Topology}\em Algebraic Topology.
\newblock Cambridge, 2002.
\bibitem{herlihy2014distributed}herlihy2014distributed
M.~Herlihy, D.~Kozlov, and S.~Rajsbaum.
\newblock {\em Distributed Computing Through Combinatorial Topology}\em Distributed Computing Through Combinatorial Topology.
\newblock Morgan Kaufmann, 2014.
\bibitem{heule2019new}heule2019new
M.~J.~H. Heule, M.~Kauers, and M.~Seidl.
\newblock New ways to multiply 3 $\times$\times 3-matrices.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10192}\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10192, 2019.
\bibitem{Huntsman2018}Huntsman2018
S.~Huntsman.
\newblock Topological mixture estimation.
\newblock In {\em ICML}\em ICML, 2018.
\bibitem{Huntsman2020}Huntsman2020
S.~Huntsman.
\newblock Generalizing cyclomatic complexity via path homology.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00944}\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00944, 2020.
\bibitem{Iozzo2010}Iozzo2010
V.~Iozzo.
\newblock 0-knowledge fuzzing.
\newblock In {\em Black Hat DC}\em Black Hat DC, 2010.
\bibitem{Jain_2003}Jain_2003
K.~Jain, J.~Padhye, V.~Padmanabhan, and L.~Qiu.
\newblock Impact of interference on multi-hop wireless network performance.
\newblock In {\em MobiCom}\em MobiCom, 2003.
\bibitem{johnson1986noncommutative}johnson1986noncommutative
R.~W. Johnson and A.~M. McLoughlin.
\newblock Noncommutative bilinear algorithms for 3 $\times$\times 3 matrix
multiplication.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Comp.}\em SIAM J. Comp., 15(2):595--603, 1986.
\bibitem{Joslyn_2016}Joslyn_2016
C.~Joslyn, B.~Praggastis, E.~Purvine, A.~Sathanur, M.~Robinson, and
S.~Ranshous.
\newblock Local homology dimension as a network science measure.
\newblock In {\em SIAM Workshop on Network Science}\em SIAM Workshop on Network Science, Boston, July 2016.
\bibitem{knuth1997art}knuth1997art
D.~E. Knuth.
\newblock {\em The Art of Computer Programming}\em The Art of Computer Programming, volume~3.
\newblock Pearson, 1997.
\bibitem{laderman1976noncommutative}laderman1976noncommutative
J.~D. Laderman.
\newblock A noncommutative algorithm for multiplying 3 $\times$\times 3 matrices
using 23 multiplications.
\newblock {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.}\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 82(1):126--128, 1976.
\bibitem{landsberg2017geometry}landsberg2017geometry
J.~M. Landsberg.
\newblock {\em Geometry and Complexity Theory}\em Geometry and Complexity Theory.
\newblock Cambridge, 2017.
\bibitem{Lee_2007}Lee_2007
J.-W. Lee, M.~Chiang, and R.~Calderbank.
\newblock Utility-optimal random-access control.
\newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm.}\em IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., 6(7):2741--2751, 2007.
\bibitem{makarov1986algorithm}makarov1986algorithm
Oleg~M Makarov.
\newblock An algorithm for multiplying 3$\times$\times 3 matrices.
\newblock {\em USSR Comp. Math. Math. Phys.}\em USSR Comp. Math. Math. Phys., 26(1):179--180, 1986.
\bibitem{McCabe1976}McCabe1976
T.~J. McCabe.
\newblock A complexity measure.
\newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng.}\em IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng., SE-2:308, 1976.
\bibitem{Medeiros2017}Medeiros2017
N.~Medeiros, N.~Ivaki, P.~Costa, and M.~Vieira.
\newblock Software metrics as indicators of security vulnerabilities.
\newblock In {\em ISSRE}\em ISSRE, 2017.
\bibitem{Mesnard2016}Mesnard2016
F.~Mesnard, \'E. Payet, and W.~Vanhoof.
\newblock Towards a framework for algorithm recognition in binary code.
\newblock In {\em PPDP}\em PPDP, 2016.
\bibitem{Nandagopal_2000}Nandagopal_2000
T.~Nandagopal, T.-E. Kim, X.~Gao, and V.~Bharghavan.
\newblock Achieving {MAC}MAC layer fairness in wireless packet networks.
\newblock In {\em MobiCom}\em MobiCom, pages 87--–98, 2002.
\bibitem{nielson1992semantics}nielson1992semantics
H.~R. Nielson and F.~Nielson.
\newblock {\em Semantics with Applications}\em Semantics with Applications.
\newblock Springer, 1992.
\bibitem{Noubir_2004}Noubir_2004
G.~Noubir.
\newblock On connectivity in \emph{ad hoc} networks under jamming using
directional antennas and mobility.
\newblock In {\em Wired/Wireless Internet Comm.}\em Wired/Wireless Internet Comm., pages 186--200. Springer,
2004.
\bibitem{Oudot2015}Oudot2015
S.~Y. Oudot.
\newblock {\em Persistence Theory: From Quiver Representations to Data
Analysis}\em Persistence Theory: From Quiver Representations to Data
Analysis.
\newblock AMS, 2015.
\bibitem{richardson1969some}richardson1969some
D.~Richardson.
\newblock Some undecidable problems involving elementary functions of a real
variable.
\newblock {\em J. Symb. Logic}\em J. Symb. Logic, 33(4):514--520, 1969.
\bibitem{RobinsonGlobalSIP2014}RobinsonGlobalSIP2014
M.~Robinson.
\newblock Analyzing wireless communication network vulnerability with
homological invariants.
\newblock In {\em GlobalSIP}\em GlobalSIP, 2014.
\bibitem{Robinson_2014}Robinson_2014
M.~Robinson.
\newblock {\em Topological Signal Processing}\em Topological Signal Processing.
\newblock Springer, 2014.
\bibitem{robinson2017sheaf}robinson2017sheaf
M.~Robinson.
\newblock Sheaf and duality methods for analyzing multi-model systems.
\newblock In {\em Recent Applications of Harmonic Analysis to Function Spaces,
Differential Equations, and Data Science}\em Recent Applications of Harmonic Analysis to Function Spaces,
Differential Equations, and Data Science, pages 653--703. Springer, 2017.
\bibitem{Scoville_2019}Scoville_2019
N.~A. Scoville.
\newblock {\em Discrete Morse Theory}\em Discrete Morse Theory.
\newblock American Mathematical Society.
\bibitem{Shalaby2017}Shalaby2017
M.~Shalaby, T.~Mehrez, A.~El-Mougy, K.~Abdulnasser, and A.~Al-Safty.
\newblock Automatic algorithm recognition of source-code using machine
learning.
\newblock In {\em ICMLA}\em ICMLA, 2017.
\bibitem{strassen1969gaussian}strassen1969gaussian
V.~Strassen.
\newblock Gaussian elimination is not optimal.
\newblock {\em Numerische Mathematik}\em Numerische Mathematik, 13(4):354--356, 1969.
\bibitem{Taherkhani2010}Taherkhani2010
A.~Taherkhani, A.~Korhonen, and L.~Malmi.
\newblock Recognizing algorithms using language constructs, software metrics,
and roles of variables: an experiment with sorting algorithms.
\newblock {\em Computer J.}\em Computer J., 54:1049--1066, 2010.
\bibitem{wachs2007poset}wachs2007poset
M.~L. Wachs.
\newblock Poset topology: tools and applications.
\newblock In E.~Miller, V.~Reiner, and B.~Sturmfels, editors, {\em Geometric
Combinatorics}\em Geometric
Combinatorics.
\bibitem{winograd1971multiplication}winograd1971multiplication
S.~Winograd.
\newblock On multiplication of 2 $\times$\times 2 matrices.
\newblock {\em Linear Algebra Appl.}\em Linear Algebra Appl., 4(4):381--388, 1971.
\bibitem{Yang_2002}Yang_2002
X.~Yang and N.~Vaidya.
\newblock Priority scheduling in wireless \emph{ad hoc} networks.
\newblock In {\em MobiHoc}\em MobiHoc, 2002.
\bibitem{yanofsky2017galois}yanofsky2017galois
N.~S. Yanofsky.
\newblock Galois theory of algorithms.
\newblock In {\em Rohit Parikh on Logic, Language and Society}\em Rohit Parikh on Logic, Language and Society, pages 323--347.
Springer, 2017.
\bibitem{zomorodian2005topology}zomorodian2005topology
A.~J. Zomorodian.
\newblock {\em Topology for Computing}\em Topology for Computing.
\newblock Cambridge, 2005.
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2008.03299
| 5
|
16,060
|
\label{intro}
Transportation infrastructure is essential to modern society, forming the backbone of economic development by enabling the efficient movement of people and goods. Among these infrastructures, road networks are critical, and maintaining their integrity is imperative to ensure public safety and economic efficiency. Pavement distresses such as cracks and potholes which develop on these road networks not only compromise safety but also lead to costly repairs if not promptly detected and addressed. Accurately detecting these distresses remains a significant challenge due to their irregular shapes, varying sizes, diverse surface textures, and environmental factors such as fluctuating lighting conditions and the presence of debris. Traditionally, the detection of these distresses has relied on manual inspections, which are not only time-consuming and labor-intensive but also prone to subjectivity and inconsistency. These limitations underscore the critical need for automated solutions to improve efficiency and accuracy. To address these challenges, researchers have increasingly turned to automated approaches that leverage advanced image processing and machine learning techniques, offering a more robust and scalable alternative to traditional methods. While early image processing approaches were often inadequate due to the complex nature of pavement surfaces, the introduction of deep learning models particularly convolutional neural networks has significantly advanced the field. These models effectively identify and segment pavement distresses by learning hierarchical features and capturing spatial context. Nevertheless, despite these advancements, current models still face significant limitations that hinder their performance, necessitating further refinements to achieve accurate pavement distress segmentation.
Several deep learning approaches have been proposed for pavement distress segmentation. For instance, Wen et al. proposed PDSNet \cite{PDSNET}, an efficient framework achieving an MIoU of 83.7\% on manually collected 2D and 3D private pavement dataset. However, it struggles with small and tiny cracks . Sarmiento \cite{Sarmiento2021PavementDD} utilized YOLOv4 for detecting and DeepLabv3 for segmenting the pavement distresses. While effective for simpler distresses like delaminations, both models struggle with tiny cracks, scaling, and texture variations, leading to misclassifications and false negatives. Li et al \cite{deeplabv3+} further introduced a variant of DeepLabV3+ with an adaptive probabilistic sampling method and external attention for pavement distress segmentation. It was evaluated on the CRACK500 dataset, achieving a Mean Intersection over Union (MIoU) of 54.91\%.. Tong et al. introduced Evidential Segmentation Transformer (ES-Transformer) \cite{evidential}, combining Dempster–Shafer theory with a transformer backbone for improved segmentation and calibration. Evaluated on the Crack500 dataset, it achieved a Mean Intersection over Union (MIoU) of 59.85\%, demonstrating superior performance. However, the architecture introduced is computationally expensive since the transformer architecture used scales quadratically with the input data. Kyem et al. \cite{kyem2024pavecapmultimodalframeworkcomprehensive} used YOLOv8 and the Segment Anything Model (SAM) for segmentation in their PaveCap framework, utilizing SAM’s zero-shot capability for generating binary masks. However, the method struggled with accurately segmenting mixed or overlapping pavement distresses. Owor et al. also introduced PaveSAM \cite{pavesam}, a zero-shot segmentation model fine-tuned for pavement distresses using bounding box prompts, significantly reducing labeling costs and achieving strong performance. One problem with this model is its inability to segment fine-grained distresses in the pavement images.
Despite the significant progress achieved with deep learning models for pavement distress segmentation, several limitations remain. One significant, yet unresolved challenge in pavement distress segmentation is accurately detecting and segmenting very small cracks or distresses. Identifying these tiny defects early enables preventive maintenance before they develop into more extensive damage. By intervening at this early stage, maintenance teams can prevent minor issues from escalating, thereby reducing repair costs and minimizing disruptions to traffic. To achieve these outcomes, it is essential to adopt advanced models capable of effectively handling both very small and larger cracks. However, achieving this goal is not without challenges, as many existing models struggle with multi-scale feature representation, which hinders their ability to effectively detect both small-scale and large-scale cracks\cite{Zhang2024-td}. In addition to this challenge is the lack of a comprehensive understanding of global context which often limits the model’s ability to capture large-scale spatial relationships and distinguish between interconnected distresses and noise. This results in inconsistent segmentation of extensive distress patterns such as longitudinal and alligator cracks. Furthermore, computational inefficiency compounds these issues, as processing the high-resolution images required for precise segmentation demands significant computational resources \cite{Huang2024-wy}. This challenge limits the feasibility of real-time deployment and scalability for large-scale pavement monitoring systems. These above limitations highlight the pressing need for innovative approaches to enhance segmentation performance and address the shortcomings of existing methods.
To address the challenges of pavement distress segmentation, we propose Context-CrackNet, an encoder-decoder architecture built around two key innovations: the Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM) and the Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM). The RFEM, embedded in the decoder pathway, prioritizes fine-grained features, enabling precise segmentation of small and tiny cracks. This ensures early detection of subtle distresses that traditional models often miss. The CAGM, positioned before the bottleneck, captures global context efficiently by integrating linear self-attention into its design. This allows the model to process high-resolution images and segment larger cracks, such as longitudinal and alligator cracks, without excessive computational costs.. The main contributions of our research has been outlined below:
\begin{itemize}
\item Proposed \textbf{Context-CrackNet}, a novel efficient architecture that integrates specialized modules designed for comprehensive crack detection at varying scales in high-resolution pavement images.
\item Developed a \textbf{Region-Focused Enhancement Module} (RFEM) that employs targeted feature enhancement to capture fine-grained details of subtle cracks, enabling precise segmentation of small-scale pavement distress patterns.
\item Introduced a \textbf{Context-Aware Global Module} (CAGM) that utilizes global contextual information to effectively identify and segment large-scale distress patterns while maintaining computational efficiency across high-resolution images.
\item Trained and evaluated our proposed architecture on 10 publicly available crack datasets alongside several existing state-of-the-art segmentation models. Our proposed architecture consistently outperformed these models, achieving state-of-the-art performance across all benchmarks.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Proposed \textbf{Context-CrackNet}, a novel efficient architecture that integrates specialized modules designed for comprehensive crack detection at varying scales in high-resolution pavement images.
\item Developed a \textbf{Region-Focused Enhancement Module} (RFEM) that employs targeted feature enhancement to capture fine-grained details of subtle cracks, enabling precise segmentation of small-scale pavement distress patterns.
\item Introduced a \textbf{Context-Aware Global Module} (CAGM) that utilizes global contextual information to effectively identify and segment large-scale distress patterns while maintaining computational efficiency across high-resolution images.
\item Trained and evaluated our proposed architecture on 10 publicly available crack datasets alongside several existing state-of-the-art segmentation models. Our proposed architecture consistently outperformed these models, achieving state-of-the-art performance across all benchmarks.
\end{itemize}
\item Proposed \textbf{Context-CrackNet}, a novel efficient architecture that integrates specialized modules designed for comprehensive crack detection at varying scales in high-resolution pavement images.
\item Developed a \textbf{Region-Focused Enhancement Module} (RFEM) that employs targeted feature enhancement to capture fine-grained details of subtle cracks, enabling precise segmentation of small-scale pavement distress patterns.
\item Introduced a \textbf{Context-Aware Global Module} (CAGM) that utilizes global contextual information to effectively identify and segment large-scale distress patterns while maintaining computational efficiency across high-resolution images.
\item Trained and evaluated our proposed architecture on 10 publicly available crack datasets alongside several existing state-of-the-art segmentation models. Our proposed architecture consistently outperformed these models, achieving state-of-the-art performance across all benchmarks.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2501.14413
| 1
|
16,061
|
\label{related-works}
Early attempts at pavement crack detection primarily relied on low-level image properties such as gradient, brightness, shape, and texture, as well as pixel intensity variance, edge orientation, and local binary patterns. Classic edge detection algorithms such as Sobel and Canny \cite{NHATDUC2018203}, Gabor filter-based methods \cite{gabor-filter, Zalama2013, Chen2020Gabor}, Prewitt \cite{Zhang2013Matched}, Roberts Cross \cite{Zhang2013Matched}, and Laplacian of Gaussian \cite{Dorafshan2019Benchmarking} identified crack characteristics by examining intensity variations and local directional patterns. Some researchers also employed threshold-based strategies such as Adaptive and Localized Thresholding \cite{Zhang2017An, Li2023Crack, 2022Using}, Triple-Thresholds Approach \cite{Peng2020A}, Otsu thresholding \cite{otsu, otsu-v2, otsu-v3} and wavelet transformations \cite{wavelet} to isolate cracks from background textures. Building on these foundations, early machine learning approaches \cite{Liang2018An, Hoang2018A, Ahmadi2021An, Barkiah2023Overcoming, Müller2021Machine, ZOU2012227, Zhang2014AutomaticCD, random-forest-struct} framed crack extraction as a classification problem, distinguishing between crack and non-crack pixels using hand-engineered features.
However, these traditional methods often struggled with generalization \cite{Gao2020Autonomous}. Differences between training and testing datasets commonly led to performance degradation, and detecting tiny cracks proved particularly challenging. Moreover, the reliance on handcrafted features made these methods sensitive to environmental variations and morphological differences in cracks \cite {early-detection}. Noise and other forms of interference further undermined their stability and applicability.
With the rapid advancement of deep learning \cite{LeCun2015}, researchers turned to Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) \cite{cnns} to develop more robust solutions. CNNs excel at feature extraction, inspiring the creation of models for crack image classification, crack detection and crack segmentation. For instance, Li et al. \cite{crack-classification} proposed a CNN-based method to classify pavement patches into five categories using 3D pavement images, demonstrating high accuracy in distinguishing between the various crack types. Zhang et al. \cite{crack-first-seg} developed a deep convolutional neural network (ConvNet) for pavement crack detection, learning features directly from raw image patches and outperforming traditional hand-crafted approaches. Subsequently, Liu et al. \cite{deepcrack} proposed DeepCrack, a deep hierarchical CNN for pixel-wise crack segmentation, incorporating multi-scale feature fusion, deeply-supervised nets, and guided filtering learning methods that steadily improved segmentation performance.
Despite these advancements, significant challenges persisted. Many state-of-the-art methods emphasized performance metrics but gave limited attention to extracting subtle, tiny crack features. Additionally, as models became more complex, their computational and memory requirements increased, hindering deployment on resource-limited devices. Recognizing these issues, researchers began exploring lightweight model architectures capable of balancing detection accuracy with efficiency.
Li et al. \cite{carnet} proposed CarNet, a lightweight encoder-decoder achieving an ODS F-score of 0.514 on Sun520 with an inference speed of 104 FPS, balancing performance and efficiency. Similarly, Zhou et al. \cite{split-exchange} introduced LightCrackNet, a lightweight crack detection model designed to optimize performance and efficiency. The model utilizes Split Exchange Convolution (SEConv) and Multi-Scale Feature Exchange (MSFE) modules, achieving an F1-score of 0.867 DeepCrack dataset with only 1.3M parameters and 8 GFLOPs. In parallel, Omar et al. (Almaqtari et al. 2024) adopted a modular-based approach, including a Parallel Feature Module (PFM) and an Edge Extraction Module (EEM), to produce a model with just 0.87M parameters and 6.56G FLOPs, while attaining an F1-score of 0.864 and a comparable MIoU on the DeepCrack dataset.
Nevertheless, significant hurdles remain in achieving high-performance, efficient crack detection. Although CNN-based methods excel at extracting local features, they struggle to aggregate global context when used alone, limiting their ability to identify tiny or small cracks. Traditional self-attention transformer models offer a promising solution for capturing global relationships, but their quadratic scaling with input data makes them computationally intensive and impractical for certain applications. Linear self-attention transformers \cite{linformer, soft, Lee2018Set} when used with CNNs address this challenge by reducing computational complexity, enabling efficient integration of global and local cues while focusing on extracting minute crack features—a key objective in the field. Some researchers have applied linear self-attention modules in different domains. For instance, Fang et al. \cite{Fang2022CLFormer} proposed CLFormer, a lightweight transformer combining convolutional embedding and linear self-attention (LSA) for bearing fault diagnosis. It achieves strong robustness and high accuracy under noise and limited data, with only 4.88K parameters and 0.12 MFLOPs. Guo et al. \cite{Guo2021Beyond} introduced External Attention, a lightweight mechanism with linear complexity using two learnable memory layers, enhancing generalization and efficiency across visual tasks like segmentation and detection.
|
Related Works
| false
|
2501.14413
| 2
|
16,062
|
\subsection{Problem Structure and Overview}
Detecting small and tiny cracks in pavement images is particularly challenging due to their subtle features, irregular shapes, and the presence of noise such as shadows and debris. Existing deep learning models often struggle with capturing these fine-grained details, underscoring the need for more precise and efficient segmentation approaches. The problem definition has been formulated mathematically below.
Let \( I \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C} \) I \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}H \times W \times C represent a pavement image, where \( H \) H , \( W \) W , and \( C \) C denote the height, width, and number of channels, respectively. The goal is to predict a segmentation map \( \hat{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K} \) \hat{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K}H \times W \times K , where \( K \) K represents the number of classes, including the background. Mathematically, this can be expressed as learning a mapping function \( f: \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C} \to \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K} \) f: \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}H \times W \times C \to \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K}H \times W \times K , such that:
\begin{equation}
\hat{S} = f(I; \theta),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\hat{S} = f(I; \theta),
\end{equation}
\hat{S} = f(I; \theta),
where \( \theta \) \theta denotes the learnable parameters of the segmentation model. The task involves accurately localizing and classifying pavement distresses of varying scales, shapes, and textures.
The proposed architecture, \textit{Context-CrackNet}, addresses these challenges by introducing two novel components: the Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM) and the Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM). The CAGM ensures efficient global context modeling, enabling the network to capture long-range dependencies and large-scale spatial relationships. The RFEM enhances the network's ability to focus on fine-grained details, ensuring precise segmentation of small and subtle distresses. Together, these components form a robust encoder-decoder framework optimized for pavement distress segmentation.
\subsection{Overall Framework}
The overall structure of \textit{Context-CrackNet} integrates global and local feature refinement seamlessly, providing a balanced approach to segmentation. The network adopts an encoder-decoder structure, where the encoder extracts hierarchical features from the input image, the bottleneck incorporates global attention mechanisms, and the decoder reconstructs the segmentation map using refined skip connections.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{overall-architecture-for-Context-CrackNet.png}
\caption{Overall Architecture of \textit{Context-CrackNet}: The proposed framework adopts an encoder-decoder structure with two novel components: the Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM) and the Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM). The ResNet-based encoder extracts hierarchical features \( \{F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4\} \), where \( F_3 \) is processed by the CAGM to model global contextual relationships and generate the contextualized feature map. The decoder pathway integrates RFEMs at each stage, which refine the skip connections between encoder features and upsampled decoder outputs. This refinement enables effective feature modulation for precise segmentation. Finally, the decoder outputs the predicted segmentation mask \( \hat{S} \), capturing fine-grained pavement distress details.}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{overall-architecture-for-Context-CrackNet.png}
\caption{Overall Architecture of \textit{Context-CrackNet}: The proposed framework adopts an encoder-decoder structure with two novel components: the Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM) and the Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM). The ResNet-based encoder extracts hierarchical features \( \{F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4\} \), where \( F_3 \) is processed by the CAGM to model global contextual relationships and generate the contextualized feature map. The decoder pathway integrates RFEMs at each stage, which refine the skip connections between encoder features and upsampled decoder outputs. This refinement enables effective feature modulation for precise segmentation. Finally, the decoder outputs the predicted segmentation mask \( \hat{S} \), capturing fine-grained pavement distress details.}
The encoder is based on a ResNet50 backbone, which extracts features at multiple levels of abstraction. For an input image \( I \) I , the encoder produces a sequence of feature maps:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\text{enc}}(I) = \{ F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4 \},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\text{enc}}(I) = \{ F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4 \},
\end{equation}
\Phi_{\text{enc}}\text{enc}(I) = \{ F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4 \},
where \( F_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{H/2 \times W/2 \times 64} \) F_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{H/2 \times W/2 \times 64}H/2 \times W/2 \times 64 represents low-level spatial features, and \( F_4 \in \mathbb{R}^{H/32 \times W/32 \times 2048} \) F_4 \in \mathbb{R}^{H/32 \times W/32 \times 2048}H/32 \times W/32 \times 2048 captures high-level semantic information. These feature maps progressively encode spatial and contextual details, forming the foundation for subsequent processing stages.
At the bottleneck, the feature map \( F_3 \) F_3 , which encapsulates rich semantic information, is passed through the Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM). The CAGM uses a linear self-attention mechanism to model long-range dependencies efficiently, reducing the computational complexity typically associated with traditional self-attention. This produces an enhanced feature map \( F_{\text{CAGM}} \) F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} , expressed mathematically as:
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{CAGM}} = f_{\text{CAGM}}(F_3),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
F_{\text{CAGM}} = f_{\text{CAGM}}(F_3),
\end{equation}
F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} = f_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM}(F_3),
where \( f_{\text{CAGM}} \) f_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} represents the operations within the module.
In the decoder pathway, the Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM) plays a critical role in refining the skip connections between the encoder and decoder. For each decoder stage \( l \) l , the RFEM processes the corresponding encoder feature map \( F_{e,l} \) F_{e,l}e,l and the upsampled feature map \( F_{d,l+1} \) F_{d,l+1}d,l+1 from the previous decoder stage. The refined feature map \( F_{\text{RFEM},l} \) F_{\text{RFEM},l}\text{RFEM},l is computed as:
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{RFEM},l} = f_{\text{RFEM}}(F_{e,l}, F_{d,l+1}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
F_{\text{RFEM},l} = f_{\text{RFEM}}(F_{e,l}, F_{d,l+1}),
\end{equation}
F_{\text{RFEM},l}\text{RFEM},l = f_{\text{RFEM}}\text{RFEM}(F_{e,l}e,l, F_{d,l+1}d,l+1),
where \( f_{\text{RFEM}} \) f_{\text{RFEM}}\text{RFEM} represents the attention mechanism used to focus on the most relevant spatial regions. This refinement ensures that critical features are emphasized while irrelevant activations are suppressed.
The decoder reconstructs the segmentation map by iteratively combining the refined features from the RFEM with the upsampled feature maps. Starting with the output of the CAGM, the decoder applies a series of upsampling and refinement operations to produce the final segmentation map:
\begin{equation}
\hat{S} = f_{\text{decoder}}(F_{\text{RFEM}}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\hat{S} = f_{\text{decoder}}(F_{\text{RFEM}}),
\end{equation}
\hat{S} = f_{\text{decoder}}\text{decoder}(F_{\text{RFEM}}\text{RFEM}),
where \( f_{\text{decoder}} \) f_{\text{decoder}}\text{decoder} represents the decoding operations, including upsampling, concatenation, and convolution.
This framework effectively addresses the challenges associated with multi-scale feature representation and computational efficiency. By combining the strengths of the CAGM and RFEM, \textit{Context-CrackNet} achieves a balance between global context understanding and fine-grained detail enhancement, enabling robust and accurate pavement distress segmentation. The subsequent sections goes deeper into the mathematical details and implementation of the CAGM and RFEM modules.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Context-CrackNet Framework}
\label{alg:Context-CrackNet}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Input image $I \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}$
\State Predicted segmentation mask $\hat{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K}$
\State \textbf{Stage 1: Encoder Pathway}
\State $\{F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4\} \leftarrow \text{ResNetEncoder}(I)$ \Comment{Extract features}
\State \textbf{Stage 2: Bottleneck Processing}
\State $F_{\text{CAGM}} \leftarrow \text{CAGM}(F_3)$ \Comment{Global context modeling}
\State \textbf{Stage 3: Decoder Pathway}
\State Initialize $D_4 \leftarrow F_{\text{CAGM}}$ $l \in \{3, 2, 1, 0\}$
\State $D_{\text{up}} \leftarrow \text{Upsample}(D_{l+1})$ \Comment{2$\times$ spatial size}
\State $D_l \leftarrow \text{RFEM}(F_l, D_{\text{up}})$ \Comment{Feature refinement}
\State \textbf{Stage 4: Final Prediction}
\State $\hat{S} \leftarrow \text{Conv2D}(D_0)$ \Comment{K-class prediction}
\State $\hat{S}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Context-CrackNet Framework}
\label{alg:Context-CrackNet}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Input image $I \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}$
\State Predicted segmentation mask $\hat{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K}$
\State \textbf{Stage 1: Encoder Pathway}
\State $\{F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4\} \leftarrow \text{ResNetEncoder}(I)$ \Comment{Extract features}
\State \textbf{Stage 2: Bottleneck Processing}
\State $F_{\text{CAGM}} \leftarrow \text{CAGM}(F_3)$ \Comment{Global context modeling}
\State \textbf{Stage 3: Decoder Pathway}
\State Initialize $D_4 \leftarrow F_{\text{CAGM}}$ $l \in \{3, 2, 1, 0\}$
\State $D_{\text{up}} \leftarrow \text{Upsample}(D_{l+1})$ \Comment{2$\times$ spatial size}
\State $D_l \leftarrow \text{RFEM}(F_l, D_{\text{up}})$ \Comment{Feature refinement}
\State \textbf{Stage 4: Final Prediction}
\State $\hat{S} \leftarrow \text{Conv2D}(D_0)$ \Comment{K-class prediction}
\State $\hat{S}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Context-CrackNet Framework}
\label{alg:Context-CrackNet}
[1]
\State Input image $I \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}$I \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}H \times W \times C
\State Predicted segmentation mask $\hat{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K}$\hat{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times K}H \times W \times K
\State \textbf{Stage 1: Encoder Pathway}
\State $\{F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4\} \leftarrow \text{ResNetEncoder}(I)$\{F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4\} \leftarrow \text{ResNetEncoder}(I) \Comment{Extract features}Extract features
\State \textbf{Stage 2: Bottleneck Processing}
\State $F_{\text{CAGM}} \leftarrow \text{CAGM}(F_3)$F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} \leftarrow \text{CAGM}(F_3) \Comment{Global context modeling}Global context modeling
\State \textbf{Stage 3: Decoder Pathway}
\State Initialize $D_4 \leftarrow F_{\text{CAGM}}$D_4 \leftarrow F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} $l \in \{3, 2, 1, 0\}$l \in \{3, 2, 1, 0\}
\State $D_{\text{up}} \leftarrow \text{Upsample}(D_{l+1})$D_{\text{up}}\text{up} \leftarrow \text{Upsample}(D_{l+1}l+1) \Comment{2$\times$ spatial size}2$\times$\times spatial size
\State $D_l \leftarrow \text{RFEM}(F_l, D_{\text{up}})$D_l \leftarrow \text{RFEM}(F_l, D_{\text{up}}\text{up}) \Comment{Feature refinement}Feature refinement
\State \textbf{Stage 4: Final Prediction}
\State $\hat{S} \leftarrow \text{Conv2D}(D_0)$\hat{S} \leftarrow \text{Conv2D}(D_0) \Comment{K-class prediction}K-class prediction
\State $\hat{S}$\hat{S}
\subsection{Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM)}
The \textbf{Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM)} addresses the challenge of capturing long-range dependencies and global contextual relationships in the feature map \( F_3 \) F_3 . This capability is crucial for accurately segmenting large-scale pavement distresses, such as longitudinal and alligator cracks, which require an understanding of spatial relationships across distant regions. To achieve this, the CAGM employs a linear self-attention mechanism, reducing the quadratic complexity of traditional self-attention to linear, thereby enabling efficient processing of high-resolution images.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{contextual.png}
\caption{Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM): The module processes the input feature map \( F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W} \), reshaping it into a sequence \( X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C} \), where \( N = H \times W \). Using a \textbf{Linear Self-Attention Mechanism}, query (\( Q \)), key (\( K \)), and value (\( V \)) projections generate \textbf{Global Context Sequences} (\( Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k} \)). These sequences are reconstructed into the \textbf{Contextualized Feature Map} (\( F_{\text{CAGM}} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W} \)), embedding global dependencies efficiently.}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{contextual.png}
\caption{Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM): The module processes the input feature map \( F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W} \), reshaping it into a sequence \( X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C} \), where \( N = H \times W \). Using a \textbf{Linear Self-Attention Mechanism}, query (\( Q \)), key (\( K \)), and value (\( V \)) projections generate \textbf{Global Context Sequences} (\( Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k} \)). These sequences are reconstructed into the \textbf{Contextualized Feature Map} (\( F_{\text{CAGM}} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W} \)), embedding global dependencies efficiently.}
Let \( F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W} \) F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}B \times C \times H \times W represent the input feature map at the bottleneck stage, where \( B \) B is the batch size, \( C \) C is the number of channels, and \( H, W \) H, W are the spatial dimensions. The first step in the CAGM is to transform the spatial dimensions \( H \) H and \( W \) W into a sequence of length \( N = H \times W \) N = H \times W . This can be mathematically expressed as:
\begin{equation}
X_b = \{ F_3[b, :, i, j] \mid i \in \{1, \ldots, H\}, j \in \{1, \ldots, W\} \}, \quad X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
X_b = \{ F_3[b, :, i, j] \mid i \in \{1, \ldots, H\}, j \in \{1, \ldots, W\} \}, \quad X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C},
\end{equation}
X_b = \{ F_3[b, :, i, j] \mid i \in \{1, \ldots, H\}, j \in \{1, \ldots, W\} \}, \quad X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C}B \times N \times C,
where \( X_b \) X_b is the reshaped feature map for the \( b \) b -th sample in the batch, and \( X \) X concatenates all spatial positions into a sequence.
The sequence \( X \) X is projected into query (\( Q \) Q ), key (\( K \) K ), and value (\( V \) V ) spaces using learned linear transformations:
\begin{equation}
Q = X W_Q, \quad K = X W_K, \quad V = X W_V,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
Q = X W_Q, \quad K = X W_K, \quad V = X W_V,
\end{equation}
Q = X W_Q, \quad K = X W_K, \quad V = X W_V,
where \( W_Q, W_K, W_V \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times d_k} \) W_Q, W_K, W_V \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times d_k}C \times d_k are learnable weight matrices, and \( d_k \) d_k is the dimensionality of the query and key vectors.
To reduce the computational cost, the key and value matrices are projected into lower-dimensional spaces:
\begin{equation}
K_{\text{proj}} = K E, \quad V_{\text{proj}} = V F,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
K_{\text{proj}} = K E, \quad V_{\text{proj}} = V F,
\end{equation}
K_{\text{proj}}\text{proj} = K E, \quad V_{\text{proj}}\text{proj} = V F,
where \( E, F \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times k} \) E, F \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times k}N \times k are learnable projection matrices, and \( k \ll N \) k \ll N is the reduced dimension of the projected key and value spaces.
The attention weights are computed as:
\begin{equation}
A = \text{softmax}\left(\frac{Q K_{\text{proj}}^\top}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right), \quad A \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times k},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
A = \text{softmax}\left(\frac{Q K_{\text{proj}}^\top}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right), \quad A \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times k},
\end{equation}
A = \text{softmax}\left(\frac{Q K_{\text{proj}}^\top}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right), \quad A \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times k}B \times N \times k,
where \( \text{softmax} \) \text{softmax} ensures the weights \( A \) A sum to 1 across the key dimension for each query.
The weighted output is then computed by aggregating the projected values:
\begin{equation}
Z = A V_{\text{proj}}, \quad Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
Z = A V_{\text{proj}}, \quad Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}.
\end{equation}
Z = A V_{\text{proj}}\text{proj}, \quad Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}B \times N \times d_k.
Finally, the output sequence \( Z \) Z is mapped back to the original channel dimension and reconstructed into its spatial structure:
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{CAGM}}[b, :, i, j] = Z[b, n] W_O, \quad n = (i-1) \times W + j,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
F_{\text{CAGM}}[b, :, i, j] = Z[b, n] W_O, \quad n = (i-1) \times W + j,
\end{equation}
F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM}[b, :, i, j] = Z[b, n] W_O, \quad n = (i-1) \times W + j,
where \( W_O \in \mathbb{R}^{d_k \times C} \) W_O \in \mathbb{R}^{d_k \times C}d_k \times C is a learnable weight matrix, and \( F_{\text{CAGM}} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W} \) F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}B \times C \times H \times W is the enhanced feature map.
By explicitly modeling global relationships across spatial regions, the CAGM integrates information from distant parts of the pavement image, enabling the network to detect and segment large-scale cracks and patterns. Its efficient linear self-attention mechanism ensures scalability, making it suitable for high-resolution images while maintaining computational feasibility.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM)}
\label{alg:cagm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\State Input feature map $F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}$
\Ensure
\State Contextualized feature map $F_{\text{CAGM}} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}$
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Reshaping:}
\State $X \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(F_3)$ \Comment{$X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C}$, where $N = H \times W$}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Linear Self-Attention:}
\State $Q \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$ \Comment{Query projection}
\State $K \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$ \Comment{Key projection}
\State $V \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$ \Comment{Value projection}
\State $A \leftarrow \text{SDP-Attention}(Q, K, V)$ \Comment{Scaled dot-product attention}
\State $Z \leftarrow \text{Concat}[A, X]$ \Comment{$Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}$}
\State $Z \leftarrow \text{Linear}(Z)$ \Comment{Final projection}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Global Context Reconstruction:}
\State $F_{\text{CAGM}} \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(Z, [B, C, H, W])$ \Comment{Restore spatial dimensions}
\Return $F_{\text{CAGM}}$
\Statex \textbf{Note:} SDP-Attention computes $\text{softmax}(\frac{QK^T}{\sqrt{d_k}})V$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM)}
\label{alg:cagm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\State Input feature map $F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}$
\Ensure
\State Contextualized feature map $F_{\text{CAGM}} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}$
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Reshaping:}
\State $X \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(F_3)$ \Comment{$X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C}$, where $N = H \times W$}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Linear Self-Attention:}
\State $Q \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$ \Comment{Query projection}
\State $K \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$ \Comment{Key projection}
\State $V \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$ \Comment{Value projection}
\State $A \leftarrow \text{SDP-Attention}(Q, K, V)$ \Comment{Scaled dot-product attention}
\State $Z \leftarrow \text{Concat}[A, X]$ \Comment{$Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}$}
\State $Z \leftarrow \text{Linear}(Z)$ \Comment{Final projection}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Global Context Reconstruction:}
\State $F_{\text{CAGM}} \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(Z, [B, C, H, W])$ \Comment{Restore spatial dimensions}
\Return $F_{\text{CAGM}}$
\Statex \textbf{Note:} SDP-Attention computes $\text{softmax}(\frac{QK^T}{\sqrt{d_k}})V$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Context-Aware Global Module (CAGM)}
\label{alg:cagm}
[1]
\Require
\State Input feature map $F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}$F_3 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}B \times C \times H \times W
\Ensure
\State Contextualized feature map $F_{\text{CAGM}} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}$F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C \times H \times W}B \times C \times H \times W
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Reshaping:}
\State $X \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(F_3)$X \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(F_3) \Comment{$X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C}$, where $N = H \times W$}$X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C}$X \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times C}B \times N \times C, where $N = H \times W$N = H \times W
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Linear Self-Attention:}
\State $Q \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$Q \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X) \Comment{Query projection}Query projection
\State $K \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$K \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X) \Comment{Key projection}Key projection
\State $V \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X)$V \leftarrow \text{Linear}(X) \Comment{Value projection}Value projection
\State $A \leftarrow \text{SDP-Attention}(Q, K, V)$A \leftarrow \text{SDP-Attention}(Q, K, V) \Comment{Scaled dot-product attention}Scaled dot-product attention
\State $Z \leftarrow \text{Concat}[A, X]$Z \leftarrow \text{Concat}[A, X] \Comment{$Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}$}$Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}$Z \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times N \times d_k}B \times N \times d_k
\State $Z \leftarrow \text{Linear}(Z)$Z \leftarrow \text{Linear}(Z) \Comment{Final projection}Final projection
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Global Context Reconstruction:}
\State $F_{\text{CAGM}} \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(Z, [B, C, H, W])$F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM} \leftarrow \text{Reshape}(Z, [B, C, H, W]) \Comment{Restore spatial dimensions}Restore spatial dimensions
\Return $F_{\text{CAGM}}$F_{\text{CAGM}}\text{CAGM}
\Statex \textbf{Note:} SDP-Attention computes $\text{softmax}(\frac{QK^T}{\sqrt{d_k}})V$\text{softmax}(\frac{QK^T}{\sqrt{d_k}})V
\subsection{Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM)}
The \textbf{Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM)} refines the skip connections between the encoder and decoder to enhance the segmentation of fine-grained details such as small and subtle pavement cracks. By dynamically modulating encoder features using spatial context from the decoder, the RFEM ensures that relevant features are emphasized, while irrelevant ones are suppressed. This capability is critical for capturing the intricate structures of small distresses that traditional methods often overlook.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{refinement-module-segmentation-v2.png}
\caption{Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM): The module refines encoder features \( F_{e,l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e} \) and decoder features \( F_{d,l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d} \) by transforming them into intermediate features \( X \) and \( G \), respectively, via \( 1 \times 1 \) convolutions. These are combined to compute an \textbf{Attention Map} through element-wise addition, a ReLU activation, and a sigmoid activation. The attention-modulated encoder features are concatenated with the upsampled decoder features and passed through a \textbf{Conv Block} (\( \text{Conv} (3 \times 3) \to \text{BatchNorm} \to \text{ReLU} \) repeated twice), producing the refined output feature map \( F_{\text{RFEM},l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_{\text{RFEM}} \times H_{\text{output}} \times W_{\text{output}}} \). This process emphasizes fine-grained details while maintaining contextual relevance.}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{refinement-module-segmentation-v2.png}
\caption{Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM): The module refines encoder features \( F_{e,l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e} \) and decoder features \( F_{d,l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d} \) by transforming them into intermediate features \( X \) and \( G \), respectively, via \( 1 \times 1 \) convolutions. These are combined to compute an \textbf{Attention Map} through element-wise addition, a ReLU activation, and a sigmoid activation. The attention-modulated encoder features are concatenated with the upsampled decoder features and passed through a \textbf{Conv Block} (\( \text{Conv} (3 \times 3) \to \text{BatchNorm} \to \text{ReLU} \) repeated twice), producing the refined output feature map \( F_{\text{RFEM},l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_{\text{RFEM}} \times H_{\text{output}} \times W_{\text{output}}} \). This process emphasizes fine-grained details while maintaining contextual relevance.}
Let \( F_{e,l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e} \) F_{e,l}e,l \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e}B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e represent the feature map from the encoder at stage \( l \) l , and \( F_{d,l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d} \) F_{d,l+1}d,l+1 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d}B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d represent the upsampled feature map from the preceding decoder stage. The RFEM computes a refined feature map \( F_{\text{RFEM},l} \) F_{\text{RFEM},l}\text{RFEM},l by integrating attention-driven feature enhancement and concatenation as follows:
First, the encoder and decoder feature maps are linearly transformed into a shared intermediate space:
\begin{equation}
G = F_{d,l+1} \ast W_g + b_g, \quad X = F_{e,l} \ast W_x + b_x,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
G = F_{d,l+1} \ast W_g + b_g, \quad X = F_{e,l} \ast W_x + b_x,
\end{equation}
G = F_{d,l+1}d,l+1 \ast W_g + b_g, \quad X = F_{e,l}e,l \ast W_x + b_x,
where \( W_g, W_x \) W_g, W_x are learnable convolutional kernels, and \( b_g, b_x \) b_g, b_x are corresponding biases. These transformations ensure compatibility between the encoder and decoder feature maps in terms of dimensionality and spatial resolution.
The transformed features are then combined via element-wise addition, followed by the application of a non-linear activation function to generate an attention activation map:
\begin{equation}
Y = \max(0, G + X),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
Y = \max(0, G + X),
\end{equation}
Y = \max(0, G + X),
where the \(\max(0, \cdot)\)\max(0, \cdot) operation ensures non-linearity by setting all negative values to zero. This introduces the capability to model complex spatial interactions effectively.
To focus on the most salient regions, the module computes an attention coefficient map \( \Psi \) \Psi through a linear transformation followed by a sigmoid activation:
\begin{equation}
\Psi = \frac{1}{1 + \exp\left(-\left(Y \ast W_\psi + b_\psi\right)\right)},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\Psi = \frac{1}{1 + \exp\left(-\left(Y \ast W_\psi + b_\psi\right)\right)},
\end{equation}
\Psi = \frac{1}{1 + \exp\left(-\left(Y \ast W_\psi + b_\psi\right)\right)},
where \( W_\psi \) W_\psi and \( b_\psi \) b_\psi are learnable parameters. The sigmoid function normalizes the attention coefficients to the range \([0, 1]\)[0, 1], representing the relative importance of each spatial location.
The encoder feature map is refined by modulating it with the attention coefficients:
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{refined}} = \Psi \odot F_{e,l},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
F_{\text{refined}} = \Psi \odot F_{e,l},
\end{equation}
F_{\text{refined}}\text{refined} = \Psi \odot F_{e,l}e,l,
where \( \odot \) \odot denotes element-wise multiplication, ensuring that only the most critical features are retained for subsequent processing.
The refined encoder feature map is combined with the upsampled decoder feature map along the channel dimension:
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{concat}}[b, c, i, j] =
\begin{cases}
F_{\text{refined}}[b, c, i, j], & \text{for } c < C_{\text{refined}}, \\
F_{d,l+1}[b, c - C_{\text{refined}}, i, j], & \text{for } c \geq C_{\text{refined}},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
F_{\text{concat}}[b, c, i, j] =
\begin{cases}
F_{\text{refined}}[b, c, i, j], & \text{for } c < C_{\text{refined}}, \\
F_{d,l+1}[b, c - C_{\text{refined}}, i, j], & \text{for } c \geq C_{\text{refined}},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
F_{\text{concat}}\text{concat}[b, c, i, j] =
F_{\text{refined}}\text{refined}[b, c, i, j], & \text{for } c < C_{\text{refined}}\text{refined}, \\
F_{d,l+1}d,l+1[b, c - C_{\text{refined}}\text{refined}, i, j], & \text{for } c \geq C_{\text{refined}}\text{refined},
where \( C_{\text{refined}} \) C_{\text{refined}}\text{refined} is the number of channels in \( F_{\text{refined}} \) F_{\text{refined}}\text{refined} . This operation combines the spatially refined encoder features with the contextual information from the decoder by aligning them along the channel axis.
Finally, the concatenated features are processed through a convolutional block to produce the updated decoder feature map:
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{RFEM},l} = \gamma(F_{\text{concat}}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
F_{\text{RFEM},l} = \gamma(F_{\text{concat}}),
\end{equation}
F_{\text{RFEM},l}\text{RFEM},l = \gamma(F_{\text{concat}}\text{concat}),
where \( \gamma(\cdot) \) \gamma(\cdot) represents the operations of the convolutional block, typically including convolution, normalization, and activation functions.
By focusing on spatially relevant features and suppressing noise, the RFEM significantly enhances the model's ability to detect and segment fine-grained pavement distresses, such as hairline cracks, that are often missed by conventional approaches. This module complements the global context modeling of the CAGM by ensuring that local, fine-scale details are not overshadowed by broader spatial relationships.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM)}
\label{alg:rfem}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\State Encoder feature map $F_{e,l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e}$
\State Decoder feature map $F_{d,l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d}$
\Ensure
\State Refined feature map $F_{\text{RFEM},l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_{\text{RFEM}} \times H_{\text{output}} \times W_{\text{output}}}$
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Transformation:}
\State $X \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}(F_{e,l})$ \Comment{Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_e \times W_e}$}
\State $G \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}(F_{d,l+1})$ \Comment{Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_d \times W_d}$}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Attention Map Generation:}
\State $Y \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(G + X)$ \Comment{Element-wise addition}
\State $\Psi \leftarrow \sigma(\text{Conv}_{1\times1}(Y))$ \Comment{$\sigma$: Sigmoid activation}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Modulation:}
\State $F_{\text{refined}} \leftarrow \Psi \otimes F_{e,l}$ \Comment{Channel-wise multiplication}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Fusion:}
\State $F_{\text{concat}} \leftarrow \text{Concat}([F_{\text{refined}}, F_{d,l+1}])$
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Conv Block Refinement:}
\For{$i \leftarrow 1$ \textbf{to} $2$}
\State $F_{\text{RFEM},l} \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(\text{BatchNorm}(\text{Conv}_{3\times3}(F_{\text{concat}})))$
\EndFor
\Return $F_{\text{RFEM},l}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM)}
\label{alg:rfem}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
\State Encoder feature map $F_{e,l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e}$
\State Decoder feature map $F_{d,l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d}$
\Ensure
\State Refined feature map $F_{\text{RFEM},l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_{\text{RFEM}} \times H_{\text{output}} \times W_{\text{output}}}$
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Transformation:}
\State $X \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}(F_{e,l})$ \Comment{Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_e \times W_e}$}
\State $G \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}(F_{d,l+1})$ \Comment{Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_d \times W_d}$}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Attention Map Generation:}
\State $Y \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(G + X)$ \Comment{Element-wise addition}
\State $\Psi \leftarrow \sigma(\text{Conv}_{1\times1}(Y))$ \Comment{$\sigma$: Sigmoid activation}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Modulation:}
\State $F_{\text{refined}} \leftarrow \Psi \otimes F_{e,l}$ \Comment{Channel-wise multiplication}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Fusion:}
\State $F_{\text{concat}} \leftarrow \text{Concat}([F_{\text{refined}}, F_{d,l+1}])$
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Conv Block Refinement:}
\For{$i \leftarrow 1$ \textbf{to} $2$}
\State $F_{\text{RFEM},l} \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(\text{BatchNorm}(\text{Conv}_{3\times3}(F_{\text{concat}})))$
\EndFor
\Return $F_{\text{RFEM},l}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Region-Focused Enhancement Module (RFEM)}
\label{alg:rfem}
[1]
\Require
\State Encoder feature map $F_{e,l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e}$F_{e,l}e,l \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e}B \times C_e \times H_e \times W_e
\State Decoder feature map $F_{d,l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d}$F_{d,l+1}d,l+1 \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d}B \times C_d \times H_d \times W_d
\Ensure
\State Refined feature map $F_{\text{RFEM},l} \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_{\text{RFEM}} \times H_{\text{output}} \times W_{\text{output}}}$F_{\text{RFEM},l}\text{RFEM},l \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times C_{\text{RFEM}} \times H_{\text{output}} \times W_{\text{output}}}B \times C_{\text{RFEM}}\text{RFEM} \times H_{\text{output}}\text{output} \times W_{\text{output}}\text{output}
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Transformation:}
\State $X \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}(F_{e,l})$X \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}1\times1(F_{e,l}e,l) \Comment{Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_e \times W_e}$}Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_e \times W_e}$\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_e \times W_e}B \times F_{\text{int}}\text{int} \times H_e \times W_e
\State $G \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}(F_{d,l+1})$G \leftarrow \text{Conv}_{1\times1}1\times1(F_{d,l+1}d,l+1) \Comment{Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_d \times W_d}$}Transform to $\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_d \times W_d}$\mathbb{R}^{B \times F_{\text{int}} \times H_d \times W_d}B \times F_{\text{int}}\text{int} \times H_d \times W_d
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Attention Map Generation:}
\State $Y \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(G + X)$Y \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(G + X) \Comment{Element-wise addition}Element-wise addition
\State $\Psi \leftarrow \sigma(\text{Conv}_{1\times1}(Y))$\Psi \leftarrow \sigma(\text{Conv}_{1\times1}1\times1(Y)) \Comment{$\sigma$: Sigmoid activation}$\sigma$\sigma: Sigmoid activation
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Modulation:}
\State $F_{\text{refined}} \leftarrow \Psi \otimes F_{e,l}$F_{\text{refined}}\text{refined} \leftarrow \Psi \otimes F_{e,l}e,l \Comment{Channel-wise multiplication}Channel-wise multiplication
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Feature Fusion:}
\State $F_{\text{concat}} \leftarrow \text{Concat}([F_{\text{refined}}, F_{d,l+1}])$F_{\text{concat}}\text{concat} \leftarrow \text{Concat}([F_{\text{refined}}\text{refined}, F_{d,l+1}d,l+1])
\vspace{1mm}
\State \textbf{Conv Block Refinement:}
\For{$i \leftarrow 1$ \textbf{to} $2$}$i \leftarrow 1$i \leftarrow 1 \textbf{to} $2$2
\State $F_{\text{RFEM},l} \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(\text{BatchNorm}(\text{Conv}_{3\times3}(F_{\text{concat}})))$F_{\text{RFEM},l}\text{RFEM},l \leftarrow \text{ReLU}(\text{BatchNorm}(\text{Conv}_{3\times3}3\times3(F_{\text{concat}}\text{concat})))
\EndFor
\Return $F_{\text{RFEM},l}$F_{\text{RFEM},l}\text{RFEM},l
\subsection{Loss Functions}
The proposed framework uses tailored loss functions to optimize the segmentation task across both binary and multi-class scenarios, ensuring accurate prediction of pavement distress patterns. These loss functions are carefully designed to balance class contributions, address class imbalance, and effectively capture fine-grained details.
\subsubsection{Binary Segmentation Loss}
For binary segmentation tasks, where the goal is to classify each pixel as either belonging to a crack (\(1\)1) or not (\(0\)0), we employ a combination of the Binary Cross Entropy (BCE) loss and the Dice loss. The combined loss is formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{binary}} = \alpha \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{BCE}} + \beta \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{binary}} = \alpha \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{BCE}} + \beta \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}},
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{binary}}\text{binary} = \alpha \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{BCE}}\text{BCE} + \beta \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}}\text{Dice},
where \( \alpha \) \alpha and \( \beta \) \beta are weights that control the contribution of each term.
\paragraph{1. Binary Dice Loss}1. Binary Dice Loss
The Dice loss, designed to handle imbalances in pixel classes, measures the overlap between the predicted segmentation map \( \hat{S} \) \hat{S} and the ground truth \( S \) S .
Let \( \hat{S} \in [0, 1]^{H \times W} \) \hat{S} \in [0, 1]^{H \times W}H \times W and \( S \in \{0, 1\}^{H \times W} \) S \in \{0, 1\}^{H \times W}H \times W denote the predicted and ground truth maps, respectively. The Dice loss is computed as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}} = 1 - \frac{2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_i S_i + \epsilon}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_i + \sum_{i=1}^{N} S_i + \epsilon},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}} = 1 - \frac{2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_i S_i + \epsilon}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_i + \sum_{i=1}^{N} S_i + \epsilon},
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}}\text{Dice} = 1 - \frac{2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_i S_i + \epsilon}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_i + \sum_{i=1}^{N} S_i + \epsilon},
where \( \epsilon \) \epsilon is a smoothing constant to prevent division by zero, and \( N = H \times W \) N = H \times W represents the total number of pixels. The Dice loss encourages the model to maximize the overlap between \( \hat{S} \) \hat{S} and \( S \) S , ensuring robust segmentation of small and subtle cracks.
\paragraph{2. Binary Cross Entropy Loss}2. Binary Cross Entropy Loss
The BCE loss penalizes the deviation between predicted probabilities and ground truth labels. It is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{BCE}} = - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left[ S_i \log(\hat{S}_i) + (1 - S_i) \log(1 - \hat{S}_i) \right].
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{BCE}} = - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left[ S_i \log(\hat{S}_i) + (1 - S_i) \log(1 - \hat{S}_i) \right].
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{BCE}}\text{BCE} = - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}i=1^{N}N \left[ S_i \log(\hat{S}_i) + (1 - S_i) \log(1 - \hat{S}_i) \right].
This term provides pixel-wise supervision, complementing the Dice loss by ensuring accurate classification even in cases of severe class imbalance.
\subsubsection{Multi-Class Segmentation Loss}
For multi-class segmentation tasks, where the pavement image contains multiple types of distresses, we adopt a combined loss function comprising the Cross-Entropy (CE) loss and a multi-class Dice loss:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{multi-class}} = \gamma \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}} + \delta \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{multi-class}} = \gamma \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}} + \delta \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}},
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{multi-class}}\text{multi-class} = \gamma \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}}\text{CE} + \delta \, \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}}\text{Dice},
where \( \gamma \) \gamma and \( \delta \) \delta are weighting factors.
\paragraph{1. Multi-Class Dice Loss}1. Multi-Class Dice Loss
The Multi-Class Dice Loss extends the principles of the Binary Dice Loss to multi-class segmentation tasks, ensuring fair optimization for each class, including the background. By individually evaluating the overlap between the predicted segmentation map \( \hat{S}_k \) \hat{S}_k and the ground truth map \( S_k \) S_k for each class \( k \) k , it addresses class imbalances and promotes accurate segmentation across all categories.
Let \( \hat{S}_k \) \hat{S}_k and \( S_k \) S_k represent the predicted and ground truth maps for class \( k \) k , respectively, where \( k \in \{1, \dots, K\} \) k \in \{1, \dots, K\} . The Dice loss for class \( k \) k is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice},k} = 1 - \frac{2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_{k,i} S_{k,i} + \epsilon}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_{k,i} + \sum_{i=1}^{N} S_{k,i} + \epsilon},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice},k} = 1 - \frac{2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_{k,i} S_{k,i} + \epsilon}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_{k,i} + \sum_{i=1}^{N} S_{k,i} + \epsilon},
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice},k}\text{Dice},k = 1 - \frac{2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_{k,i} S_{k,i} + \epsilon}{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{S}_{k,i} + \sum_{i=1}^{N} S_{k,i} + \epsilon},
where \( N \) N denotes the total number of pixels and \( \epsilon \) \epsilon is a small constant to avoid division by zero.
The total multi-class Dice loss is calculated as the average Dice loss across all \( K \) K classes:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice},k}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice},k}.
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice}}\text{Dice} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}k=1^{K}K \mathcal{L}_{\text{Dice},k}\text{Dice},k.
This formulation encourages precise segmentation across all classes, ensuring small or underrepresented categories are effectively captured.
\paragraph{2. Cross-Entropy Loss}2. Cross-Entropy Loss
The CE loss measures the pixel-wise classification error, weighted by class frequencies to handle imbalance.
Let \( \omega_k \) \omega_k denote the weight for class \( k \) k , derived from the inverse class frequency. The CE loss is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}} = - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \omega_k S_{k,i} \log(\hat{S}_{k,i}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}} = - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \omega_k S_{k,i} \log(\hat{S}_{k,i}),
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}}\text{CE} = - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}i=1^{N}N \sum_{k=1}k=1^{K}K \omega_k S_{k,i}k,i \log(\hat{S}_{k,i}k,i),
where \( \omega_k \) \omega_k ensures that the model does not bias toward dominant classes.
|
Method
| false
|
2501.14413
| 3
|
16,063
|
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet}, we conduct comprehensive experiments designed to evaluate its performance on pavement distress segmentation tasks. This section details the datasets used, the implementation specifics of \textit{Context-CrackNet}, and the experimental setup. Furthermore, ablation studies are performed to assess the contribution of each module and design choice to the overall performance. Finally, we compare \textit{Context-CrackNet} with state-of-the-art methods to highlight its advantages in addressing the challenges of fine-grained and multi-scale pavement distress detection.
\subsection{Dataset}
\label{sec:dataset}
To train and evaluate the proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet}, we utilize 10 publicly available binary crack datasets: CFD \cite{CFD}, Crack500 \cite{CRACK500}, CrackTree200 \cite{cracktree200}, DeepCrack \cite{deepcrack}, Eugen Miller \cite{eugen_miller}, Forest \cite{forest}, GAPs \cite{GAPS384}, Rissbilder \cite{Volker}, Sylvie \cite{sylvie}, and Volker \cite{Volker}. These datasets comprehensively cover diverse crack detection scenarios, including road cracks, concrete cracks in tunnels, and wall cracks. This diversity demonstrates the robustness of \textit{Context-CrackNet} beyond pavement applications, highlighting its potential to handle various types of cracks across different construction materials and structures.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Datasets and their corresponding crack types}
\label{tab:crack_types}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset name} & \textbf{Crack type} \\
\hline
CFD & Road crack \\
CRACK500 & Road crack \\
CrackTree200 & Road crack \\
DeepCrack & Road crack \\
Forest & Road crack \\
GAPs & Road crack \\
Sylvie & Road crack \\
Rissbilder & Wall crack \\
Volker & Wall crack \\
Eugen Miller & Concrete crack on Tunnels \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Datasets and their corresponding crack types}
\label{tab:crack_types}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset name} & \textbf{Crack type} \\
\hline
CFD & Road crack \\
CRACK500 & Road crack \\
CrackTree200 & Road crack \\
DeepCrack & Road crack \\
Forest & Road crack \\
GAPs & Road crack \\
Sylvie & Road crack \\
Rissbilder & Wall crack \\
Volker & Wall crack \\
Eugen Miller & Concrete crack on Tunnels \\
\hline
The datasets exhibit a significant class imbalance, with approximately 97.2\% of pixels belonging to the background class and only 2.8\% corresponding to the crack class. This imbalance reflects the real-world challenges of identifying subtle cracks against vast background regions.
For uniformity, all images and corresponding masks were resized to a resolution of \( 448 \times 448 \) 448 \times 448 pixels. The datasets were then split into training and testing sets with an 80:20 ratio, ensuring a balanced distribution of samples across both sets.
To further enhance the diversity of the training data and improve the model's generalization capabilities, a series of data augmentation techniques were employed. These augmentations included spatial transformations such as horizontal and vertical flips, random rotations by \( 90^\circ \) 90^\circ , and shift-scale-rotate operations, which varied the spatial properties of the images while maintaining their structural integrity. Additionally, pixel-level augmentations such as Gaussian noise and color jittering were applied to introduce variations in brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue, simulating real-world variations in lighting and camera conditions.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{pavelinet-augmentation.png}
\caption{Examples of data augmentation techniques applied to crack images and their corresponding masks in the DeepCrack dataset. Augmentations include vertical flip, horizontal flip, and shift-scale-rotate, showcasing the spatial transformations employed to enhance diversity and robustness in the training dataset. The top row illustrates augmented images, while the bottom row presents their respective masks.}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{pavelinet-augmentation.png}
\caption{Examples of data augmentation techniques applied to crack images and their corresponding masks in the DeepCrack dataset. Augmentations include vertical flip, horizontal flip, and shift-scale-rotate, showcasing the spatial transformations employed to enhance diversity and robustness in the training dataset. The top row illustrates augmented images, while the bottom row presents their respective masks.}
For preprocessing, the images were normalized using the mean and standard deviation values of the ResNet backbone: \( \mu (0.485, 0.456, 0.406) \) \mu (0.485, 0.456, 0.406) and \( \sigma (0.229, 0.224, 0.225) \) \sigma (0.229, 0.224, 0.225) , respectively. This normalization step ensures compatibility with the pre-trained ResNet model used in the encoder.
By employing a diverse dataset that encompasses road, wall, and concrete cracks, the proposed framework is equipped to handle the complexities of real-world crack detection scenarios, addressing challenges such as class imbalance, varying scales, and noise effectively.
\subsubsection{Custom Dataset}
\subsection{Implementation details}
\subsubsection{Training settings}
The proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet} was implemented using the PyTorch framework. The AdamW \cite{AdamW} optimizer was used for training, with a weight decay of \( 1 \times 10^{-5} \) 1 \times 10^{-5}-5
to prevent overfitting. The initial learning rate was set to \( 1 \times 10^{-4} \) 1 \times 10^{-4}-4
, and a using an adaptive learning rate scheduler was applied to adjust the learning rate dynamically. This scheduler reduced the learning rate by a factor of 0.5 after 5 epochs of no improvement in validation loss. The model was then trained with a batch size of 32 for a total of 1000 epochs. All experiments were conducted on an NVIDIA A40 GPU with 48GB of memory, which provided the computational capacity to handle high-resolution images efficiently. Table 1 shows all the different training configurations used.
\subsubsection{Evaluation metrics}
To comprehensively evaluate the performance of the proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet} on pavement distress segmentation tasks, we employed the following segmentation metrics: Intersection over Union (IoU) score, Dice score, Precision, Recall, and F1 score. These metrics provide a holistic assessment of the model’s ability to accurately segment fine-grained and multi-scale pavement cracks, balancing considerations of overlap, correctness, and completeness.
\paragraph{\textbf{Mean Intersection over Union (mIoU)}}\textbf{Mean Intersection over Union (mIoU)}
The mean Intersection over Union (mIoU) evaluates the average overlap between the predicted segmentation map \( \hat{S}_k \) \hat{S}_k and the ground truth \( S_k \) S_k across all classes \( k \) k . For a single class \( k \) k , the IoU is defined as:
\[
\text{IoU}_k = \frac{| \hat{S}_k \cap S_k |}{| \hat{S}_k \cup S_k |} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_{k,i} S_{k,i}}{\sum_{i=1}^N (\hat{S}_{k,i} + S_{k,i} - \hat{S}_{k,i} S_{k,i})},
\]
\text{IoU}_k = \frac{| \hat{S}_k \cap S_k |}{| \hat{S}_k \cup S_k |} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_{k,i} S_{k,i}}{\sum_{i=1}^N (\hat{S}_{k,i} + S_{k,i} - \hat{S}_{k,i} S_{k,i})},
where \( N \) N denotes the total number of pixels, and \( \hat{S}_{k,i}, S_{k,i} \in \{0, 1\} \) \hat{S}_{k,i}k,i, S_{k,i}k,i \in \{0, 1\} represent the predicted and ground truth labels for pixel \( i \) i in class \( k \) k . The mIoU is then computed as the average IoU across all \( K \) K classes:
\[
\text{mIoU} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \text{IoU}_k.
\]
\text{mIoU} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}k=1^K \text{IoU}_k.
This metric provides a comprehensive assessment of segmentation performance by considering the overlap for all classes and averaging them to yield a single performance score.
\paragraph{\textbf{Dice Score}}\textbf{Dice Score}
The Dice score, also known as the Sørensen–Dice coefficient, quantifies the overlap between the predicted and ground truth segmentation maps. It is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\text{Dice} = \frac{2 | \hat{S} \cap S |}{| \hat{S} | + | S |} = \frac{2 \sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_i S_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_i + \sum_{i=1}^N S_i}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\text{Dice} = \frac{2 | \hat{S} \cap S |}{| \hat{S} | + | S |} = \frac{2 \sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_i S_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_i + \sum_{i=1}^N S_i}.
\end{equation}
\text{Dice} = \frac{2 | \hat{S} \cap S |}{| \hat{S} | + | S |} = \frac{2 \sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_i S_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{S}_i + \sum_{i=1}^N S_i}.
Dice score emphasizes the correct segmentation of smaller regions, making it particularly useful for evaluating fine-grained crack details.
\paragraph{\textbf{Precision}}\textbf{Precision}
Precision measures the proportion of correctly identified crack pixels to the total predicted crack pixels. It is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\text{Precision} = \frac{\text{True Positives (TP)}}{\text{True Positives (TP)} + \text{False Positives (FP)}}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\text{Precision} = \frac{\text{True Positives (TP)}}{\text{True Positives (TP)} + \text{False Positives (FP)}}.
\end{equation}
\text{Precision} = \frac{\text{True Positives (TP)}}{\text{True Positives (TP)} + \text{False Positives (FP)}}.
\paragraph{\textbf{Recall}}\textbf{Recall}
Recall quantifies the ability of the model to detect all crack pixels in the ground truth. It is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\text{Recall} = \frac{\text{True Positives (TP)}}{\text{True Positives (TP)} + \text{False Negatives (FN)}}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\text{Recall} = \frac{\text{True Positives (TP)}}{\text{True Positives (TP)} + \text{False Negatives (FN)}}.
\end{equation}
\text{Recall} = \frac{\text{True Positives (TP)}}{\text{True Positives (TP)} + \text{False Negatives (FN)}}.
\paragraph{\textbf{F1 Score}}\textbf{F1 Score}
The F1 score provides a harmonic mean of Precision and Recall, balancing their trade-offs. It is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\text{F1} = 2 \cdot \frac{\text{Precision} \cdot \text{Recall}}{\text{Precision} + \text{Recall}}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\text{F1} = 2 \cdot \frac{\text{Precision} \cdot \text{Recall}}{\text{Precision} + \text{Recall}}.
\end{equation}
\text{F1} = 2 \cdot \frac{\text{Precision} \cdot \text{Recall}}{\text{Precision} + \text{Recall}}.
These metrics collectively evaluate the model’s segmentation performance, ensuring both spatial accuracy (IoU, Dice) and the balance between prediction correctness and completeness (Precision, Recall, F1).
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Model training settings.}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
\textbf{Name} & \textbf{Training setting} \\ \hline
Optimizer & AdamW \\
Learning Rate & \( 1 \times 10^{-4} \) \\
Batch Size & 32 \\
Weight Decay & \( 1 \times 10^{-5} \) \\
Number of Epochs & 1000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:training_settings}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Model training settings.}
\hline
\textbf{Name} & \textbf{Training setting} \\ \hline
Optimizer & AdamW \\
Learning Rate & \( 1 \times 10^{-4} \) 1 \times 10^{-4}-4 \\
Batch Size & 32 \\
Weight Decay & \( 1 \times 10^{-5} \) 1 \times 10^{-5}-5 \\
Number of Epochs & 1000 \\
\hline
\label{tab:training_settings}
\subsubsection{Comparison with other methods}
To evaluate the performance of the proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet}, we compared it against state-of-the-art segmentation models, including U-Net \cite{Unet}, U-Net++ \cite{Unet++}, DeepLabV3 \cite{DeepLabV3}, DeepLabV3+ \cite{deeplabv3plus}, FPN \cite{FPN}, PSPNet \cite{PSPNet}, LinkNet \cite{Linknet}, MAnet \cite{MAnet}, and PAN \cite{PAN}. All models were trained and evaluated on the same 10 crack detection datasets (see Section~\ref{sec:dataset}) under identical experimental conditions to ensure fairness. Each method used a ResNet50 encoder pre-trained on ImageNet, consistent with \textit{Context-CrackNet}.
The datasets presented diverse challenges such as varying crack patterns, scales, and noise levels, providing a robust basis for comparison. Standardized training settings, including preprocessing, augmentations, and hyperparameters, ensured that performance differences reflected the strengths of the architectures rather than experimental inconsistencies.
|
Experiments
| false
|
2501.14413
| 4
|
16,064
|
This section presents the results of the proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet} across multiple datasets. Both qualitative and quantitative evaluations are discussed, highlighting the model's performance in comparison with existing state-of-the-art methods.
\subsection{Qualitative Analysis of Predictions}
In this section, we analyze the qualitative results of \textit{Context-CrackNet} compared to existing models, including MAnet, PSPNet, DeepLabV3+, and FPN. These results are evaluated across the ten diverse datasets containing different types of cracks, such as road cracks, wall cracks, and concrete cracks. The goal is to assess each model’s ability to detect both prominent and tiny cracks, which are critical for reliable structural assessment.
Figure~\ref{fig:comparison_results} shows segmentation results from various datasets. The first column displays the original crack images, followed by their ground truth masks. The subsequent columns show the predictions from \textit{Context-CrackNet} and other models. Each row represents a dataset, showcasing the models’ performance across different types of cracks.
The predictions demonstrate that \textit{Context-CrackNet} performs consistently better in detecting fine, small, and subtle cracks compared to the other models. For instance, in the CRACK500 dataset, \textit{Context-CrackNet} successfully identifies the small, interconnected cracks, which competing models often fail to detect (highlighted by red boxes). A similar trend is observed in the Rissbilder dataset, where \textit{Context-CrackNet} captures the thin wall cracks more accurately, while other models struggle with false positives or incomplete predictions.
\subsubsection{Performance on Diverse Crack Types}
The results emphasize \textit{Context-CrackNet}'s adaptability to different crack types and contexts. In the DeepCrack dataset, characterized by dense and complex crack patterns, \textit{Context-CrackNet} captures the overall structure of the cracks more effectively than models like PSPNet and DeepLabV3+, which tend to miss faint connections. Likewise, in the Eugen Miller dataset featuring tunnel cracks, \textit{Context-CrackNet} produces cleaner and more detailed predictions, showing its robustness on surfaces with uniform textures.
\subsubsection{Tiny Crack Detection and Generalization}
A key strength of \textit{Context-CrackNet} is its ability to detect tiny cracks that are often missed by other models. The red-marked areas in the predictions from competing models highlight their failure to consistently capture these smaller cracks. This reinforces the effectiveness of \textit{Context-CrackNet}'s context-aware design, which allows it to focus on both small-scale details and larger crack patterns. This capability addresses the central challenge of detecting tiny cracks, which are crucial for identifying early signs of structural damage.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{output-Context-CrackNet.png}
\caption{Visual comparison of crack detection results across various datasets. The first column displays the input images, followed by the ground truth masks in the second column. The third column shows the predictions of the proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet}, while subsequent columns present predictions from comparison models including MAnet, PSPNet, DeepLabV3+, and FPN. Rows correspond to individual datasets (e.g., CRACK500, DeepCrack, CrackTree200, etc.). The red boxes highlight areas where comparison models fail to detect tiny cracks effectively, demonstrating the superior performance of \textit{Context-CrackNet} in accurately capturing fine-grained crack details.}
\label{fig:comparison_results}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{output-Context-CrackNet.png}
\caption{Visual comparison of crack detection results across various datasets. The first column displays the input images, followed by the ground truth masks in the second column. The third column shows the predictions of the proposed \textit{Context-CrackNet}, while subsequent columns present predictions from comparison models including MAnet, PSPNet, DeepLabV3+, and FPN. Rows correspond to individual datasets (e.g., CRACK500, DeepCrack, CrackTree200, etc.). The red boxes highlight areas where comparison models fail to detect tiny cracks effectively, demonstrating the superior performance of \textit{Context-CrackNet} in accurately capturing fine-grained crack details.}
\label{fig:comparison_results}
\subsection{Quantitative Results}
The quantitative results in Tables \ref{tab:combined_results}, \ref{tab:combined_results_2}, \ref{tab:combined_results_3} demonstrate that \textit{Context-CrackNet} effectively addresses the challenge of detecting tiny and complex cracks, often missed by existing models. On the CFD dataset, it achieves the highest mIoU (\textbf{0.5668}) and Dice Score (\textbf{0.7235}), along with a recall of \textbf{0.8989}, showcasing its ability to capture subtle crack details where models like DeepLabV3 and FPN fall short.
In the CRACK500 dataset, which features diverse crack patterns, \textit{Context-CrackNet} outperforms others with an mIoU of \textbf{0.6733} and Dice Score of \textbf{0.8046}, demonstrating robust generalization to varying pavement conditions. Similarly, on CrackTree200, characterized by sparse and narrow cracks, it achieves the highest recall (\textbf{0.9386}) and Dice Score (\textbf{0.6992}), proving its sensitivity to fine-grained cracks that models such as PAN and DeepLabV3Plus often miss.
The DeepCrack dataset further highlights Context-CrackNet’s strengths, achieving an mIoU of \textbf{0.7401} and Dice Score of \textbf{0.8505}, validating its ability to detect tiny and small crack patterns with high precision. For non-road cracks in datasets like Eugen Miller and Rissbilder, \textit{Context-CrackNet} shows strong adaptability with recalls of \textbf{0.9434} and \textbf{0.8469}, outperforming models that struggle with material and texture variations.
On datasets like GAPs and Forest, where irregular crack features dominate, \textit{Context-CrackNet} consistently achieves superior metrics, confirming its effectiveness in challenging environments. Finally, on Sylvie and Volker, it maintains top performance with mIoUs of \textbf{0.6846} and \textbf{0.7668}, demonstrating its ability to handle varying complexities and environmental conditions. Figure \ref{fig:three_bar_subplots} compares \textit{Context-CrackNet} with other state-of-the-art models across the various crack datasets, highlighting Validation IoU, Dice Score, and Recall.
These results affirm that \textit{Context-CrackNet} effectively addresses the limitations of existing models by reliably detecting tiny and complex cracks across diverse datasets, reinforcing its potential for real-world applications in crack detection and infrastructure monitoring.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Validation Results of \textit{Context-CrackNet} and Other Models Across CFD, CRACK500, CrackTree200, and DeepCrack dataset}
\label{tab:combined_results}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{CFD}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3194 & 0.4842 & 0.5065 & 0.4638 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.3848 & 0.5558 & 0.5039 & 0.6195 \\
& FPN & 0.4187 & 0.5902 & 0.5033 & 0.7134 \\
& Linknet & 0.4664 & 0.6362 & 0.5951 & 0.6833 \\
& MAnet & 0.5174 & 0.6819 & 0.6901 & 0.6740 \\
& PAN & 0.3904 & 0.5616 & 0.4614 & 0.7173 \\
& PSPNet & 0.3553 & 0.5244 & 0.4084 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7322}} \\
& Unet & 0.1562 & 0.2703 & 0.8370 & 0.1611 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.5257 & 0.6891 & 0.6653 & 0.7147 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5668}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7235}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8989}} & 0.6054 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{CRACK500}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6420 & 0.7817 & 0.7612 & 0.8035 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6376 & 0.7784 & 0.7529 & 0.8060 \\
& FPN & 0.6317 & 0.7740 & 0.7460 & 0.8047 \\
& Linknet & 0.6450 & 0.7839 & 0.7855 & 0.7827 \\
& MAnet & 0.6341 & 0.7757 & 0.7408 & 0.8142 \\
& PAN & 0.6231 & 0.7674 & 0.7271 & 0.8132 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6197 & 0.7649 & 0.7058 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8356}} \\
& Unet & 0.6397 & 0.7800 & 0.7496 & 0.8133 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.6444 & 0.7835 & 0.7714 & 0.7960 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6733}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8046}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7967}} & 0.8129 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{CrackTree200}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3174 & 0.4819 & 0.4305 & 0.5471 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.2789 & 0.4361 & 0.3823 & 0.5077 \\
& FPN & 0.2958 & 0.4566 & 0.3736 & 0.5869 \\
& Linknet & 0.4807 & 0.6493 & 0.7066 & 0.6006 \\
& MAnet & 0.4197 & 0.5913 & 0.6063 & 0.5770 \\
& PAN & 0.2765 & 0.4333 & 0.3532 & 0.5602 \\
& PSPNet & 0.2927 & 0.4528 & 0.3757 & 0.5697 \\
& Unet & 0.4857 & 0.6539 & 0.7022 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6118}} \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.4257 & 0.5972 & 0.6179 & 0.5778 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5375}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6992}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9386}} & 0.5571 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{DeepCrack}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6813 & 0.8102 & 0.8246 & 0.7963 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6639 & 0.7977 & 0.7570 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8433}} \\
& FPN & 0.6783 & 0.8081 & 0.7796 & 0.8387 \\
& Linknet & 0.7047 & 0.8267 & 0.8402 & 0.8137 \\
& MAnet & 0.7007 & 0.8238 & 0.8502 & 0.7991 \\
& PAN & 0.6535 & 0.7902 & 0.7444 & 0.8421 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6582 & 0.7936 & 0.7761 & 0.8120 \\
& Unet & 0.7061 & 0.8275 & 0.8231 & 0.8320 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.7168 & 0.8349 & 0.8324 & 0.8374 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7401}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8505}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9175}} & 0.7926 \\ \hline
% Repeat for other datasets
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Validation Results of \textit{Context-CrackNet} and Other Models Across CFD, CRACK500, CrackTree200, and DeepCrack dataset}
\label{tab:combined_results}
\resizebox{\textwidth}\textwidth{!}!{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{CFD}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3194 & 0.4842 & 0.5065 & 0.4638 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.3848 & 0.5558 & 0.5039 & 0.6195 \\
& FPN & 0.4187 & 0.5902 & 0.5033 & 0.7134 \\
& Linknet & 0.4664 & 0.6362 & 0.5951 & 0.6833 \\
& MAnet & 0.5174 & 0.6819 & 0.6901 & 0.6740 \\
& PAN & 0.3904 & 0.5616 & 0.4614 & 0.7173 \\
& PSPNet & 0.3553 & 0.5244 & 0.4084 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7322}} \\
& Unet & 0.1562 & 0.2703 & 0.8370 & 0.1611 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.5257 & 0.6891 & 0.6653 & 0.7147 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5668}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7235}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8989}} & 0.6054 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{CRACK500}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6420 & 0.7817 & 0.7612 & 0.8035 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6376 & 0.7784 & 0.7529 & 0.8060 \\
& FPN & 0.6317 & 0.7740 & 0.7460 & 0.8047 \\
& Linknet & 0.6450 & 0.7839 & 0.7855 & 0.7827 \\
& MAnet & 0.6341 & 0.7757 & 0.7408 & 0.8142 \\
& PAN & 0.6231 & 0.7674 & 0.7271 & 0.8132 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6197 & 0.7649 & 0.7058 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8356}} \\
& Unet & 0.6397 & 0.7800 & 0.7496 & 0.8133 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.6444 & 0.7835 & 0.7714 & 0.7960 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6733}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8046}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7967}} & 0.8129 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{CrackTree200}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3174 & 0.4819 & 0.4305 & 0.5471 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.2789 & 0.4361 & 0.3823 & 0.5077 \\
& FPN & 0.2958 & 0.4566 & 0.3736 & 0.5869 \\
& Linknet & 0.4807 & 0.6493 & 0.7066 & 0.6006 \\
& MAnet & 0.4197 & 0.5913 & 0.6063 & 0.5770 \\
& PAN & 0.2765 & 0.4333 & 0.3532 & 0.5602 \\
& PSPNet & 0.2927 & 0.4528 & 0.3757 & 0.5697 \\
& Unet & 0.4857 & 0.6539 & 0.7022 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6118}} \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.4257 & 0.5972 & 0.6179 & 0.5778 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5375}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6992}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9386}} & 0.5571 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{DeepCrack}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6813 & 0.8102 & 0.8246 & 0.7963 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6639 & 0.7977 & 0.7570 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8433}} \\
& FPN & 0.6783 & 0.8081 & 0.7796 & 0.8387 \\
& Linknet & 0.7047 & 0.8267 & 0.8402 & 0.8137 \\
& MAnet & 0.7007 & 0.8238 & 0.8502 & 0.7991 \\
& PAN & 0.6535 & 0.7902 & 0.7444 & 0.8421 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6582 & 0.7936 & 0.7761 & 0.8120 \\
& Unet & 0.7061 & 0.8275 & 0.8231 & 0.8320 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.7168 & 0.8349 & 0.8324 & 0.8374 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7401}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8505}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9175}} & 0.7926 \\ \hline
% Repeat for other datasets
\end{tabular}%
}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{CFD}CFD
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3194 & 0.4842 & 0.5065 & 0.4638 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.3848 & 0.5558 & 0.5039 & 0.6195 \\
& FPN & 0.4187 & 0.5902 & 0.5033 & 0.7134 \\
& Linknet & 0.4664 & 0.6362 & 0.5951 & 0.6833 \\
& MAnet & 0.5174 & 0.6819 & 0.6901 & 0.6740 \\
& PAN & 0.3904 & 0.5616 & 0.4614 & 0.7173 \\
& PSPNet & 0.3553 & 0.5244 & 0.4084 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7322}} \\
& Unet & 0.1562 & 0.2703 & 0.8370 & 0.1611 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.5257 & 0.6891 & 0.6653 & 0.7147 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5668}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7235}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8989}} & 0.6054 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{CRACK500}CRACK500
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6420 & 0.7817 & 0.7612 & 0.8035 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6376 & 0.7784 & 0.7529 & 0.8060 \\
& FPN & 0.6317 & 0.7740 & 0.7460 & 0.8047 \\
& Linknet & 0.6450 & 0.7839 & 0.7855 & 0.7827 \\
& MAnet & 0.6341 & 0.7757 & 0.7408 & 0.8142 \\
& PAN & 0.6231 & 0.7674 & 0.7271 & 0.8132 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6197 & 0.7649 & 0.7058 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8356}} \\
& Unet & 0.6397 & 0.7800 & 0.7496 & 0.8133 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.6444 & 0.7835 & 0.7714 & 0.7960 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6733}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8046}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7967}} & 0.8129 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{CrackTree200}CrackTree200
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3174 & 0.4819 & 0.4305 & 0.5471 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.2789 & 0.4361 & 0.3823 & 0.5077 \\
& FPN & 0.2958 & 0.4566 & 0.3736 & 0.5869 \\
& Linknet & 0.4807 & 0.6493 & 0.7066 & 0.6006 \\
& MAnet & 0.4197 & 0.5913 & 0.6063 & 0.5770 \\
& PAN & 0.2765 & 0.4333 & 0.3532 & 0.5602 \\
& PSPNet & 0.2927 & 0.4528 & 0.3757 & 0.5697 \\
& Unet & 0.4857 & 0.6539 & 0.7022 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6118}} \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.4257 & 0.5972 & 0.6179 & 0.5778 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5375}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6992}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9386}} & 0.5571 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{DeepCrack}DeepCrack
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6813 & 0.8102 & 0.8246 & 0.7963 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6639 & 0.7977 & 0.7570 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8433}} \\
& FPN & 0.6783 & 0.8081 & 0.7796 & 0.8387 \\
& Linknet & 0.7047 & 0.8267 & 0.8402 & 0.8137 \\
& MAnet & 0.7007 & 0.8238 & 0.8502 & 0.7991 \\
& PAN & 0.6535 & 0.7902 & 0.7444 & 0.8421 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6582 & 0.7936 & 0.7761 & 0.8120 \\
& Unet & 0.7061 & 0.8275 & 0.8231 & 0.8320 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.7168 & 0.8349 & 0.8324 & 0.8374 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7401}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8505}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9175}} & 0.7926 \\ \hline
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Validation Results of \textit{Context-CrackNet} and Other Models Across Eugen Miller, Forest, GAPs, Rissbilder dataset}
\label{tab:combined_results_2}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Eugen Miller}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6312 & 0.7739 & 0.8696 & 0.6971 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6051 & 0.7540 & 0.7717 & 0.7371 \\
& FPN & 0.4763 & 0.6452 & 0.5366 & 0.8091 \\
& Linknet & 0.6024 & 0.7519 & 0.7473 & 0.7565 \\
& MAnet & 0.5887 & 0.7411 & 0.6777 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8176}} \\
& PAN & 0.5794 & 0.7337 & 0.7198 & 0.7482 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6058 & 0.7545 & 0.7311 & 0.7794 \\
& Unet & 0.6323 & 0.7747 & 0.7728 & 0.7767 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7060}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8277}} & 0.8689 & 0.7902 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & 0.6627 & 0.7971 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9434}} & 0.6901 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Forest}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.4826 & 0.6510 & 0.6151 & 0.6915 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.4616 & 0.6316 & 0.5473 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7465}} \\
& FPN & 0.4356 & 0.6069 & 0.5352 & 0.7007 \\
& Linknet & 0.4857 & 0.6538 & 0.6664 & 0.6417 \\
& MAnet & 0.5170 & 0.6816 & 0.6650 & 0.6990 \\
& PAN & 0.4579 & 0.6281 & 0.5605 & 0.7143 \\
& PSPNet & 0.3848 & 0.5557 & 0.4687 & 0.6825 \\
& Unet & 0.5390 & 0.7005 & 0.6723 & 0.7311 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.5457 & 0.7061 & 0.6896 & 0.7234 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5699}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7261}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8758}} & 0.6201 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{GAPs}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3704 & 0.5405 & 0.4694 & 0.6393 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.3153 & 0.4785 & 0.4142 & 0.5679 \\
& FPN & 0.3071 & 0.4699 & 0.3729 & 0.6353 \\
& Linknet & 0.4007 & 0.5721 & 0.5430 & 0.6050 \\
& MAnet & 0.3832 & 0.5540 & 0.5196 & 0.5937 \\
& PAN & 0.2758 & 0.4323 & 0.3200 & 0.6668 \\
& PSPNet & 0.2898 & 0.4491 & 0.3518 & 0.6237 \\
& Unet & 0.3837 & 0.5545 & 0.4809 & 0.6548 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.3927 & 0.5637 & 0.4894 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6669}} \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.4743}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6433}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7838}} & 0.5456 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Rissbilder}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.5965 & 0.7471 & 0.7442 & 0.7502 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.5653 & 0.7221 & 0.7057 & 0.7395 \\
& FPN & 0.5819 & 0.7356 & 0.7153 & 0.7572 \\
& Linknet & 0.6068 & 0.7552 & 0.7632 & 0.7476 \\
& MAnet & 0.6365 & 0.7777 & 0.8104 & 0.7477 \\
& PAN & 0.5416 & 0.7024 & 0.6403 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7783}} \\
& PSPNet & 0.5042 & 0.6700 & 0.6146 & 0.7381 \\
& Unet & 0.6456 & 0.7845 & 0.8105 & 0.7602 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6568}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7926}} & 0.8233 & 0.7644 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & 0.6553 & 0.7916 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8469}} & 0.7432 \\ \hline
% Repeat for other datasets
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Validation Results of \textit{Context-CrackNet} and Other Models Across Eugen Miller, Forest, GAPs, Rissbilder dataset}
\label{tab:combined_results_2}
\resizebox{\textwidth}\textwidth{!}!{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Eugen Miller}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6312 & 0.7739 & 0.8696 & 0.6971 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6051 & 0.7540 & 0.7717 & 0.7371 \\
& FPN & 0.4763 & 0.6452 & 0.5366 & 0.8091 \\
& Linknet & 0.6024 & 0.7519 & 0.7473 & 0.7565 \\
& MAnet & 0.5887 & 0.7411 & 0.6777 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8176}} \\
& PAN & 0.5794 & 0.7337 & 0.7198 & 0.7482 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6058 & 0.7545 & 0.7311 & 0.7794 \\
& Unet & 0.6323 & 0.7747 & 0.7728 & 0.7767 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7060}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8277}} & 0.8689 & 0.7902 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & 0.6627 & 0.7971 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9434}} & 0.6901 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Forest}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.4826 & 0.6510 & 0.6151 & 0.6915 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.4616 & 0.6316 & 0.5473 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7465}} \\
& FPN & 0.4356 & 0.6069 & 0.5352 & 0.7007 \\
& Linknet & 0.4857 & 0.6538 & 0.6664 & 0.6417 \\
& MAnet & 0.5170 & 0.6816 & 0.6650 & 0.6990 \\
& PAN & 0.4579 & 0.6281 & 0.5605 & 0.7143 \\
& PSPNet & 0.3848 & 0.5557 & 0.4687 & 0.6825 \\
& Unet & 0.5390 & 0.7005 & 0.6723 & 0.7311 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.5457 & 0.7061 & 0.6896 & 0.7234 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5699}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7261}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8758}} & 0.6201 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{GAPs}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3704 & 0.5405 & 0.4694 & 0.6393 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.3153 & 0.4785 & 0.4142 & 0.5679 \\
& FPN & 0.3071 & 0.4699 & 0.3729 & 0.6353 \\
& Linknet & 0.4007 & 0.5721 & 0.5430 & 0.6050 \\
& MAnet & 0.3832 & 0.5540 & 0.5196 & 0.5937 \\
& PAN & 0.2758 & 0.4323 & 0.3200 & 0.6668 \\
& PSPNet & 0.2898 & 0.4491 & 0.3518 & 0.6237 \\
& Unet & 0.3837 & 0.5545 & 0.4809 & 0.6548 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.3927 & 0.5637 & 0.4894 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6669}} \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.4743}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6433}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7838}} & 0.5456 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Rissbilder}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.5965 & 0.7471 & 0.7442 & 0.7502 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.5653 & 0.7221 & 0.7057 & 0.7395 \\
& FPN & 0.5819 & 0.7356 & 0.7153 & 0.7572 \\
& Linknet & 0.6068 & 0.7552 & 0.7632 & 0.7476 \\
& MAnet & 0.6365 & 0.7777 & 0.8104 & 0.7477 \\
& PAN & 0.5416 & 0.7024 & 0.6403 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7783}} \\
& PSPNet & 0.5042 & 0.6700 & 0.6146 & 0.7381 \\
& Unet & 0.6456 & 0.7845 & 0.8105 & 0.7602 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6568}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7926}} & 0.8233 & 0.7644 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & 0.6553 & 0.7916 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8469}} & 0.7432 \\ \hline
% Repeat for other datasets
\end{tabular}%
}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{Eugen Miller}Eugen Miller
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6312 & 0.7739 & 0.8696 & 0.6971 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6051 & 0.7540 & 0.7717 & 0.7371 \\
& FPN & 0.4763 & 0.6452 & 0.5366 & 0.8091 \\
& Linknet & 0.6024 & 0.7519 & 0.7473 & 0.7565 \\
& MAnet & 0.5887 & 0.7411 & 0.6777 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8176}} \\
& PAN & 0.5794 & 0.7337 & 0.7198 & 0.7482 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6058 & 0.7545 & 0.7311 & 0.7794 \\
& Unet & 0.6323 & 0.7747 & 0.7728 & 0.7767 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7060}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8277}} & 0.8689 & 0.7902 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & 0.6627 & 0.7971 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9434}} & 0.6901 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{Forest}Forest
& DeepLabV3 & 0.4826 & 0.6510 & 0.6151 & 0.6915 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.4616 & 0.6316 & 0.5473 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7465}} \\
& FPN & 0.4356 & 0.6069 & 0.5352 & 0.7007 \\
& Linknet & 0.4857 & 0.6538 & 0.6664 & 0.6417 \\
& MAnet & 0.5170 & 0.6816 & 0.6650 & 0.6990 \\
& PAN & 0.4579 & 0.6281 & 0.5605 & 0.7143 \\
& PSPNet & 0.3848 & 0.5557 & 0.4687 & 0.6825 \\
& Unet & 0.5390 & 0.7005 & 0.6723 & 0.7311 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.5457 & 0.7061 & 0.6896 & 0.7234 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.5699}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7261}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8758}} & 0.6201 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{GAPs}GAPs
& DeepLabV3 & 0.3704 & 0.5405 & 0.4694 & 0.6393 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.3153 & 0.4785 & 0.4142 & 0.5679 \\
& FPN & 0.3071 & 0.4699 & 0.3729 & 0.6353 \\
& Linknet & 0.4007 & 0.5721 & 0.5430 & 0.6050 \\
& MAnet & 0.3832 & 0.5540 & 0.5196 & 0.5937 \\
& PAN & 0.2758 & 0.4323 & 0.3200 & 0.6668 \\
& PSPNet & 0.2898 & 0.4491 & 0.3518 & 0.6237 \\
& Unet & 0.3837 & 0.5545 & 0.4809 & 0.6548 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.3927 & 0.5637 & 0.4894 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6669}} \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.4743}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6433}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7838}} & 0.5456 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{Rissbilder}Rissbilder
& DeepLabV3 & 0.5965 & 0.7471 & 0.7442 & 0.7502 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.5653 & 0.7221 & 0.7057 & 0.7395 \\
& FPN & 0.5819 & 0.7356 & 0.7153 & 0.7572 \\
& Linknet & 0.6068 & 0.7552 & 0.7632 & 0.7476 \\
& MAnet & 0.6365 & 0.7777 & 0.8104 & 0.7477 \\
& PAN & 0.5416 & 0.7024 & 0.6403 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7783}} \\
& PSPNet & 0.5042 & 0.6700 & 0.6146 & 0.7381 \\
& Unet & 0.6456 & 0.7845 & 0.8105 & 0.7602 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6568}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7926}} & 0.8233 & 0.7644 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & 0.6553 & 0.7916 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8469}} & 0.7432 \\ \hline
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Validation Results of \textit{Context-CrackNet} and Other Models Across Sylvie and Volker dataset}
\label{tab:combined_results_3}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Sylvie}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6642 & 0.7982 & 0.7377 & 0.8696 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6505 & 0.7882 & 0.6964 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9079}} \\
& FPN & 0.5966 & 0.7474 & 0.6570 & 0.8666 \\
& Linknet & 0.6449 & 0.7842 & 0.7481 & 0.8238 \\
& MAnet & 0.6263 & 0.7702 & 0.6899 & 0.8718 \\
& PAN & 0.6074 & 0.7558 & 0.6869 & 0.8401 \\
& PSPNet & 0.5481 & 0.7081 & 0.5841 & 0.8989 \\
& Unet & 0.6577 & 0.7935 & 0.7622 & 0.8275 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.6718 & 0.8037 & 0.7804 & 0.8284 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6846}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8128}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8429}} & 0.7847 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Volker}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.7209 & 0.8378 & 0.8280 & 0.8479 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6872 & 0.8146 & 0.8046 & 0.8249 \\
& FPN & 0.7028 & 0.8254 & 0.7994 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8534}} \\
& Linknet & 0.7233 & 0.8394 & 0.8841 & 0.7990 \\
& MAnet & 0.7422 & 0.8520 & 0.8543 & 0.8497 \\
& PAN & 0.6796 & 0.8092 & 0.7720 & 0.8504 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6870 & 0.8144 & 0.7905 & 0.8400 \\
& Unet & 0.7464 & 0.8548 & 0.8574 & 0.8523 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.7641 & 0.8663 & 0.8983 & 0.8365 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7668}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8680}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9002}} & 0.8381 \\ \hline
% Repeat for other datasets
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Validation Results of \textit{Context-CrackNet} and Other Models Across Sylvie and Volker dataset}
\label{tab:combined_results_3}
\resizebox{\textwidth}\textwidth{!}!{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Sylvie}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6642 & 0.7982 & 0.7377 & 0.8696 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6505 & 0.7882 & 0.6964 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9079}} \\
& FPN & 0.5966 & 0.7474 & 0.6570 & 0.8666 \\
& Linknet & 0.6449 & 0.7842 & 0.7481 & 0.8238 \\
& MAnet & 0.6263 & 0.7702 & 0.6899 & 0.8718 \\
& PAN & 0.6074 & 0.7558 & 0.6869 & 0.8401 \\
& PSPNet & 0.5481 & 0.7081 & 0.5841 & 0.8989 \\
& Unet & 0.6577 & 0.7935 & 0.7622 & 0.8275 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.6718 & 0.8037 & 0.7804 & 0.8284 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6846}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8128}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8429}} & 0.7847 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{Volker}
& DeepLabV3 & 0.7209 & 0.8378 & 0.8280 & 0.8479 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6872 & 0.8146 & 0.8046 & 0.8249 \\
& FPN & 0.7028 & 0.8254 & 0.7994 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8534}} \\
& Linknet & 0.7233 & 0.8394 & 0.8841 & 0.7990 \\
& MAnet & 0.7422 & 0.8520 & 0.8543 & 0.8497 \\
& PAN & 0.6796 & 0.8092 & 0.7720 & 0.8504 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6870 & 0.8144 & 0.7905 & 0.8400 \\
& Unet & 0.7464 & 0.8548 & 0.8574 & 0.8523 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.7641 & 0.8663 & 0.8983 & 0.8365 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7668}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8680}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9002}} & 0.8381 \\ \hline
% Repeat for other datasets
\end{tabular}%
}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Model} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice (F1) Score} & \textbf{Recall} & \textbf{Precision} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{Sylvie}Sylvie
& DeepLabV3 & 0.6642 & 0.7982 & 0.7377 & 0.8696 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6505 & 0.7882 & 0.6964 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9079}} \\
& FPN & 0.5966 & 0.7474 & 0.6570 & 0.8666 \\
& Linknet & 0.6449 & 0.7842 & 0.7481 & 0.8238 \\
& MAnet & 0.6263 & 0.7702 & 0.6899 & 0.8718 \\
& PAN & 0.6074 & 0.7558 & 0.6869 & 0.8401 \\
& PSPNet & 0.5481 & 0.7081 & 0.5841 & 0.8989 \\
& Unet & 0.6577 & 0.7935 & 0.7622 & 0.8275 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.6718 & 0.8037 & 0.7804 & 0.8284 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.6846}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8128}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8429}} & 0.7847 \\ \hline
\multirow{10}10{*}*{Volker}Volker
& DeepLabV3 & 0.7209 & 0.8378 & 0.8280 & 0.8479 \\
& DeepLabV3Plus & 0.6872 & 0.8146 & 0.8046 & 0.8249 \\
& FPN & 0.7028 & 0.8254 & 0.7994 & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8534}} \\
& Linknet & 0.7233 & 0.8394 & 0.8841 & 0.7990 \\
& MAnet & 0.7422 & 0.8520 & 0.8543 & 0.8497 \\
& PAN & 0.6796 & 0.8092 & 0.7720 & 0.8504 \\
& PSPNet & 0.6870 & 0.8144 & 0.7905 & 0.8400 \\
& Unet & 0.7464 & 0.8548 & 0.8574 & 0.8523 \\
& UnetPlusPlus & 0.7641 & 0.8663 & 0.8983 & 0.8365 \\
& \textbf{Context-CrackNet (ours)} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.7668}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.8680}} & \textbf{\textcolor{red}{0.9002}} & 0.8381 \\ \hline
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{combined_metrics_subplots.png}
\caption{Performance comparison of the trained models across the different crack datasets. The top bar chart shows the Validation IoU, the middle bar chart shows the Validation Dice Score, and the bottom bar chart shows the Validation Recall. Higher bars indicate better performance.}
\label{fig:three_bar_subplots}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{combined_metrics_subplots.png}
\caption{Performance comparison of the trained models across the different crack datasets. The top bar chart shows the Validation IoU, the middle bar chart shows the Validation Dice Score, and the bottom bar chart shows the Validation Recall. Higher bars indicate better performance.}
\label{fig:three_bar_subplots}
\subsection{Attention Map Visualization from RFEM Modules}
The attention maps in Figure \ref{fig:attention_maps} illustrate the regions of the input images that the RFEM modules in \textit{Context-CrackNet} focuses on during segmentation. These visualizations reveal that the model effectively identifies and emphasizes critical areas of distress across the different datasets. For example, in datasets like CRACK500 and DeepCrack, the attention maps distinctly capture intricate crack patterns, demonstrating the model's ability to localize fine-grained details. In complex cases like Rissbilder and Eugen Miller, the attention maps prioritize regions with subtle texture variations, ensuring accurate predictions even in challenging conditions. By highlighting relevant features, the attention maps provide interpretability to the model’s decisions and validate its capability to generalize across datasets with varying characteristics. This insight is crucial for understanding how the model adapts to different pavement distress types.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.71\textwidth]{attention-pave-cropped.png}
\caption{Visualization of predicted masks and attention maps from RFEM across various datasets. The attention maps highlight regions of interest contributing to the segmentation predictions from \textit{Context-CrackNet}}
\label{fig:attention_maps}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.71\textwidth]{attention-pave-cropped.png}
\caption{Visualization of predicted masks and attention maps from RFEM across various datasets. The attention maps highlight regions of interest contributing to the segmentation predictions from \textit{Context-CrackNet}}
\label{fig:attention_maps}
\subsection{Ablation studies}
To thoroughly analyze the contributions of the RFEM and CAGM modules, we conducted ablation experiments by selectively enabling or disabling these modules in the proposed architecture. These experiments allow us to quantify the individual and combined effects of RFEM and CAGM on segmentation performance. The results are summarized in Table \ref{tab:ablation_study}.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Ablation study results for RFEM and CAGM. Metrics include validation IoU, Dice Score, Precision, and Recall.}
\label{tab:ablation_study}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
\textbf{Configuration} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice Score} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall} \\ \hline
Baseline & 0.4259 & 0.5929 & 0.5481 & 0.6691 \\
RFEM Only & 0.4355 & 0.6057 & 0.5439 & 0.6990 \\
CAGM Only & 0.4263 & 0.5954 & 0.5392 & 0.6827 \\
RFEM + CAGM & \textbf{0.4743} & \textbf{0.6433} & \textbf{0.5456} & \textbf{0.7838} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Ablation study results for RFEM and CAGM. Metrics include validation IoU, Dice Score, Precision, and Recall.}
\label{tab:ablation_study}
\hline
\textbf{Configuration} & \textbf{mIoU} & \textbf{Dice Score} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall} \\ \hline
Baseline & 0.4259 & 0.5929 & 0.5481 & 0.6691 \\
RFEM Only & 0.4355 & 0.6057 & 0.5439 & 0.6990 \\
CAGM Only & 0.4263 & 0.5954 & 0.5392 & 0.6827 \\
RFEM + CAGM & \textbf{0.4743} & \textbf{0.6433} & \textbf{0.5456} & \textbf{0.7838} \\ \hline
\paragraph{\textbf{Analysis and Discussion}}\textbf{Analysis and Discussion}
The baseline model, without the RFEM and CAGM modules, achieved a validation IoU of 0.4259 and a Dice Score of 0.5929, demonstrating limited capability in capturing both local and global context. Adding RFEM alone improved the IoU to 0.4355 and the Dice Score to 0.6057, indicating that RFEM effectively enhances the model's ability to focus on critical local regions, especially fine-grained crack details. This is further reflected in the increase in recall from 0.6691 to 0.6990, as RFEM enables the model to identify more instances of distress.
When CAGM was included without RFEM, the IoU and Dice Score showed minimal improvements (0.4263 and 0.5954, respectively). While CAGM provides global context by capturing broader spatial dependencies, its contribution is less pronounced when local refinement (via RFEM) is absent. However, recall improved to 0.6827, suggesting that CAGM aids in generalizing to larger contextual regions, albeit at the expense of precision.
The model performed best when both RFEM and CAGM were included, achieving an IoU of 0.4743 and a Dice Score of 0.6433. The significant boost in recall to 0.7838 highlights the complementary roles of RFEM and CAGM. RFEM sharpens the model’s focus on localized crack patterns, while CAGM enriches the global context, leading to better overall segmentation. Interestingly, precision did not increase significantly with the inclusion of both modules, remaining relatively stable. This suggests that while the model identifies distress regions more effectively, some misclassifications persist, warranting further refinement.
\subsection{Error Cases and Failure Scenarios}
Figure \ref{fig:failure-cases} highlights several failure scenarios from \textit{Context-CrackNet} across some of the crack datasets showing errors between ground truth masks and predicted masks. These failure scenarios often stem from inherent challenges in the datasets, including low contrast between the cracks and their surroundings, and noise or texture inconsistencies in the images. For instance, in the CRACK500 dataset, the network struggled to differentiate between closely spaced cracks and surrounding noise, leading to incomplete or missed segments. Similarly, in the DeepCrack dataset, cracks exhibiting faint textures or irregular patterns were either under-segmented or omitted, reflecting the difficulty in capturing fine-grained structures under varying lighting conditions.
In datasets like Rissbilder and Forest, the model’s predictions were influenced by the complex background textures that mimic crack patterns. This suggests that the network may occasionally misinterpret irrelevant features as cracks, especially when contrast is minimal. The GAPs dataset, with its smooth and uniform background, exposed the network's sensitivity to subtle intensity variations, resulting in missed detections for faint cracks. Additionally, the Sylvie dataset presented a unique challenge where abrupt light intensity transitions and non-crack structures confused the model, leading to segmentation errors.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Failure-cases-contextcracknet.png}
\caption{Failure cases from Context-CrackNet across various crack datasets, showing discrepancies between ground truth and predicted masks.}
\label{fig:failure-cases}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Failure-cases-contextcracknet.png}
\caption{Failure cases from Context-CrackNet across various crack datasets, showing discrepancies between ground truth and predicted masks.}
\label{fig:failure-cases}
\subsection{Model Complexity Analysis}
Computational complexity is crucial for real-time applications like pavement distress detection and monitoring. Table \ref{tab:model_complexity} compares the various models based on parameters, inference time, and GFLOPs.\textit{Context-CrackNet}, with 82.05M parameters and 243.78 GFLOPs, achieves a competitive inference time of 15.63 ms. While it has a higher parameter count than other lightweight models like FPN (26.12M, 6.35 ms) and DeepLabV3Plus (26.68M, 6.72 ms), it offers superior capacity to handle complex spatial relationships crucial for crack segmentation.
Compared to UNetPlusPlus, which has higher FLOPs (352.68 GFLOPs) and slower inference (24.44 ms), \textit{Context-CrackNet} strikes a better balance between performance and efficiency (see Tables \ref{tab:combined_results}, \ref{tab:combined_results_2}, and \ref{tab:combined_results_3}). This balance makes it feasible for real-time deployment and scalable for large-scale pavement monitoring, where both precision and responsiveness are critical. Context-CrackNet's architecture effectively addresses the challenges of robustness and generalization across diverse pavement surfaces, making it well-suited for practical applications.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of model complexity metrics across different architectures.
Metrics include:
(1) The number of parameters (in millions),
(2) The average inference time (in ms) to process a single 448$\times$448 image,
and (3) GFLOPs (the number of floating-point operations, in billions, required for a single forward pass).}
\label{tab:model_complexity}
% {c{3.7cm} c{1.4cm} c{4.5cm} c{2.5cm}}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \makecell{\textbf{Parameters} \\ \textbf{(M)}} & \makecell{\textbf{Inference Time (ms)} \\ \textbf{(448 x 448 Image)}} & \textbf{GFLOPs} \\
\hline
DeepLabV3 & 39.63 & 17.19 & 251.28 \\
DeepLabV3Plus & 26.68 & 6.72 & 56.42 \\
FPN & 26.12 & 6.35 & 48.08 \\
LinkNet & 31.18 & 6.85 & 66.06 \\
MANet & 147.44 & 12.85 & 114.48 \\
PAN & 24.26 & 7.01 & 53.46 \\
PSPNet & 24.26 & 3.09 & 18.14 \\
UNet & 32.52 & 7.67 & 65.60 \\
UNetPlusPlus & 48.99 & 24.44 & 352.68 \\
\textbf{Context-CrackNet} & 82.05 & 15.63 & 243.78 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Comparison of model complexity metrics across different architectures.
Metrics include:
(1) The number of parameters (in millions),
(2) The average inference time (in ms) to process a single 448$\times$448 image,
and (3) GFLOPs (the number of floating-point operations, in billions, required for a single forward pass).}
\label{tab:model_complexity}
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \makecell{\textbf{Parameters} \\ \textbf{(M)}}\textbf{Parameters} \\ \textbf{(M)} & \makecell{\textbf{Inference Time (ms)} \\ \textbf{(448 x 448 Image)}}\textbf{Inference Time (ms)} \\ \textbf{(448 x 448 Image)} & \textbf{GFLOPs} \\
\hline
DeepLabV3 & 39.63 & 17.19 & 251.28 \\
DeepLabV3Plus & 26.68 & 6.72 & 56.42 \\
FPN & 26.12 & 6.35 & 48.08 \\
LinkNet & 31.18 & 6.85 & 66.06 \\
MANet & 147.44 & 12.85 & 114.48 \\
PAN & 24.26 & 7.01 & 53.46 \\
PSPNet & 24.26 & 3.09 & 18.14 \\
UNet & 32.52 & 7.67 & 65.60 \\
UNetPlusPlus & 48.99 & 24.44 & 352.68 \\
\textbf{Context-CrackNet} & 82.05 & 15.63 & 243.78 \\
\hline
|
Results and Discussion
| false
|
2501.14413
| 5
|
76,357
|
\label{sec:intro}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/mean_corr_small.pdf}
\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Analyzing the generalization ability of some Disparity estimation methods: GWCNet~\cite{gwcnet}, CFNet~\cite{cfnet}, and STTR and STTR-light~\cite{sttr} proposed over time. The y-axis represents the mean End-Point-Error (EPE) on Syntheticc Corruptions (2D Common Corrruptions~\cite{commoncorruptions}) at different severalties (severity=0 is i.i.d. performance) using the FlyingThings3D~\cite{flyingthings_dispnet}, i.e., lower is better. % and a higher error is worse.
We observe that disparity estimation methods lack the generalization ability to common corruptions and, thus, are not safe for real-world deployment.}
\label{fig:teaser}
\end{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{1.0}1.0{
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/mean_corr_small.pdf}
\\
\end{tabular}
}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/mean_corr_small.pdf}
\\
\caption{Analyzing the generalization ability of some Disparity estimation methods: GWCNet~\cite{gwcnet}, CFNet~\cite{cfnet}, and STTR and STTR-light~\cite{sttr} proposed over time. The y-axis represents the mean End-Point-Error (EPE) on Syntheticc Corruptions (2D Common Corrruptions~\cite{commoncorruptions}) at different severalties (severity=0 is i.i.d. performance) using the FlyingThings3D~\cite{flyingthings_dispnet}, i.e., lower is better. % and a higher error is worse.
We observe that disparity estimation methods lack the generalization ability to common corruptions and, thus, are not safe for real-world deployment.}
\label{fig:teaser}
The vision task of disparity estimation, also commonly known as stereo-matching is used to estimate the disparity between matching pixels in stereo image pairs.
\citet{flyingthings_dispnet} proposed the first Deep Learning (DL) based method for disparity estimation called DispNet.
This led to disparity estimation becoming primarily a DL-based task~\cite {sttr,gwcnet,cfnet,agnihotri2023improving}.
However, DL-based methods are known to be unreliable~\citep{geirhos2018imagenet,prasad2022towards,agnihotri2023unreasonable,agnihotri2024beware,das20212}, they tend to learn shortcuts rather than meaningful feature representations~\citep{shortcut} and can be easily deteriorated even by small perturbations, causing the evaluation samples to not be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) w.r.t.~the training samples.
This shift from i.i.d. samples can be caused due to changes in the environment, changes in weather conditions, or image corruption due to sensor noise~\cite{commoncorruptions,sommerhoff2023differentiable,sommerhoff2024task,agnihotri2024roll,grabinski2022aliasing,yue2024improving,das2023weakly}.
Such shifts cause the evaluations to be Out-Of-Distribution (OOD), and robustness to such shifts is called OOD Robustness.
OOD Robustness is often used as a metric for the generalization ability of a method~\cite{hoffmann2021towards,hendrycks2020augmix,grabinski2022robust,li2023intra,grabinski2022frequencylowcut}.
Another possible cause of distribution shifts could be either accidental or malicious adversarial attacks~\cite{li2024adversarial, medi2024towards,medi2025fair,schmalfuss2022perturbationconstrained,schmalfuss2022advsnow,scheurer2023detection}.
Here, the perturbations made to an image are optimized to fool the method while the semantic meaning of the images remains the same for a human observer.
When adversarial attacks are optimized with full information about a model and its loss, they are called white-box adversarial attacks.
Since these white-box attacks can potentially simulate the worst-case scenario for a method, they are often used as a proxy to measuring their reliability~\cite{agnihotri2023cospgd,pgd,fgsm}.
In \cref{fig:teaser}, we provide an overview of the i.i.d. performance, generalization ability, and reliability of disparity estimation methods proposed over time on the FlyingThings3D dataset~\cite{flyingthings_dispnet}.
We include old popular methods such as GWCNet and CFNet and new large transformer-based STTR and its lightweight version STTR-light, which, due to its training regime, are proposed as zero-shot disparity estimation methods.
Here, we observe a disturbing pattern: while the i.i.d. performance has improved over time, since this improvement has been the focus of most works, the models still lack robustness.
This is particularly concerning as disparity estimation is often used in the real world, especially for safety-critical scenarios such as medical surgery procedures~\cite{disparity_surgery,yang2024disparity_surgery}, including invasive surgeries such as laparoscopy~\cite{muller2022fast_disparity_laproscopy_surgery} and in autonomous driving~\cite{chuah2021deep_disparity_driving}.
Here, safety is paramount, and to ensure the safe deployment of recent DL-based disparity estimation methods, their reliability and generalization ability need to be guaranteed.
However, no such guarantees can be provided currently since no works focus on OOD and the adversarial robustness of disparity estimation methods.
This is primarily due to a lack of datasets that enable such studies.
Capturing corruptions in the wild and then annotating for disparity estimation is a time and resource intensive process.
Some prior works have focused on other kinds of robustness; for example, a recent work \cite{zhang2024robust_domain_shift_disparity} looks into the robustness of disparity estimation works to domain shifts, while \cite{reflection_robust_stereo,occlusion_robust_stereo} studies the robustness of methods to occlusions.
Currently, there exists no unified framework to evaluate disparity estimation methods for safe deployment in the real world.
\citet{OpenStereo} recently proposed a benchmarking tool for disparity estimation methods.
However, this tool is limited to i.i.d. performance evaluations.
This is a significant limitation impeding the community's ability to ensure safe, reliable, and generalizable DL-based disparity estimation methods for the real world.
To bridge this gap, we propose \benchmark{}, the first robustness benchmarking tool for disparity estimation.
\benchmark{} is easy to use and extending it to future disparity estimation methods and datasets, when they are proposed, is straightforward.
It is inspired by similar popular benchmarks for the image classification tasks~\cite{robustbench,tang2021robustart} and object detection~\cite{gupta2024robust_challenging_weather,michaelis2019benchmarking,adv_robust_obj_det_with_training,adv_robust_obj_det,extreme_construction_obj_det}.
It enables i.i.d. evaluations of various DL-based disparity estimation methods across multiple commonly used disparity estimation datasets.
It also facilitates research in the reliability and generalization ability of disparity estimation methods, as it enables users to use synthetic image corruptions, specifically, 5 diverse adversarial attacks and 15 established common corruptions.
This will help researchers build better models that are not limited to improved performance on identical and independently distributed (i.i.d.) samples and are less vulnerable to adversarial attacks while generalizing better to image corruptions.
Our proposed \benchmark{} facilitates this, streamlining it for future research to utilize.
The main contributions of this work are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We provide a benchmarking tool \benchmark{} to evaluate the performance of most DL-based disparity estimation methods over 2 different datasets and synthetic corruptions.
%\item We provide a publicly available one-stop location for multiple checkpoints of different disparity estimation methods over different datasets, streamlining benchmarking while enabling the research community to add further checkpoints, methods, and datasets.
\item We benchmark the aforementioned models against commonly used adversarial attacks and common corruptions that can be easily queried using \benchmark{}.
\item We perform an in-depth analysis using \benchmark{} and present interesting findings showing methods that perform well on i.i.d.~are remarkably less reliable and generalize worse than other non-well-performing methods.
\item We show that synthetic corruptions on synthetic datasets do not represent real-world corruptions; thus, synthetic corruptions on real-world datasets are required.
%\item We analyze correlations between performance, reliability, and generalization abilities of disparity estimation methods, under various lenses such as point matching methods used, and the number of learnable parameters.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item We provide a benchmarking tool \benchmark{} to evaluate the performance of most DL-based disparity estimation methods over 2 different datasets and synthetic corruptions.
%\item We provide a publicly available one-stop location for multiple checkpoints of different disparity estimation methods over different datasets, streamlining benchmarking while enabling the research community to add further checkpoints, methods, and datasets.
\item We benchmark the aforementioned models against commonly used adversarial attacks and common corruptions that can be easily queried using \benchmark{}.
\item We perform an in-depth analysis using \benchmark{} and present interesting findings showing methods that perform well on i.i.d.~are remarkably less reliable and generalize worse than other non-well-performing methods.
\item We show that synthetic corruptions on synthetic datasets do not represent real-world corruptions; thus, synthetic corruptions on real-world datasets are required.
%\item We analyze correlations between performance, reliability, and generalization abilities of disparity estimation methods, under various lenses such as point matching methods used, and the number of learnable parameters.
\end{itemize}
\item We provide a benchmarking tool \benchmark{} to evaluate the performance of most DL-based disparity estimation methods over 2 different datasets and synthetic corruptions.
\item We benchmark the aforementioned models against commonly used adversarial attacks and common corruptions that can be easily queried using \benchmark{}.
\item We perform an in-depth analysis using \benchmark{} and present interesting findings showing methods that perform well on i.i.d.~are remarkably less reliable and generalize worse than other non-well-performing methods.
\item We show that synthetic corruptions on synthetic datasets do not represent real-world corruptions; thus, synthetic corruptions on real-world datasets are required.
|
Background
| false
|
2505.05091
| 1
|
76,358
|
There exists no standardized tool for evaluating the performance of disparity estimation methods.
Thus, the codebase for such a tool had to be written from scratch.
In the following, we describe the benchmarking tool, \benchmark{}.
Currently, it supports 4 unique architectures (new architectures to be added to \benchmark{} with time) and 2 distinct datasets, namely FlyingThings3D~\citep{flyingthings_dispnet} and KITTI2015~\citep{kitti15} (please refer \cref{sec:appendix:dataset_details} for additional details on the datasets).
It enables training and evaluations on all aforementioned datasets, including evaluations using SotA adversarial attacks such as CosPGD~\citep{agnihotri2023cospgd} and other commonly used adversarial attacks like BIM~\citep{bim}, PGD~\citep{pgd}, FGSM~\citep{fgsm}, under various Lipshitz ($l_p$l_p) norm bounds and APGD~\cite{apgd} under the $\ell_{\infty}$\ell_{\infty}\infty-norm bound.
Additionally, it enables evaluations for Out-of-Distribution (OOD) robustness by corrupting the inference samples using 2D Common Corruptions~\citep{commoncorruptions}.
We follow the nomenclature set by RobustBench~\citep{robustbench} and use ``threat\_model'' to define the kind of evaluation to be performed.
When ``threat\_model'' is defined to be ``None'', the evaluation is performed on unperturbed and unaltered images, if the ``threat\_model'' is defined to be an adversarial attack, for example ``PGD'', ``CosPGD'' or ``BIM'', then \benchmark{} performs an adversarial attack using the user-defined parameters.
Whereas, if ``threat\_model'' is defined to be ``2DCommonCorruptions'', the \benchmark{} performs evaluations after perturbing the images with 2D Common Corruptions.
If the queried evaluation already exists in the benchmark provided by this work, then \benchmark{} simply retrieves the evaluations, thus saving computation.
Please refer to \cref{sec:appendix:description} for details on usage.
Following, we show the basic commands to use \benchmark{}.
We describe each attack and common corruption supported by \benchmark{} in detail in \cref{sec:appendix:description}.
Please refer to \cref{sec:appendix:evaluation_details} for details on the arguments.
\subsection{Model Zoo}
\label{sec:usage:model_zoo}
It is challenging to find all checkpoints, whereas training them is time and compute-exhaustive.
Thus, we gather available model checkpoints made available online by the respective authors.
The trained checkpoints for all models available in \benchmark{} can be obtained using the following lines of code:
\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispbench.evals import load_model
model = load_model(model_name='STTR',
dataset='KITTI2015')
\end{minted}\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispbench.evals import load_model
model = load_model(model_name='STTR',
dataset='KITTI2015')
\end{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}python
from dispbench.evals import load_model
model = load_model(model_name='STTR',
dataset='KITTI2015')
Each model checkpoint can be retrieved with the pair of `model\_name', the name of the model, and `dataset', the dataset for which the checkpoint was last fine-tuned.
\subsection{Adversarial Attacks}
\label{subsec:evaluation_details:adv_attack}
To evaluate a model for a given dataset on an attack, the following lines of code are required.
\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispcbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015' retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispcbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015' retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}python
from dispcbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015' retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
Here, the `config.yml' contains the configuration for the threat model, for example, when the threat model is a PGD attack, `config.yml' could contain `threat\_model=\textit{``PGD''}', `iterations=\textit{20}', `alpha=\textit{0.01}', `epsilon=\textit{8}', and `lp\_norm=\textit{``Linf''}'.
The argument description is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the adversarial attack to be used, given as a string.
\item `iterations' are the number of attack iterations, given as an integer.
\item `epsilon' is the permissible perturbation budget $\epsilon$ given a floating point (float).
\item `alpha' is the step size of the attack, $\alpha$, given as a floating point (float).
\item `lp\_norm' is the Lipschitz continuity norm ($l_p$-norm) to be used for bounding the perturbation, possible options are `Linf' and `L2' given as a string.
\item `target' is false by default, but to do targeted attacks, either the user can set `target'=True, to use the default target of $\overrightarrow{0}$, or can pass a specific tensor to be used as the target.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the adversarial attack to be used, given as a string.
\item `iterations' are the number of attack iterations, given as an integer.
\item `epsilon' is the permissible perturbation budget $\epsilon$ given a floating point (float).
\item `alpha' is the step size of the attack, $\alpha$, given as a floating point (float).
\item `lp\_norm' is the Lipschitz continuity norm ($l_p$-norm) to be used for bounding the perturbation, possible options are `Linf' and `L2' given as a string.
\item `target' is false by default, but to do targeted attacks, either the user can set `target'=True, to use the default target of $\overrightarrow{0}$, or can pass a specific tensor to be used as the target.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the adversarial attack to be used, given as a string.
\item `iterations' are the number of attack iterations, given as an integer.
\item `epsilon' is the permissible perturbation budget $\epsilon$\epsilon given a floating point (float).
\item `alpha' is the step size of the attack, $\alpha$\alpha, given as a floating point (float).
\item `lp\_norm' is the Lipschitz continuity norm ($l_p$l_p-norm) to be used for bounding the perturbation, possible options are `Linf' and `L2' given as a string.
\item `target' is false by default, but to do targeted attacks, either the user can set `target'=True, to use the default target of $\overrightarrow{0}$\overrightarrow{0}, or can pass a specific tensor to be used as the target.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.9}{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_input_left.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_input_right.png}
\\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Predictions} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{i.i.d.~Performance} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After FGSM attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_fgsm_iter_1_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After 20 iteration BIM attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_bim_iter_20_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After 20 iteration PGD attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_pgd_iter_20_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After 20 iteration CosPGD attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_cospgd_iter_20_prediction.png}} \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Example of performing adversarial attacks on STTR using KITTI2015 dataset under different attacks. We show the samples before and after the attacks and the predictions before and after the respective adversarial attacks.}
\label{fig:adv_exp_kitti_sttr}
\end{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.9}0.9{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_input_left.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_input_right.png}
\\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Predictions} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{i.i.d.~Performance} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After FGSM attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_fgsm_iter_1_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After 20 iteration BIM attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_bim_iter_20_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After 20 iteration PGD attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_pgd_iter_20_prediction.png}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{After 20 iteration CosPGD attack} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_cospgd_iter_20_prediction.png}} \\
\end{tabular}
}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_input_left.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_input_right.png}
\\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{Predictions}Predictions \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{i.i.d.~Performance}i.i.d.~Performance \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_prediction.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/kitti2015_0_before_prediction.png} \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{After FGSM attack}After FGSM attack \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_fgsm_iter_1_prediction.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_fgsm_iter_1_prediction.png} \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{After 20 iteration BIM attack}After 20 iteration BIM attack \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_bim_iter_20_prediction.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_bim_iter_20_prediction.png} \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{After 20 iteration PGD attack}After 20 iteration PGD attack \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_pgd_iter_20_prediction.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_pgd_iter_20_prediction.png} \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{After 20 iteration CosPGD attack}After 20 iteration CosPGD attack \\
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_cospgd_iter_20_prediction.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/adv_attacks/sttr_kitti2015_0_attack_after_cospgd_iter_20_prediction.png} \\
\caption{Example of performing adversarial attacks on STTR using KITTI2015 dataset under different attacks. We show the samples before and after the attacks and the predictions before and after the respective adversarial attacks.}
\label{fig:adv_exp_kitti_sttr}
\iffalse
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}c@{}}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} & \textbf{Zoomed-in Prediction} \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{i.i.d.~Performance} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_clean.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_clean.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_clean.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=1} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_1.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_1.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_1.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=3} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_3.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_3.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_3.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=5} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_5.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_5.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_5.png}
\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Example of predictions using STTR on KITTI2015 dataset under different severities of the 2D Common Corruption: Frost.}
\label{fig:2dcc_exp_kitti_sttr}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\scalebox{1.0}1.0{
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}c@{}}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} & \textbf{Zoomed-in Prediction} \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{i.i.d.~Performance} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_clean.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_clean.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_clean.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=1} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_1.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_1.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_1.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=3} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_3.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_3.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_3.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=5} \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_5.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_5.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_5.png}
\\
\end{tabular}
}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} & \textbf{Zoomed-in Prediction} \\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{i.i.d.~Performance}i.i.d.~Performance \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_clean.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_clean.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_clean.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{After Frost Corruption Severity=1}After Frost Corruption Severity=1 \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_1.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_1.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_1.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{After Frost Corruption Severity=3}After Frost Corruption Severity=3 \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_3.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_3.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_3.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{After Frost Corruption Severity=5}After Frost Corruption Severity=5 \\
\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_5.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_5.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_5.png}
\\
\caption{Example of predictions using STTR on KITTI2015 dataset under different severities of the 2D Common Corruption: Frost.}
\label{fig:2dcc_exp_kitti_sttr}
\fi
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}c@{}}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} & \textbf{Zoomed-in Prediction} \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{i.i.d.~Performance} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_clean.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_clean.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_clean.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=1} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_1.png} };
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_1.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_1.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=3} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_3.png} };
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_3.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_3.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=5} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_5.png} };
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_5.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_5.png}
\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Example of predictions using STTR on KITTI2015 dataset under different severities of the 2D Common Corruption: Frost.}
\label{fig:2dcc_exp_kitti_sttr}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\scalebox{1.0}1.0{
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}c@{}}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} & \textbf{Zoomed-in Prediction} \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{i.i.d.~Performance} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_clean.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_clean.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_clean.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=1} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_1.png} };
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_1.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_1.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=3} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_3.png} };
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_3.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_3.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{After Frost Corruption Severity=5} \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_5.png} };
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_5.png}};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_5.png}
\\
\end{tabular}
}
\textbf{Left Image} & \textbf{Right Image} & \textbf{Zoomed-in Prediction} \\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{i.i.d.~Performance}i.i.d.~Performance \\
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_clean.png}}\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_clean.png};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_clean.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_clean.png};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_clean.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{After Frost Corruption Severity=1}After Frost Corruption Severity=1 \\
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_1.png} }\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_1.png} ;
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_1.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_1.png};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_1.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{After Frost Corruption Severity=3}After Frost Corruption Severity=3 \\
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_3.png} }\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_3.png} ;
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_3.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_3.png};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_3.png}
\\
\multicolumn{3}3{c}c{After Frost Corruption Severity=5}After Frost Corruption Severity=5 \\
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_5.png} }\includegraphics[clip,trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 3.425cm, width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/left_frost_5.png} ;
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0] (image) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_5.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/right_frost_5.png};
\draw[red, thick] (1.75, 0.35) rectangle (5.5, 1.2);
&
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{figures/common_corruptions/disparity_frost_5.png}
\\
\caption{Example of predictions using STTR on KITTI2015 dataset under different severities of the 2D Common Corruption: Frost.}
\label{fig:2dcc_exp_kitti_sttr}
The adversarial attacks supported by \benchmark{} are \textit{FGSM, BIM, PGD, APGD, and CosPGD}.
In \cref{fig:adv_exp_kitti_sttr}, we show example images perturbed using different adversarial attacks and the change in disparity estimation performed by STTR.
Here, all attacks are optimized for 20 attack iterations, with $\alpha$\alpha=0.01 and $\epsilon=\frac{8}{255}$\epsilon=\frac{8}{255} under the $\ell_{\infty}$\ell_{\infty}\infty-norm bound.
\subsection{2D Common Corruptions}
\label{subsec:evaluation_details:2dcc}
To evaluate a model for a given dataset with 2D Common Corruptions, the following lines of code are required.
\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015', retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015', retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}python
from dispbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015', retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
Here, the `config.yml' contains the configuration for the threat model; for example, when the threat model is 2D Common Corruption, `config.yml' could contain `threat\_model=\textit{``2DCommonCorruption''}', and `severity=\textit{3}'.
Please note, when the `threat\_model' is the common corruption, \benchmark{} performs evaluations on all corruptions under the respective `threat\_model' and returns the method's performance on each corruption at the requested severity.
The argument description is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the common corruption to be used, given as a string, i.e.~`2DCommonCorruption'.
\item `severity' is the severity of the corruption, given as an integer between 1 and 5 (both inclusive).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the common corruption to be used, given as a string, i.e.~`2DCommonCorruption'.
\item `severity' is the severity of the corruption, given as an integer between 1 and 5 (both inclusive).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the common corruption to be used, given as a string, i.e.~`2DCommonCorruption'.
\item `severity' is the severity of the corruption, given as an integer between 1 and 5 (both inclusive).
\benchmark{} supports the following 2D Common Corruption: `gaussian\_noise', shot\_noise', `impulse\_noise', `defocus\_blur', `frosted\_glass\_blur', `motion\_blur', `zoom\_blur', `snow', `frost', `fog', `brightness', `contrast', `elastic', `pixelate', `jpeg'.
For the evaluation, \benchmark{} will evaluate the model on the validation images from the respective dataset corrupted using each of the aforementioned corruptions for the given severity and then report the mean performance over all of them.
In \cref{fig:2dcc_exp_kitti_sttr}, we show example images perturbed using the 2D Common Corruption: Frost and the change in disparity estimation performed by STTR over different severity strengths.
\subsection{Dataset Details}
\label{sec:appendix:dataset_details}
\benchmark{} currently supports two distinct disparity datasets.
Following, we describe these datasets in detail.
\subsubsection{FlyingThings3D}
\label{subsec:appendix:dataset_details:flyingthings3d}
This is a synthetic dataset proposed by \cite{flyingthings_dispnet} largely used for training and evaluation of disparity estimation methods.
This dataset consists of 25000 stereo frames, of everyday objects such as chairs, tables, cars, etc. flying around in 3D trajectories.
The idea behind this dataset is to have a large volume of trajectories and random movements rather than focus on a real-world application.
In their work, \cite{flownet} showed models trained on FlyingThings3D can generalize to a certain extent to other datasets.
\subsubsection{KITTI2015}
\label{subsec:appendix:dataset_details:kitti2015}
Proposed by \cite{kitti15}, this dataset is focused on the real-world driving scenario.
It contains a total of 400 pairs of image frames, split equally for training and testing.
The image frames were captured in the wild while driving around on the streets of various cities.
The ground-truth labels were obtained by an automated process.
|
Usage
| false
|
2505.05091
| 2
|
76,359
|
\label{sec:analysis}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{plots/log_all_corr_transpose.pdf}
\caption{Using the FlyingThings3D dataset for disparity estimation, we perform an initial benchmarking of i.i.d. performance and generalization abilities of four popular disparity estimation methods. CFNet and GWCNet are traditional CNN-based stereo matching methods, whereas STTR and STTR-light are newly proposed transformer-based large models capable of zero-shot disparity estimation. Here, we use their fine-tuned versions for the FlyingThings3D dataset. The y-axis reports the mean EPE over the entire validation set for the respective corruption, and the x-axis denotes the severity of the 2D Common Corruption used to corrupt the input images. We report the i.i.d. performance at severity=0. Here we observe that while all four methods are highly vulnerable to Noise and Weather corruptions, newly proposed STTR and STTR-light are surprisingly less robust than the older CNN-based methods against weather corruptions. This finding is interesting and concerning as weather corruptions are the most likely real-world domain shift.}
\label{fig:2dcc_perf_sceneflow}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{plots/log_all_corr_transpose.pdf}
\caption{Using the FlyingThings3D dataset for disparity estimation, we perform an initial benchmarking of i.i.d. performance and generalization abilities of four popular disparity estimation methods. CFNet and GWCNet are traditional CNN-based stereo matching methods, whereas STTR and STTR-light are newly proposed transformer-based large models capable of zero-shot disparity estimation. Here, we use their fine-tuned versions for the FlyingThings3D dataset. The y-axis reports the mean EPE over the entire validation set for the respective corruption, and the x-axis denotes the severity of the 2D Common Corruption used to corrupt the input images. We report the i.i.d. performance at severity=0. Here we observe that while all four methods are highly vulnerable to Noise and Weather corruptions, newly proposed STTR and STTR-light are surprisingly less robust than the older CNN-based methods against weather corruptions. This finding is interesting and concerning as weather corruptions are the most likely real-world domain shift.}
\label{fig:2dcc_perf_sceneflow}
We use \benchmark{} to perform some initial benchmarking and make some interesting observations.
Following, we discuss the details of the benchmarking process.
Please note, we use the FlyingThing3D and the KITTI2015 dataset for the benchmarking.
However, very few pretrained architectures are available for KITTI2015, and thus our evaluations using KITTI2015 are limited to these.
While \benchmark{} enables the training of architectures of multiple datasets, doing so is beyond our resource capabilities.
For additional details on the datasets, please refer to \cref{sec:appendix:dataset_details}.
\noindent\paragraph{Measuring Generalization Ability. }Measuring Generalization Ability.
Inspired by multiple works~\citep{robustbench,hendrycks2020augmix,hoffmann2021towards} that use OOD Robustness of methods for evaluating the generalization ability of the method, even evaluate over every common corruption, that is the 15 2D Common Corruptions: `Gaussian Noise', Shot Noise', `Impulse Noise', `Defocus Blur', `Frosted Glass Blur', `Motion Blur', `Zoom Blur', `Snow', `Frost', `Fog', `Brightness', `Contrast', `Elastic Transform', `Pixelate', `JPEG Compression'.
Then, we find the mean EPE w.r.t. the ground truth for a given method, across all corruptions at a given severity and report use this to measure the Generalization Ability.
We corrupt the pair of stereo images with the same corruption at the same severity when evaluating.
Ideally, one would like to evaluate the generalization ability and reliability of methods using real-world samples captured in the wild.
However, annotation of these samples is a challenging and time-consuming task, and thus, no such dataset is available for disparity estimation.
\citet{acdc} captured such data in the wild with domain shifts due to changes in time of day and changes in weather conditions like snowfall, rain, and fog.
They also provide pixel-level annotations for their images, however, these annotations are only available for semantic segmentation, and these images are monocular and not stereo.
They propose this as the Adverse Conditions Dataset with Correspondences for Semantic Driving Scene Understanding (ACDC) dataset.
Interestingly, in their work, \citet{anonymous_semseg} showed a very strong positive correlation between the performance of most methods on the ACDC dataset and their performance against in-domain images corrupted with the 2D Common Corruptions to cause a synthetic domain shift.
This is an important finding as it proves that 2D Common Corruptions can be used as a proxy to real-world domain shifts.
We discuss this in \cref{sec:appendix:semseg_acdc_cc}.
For details on the dataset, please refer to the appendix.
\noindent\paragraph{Measuring Reliability Under Adversarial Attacks. }Measuring Reliability Under Adversarial Attacks.
Adversarial attacks, especially white-box attacks, serve as a proxy to the worst-case scenario and help understand the quality of the representations learned by a model~\cite{agnihotri2023cospgd,schmalfuss2022perturbationconstrained,apgd}.
\benchmark{} provides the ability to evaluate the models against some popular adversarial attacks, as discussed in \cref{subsec:evaluation_details:adv_attack}.
However, we focus this work towards realistic corruptions possible in the real world.
For evaluations over adversarial attacks, please refer to \cref{sec:appendix:analyis_extension}.
\noindent\paragraph{Architectures Used. }Architectures Used.
Disparity estimation networks essentially estimate optimal correspondence matching between pixels on epipolar lines in the left and right images to infer depth.
Most disparity estimation architectures used a cost volume with cross-correlation or contamination of feature representations for the left and right images.
However, \textbf{GWCNet-G}~\cite{gwcnet} proposed using group-wise correlations to construct the cost volume.
This leads to a significant boost in i.i.d.~performance and inference speed.
\textbf{CFNet}~\cite{cfnet} proposed fusing on multiple low-resolution dense cost volumes to enlarge the receptive field, enabling extraction of robust structural representations, followed by cascading the cost volume representations to alleviate the unbalanced disparity estimation. It was proposed to be robust to large domain differences and was SotA when proposed.
\textbf{Stereo-Transformers (STTR)}, \citet{sttr} proposes to replace the cost volume construction with dense pixel matching using position information and attention to enable sequence-to-sequence matching. This relaxes the limitation of a fixed disparity range and identifies occluded regions with confidence estimates.
STTR generalizes across different domains, even without fine-tuning.
However, in our evaluations, we use fine-tuned checkpoints for a fair comparison of reliability and generalization capabilities.
\textbf{STTR-light} is the lightweight version of STTR proposed for faster inference with only a marginal drop in i.i.d.~performance.
We use the publicly available pre-trained checkpoints for our evaluations.
|
Initial Evaluations using
| false
|
2505.05091
| 3
|
95,373
|
\subsection*{Sequent calculus for \texttt{C}}
The following sequent calculus can be found in \cite[p. 516]{OmoriWansing2020}.
\vspace{0.5cm}
{\Large \textbf{\texttt{G3C}}}\Large \textbf{\texttt{G3C}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Zero-premise rules:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle Rf]{\Gamma, p \Rightarrow p}\Gamma, p \Rightarrow p{}
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle Rf^{{\sim}}{\sim}\sim]{\Gamma, {\sim} p \Rightarrow {\sim} p}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim p \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim p{}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for $\wedge$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle R \wedge]{\Gamma \Rightarrow A \wedge B}\Gamma \Rightarrow A \wedge B{\Gamma \Rightarrow A \quad \quad \Gamma \Rightarrow B}\Gamma \Rightarrow A \quad \quad \Gamma \Rightarrow B
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle L\wedge]{\Gamma, A \wedge B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, A \wedge B \Rightarrow C{\Gamma, A, B\Rightarrow C}\Gamma, A, B\Rightarrow C
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for $\vee$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle R\vee_1]{\Gamma \Rightarrow A \vee B}\Gamma \Rightarrow A \vee B{\Gamma \Rightarrow A}\Gamma \Rightarrow A
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle R\vee_2]{\Gamma \Rightarrow A \vee B}\Gamma \Rightarrow A \vee B{\Gamma \Rightarrow B}\Gamma \Rightarrow B
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle L\vee]{\Gamma, A \vee B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, A \vee B \Rightarrow C{\Gamma, A \Rightarrow C \quad \Gamma, B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, A \Rightarrow C \quad \Gamma, B \Rightarrow C
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for $\rightarrow$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle R\rightarrow]{\Gamma \Rightarrow A \rightarrow B}\Gamma \Rightarrow A \rightarrow B{\Gamma, A \Rightarrow B}\Gamma, A \Rightarrow B
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle L\rightarrow]{\Gamma, A \rightarrow B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, A \rightarrow B \Rightarrow C{\Gamma, A \rightarrow B \Rightarrow A \quad \quad \Gamma, B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, A \rightarrow B \Rightarrow A \quad \quad \Gamma, B \Rightarrow C
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Rules for ${\sim}$:}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle R{\sim}\sim {\sim}\sim]{\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}{\sim} A}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim{\sim}\sim A{\Gamma \Rightarrow A}\Gamma \Rightarrow A
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle L {\sim}\sim {\sim}\sim]{\Gamma, {\sim}{\sim} A \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim{\sim}\sim A \Rightarrow C{\Gamma, A \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, A \Rightarrow C
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle R{\sim}\sim\wedge_{1}1]{\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}(A \wedge B)}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim(A \wedge B){\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim} A}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim A
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle R{\sim}\sim\wedge_{2}2]{\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}(A \wedge B)}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim(A \wedge B){\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim} B}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim B
\quad \hspace{-0.35cm}
\infer[\scriptstyle L{\sim}\sim\wedge]{\Gamma, {\sim}(A \wedge B) \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim(A \wedge B) \Rightarrow C{\Gamma, {\sim} A \Rightarrow C \quad \Gamma, {\sim} B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim A \Rightarrow C \quad \Gamma, {\sim}\sim B \Rightarrow C
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle R{\sim}\sim\vee]{\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}(A \vee B)}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim(A \vee B){\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim} A \quad \quad \Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim} B}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim A \quad \quad \Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim B
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle L{\sim}\sim\vee]{\Gamma, {\sim}(A \vee B) \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim(A \vee B) \Rightarrow C{\Gamma, {\sim} A, {\sim} B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim A, {\sim}\sim B \Rightarrow C
\vspace{0.3cm}
\quad
\infer[\scriptstyle R{\sim}\sim\rightarrow]{\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}(A \rightarrow B)}\Gamma \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim(A \rightarrow B){\Gamma, A \Rightarrow {\sim} B}\Gamma, A \Rightarrow {\sim}\sim B
\quad \quad
\infer[\scriptstyle L{\sim}\sim\rightarrow]{\Gamma, {\sim}(A \rightarrow B) \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim(A \rightarrow B) \Rightarrow C{\Gamma, {\sim}(A \rightarrow B)\Rightarrow A \quad \quad \Gamma, {\sim} B \Rightarrow C}\Gamma, {\sim}\sim(A \rightarrow B)\Rightarrow A \quad \quad \Gamma, {\sim}\sim B \Rightarrow C
|
Appendix
| false
|
2507.06854
| 8
|
223,113
|
We present \name, an automatic benchmark generator that constructs live, large-scale evaluation tasks from real-world open-source software by reusing natural ground truth signals—compilation results, functional test outcomes, and sanitizer checks. Instantiated on the PHP interpreter and SQLite3 engine, \namephp and \namesql can effectively profile the coding capabilities of large language models and reveal insightful patterns, such as intra-family behavior and inconsistencies between model size and performance. Furthermore, \name mitigates overfitting by leveraging the rapidly evolving nature of open-source projects and employing random sampling over dynamic datasets. The framework is scalable across project selection, prompt templates, sampling rates, and metric weights. Future work will extend \name to additional compiled languages like Rust, incorporate richer code context, introduce new metrics such as efficiency profiling, and optimize the fuzzing pipeline to support continued progress in AI-assisted coding tools.
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}unsrtnat
\newpage
\bibliography{reference}
\newpage
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2505.12331
| 6
|
223,109
|
\label{sec:approach}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{5pt}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\intextsep}{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{figures/overview.pdf}
\caption{Benchmark Workflow in \name}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{5pt}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\intextsep}{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{figures/overview.pdf}
\caption{Benchmark Workflow in \name}
\label{fig:overview}
\textbf{Benchmark Workflow.}
Figure~\ref{fig:overview} illustrates \name’s four‐step workflow: (I) select an OSS project, extract function‐level snippets, and prompt LLMs for optimized versions; (II) evaluate the compilability of each LLM‐generated function; (III) sample the successfully compiled functions to form testing datasets and run the OSS test suite; and (IV) collect compilation and test logs and analyse sanitizer alerts for memory‐safety assessment.
Steps (II), (III), and (IV) correspond to three core metrics for evaluating LLM-generated code quality. A model receives a higher compilation score if more LLM modifications compile successfully; a higher test score if the average test pass rate across sampled iterations is higher; and a higher memory safety score if it triggers fewer sanitizer alerts. In principle, users can apply this workflow to various open-source projects to create diverse benchmarks in different areas.
\textbf{Open-source Software Criteria.}
Decades‑old, actively maintained open‑source software provides an ideal foundation for live benchmarks. Consequently, to select projects that offer substantial code complexity, extensive test coverage, and stable release practices, we apply the following criteria:
\begin{itemize}
[topsep=0.2mm,parsep=0.2mm,partopsep=0pt,leftmargin=*]
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\item[-] \textit{Large codebase.} A large codebase increases the inherent complexity of evaluation tasks on realistic development scenarios. Although the LLM edits a small code snippet, that snippet must integrate seamlessly into the broader, complex codebase.
\item[-] \textit{Comprehensive test suite.} The selected OSS must include an actively maintained, well-designed test suite with broad coverage (\texteg 60\% code coverage, the acceptable coverage considered by Google~\cite{google-coverage}). Ideally, the suite combines unit tests and end-to-end tests to validate both individual functions and their interactions across the codebase.
\item[-] \textit{Compiled languages.} Compiled programming languages (\texteg C, C++, Rust) that require a build step are inherently more complex than scripting languages (\texteg Python, JavaScript). Evaluating on compiled languages (1) increases coding task difficulty and (2) provides natural, robust ground truth via compilability and sanitizer checks.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
[topsep=0.2mm,parsep=0.2mm,partopsep=0pt,leftmargin=*]
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\item[-] \textit{Large codebase.} A large codebase increases the inherent complexity of evaluation tasks on realistic development scenarios. Although the LLM edits a small code snippet, that snippet must integrate seamlessly into the broader, complex codebase.
\item[-] \textit{Comprehensive test suite.} The selected OSS must include an actively maintained, well-designed test suite with broad coverage (\texteg 60\% code coverage, the acceptable coverage considered by Google~\cite{google-coverage}). Ideally, the suite combines unit tests and end-to-end tests to validate both individual functions and their interactions across the codebase.
\item[-] \textit{Compiled languages.} Compiled programming languages (\texteg C, C++, Rust) that require a build step are inherently more complex than scripting languages (\texteg Python, JavaScript). Evaluating on compiled languages (1) increases coding task difficulty and (2) provides natural, robust ground truth via compilability and sanitizer checks.
\end{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\item[-] \textit{Large codebase.} A large codebase increases the inherent complexity of evaluation tasks on realistic development scenarios. Although the LLM edits a small code snippet, that snippet must integrate seamlessly into the broader, complex codebase.
\item[-] \textit{Comprehensive test suite.} The selected OSS must include an actively maintained, well-designed test suite with broad coverage (\texteg 60\% code coverage, the acceptable coverage considered by Google~\cite{google-coverage}). Ideally, the suite combines unit tests and end-to-end tests to validate both individual functions and their interactions across the codebase.
\item[-] \textit{Compiled languages.} Compiled programming languages (\texteg C, C++, Rust) that require a build step are inherently more complex than scripting languages (\texteg Python, JavaScript). Evaluating on compiled languages (1) increases coding task difficulty and (2) provides natural, robust ground truth via compilability and sanitizer checks.
Given these criteria, two major OSS categories commonly qualify: programming language implementations and database management systems. Programming language implementations (\texteg CPython, Clang, GCC, PHP) have complex codebases with parsers, compilers, garbage collectors, and runtime environments—ideal for testing LLMs on challenging low-level tasks. Database management systems (\texteg MySQL, SQLite, DuckDB) serve as core infrastructure with intricate query optimizers, transaction engines, and storage layers, and their extensive test suites provide rich ground truth for correctness and safety.
Beyond these, OSS-Bench can be flexibly extended to other complex systems—such as web servers and networking stacks (\texteg Nginx, Apache HTTPD), container/orchestration platforms (\texteg Docker, Kubernetes), and ML frameworks (\texteg TensorFlow C-API, PyTorch’s C++ frontend). These mature, actively maintained projects offer large codebases and comprehensive test suites, making them excellent live datasets for realistic LLM benchmarking.
\textbf{Function Extraction.} \name employs \texttt{libclang}~\cite{libclang}, part of the LLVM toolchain, to reliably extract all function definitions—including comments—from the codebase. Extracted functions are stored in a database and filtered by token count to exclude those that are excessively short or long. In typical large OSS projects, this process yields thousands of functions; by default, we retain functions with 10–256 tokens, filtering out approximately 10\% of the corpus.
\textbf{\name Coding Prompt.} Our prompt emulates common AI-assisted coding workflows: users provide an existing code snippet and request for improvement. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:prompt}, it asks the LLM to improve a given code snippet at the function level with two primary goals: \textit{(1) ensure memory safety} and \textit{(2) enhance code efficiency}. The first objective guarantees a fair evaluation of Metric III (memory safety) by explicitly highlighting the attention to code safety. The second objective drives substantive logic improvements, preventing trivial or minimal edits. \name’s prompt framework is also extensible—supporting other tasks like full code synthesis or automated bug repair.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{5pt}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\intextsep}{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{figures/prompt.pdf}
\caption{\name uses daily code prompts to simulate common LLM-assisted coding workflows.}
\vspace{-1mm}
\label{fig:prompt}
\end{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{5pt}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\intextsep}{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{figures/prompt.pdf}
\caption{\name uses daily code prompts to simulate common LLM-assisted coding workflows.}
\vspace{-1mm}
\label{fig:prompt}
\textbf{Metric I --- Compilability.} Compilability is one natural and common task in compiled languages. Incompilability indicates syntax (\texteg incorrect grammar) or semantic (\texteg use of undefined variables) errors. \name first compiles the original open-source software to ensure it builds without errors.
Then, \name selects each from extracted OSS functions, and replaces the original function with its improved version from language models. After code replacement, \name re-compiles the entire project and check its compilability.
The compilation result can be success, failure and unrelated (\textie changing such functions do not affect the compilation). \name records each function's compilation result, and the overall compilation pass rate (unrelated functions are excluded) is used as the final score.
\textbf{Metric II — Functional Testing.} Open-source projects rely on extensive test suites (unit, integration, end-to-end, and regression tests) to validate code updates. To measure this metric, \name first builds the original OSS and runs its official tests to record a baseline. Next, from the set of functions that compiled successfully in Metric I, \name performs 1,000 test iterations: each iteration randomly selects a subset of the compilable functions (\texteg we use $\sim$\sim1\% of the total function number, that is, 100 functions for \namephp and 73 functions for \namesql per iteration) and replaces the originals to simulate an LLM-driven update. The test suite is then executed, and the pass rate is recorded for each iteration. Finally, we compute the average test-pass rate over all iterations and quantify the degradation relative to the baseline.
\textbf{Metric III --- Memory Safety.} Memory safety is a fundamental security concern in compiled languages. Bugs such as buffer overflows and double-free errors are known harmful and can be maliciously exploited. \name aggregates the sanitizer alerts from compilation and test logs during previous metrics, and reports the number of unique memory safety bugs. A lower final count of sanitizer alerts results in a higher Challenge III score.
Inspired by widely deployed OSS fuzzing frameworks such as OSS-Fuzz~\cite{serebryany2017oss}, \name extends this metric with an in-depth fuzzing evaluation detailed in Section~\ref{sec:extended_fuzz}.
We highlight that the evaluation shows Metric II using test suites is insufficient, as many bugs are observed after the test suite is passed with Metric III.
\textbf{Dissimilarity.} Conservative models may game our benchmark by leaving the original function largely unchanged, thereby inflating their scores. To prevent this, we introduce a \textit{Delta} metric that quantifies the average number of differing lines per function—computed using \texttt{difflib}~\cite{python_difflib2025}—and serves as a configurable impact factor in the final score. Models whose edits fall below a minimum dissimilarity threshold are excluded from evaluation, and higher dissimilarity can enjoy a bonus in the overall score. This ensures that LLMs perform substantive optimizations, in line with our prompt’s emphasis on efficiency improvements, rather than relying on conservative or no changes.
\textbf{Scoring.} Each model will first be evaluated through metric scores with raw score ranging from 0 to 100 as follows: (i) Raw compilability score ($s_1$s_1): the proportion of valid functions that compile successfully after LLM optimization. Valid functions are those whose modifications could affect the build (\textie excluding cases where changes do not alter compilation behavior). We obtain $s_1$s_1 by multiplying this proportion by 100, yielding a raw score between 0 and 100. (ii) Raw test score ($s_2$s_2): the average test pass rate of 1,000 iterations of functional testing. We obtain $s_2$s_2 by multiplying this pass rate by 100, yielding a raw score between 0 and 100. (iii) Raw sanitizer score ($s_3$s_3): begins at 100, with each detected sanitizer alert reducing the score by a certain rate (down to a minimum of 0), so that fewer alerts correspond to a higher score.
\name does not simply sum the three raw scores, as later metrics depend on earlier ones (\textie functionality is evaluated only for compilable code, and memory safety is assessed only for functional code). We incorporate this dependency in the form of \emph{chained scores} (\(c_1, c_2, c_3\)c_1, c_2, c_3) as:
\vspace{-3mm}
\[
c_1 = s_1 \quad\big|\quad
c_2 = s_2 \times \frac{c_1}{100} \quad\big|\quad
c_3 = s_3 \times \frac{c_2}{100}
\]
c_1 = s_1 \quad\big|\quad
c_2 = s_2 \times \frac{c_1}{100} \quad\big|\quad
c_3 = s_3 \times \frac{c_2}{100}
\vspace{-3mm}
where \(s_1\)s_1, \(s_2\)s_2, and \(s_3\)s_3 are the raw scores for compilation, testing, and sanitization, respectively. For flexible scoring, we introduce weights \(w_1, w_2, w_3 \in [0,1]\)w_1, w_2, w_3 \in [0,1], which default to equal values. To discourage trivial edits, we add a \emph{dissimilarity} bonus \(d\)d, defined as the average number of changed lines per function, with a default weight \(w_d = 0.1\)w_d = 0.1. The final score \(s\)s is:
\vspace{-3mm}
\[
s = w_1\,c_1 + w_2\,c_2 + w_3\,c_3 + w_d\,d.
\]
s = w_1\,c_1 + w_2\,c_2 + w_3\,c_3 + w_d\,d.
\vspace{-3mm}
\textbf{Automation and Scalability.} OSS-Bench is highly automated: no manual test-case design or ground-truth annotation is required. The only human effort needed is to write adapters (\texteg compilation scripts, log parsers) for each open-source software. Scalability is achieved through configurable components—project selection, prompt templates, sampling rates, metric weights, and even the addition of new metrics (\texteg static analysis warnings or performance profiles). This flexibility allows \name to scale from single repositories to entire ecosystems, support multiple programming languages, and adapt dynamically as repositories evolve over time.
|
Approach
| false
|
2505.12331
| 2
|
95,368
|
We suppose a language $L$L consisting of propositional constants and connectives for which there are formulas specified.
We will inductively define an $R$R-expression over $L$L as follows:
1. Every formula over $L$L is an $R$R-expression.
2. If $S$S is an $R$R-expression over $L$L which does not have the form $-T$-T, then so is $-S$-S (which can be read as `refutation of $S$S').
3. If $S_1,..., S_n, T$S_1,..., S_n, T are $R$R-expressions over $L$L, then so is ($S_1,..., S_n \Rightarrow T$S_1,..., S_n \Rightarrow T).
4. Nothing else is an $R$R-expression over $L$L.
\noindent Outer brackets of $R$R-expressions may be omitted.
We will use $A, B, C,...$A, B, C,... for formulas and $S, T, R,...$S, T, R,... for $R$R-expressions.
For (possibly empty) series of $R$R-expressions separated by commas $\Gamma, \Delta, \Theta, ...$\Gamma, \Delta, \Theta, ... are used.
\noindent The \emph{R-degree} of $R$R-expressions is now defined as follows.
A formula of $L$L has the $R$R-degree 0.
If $S$S has $R$R-degree $n$n, then so does $-S$-S.
If $n$n is the maximum of the $R$R-degrees of $\Delta, S$\Delta, S, then $n+1$n+1 is the $R$R-degree of $\Delta \Rightarrow S$\Delta \Rightarrow S.
$R$R-expressions of $R$R-degree 1 will be called \emph{sequents}.
Furthermore, we will define the following: $S$S is \emph{R-subformula} of $S$S and all $R$R-subformulas of $S$S, resp. $\Delta$\Delta, $S$S, are also $R$R-subformulas of $-S$-S, resp. $\Delta \Rightarrow S$\Delta \Rightarrow S.
$R$R-subformulas of $R$R-degree 0 of an $R$R-formula $S$S will be called the \emph{formula components} of $S$S.
|
The language
| false
|
2507.06854
| 3
|
95,381
|
\label{appendix:detailed experimental settings}
In this section, we give more details on the setup of our experiments. We evaluate the performance of our adversarial patch attack on image classification and face recognition tasks, with comparisons to state-of-the-art attack methods, such as Google Patch \citep{brown2017adversarial}, LaVAN \citep{karmon2018lavan}, GDPA \citep{li2021generative}, and Masked Projected Gradient Descent (MPGD), which is an extension of the standard PGD attack introduced in~\citet{madry2017towards}. In addition, we evaluate the effectiveness of our attack against existing defense methods designed specifically against adversarial patch attacks~\citep{hayes2018visible,chen2022jujutsu,liu2022segment,tarchoun2023jedi,fu2024diffpad,kang2024diffender}. For GDPA, we balance attack efficacy and imperceptibility by setting the visibility parameter $\alpha$\alpha to $0.4$0.4, while for MPGD, we set the $l_{\infty}$l_{\infty}\infty perturbation bound to $ \epsilon = 16/255$ \epsilon = 16/255.
\shortsection{Dataset and Model Setup}Dataset and Model Setup
We consider a subset of the ILSVRC 2012 validation set~\citep{russakovsky2015imagenet} consisting of $1000$1000 correctly classified images, one from each class, for image classification. For face recognition, following \citet{li2021generative}, we use the test set of the VGG face dataset \citep{Parkhi15,li2021generative}, consisting of a total of $470$470 images across 10 classes. We consider four target network architectures: ResNet-50 \citep{he2016deep}, VGG16 \citep{simonyan2014very}, Swin Transformer Tiny, and Swin Transformer Base \citep{liu2021swin}. For image classification, we use their pre-trained weights. For face recognition, we re-train them on the VGG Face dataset’s train set, which comprised $3,178$3,178 images across $10$10 classes. The retraining procedure follows the same specifications as used by \cite{li2021generative}. All the images in both tasks are resized to a dimension of $224 \times 224$224 \times 224 before being attacked.
\shortsection{Attack Configuration}Attack Configuration
In our experiments, we optimize the patch until the target class confidence reaches $0.9$0.9 or for a maximum of $1,000$1,000 iterations. The patch size is fixed at $84\times 84$84\times 84, covering $14\%$14\% of the image. While we use a square patch following prior works, our optimization framework can be generalized to other shapes. If the attack fails, we reinitialize the step size up to three times. All experiments are conducted on a single NVIDIA A100 GPU ($80$80 GB), using PyTorch as the deep learning framework.
\shortsection{Attack Success Rate}Attack Success Rate
We evaluate the effectiveness of different attack methods based on targeted attack success rate, denoted as ASR, which characterizes the ratio of instances that can be successfully attacked using the evaluated method. Let $\mathcal{A}$\mathcal{A} be the evaluated attack, $f_\theta$f_\theta be the victim model, and $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} be a test set of correctly classified images. The ASR of $\mathcal{A}$\mathcal{A} with respect to $f_\theta$f_\theta and $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:10}
\mathrm{ASR}(\mathcal{A}; f_\theta, \mathcal{S}) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{S}|}\sum_{\bm{x} \in \mathcal{S}} \mathds{1}\big(f_\theta(\hat{\bm{x}}) = y_{\mathrm{targ}}\big),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eq:10}
\mathrm{ASR}(\mathcal{A}; f_\theta, \mathcal{S}) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{S}|}\sum_{\bm{x} \in \mathcal{S}} \mathds{1}\big(f_\theta(\hat{\bm{x}}) = y_{\mathrm{targ}}\big),
\end{equation}
\label{eq:10}
\mathrm{ASR}(\mathcal{A}; f_\theta, \mathcal{S}) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{S}|}\sum_{\bm{x} \in \mathcal{S}}\bm{x}x \in \mathcal{S} \mathds{1}1\big(f_\theta(\hat{\bm{x}}) = y_{\mathrm{targ}}\mathrm{targ}\big),
where $|\mathcal{S}|$|\mathcal{S}| denotes the cardinality of $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S}, and $\hat{\bm{x}}$\hat{\bm{x}} is the adversarial example generated by $\mathcal{A}$\mathcal{A} for $\bm{x}$\bm{x}x.
\shortsection{Imperceptibility}Imperceptibility
To measure patch imperceptibility, we use similarity matrices, incorporating both traditional statistical methods and convolutional neural network (CNN) based measures. The former measures involve Structural Similar Index Measure (SSIM)~\citep{wang2004image}, Universal Image Quality index (UIQ)~\citep{wang2002universal}, and Signal to Reconstruction Error ratio (SRE)~\citep{lanaras2018super}, while the latter involves CLIPScore~\citep{hessel2021clipscore}, and Learned Perceptual Image Patch Similarity (LPIPS) metric~\citep{zhang2018unreasonable}.
SSIM measures structural similarity, while UIQ evaluates distortion based on correlation, luminance, and contrast, yielding a single index within $[-1, 1]$[-1, 1]. SRE, akin to PSNR, measures error relative to the signal's power, ensuring consistency across different brightness levels. CLIPScore and LPIPS assess perceptual similarity using pre-trained DNNs, capturing subtle visual features. We evaluate similarity between adversarial and original samples on two scales: globally, by comparing entire images, and locally, by analyzing the similarity within the attacked region.
|
Detailed Experimental Settings
| false
|
2507.06856
| 8
|
95,379
|
\label{sec:further analysis}
\subsection{Black-Box \& Real-World Applicability}
To evaluate IAP’s generalizability beyond white-box settings, we assess both transferability and black-box performance. Adversarial patches generated on a surrogate model (e.g., ResNet-50) transfer reasonably well to unseen models like VGG and SqueezeNet, influenced by architectural similarity (see Figure \ref{fig:transfer} in Appendix \ref{append:transferability}). For true black-box adaptation, we approximate Grad-CAM using the surrogate and apply NES-based query optimization \cite{ilyas2018blackboxadversarialattackslimited}, achieving strong untargeted ASR with 12,000 queries on ImageNet (Table \ref{table: bbox}). Additionally, without specific adaptation, IAP demonstrates promising real-world physical attack abilities, achieving a 70\% average ASR on printed patches tested across images of varying viewpoints and object classes (see Figure \ref{fig:physical}), following PS-GAN's setup. Additional details are provided in Sections \ref{append:transferability}, \ref{append:black-box adaptation}, and \ref{append:physical} in the appendix.
\begin{table}[t]
% \centering
% \small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
{\textbf{Model}} & {\textbf{MobileNetV2}}& {\textbf{SqueezeNet}} & {\textbf{VGG13}} & {\textbf{DenseNet121}}& {\textbf{EfficientNet}}\\
\midrule
{\textbf{ASR}} & {$95\%$} & {$94\%$} & {$97\%$} & {$95\%$} & {$89\%$}\\
{\textbf{LPIPS$_L$}} & {$0.24$} & {$0.22$} & {$0.27$} & {$0.25$} & {$0.26$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Performance of IAP under black-box attack scenarios.}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\label{table: bbox}
\end{table}
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
{\textbf{Model}} & {\textbf{MobileNetV2}}& {\textbf{SqueezeNet}} & {\textbf{VGG13}} & {\textbf{DenseNet121}}& {\textbf{EfficientNet}}\\
\midrule
{\textbf{ASR}} & {$95\%$} & {$94\%$} & {$97\%$} & {$95\%$} & {$89\%$}\\
{\textbf{LPIPS$_L$}} & {$0.24$} & {$0.22$} & {$0.27$} & {$0.25$} & {$0.26$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
{\textbf{Model}}\textbf{Model} & {\textbf{MobileNetV2}}\textbf{MobileNetV2}& {\textbf{SqueezeNet}}\textbf{SqueezeNet} & {\textbf{VGG13}}\textbf{VGG13} & {\textbf{DenseNet121}}\textbf{DenseNet121}& {\textbf{EfficientNet}}\textbf{EfficientNet}\\
\midrule
{\textbf{ASR}}\textbf{ASR} & {$95\%$}$95\%$95\% & {$94\%$}$94\%$94\% & {$97\%$}$97\%$97\% & {$95\%$}$95\%$95\% & {$89\%$}$89\%$89\%\\
{\textbf{LPIPS$_L$}}\textbf{LPIPS$_L$} & {$0.24$}$0.24$0.24 & {$0.22$}$0.22$0.22 & {$0.27$}$0.27$0.27 & {$0.25$}$0.25$0.25 & {$0.26$}$0.26$0.26\\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Performance of IAP under black-box attack scenarios.}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\label{table: bbox}
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
We conduct ablation studies to evaluate the impact of key components in IAP, including patch size, the regularization coefficient $w_3$w_3 in the human-oriented distance metric (Equation \ref{eq:7}), part of the total loss function (Equation \ref{eq:8}), and finally the update rule. Larger patch sizes significantly improve both attack efficacy and imperceptibility, increasing $w_3$w_3 improves imperceptibility at the cost of slightly reduced attack success abilities, but excessively high values destabilize optimization and degrade both. Our update rule offers significantly better imperceptibility than Adam, with a minimal reduction in attack success rate. Detailed findings are elaborated in Appendix \ref{appendix:ablation studies}. Additionally, Figure \ref{fig:5} shows the impact of some of the key components of our attack methodology on the attack stealthiness, highlight the trade-offs and strengths of IAP’s design choices.
|
Further Analyses
| false
|
2507.06856
| 6
|
95,380
|
\label{sec:conclusion}
We introduced IAP, a perceptibility-aware optimization framework for generating imperceptible adversarial patches. Experimental results across various computer vision tasks demonstrated our method's superiority in maintaining high stealth and strong targeted attack efficacy. Beyond the white-box scenario, IAP also showed promise, both in black-box transferability and in the physical attack domain.
\shortsection{Limitation and Future Work}Limitation and Future Work
Despite its strengths, IAP has several limitations. First, it does not account for local pixel context during perturbation updates; thus, there is potential for individual pixels to become unnaturally bright or dark relative to their neighbors, reducing imperceptibility. Second, while the perceptibility-aware patch placement improves stealth, it introduces additional computational overhead, making the attack slower. Future work could explore more efficient alternatives that preserve effectiveness. Consistent with other adversarial patch methods, its effectiveness diminishes for smaller patch sizes. While IAP generalizes across several tasks and domains, including physical and black-box scenarios, further adaptation is required to ensure robustness in fully black-box, query-limited, or physical-world settings. Finally, we believe that developing defense strategies that align machine perception with human vision~\cite{hua2021humanimperceptibleattacksapplications, geirhos2022imagenettrainedcnnsbiasedtexture} is crucial for improving generalizability and potentially mitigating invisible adversarial patches.
\newpage
\clearpage
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieeenat_fullname}
\bibliography{11_references}
}\small
\bibliographystyle{ieeenat_fullname}ieeenat_fullname
\bibliography{11_references}
\newpage
\clearpage
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06856
| 7
|
95,382
|
\label{appendix:additional experiments}
\subsection{Additional Results on ImageNet}
\label{appendix:additional results on Imagenet}
In this section, we present additional detailed results corresponding to every victim model considered, with ``Toaster'' as the target class. The results include a comprehensive analysis of our attack's stealthiness, including all the imperceptibility metrics considered and mentioned earlier.
The evaluations across victim models, VGG16, ResNet-50, Swin Transformer Tiny, and Swin Transformer Base, are presented in Tables \ref{table: VGG16results}-\ref{table: SwinBresults} respectively. The results account for the stability of IAP across architectures in terms of ASR, which is either on par with or exceeds the baseline methods considered. As evident from the analysis, we achieve state-of-the-art performance in imperceptibility, further demonstrating its stability. The adversarial samples created corresponding to each victim architecture are shown along with their target class confidence in Figures \ref{fig:vgg16img}-\ref{fig:swinbimg}.
\shortsection{Cross-Class Attack Stability}Cross-Class Attack Stability
To assess the effectiveness of our attack across multiple target classes, we extend our evaluation beyond the ``Toaster'' class to include ``Baseball'' and ``Iron'' as additional targets. We employ ResNet-50 as the victim model while maintaining all other attack configurations consistent with previous experiments. The results, summarized in Table~\ref{table: multiTarget results}, demonstrate that IAP achieves consistently high ASR across different target classes while preserving its imperceptibility, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:othertarget}. Notably, our approach exhibits stability across classes, achieving an ASR of $99.47 \pm 0.13$99.47 \pm 0.13 and maintaining high imperceptibility, exemplified by a local SSIM of $0.94\pm ± 0.005$0.94\pm ± 0.005.
\subsection{Additional Results on VGG Face}
\label{appendix:additional results on VGG Face}
Here, we present detailed results explicitly corresponding to every victim model corresponding to the three target classes considered. Tables \ref{table: VGG16_0_results}-\ref{table: VGG16_3_results}, \ref{table: resnet_0_results}-\ref{table: resnet_3_results}, \ref{table: swint_0_results}-\ref{table: swint_3_results}, and \ref{table: swinb_0_results}-\ref{table: swinb_3_results} summarize the results for the three target classes using VGG16, ResNet-50, Swin Transformer Tiny, and Swin Transformer Base as victim models, respectively. The results show consistent attack performance across the criteria considered, as well as achieving state-of-the-art imperceptibility performance, which further demonstrates its efficiency. The adversarial samples corresponding to the target classes ``A. J. Buckley'', ``Aamir Khan'', and ``Aaron Staton'' are shown in Figures \ref{fig:vgg16vgg0}-\ref{fig:vgg16vgg3} respectively.
|
Additional Experiments
| false
|
2507.06856
| 9
|
95,383
|
\label{appendix:further analysis}
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
\label{appendix:ablation studies}
We perform ablation studies to assess key components of IAP, including patch size, update iterations, and the regularization coefficient in the loss function (Equation \ref{eq:8}). We compare our update rule with the Adam optimizer and test the assumption that adversarial patches attract classifier's attention. All experiments use ImageNet with Swin Transformer Base as the victim model. Here, we detail the comprehensive evaluation corresponding to both attack efficacy and imperceptibility. Table \ref{table: PSabla} demonstrates that as the patch size increases, the imperceptibility improves. Figure \ref{fig:PSimg} validates this as we see that the attack area becomes smoother with the increase in the size. Aligned with our hypothesis, initial increase in $w_3$w_3 improved the imperceptibility of the generated patches as presented in Table \ref{table: w3abla}. We studied the impact of the update rule proposed by our method, IAP, by altering it with the update rule corresponding to the Adam optimizer. As shown in Table \ref{table: URabla} and visualized in Figure \ref{fig:URimg}, we achieve most of our imperceptibility because of the update rule we utilize for updating the perturbation. In addition, we also considered the effect of the number of optimization steps on the ASR and imperceptibility of the attack.
\shortsection{Effect of Patch Size}Effect of Patch Size
We evaluate the impact of patch size on attack efficacy and imperceptibility. We hypothesize that increasing the patch size would enhance attack performance and imperceptibility, as the perturbations would disperse over a larger area while remaining less salient. The results support this hypothesis, with a $99.4\%$99.4\% attack success rate (ASR) for a patch covering $14\%$14\% of the image, compared to $72.2\%$72.2\% ASR for $2\%$2\% coverage. For patch sizes of $4\%$4\% or more, the ASR reached $90.7\%$90.7\% or higher. These findings also show improved imperceptibility with larger patch sizes as highlighted in Table \ref{table: swint_3_results} and Figure \ref{fig:res50img}.
\shortsection{Effect of Regularization Coefficient}Effect of Regularization Coefficient
We study the effect of the regularization coefficient $w_3$w_3 in the human-oriented distance metric (Equation \ref{eq:7}), part of the total loss function (Equation \ref{eq:8}). We hypothesize that increasing $w_3$w_3 would improve imperceptibility at the cost of slightly reducing attack performance. Our results support this hypothesis as shown in Table \ref{table: swinb_0_results}. As $w_3$w_3 increases, the attack success rate slightly decreases while imperceptibility improves. However, beyond a certain point, the trend reverses due to the destabilizing effect of large $w_3$w_3 values, which cause the loss function to be dominated by the regularization term, requiring more iterations for successful attacks and reducing imperceptibility.
\shortsection{Effect of Update Rule}Effect of Update Rule
We compare our proposed update rule, which allows for longer iterations with no perturbation magnitude constraints while maintaining imperceptibility, to the widely used Adam Optimizer update rule. We hypothesize that Adam, optimized for attack success, would yield a higher success rate. However, Adam’s updates alter each color channel separately, potentially changing the pixel’s base color, whereas our method preserves it. While Adam achieves a slightly higher attack success rate, IAP completely outperformed it in terms of imperceptibility as demonstrated in Table \ref{table: swinb_2_results}. Figure \ref{fig:5} visualizes and compares the adversarial patches generated by both approaches.
\shortsection{Effect of the number of Update Iterations}Effect of the number of Update Iterations
As the number of updates increases, the patch’s appearance diverges from the original, even if the perturbations remain less salient. Despite the reduced saliency, more iterations typically improve attack success rates. In these experiments, we fix the patch size at $6\%$6\% to evaluate the trade-off between attack efficacy and imperceptibility. The ASR increases as the number of update iterations increases, as shown by Table \ref{table: NIabla}, with a slight reduction in imperceptibility as perturbations accumulate, as shown in Figure \ref{fig: NIabla}.
\subsection{GradCAM analysis of Attention Overlap}
\label{append:GradCAM analysis of attention overlap}
To understand the change in the attention map induced by the adversarial samples generated by IAP, we analyze the shift in the highest attention location of the attention map generated in comparison to the one generated corresponding to the benign sample. We use GradCAM~\citep{selvaraju2017grad} to measure the attention maps. Analysis of the attention maps holds critical significance because of the defense implications that it can have on adversarial patch attacks. We measure the average proportion of the number of adversarial samples for which the location of highest attention in the attention map does not come within the attack surface area. We term this measure as ``NoPatchLoc'', which is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NPL}
\text{NoPatchLoc} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=0}^{N} (1-\mathbf{1}_A(x_i,y_i,Ox_i,Oy_i)),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NPL}
\text{NoPatchLoc} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=0}^{N} (1-\mathbf{1}_A(x_i,y_i,Ox_i,Oy_i)),
\end{equation}
\label{eq:NPL}
\text{NoPatchLoc} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=0}i=0^{N}N (1-\mathbf{1}_A(x_i,y_i,Ox_i,Oy_i)),
where $N$N is the total number of adversarial samples analyzed, and the indicator function is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\vspace{0.1in}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
$\mathbf{1}_A(x_i, y_i, O_{x_i}, O_{y_i}) =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } O_{x_i} \leq x_i < O_{x_i} + s \text{ and } O_{y_i} \leq y_i < O_{y_i} + s \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
$}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\vspace{0.1in}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
$\mathbf{1}_A(x_i, y_i, O_{x_i}, O_{y_i}) =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } O_{x_i} \leq x_i < O_{x_i} + s \text{ and } O_{y_i} \leq y_i < O_{y_i} + s \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
$}
\end{equation}
\vspace{0.1in}
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
$\mathbf{1}_A(x_i, y_i, O_{x_i}, O_{y_i}) =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } O_{x_i} \leq x_i < O_{x_i} + s \text{ and } O_{y_i} \leq y_i < O_{y_i} + s \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
$}
$\mathbf{1}_A(x_i, y_i, O_{x_i}, O_{y_i}) =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } O_{x_i} \leq x_i < O_{x_i} + s \text{ and } O_{y_i} \leq y_i < O_{y_i} + s \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
$\mathbf{1}_A(x_i, y_i, O_{x_i}x_i, O_{y_i}y_i) =
1, & \text{if } O_{x_i}x_i \leq x_i < O_{x_i}x_i + s \text{ and } O_{y_i}y_i \leq y_i < O_{y_i}y_i + s \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
,
where $s$s denotes the patch size, $(O_{x_i}, O_{y_i})$(O_{x_i}x_i, O_{y_i}y_i) is the optimal location identified by our method to locate the adversarial patch, and $(x_i,y_i)$(x_i,y_i) is the coordinate of the highest attention location. Table~\ref{table: gradatt} demonstrates the NoPatchLoc measures obtained from the generated adversarial samples corresponding to their respective victim models. As evident, except for ResNet-50, where the measure is $53.70\%$53.70\%, the highest attention location remains consistently outside the attack region for more than $70\%$70\% of the perturbed samples across all other architectures. The highest occurrence is observed for the Swin Transformer Base, achieving $81.30\%$81.30\%. This provides strong evidence that accounts for the strong stealth capabilities of our method, as highlighted by the performance against defense methods.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.9\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{transfer.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\caption{Transferability of IAP measured by ASR (\%) on ImageNet. The first row represents the substitute model, and the first column represents the target models.}
\label{fig:transfer}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\end{figure}
\centering
[b]{0.9\linewidth}0.9\linewidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{transfer.jpg}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\caption{Transferability of IAP measured by ASR (\%) on ImageNet. The first row represents the substitute model, and the first column represents the target models.}
\label{fig:transfer}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
\midrule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{NoPatchLoc(\%)}\\
\midrule
\midrule
VGG16 & $72.15$\\
ResNet-50 & $53.70$\\
Swin Transformer Tiny& $73.11$\\
Swin Transformer Base& $81.30$\\
\midrule
Average & $\bm{70.07}$\\
\midrule
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\caption{Assessment of whether the GradCAM's highest attention location overlaps with the adversarial patch location.}
\label{table: gradatt}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\toprule
\midrule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{NoPatchLoc(\%)}\\
\midrule
\midrule
VGG16 & $72.15$72.15\\
ResNet-50 & $53.70$53.70\\
Swin Transformer Tiny& $73.11$73.11\\
Swin Transformer Base& $81.30$81.30\\
\midrule
Average & $\bm{70.07}$\bm{70.07}70.07\\
\midrule
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.05in}
\caption{Assessment of whether the GradCAM's highest attention location overlaps with the adversarial patch location.}
\label{table: gradatt}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Transferability}
\label{append:transferability}
We assess the transferability of our general method in the untargeted scenario without incorporating any adaptations specifically aimed at enhancing attack transferability. Using a substitute model approach, we generate adversarial samples on the previously considered victim models and evaluate their transferability across a set of target models: SqueezeNet, ResNet-18, ResNet-34, VGG11, VGG13, and VGG19. Given that no specific adaptation scheme is used, our method achieves reasonable ASR as shown in Figure \ref{fig:transfer}. The results indicate that transferability is influenced by the architectural similarity between the substitute and target models, as well as their relative model sizes.
\subsection{Black-box Adaptation}
\label{append:black-box adaptation}
While IAP is initially designed as a white-box method, it can be successfully adapted to black-box settings. We ran additional experiments on ImageNet using the following black-box variation of IAP. Specifically, we first approximate the Grad-CAM localization map using a surrogate model (i.e., ResNet-50) for patch placement. Subsequently, we employ a hybrid approach for perturbation optimization, where we initialize the perturbations based on the same surrogate model and refine them using NES, a query-based attack algorithm.
The results are shown in Table \ref{table: bbox} in the main paper, where our black-box IAP variant achieves high (untargeted) attack success rates across different target models. We test $500$500 samples per model with a patch size of $84$84 and other parameters fixed. Based on white-box convergence trends, we run $400$400 surrogate iterations followed by $200$200 query-based steps, requiring at most $12,000$12,000 queries.
\subsection{Physical-World Applicability}
\label{append:physical}
Additionally, we examine IAP's generalizability to physical-world, untargeted attack settings on $5$5 object classes. Patches are generated using our optimization scheme, initialized from a reference sticker image like PS-GANs.
To ensure location invariance, each patch is trained by randomly placing it across four proposed ``optimal'' positions from different models. Printed patches are tested on $5$5 images per object under varying viewpoints (see Figure \ref{fig:physical} for illustrative examples), achieving an average ASR of $70\%$70\%, showing the potential of IAP's adaptability to physical domains.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.98\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{physical.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Illustrative images of physical-world applications of IAP.}
\label{fig:physical}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
[b]{0.98\linewidth}0.98\linewidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{physical.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Illustrative images of physical-world applications of IAP.}
\label{fig:physical}
\subsection{Flexibility in Patch Shape}
\label{append:flexibility in patch shape}
We also run additional experiments to study whether our method for generating invisible adversarial patches is shape-agnostic. Results are shown in Table \ref{table: Shape}, where we evaluate the performance of IAP using a circular patch with a diameter of $84$84 pixels ($11\%$11\% image area). Under our best-performing setup with Swin Transformer Base as the target model, IAP achieves a high ASR of $99.2\%$99.2\% while preserving imperceptibility with LPIPS as low as $0.085$0.085. We believe similar results can also be achieved for other typical patch shapes, since our attack framework supports arbitrary binary masks.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Shape}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Circle} & \multirow{2}{*}{$99.2\%$} & Local & $0.95$ & $0.88$ & $27.10$ & $91.46$ & $0.085$\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & $0.99$ & $0.98$ & $37.79$ & $99.13$ & $0.016$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Performance of IAP in ASR and various imperceptibility metrics with a circular patch shape and patch size of $11\%$.}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\label{table: Shape}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Shape}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Circle} & \multirow{2}{*}{$99.2\%$} & Local & $0.95$ & $0.88$ & $27.10$ & $91.46$ & $0.085$\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & $0.99$ & $0.98$ & $37.79$ & $99.13$ & $0.016$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Shape}}\textbf{Shape} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR}}\textbf{ASR} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Circle}Circle & \multirow{2}2{*}*{$99.2\%$}$99.2\%$99.2\% & Local & $0.95$0.95 & $0.88$0.88 & $27.10$27.10 & $91.46$91.46 & $0.085$0.085\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & $0.99$0.99 & $0.98$0.98 & $37.79$37.79 & $99.13$99.13 & $0.016$0.016 \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Performance of IAP in ASR and various imperceptibility metrics with a circular patch shape and patch size of $11\%$.}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\label{table: Shape}
\newpage
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vgg16img.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16img}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vgg16img.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16img}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{res50img.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:res50img}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{res50img.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:res50img}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{swintimg.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:swintimg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{swintimg.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:swintimg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{swinb.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:swinbimg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{swinb.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:swinbimg}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{othertarget.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:othertarget}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{othertarget.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts produced by IAP corresponding to the target class on the ImageNet Dataset with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:othertarget}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vggface0.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts with IAP and the target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''} on the VGG Face Dataset. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16vgg0}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vggface0.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts with IAP and the target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''} on the VGG Face Dataset. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16vgg0}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vggface2.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts with IAP and the target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''} on the VGG Face Dataset. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16vgg2}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vggface2.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts with IAP and the target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''} on the VGG Face Dataset. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16vgg2}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vggface3.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts with IAP and the target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''} on the VGG Face Dataset. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16vgg3}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{vggface3.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the original images and their adversarial counterparts with IAP and the target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''} on the VGG Face Dataset. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:vgg16vgg3}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{PS.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the impact of the patch sizes on attack imperceptibility. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:PSimg}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{PS.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the impact of the patch sizes on attack imperceptibility. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:PSimg}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{adamour.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of adversarial patch generated by update rule from Adam optimizer vs IAP. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:URimg}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{adamour.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of adversarial patch generated by update rule from Adam optimizer vs IAP. \( x \) represents the benign sample, and \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch corresponding to the target class. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$.}
\label{fig:URimg}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{iter.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} % Adjust space if needed
\caption{Visualizations of the impact of the number of update iterations on attack imperceptibility. \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$. The x-axis represents the number of update iterations.}
\label{fig: NIabla}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{iter.jpg}
\vspace{-0.1in} \caption{Visualizations of the impact of the number of update iterations on attack imperceptibility. \( \hat{x} \) represents the adversarial samples with the generated adversarial patch. The smaller images at the right-bottom corner correspond to the optimal location $(i', j')$. The x-axis represents the number of update iterations.}
\label{fig: NIabla}
\clearpage
\newpage
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.93 & 32.50 & 0.760\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.73 & 73.10 & 0.190 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{93.6} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.13 & 33.20 & 0.790\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 20.30 & 76.32 & 0.230 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{89.2} & Local & 0.310 & 0.300 & 19.90 & 56.25 & 0.610\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.890 & 0.880 & 28.00 & 84.00 & 0.130 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{96.5} & Local & 0.810 & 0.800 & 26.44 & 73.91 & 0.320\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 32.80 & 94.00 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.1}} & Local & \textbf{0.900} & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{28.94} & \textbf{72.70} & \textbf{0.230}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{36.42} & \textbf{95.10} & \textbf{0.060} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the \textbf{ImageNet} dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.93 & 32.50 & 0.760\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.73 & 73.10 & 0.190 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{93.6} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.13 & 33.20 & 0.790\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 20.30 & 76.32 & 0.230 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{89.2} & Local & 0.310 & 0.300 & 19.90 & 56.25 & 0.610\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.890 & 0.880 & 28.00 & 84.00 & 0.130 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{96.5} & Local & 0.810 & 0.800 & 26.44 & 73.91 & 0.320\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 32.80 & 94.00 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.1}} & Local & \textbf{0.900} & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{28.94} & \textbf{72.70} & \textbf{0.230}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{36.42} & \textbf{95.10} & \textbf{0.060} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.93 & 32.50 & 0.760\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.73 & 73.10 & 0.190 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{93.6}93.6 & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.13 & 33.20 & 0.790\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 20.30 & 76.32 & 0.230 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{89.2}89.2 & Local & 0.310 & 0.300 & 19.90 & 56.25 & 0.610\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.890 & 0.880 & 28.00 & 84.00 & 0.130 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{96.5}96.5 & Local & 0.810 & 0.800 & 26.44 & 73.91 & 0.320\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 32.80 & 94.00 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.1}}\textbf{99.1} & Local & \textbf{0.900} & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{28.94} & \textbf{72.70} & \textbf{0.230}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{36.42} & \textbf{95.10} & \textbf{0.060} \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the \textbf{ImageNet} dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.1} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 14.20 & 33.00 & 0.740\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 22.90 & 74.10 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 14.20 & 33.30 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.40 & 76.10 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{93.7} & Local & 0.350 & 0.330 & 19.80 & 65.20 & 0.570\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.920 & 0.910 & 28.40 & 87.10 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.8} & Local & 0.790 & 0.780 & 25.30 & 76.20 & 0.240\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 33.60 & 93.30 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.5}} & Local & \textbf{0.940} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{28.34} & \textbf{84.54} & \textbf{0.120}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{37.23} & \textbf{96.52} & \textbf{0.020} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: Resnet50results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.1} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 14.20 & 33.00 & 0.740\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 22.90 & 74.10 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 14.20 & 33.30 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.40 & 76.10 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{93.7} & Local & 0.350 & 0.330 & 19.80 & 65.20 & 0.570\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.920 & 0.910 & 28.40 & 87.10 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.8} & Local & 0.790 & 0.780 & 25.30 & 76.20 & 0.240\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 33.60 & 93.30 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.5}} & Local & \textbf{0.940} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{28.34} & \textbf{84.54} & \textbf{0.120}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{37.23} & \textbf{96.52} & \textbf{0.020} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.1}99.1 & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 14.20 & 33.00 & 0.740\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 22.90 & 74.10 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 14.20 & 33.30 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.40 & 76.10 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{93.7}93.7 & Local & 0.350 & 0.330 & 19.80 & 65.20 & 0.570\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.920 & 0.910 & 28.40 & 87.10 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{97.8}97.8 & Local & 0.790 & 0.780 & 25.30 & 76.20 & 0.240\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 33.60 & 93.30 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.5}}\textbf{99.5} & Local & \textbf{0.940} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{28.34} & \textbf{84.54} & \textbf{0.120}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{37.23} & \textbf{96.52} & \textbf{0.020} \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: Resnet50results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.8}} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.80 & 32.80 & 0.770\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.94 & 73.90 & 0.150 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.7} & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 14.13 & 33.10 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.30 & 76.32 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{83.7} & Local & 0.390 & 0.360 & 20.20 & 63.65 & 0.540\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.900 & 0.890 & 28.21 & 85.75 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.8} & Local & 0.800 & 0.790 & 25.50 & 80.54 & 0.190\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 33.11 & 95.80 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.6}} & Local & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.940} & \textbf{31.74} & \textbf{90.41} & \textbf{0.060}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.996} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.67} & \textbf{98.61} & \textbf{0.008} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: SwinTresults}
\end{table}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.8}} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.80 & 32.80 & 0.770\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.94 & 73.90 & 0.150 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.7} & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 14.13 & 33.10 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.30 & 76.32 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{83.7} & Local & 0.390 & 0.360 & 20.20 & 63.65 & 0.540\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.900 & 0.890 & 28.21 & 85.75 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.8} & Local & 0.800 & 0.790 & 25.50 & 80.54 & 0.190\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 33.11 & 95.80 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.6}} & Local & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.940} & \textbf{31.74} & \textbf{90.41} & \textbf{0.060}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.996} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.67} & \textbf{98.61} & \textbf{0.008} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.8}}\textbf{99.8} & Local & 0.002 & 0.000 & 11.80 & 32.80 & 0.770\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.94 & 73.90 & 0.150 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{99.7}99.7 & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 14.13 & 33.10 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.30 & 76.32 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{83.7}83.7 & Local & 0.390 & 0.360 & 20.20 & 63.65 & 0.540\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.900 & 0.890 & 28.21 & 85.75 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.8}98.8 & Local & 0.800 & 0.790 & 25.50 & 80.54 & 0.190\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 33.11 & 95.80 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.6}}\textbf{99.6} & Local & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.940} & \textbf{31.74} & \textbf{90.41} & \textbf{0.060}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.996} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.67} & \textbf{98.61} & \textbf{0.008} \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: SwinTresults}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.9} & Local & 0.003 & 0.000 & 10.74 & 32.90 & 0.770\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.61 & 73.20 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.004 & 0.000 & 13.10 & 33.19 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.30 & 76.35 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{85.1} & Local & 0.360 & 0.345 & 20.40 & 61.25 & 0.540\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.870 & 28.00 & 85.10 & 0.110 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{70.5} & Local & 0.800 & 0.800 & 25.30 & 74.30 & 0.200\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 33.00 & 92.10 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.4}} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: SwinBresults}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.9} & Local & 0.003 & 0.000 & 10.74 & 32.90 & 0.770\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.61 & 73.20 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.004 & 0.000 & 13.10 & 33.19 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.30 & 76.35 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{85.1} & Local & 0.360 & 0.345 & 20.40 & 61.25 & 0.540\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.870 & 28.00 & 85.10 & 0.110 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{70.5} & Local & 0.800 & 0.800 & 25.30 & 74.30 & 0.200\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 33.00 & 92.10 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.4}} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{97.9}97.9 & Local & 0.003 & 0.000 & 10.74 & 32.90 & 0.770\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.61 & 73.20 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.004 & 0.000 & 13.10 & 33.19 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.810 & 23.30 & 76.35 & 0.180 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{85.1}85.1 & Local & 0.360 & 0.345 & 20.40 & 61.25 & 0.540\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.870 & 28.00 & 85.10 & 0.110 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{70.5}70.5 & Local & 0.800 & 0.800 & 25.30 & 74.30 & 0.200\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 33.00 & 92.10 & 0.050 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.4}}\textbf{99.4} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed comparison of ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LIPIPS.}
\label{table: SwinBresults}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{y$_{targ}$}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ipod} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.6} & Local & 0.95 & 0.92 & 28.9 & 86.8 & 0.115\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.99 & 0.97 & 37.8 & 97.1 & 0.018 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Baseball} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.3} & Local & 0.94 & 0.91 & 28.5 & 85.0 & 0.118\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.99 & 0.97 & 37.4 & 96.7 & 0.019 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Toaster} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.94 & 0.91 & 28.3 & 84.5 & 0.120\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.970 & 37.23 & 96.52 & 0.020 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed evaluation of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility for different target classes within the ImageNet Dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$), the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$), the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: multiTarget results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{y$_{targ}$}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ipod} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.6} & Local & 0.95 & 0.92 & 28.9 & 86.8 & 0.115\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.99 & 0.97 & 37.8 & 97.1 & 0.018 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Baseball} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.3} & Local & 0.94 & 0.91 & 28.5 & 85.0 & 0.118\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.99 & 0.97 & 37.4 & 96.7 & 0.019 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Toaster} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.94 & 0.91 & 28.3 & 84.5 & 0.120\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.970 & 37.23 & 96.52 & 0.020 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{y$_{targ}$}}\textbf{y$_{targ}$} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ipod}Ipod & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.6}99.6 & Local & 0.95 & 0.92 & 28.9 & 86.8 & 0.115\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.99 & 0.97 & 37.8 & 97.1 & 0.018 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Baseball}Baseball & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.3}99.3 & Local & 0.94 & 0.91 & 28.5 & 85.0 & 0.118\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.99 & 0.97 & 37.4 & 96.7 & 0.019 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Toaster}Toaster & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.5}99.5 & Local & 0.94 & 0.91 & 28.3 & 84.5 & 0.120\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.970 & 37.23 & 96.52 & 0.020 \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Detailed evaluation of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility for different target classes within the ImageNet Dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$), the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$), the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: multiTarget results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.95 & 36.82 & 0.890\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.812 & 0.820 & 19.46 & 68.22 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 15.85 & 36.55 & 0.865\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.825 & 24.18 & 71.84 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{96.12} & Local & 0.240 & 0.220 & 21.00 & 57.96 & 0.660\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.870 & 0.865 & 29.00 & 75.66 & 0.151 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{88.9} & Local & 0.620 & 0.533 & 28.30 & 65.30 & 0.400\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.960 & 0.935 & 36.70 & 86.70 & 0.087 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & \textbf{0.930} & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{31.81} & \textbf{66.50} & \textbf{0.207}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.11} & \textbf{88.57} & \textbf{0.039} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16_0_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.95 & 36.82 & 0.890\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.812 & 0.820 & 19.46 & 68.22 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 15.85 & 36.55 & 0.865\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.825 & 24.18 & 71.84 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{96.12} & Local & 0.240 & 0.220 & 21.00 & 57.96 & 0.660\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.870 & 0.865 & 29.00 & 75.66 & 0.151 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{88.9} & Local & 0.620 & 0.533 & 28.30 & 65.30 & 0.400\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.960 & 0.935 & 36.70 & 86.70 & 0.087 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & \textbf{0.930} & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{31.81} & \textbf{66.50} & \textbf{0.207}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.11} & \textbf{88.57} & \textbf{0.039} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.95 & 36.82 & 0.890\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.812 & 0.820 & 19.46 & 68.22 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 15.85 & 36.55 & 0.865\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.825 & 24.18 & 71.84 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{96.12}96.12 & Local & 0.240 & 0.220 & 21.00 & 57.96 & 0.660\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.870 & 0.865 & 29.00 & 75.66 & 0.151 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{88.9}88.9 & Local & 0.620 & 0.533 & 28.30 & 65.30 & 0.400\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.960 & 0.935 & 36.70 & 86.70 & 0.087 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & \textbf{0.930} & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{31.81} & \textbf{66.50} & \textbf{0.207}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.11} & \textbf{88.57} & \textbf{0.039} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16_0_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.9}} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.76 & 36.43 & 0.860\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.810 & 0.820 & 19.36 & 68.22 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 15.64 & 36.52 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.825 & 24.06 & 71.56 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.50} & Local & 0.220 & 0.190 & 21.46 & 55.50 & 0.685\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.850 & 0.840 & 55.50 & 63.41 & 0.190 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{86.85} & Local & 0.650 & 0.550 & 27.80 & 65.20 & 0.420\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 36.10 & 86.60 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.8}} & Local & \textbf{0.924} & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{31.94} & \textbf{68.24} & \textbf{0.200}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.08} & \textbf{88.70} & \textbf{0.039} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16_2_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.9}} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.76 & 36.43 & 0.860\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.810 & 0.820 & 19.36 & 68.22 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 15.64 & 36.52 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.825 & 24.06 & 71.56 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.50} & Local & 0.220 & 0.190 & 21.46 & 55.50 & 0.685\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.850 & 0.840 & 55.50 & 63.41 & 0.190 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{86.85} & Local & 0.650 & 0.550 & 27.80 & 65.20 & 0.420\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 36.10 & 86.60 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.8}} & Local & \textbf{0.924} & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{31.94} & \textbf{68.24} & \textbf{0.200}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.08} & \textbf{88.70} & \textbf{0.039} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.9}}\textbf{99.9} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.76 & 36.43 & 0.860\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.810 & 0.820 & 19.36 & 68.22 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{99.5}99.5 & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 15.64 & 36.52 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.825 & 24.06 & 71.56 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{99.50}99.50 & Local & 0.220 & 0.190 & 21.46 & 55.50 & 0.685\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.850 & 0.840 & 55.50 & 63.41 & 0.190 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{86.85}86.85 & Local & 0.650 & 0.550 & 27.80 & 65.20 & 0.420\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 36.10 & 86.60 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{98.8}}\textbf{98.8} & Local & \textbf{0.924} & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{31.94} & \textbf{68.24} & \textbf{0.200}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.08} & \textbf{88.70} & \textbf{0.039} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16_2_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.76 & 36.65 & 0.860\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.810 & 0.820 & 18.27 & 68.70 & 0.290 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.003 & 0.000 & 11.89 & 36.45 & 0.870\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.824 & 20.30 & 71.67 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{91.50} & Local & 0.476 & 0.465 & 22.85 & 60.48 & 0.53\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.900 & 0.890 & 29.45 & 76.00 & 0.125 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{84.95} & Local & 0.680 & 0.564 & 27.30 & 65.10 & 0.440\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.924 & 35.88 & 85.10 & 0.094 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.53}} & Local & \textbf{0.904} & \textbf{0.850} & \textbf{31.40} & \textbf{65.80} & \textbf{0.217}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{39.61} & \textbf{87.72} & \textbf{0.042} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16_3_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.76 & 36.65 & 0.860\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.810 & 0.820 & 18.27 & 68.70 & 0.290 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.003 & 0.000 & 11.89 & 36.45 & 0.870\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.824 & 20.30 & 71.67 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{91.50} & Local & 0.476 & 0.465 & 22.85 & 60.48 & 0.53\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.900 & 0.890 & 29.45 & 76.00 & 0.125 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{84.95} & Local & 0.680 & 0.564 & 27.30 & 65.10 & 0.440\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.924 & 35.88 & 85.10 & 0.094 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.53}} & Local & \textbf{0.904} & \textbf{0.850} & \textbf{31.40} & \textbf{65.80} & \textbf{0.217}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{39.61} & \textbf{87.72} & \textbf{0.042} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.76 & 36.65 & 0.860\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.810 & 0.820 & 18.27 & 68.70 & 0.290 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.003 & 0.000 & 11.89 & 36.45 & 0.870\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.820 & 0.824 & 20.30 & 71.67 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{91.50}91.50 & Local & 0.476 & 0.465 & 22.85 & 60.48 & 0.53\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.900 & 0.890 & 29.45 & 76.00 & 0.125 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{84.95}84.95 & Local & 0.680 & 0.564 & 27.30 & 65.10 & 0.440\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.924 & 35.88 & 85.10 & 0.094 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.53}}\textbf{99.53} & Local & \textbf{0.904} & \textbf{0.850} & \textbf{31.40} & \textbf{65.80} & \textbf{0.217}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{39.61} & \textbf{87.72} & \textbf{0.042} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{VGG16} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: VGG16_3_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.0} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.52 & 38.81 & 0.730\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 24.25 & 63.13 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.80 & 36.81 & 0.840\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.826 & 25.12 & 71.64 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.310 & 0.250 & 22.00 & 53.00 & 0.660\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.860 & 29.00 & 59.00 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{78.1} & Local & 0.620 & 0.560 & 26.99 & 61.78 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.56 & 85.42 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.8}} & Local & \textbf{0.920} & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{32.11} & \textbf{69.40} & \textbf{0.170}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.66} & \textbf{90.55} & \textbf{0.030} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: resnet_0_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.0} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.52 & 38.81 & 0.730\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 24.25 & 63.13 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.80 & 36.81 & 0.840\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.826 & 25.12 & 71.64 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.310 & 0.250 & 22.00 & 53.00 & 0.660\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.860 & 29.00 & 59.00 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{78.1} & Local & 0.620 & 0.560 & 26.99 & 61.78 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.56 & 85.42 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.8}} & Local & \textbf{0.920} & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{32.11} & \textbf{69.40} & \textbf{0.170}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.66} & \textbf{90.55} & \textbf{0.030} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.0}98.0 & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.52 & 38.81 & 0.730\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 24.25 & 63.13 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.80 & 36.81 & 0.840\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.826 & 25.12 & 71.64 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{99.5}99.5 & Local & 0.310 & 0.250 & 22.00 & 53.00 & 0.660\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.860 & 29.00 & 59.00 & 0.170 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{78.1}78.1 & Local & 0.620 & 0.560 & 26.99 & 61.78 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.56 & 85.42 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{98.8}}\textbf{98.8} & Local & \textbf{0.920} & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{32.11} & \textbf{69.40} & \textbf{0.170}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.990} & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{40.66} & \textbf{90.55} & \textbf{0.030} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: resnet_0_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.001 & 0.000 & 16.47 & 38.80 & 0.800\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 21.89 & 63.13 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.89 & 36.82 & 0.830\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.826 & 25.30 & 71.51 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.70} & Local & 0.280 & 0.230 & 21.99 & 56.73 & 0.600\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.870 & 0.850 & 56.73 & 59.32 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{70.74} & Local & 0.610 & 0.550 & 26.60 & 59.87 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.30 & 84.63 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{93.0}} & Local & \textbf{0.890} & \textbf{0.830} & \textbf{30.88} & \textbf{65.75} & \textbf{0.226}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{39.37} & \textbf{87.30} & \textbf{0.040} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: resnet_2_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.5} & Local & 0.001 & 0.000 & 16.47 & 38.80 & 0.800\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 21.89 & 63.13 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.89 & 36.82 & 0.830\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.826 & 25.30 & 71.51 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{99.70} & Local & 0.280 & 0.230 & 21.99 & 56.73 & 0.600\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.870 & 0.850 & 56.73 & 59.32 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{70.74} & Local & 0.610 & 0.550 & 26.60 & 59.87 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.30 & 84.63 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{93.0}} & Local & \textbf{0.890} & \textbf{0.830} & \textbf{30.88} & \textbf{65.75} & \textbf{0.226}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{39.37} & \textbf{87.30} & \textbf{0.040} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.5}99.5 & Local & 0.001 & 0.000 & 16.47 & 38.80 & 0.800\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 21.89 & 63.13 & 0.270 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.89 & 36.82 & 0.830\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.826 & 25.30 & 71.51 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{99.70}99.70 & Local & 0.280 & 0.230 & 21.99 & 56.73 & 0.600\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.870 & 0.850 & 56.73 & 59.32 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD }MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{70.74}70.74 & Local & 0.610 & 0.550 & 26.60 & 59.87 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.30 & 84.63 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{93.0}}\textbf{93.0} & Local & \textbf{0.890} & \textbf{0.830} & \textbf{30.88} & \textbf{65.75} & \textbf{0.226}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{39.37} & \textbf{87.30} & \textbf{0.040} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: resnet_2_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{80.3} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.52 & 38.81 & 0.730\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 24.25 & 63.13 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{97.0}} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.45 & 41.54 & 0.750\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 22.32 & 62.68 & 0.240 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{98.00} & Local & 0.330 & 0.280 & 22.10 & 55.68 & 0.60\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.850 & 29.12 & 57.54 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{52.50} & Local & 0.610 & 0.550 & 26.83 & 60.25 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.25 & 83.42 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{91.80}} & Local & \textbf{0.890} & \textbf{0.840} & \textbf{30.89} & \textbf{65.70} & \textbf{0.216}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{39.33} & \textbf{88.32} & \textbf{0.040} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: resnet_3_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{80.3} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.52 & 38.81 & 0.730\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 24.25 & 63.13 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{97.0}} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.45 & 41.54 & 0.750\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 22.32 & 62.68 & 0.240 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{98.00} & Local & 0.330 & 0.280 & 22.10 & 55.68 & 0.60\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.850 & 29.12 & 57.54 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{52.50} & Local & 0.610 & 0.550 & 26.83 & 60.25 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.25 & 83.42 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{91.80}} & Local & \textbf{0.890} & \textbf{0.840} & \textbf{30.89} & \textbf{65.70} & \textbf{0.216}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{39.33} & \textbf{88.32} & \textbf{0.040} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{80.3}80.3 & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.52 & 38.81 & 0.730\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 24.25 & 63.13 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{97.0}}\textbf{97.0} & Local & 0.010 & 0.000 & 17.45 & 41.54 & 0.750\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 22.32 & 62.68 & 0.240 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{98.00}98.00 & Local & 0.330 & 0.280 & 22.10 & 55.68 & 0.60\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.850 & 29.12 & 57.54 & 0.200 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD }MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{52.50}52.50 & Local & 0.610 & 0.550 & 26.83 & 60.25 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.25 & 83.42 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{91.80}}\textbf{91.80} & Local & \textbf{0.890} & \textbf{0.840} & \textbf{30.89} & \textbf{65.70} & \textbf{0.216}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{39.33} & \textbf{88.32} & \textbf{0.040} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{ResNet-50} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: resnet_3_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.9} & Local & 0.040 & 0.000 & 10.12 & 36.10 & 0.820\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.830 & 16.87 & 66.88 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.49 & 36.50 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.75 & 71.87 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{92.9} & Local & 0.330 & 0.270 & 21.85 & 62.10 & 0.570\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.870 & 29.30 & 71.76 & 0.140 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{95.5} & Local & 0.630 & 0.540 & 27.65 & 62.48 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.72 & 86.66 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.3}} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.800} & \textbf{29.22} & \textbf{63.28} & \textbf{0.275}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.00} & \textbf{87.83} & \textbf{0.048} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swint_0_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.9} & Local & 0.040 & 0.000 & 10.12 & 36.10 & 0.820\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.830 & 16.87 & 66.88 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.49 & 36.50 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.75 & 71.87 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{92.9} & Local & 0.330 & 0.270 & 21.85 & 62.10 & 0.570\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.870 & 29.30 & 71.76 & 0.140 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{95.5} & Local & 0.630 & 0.540 & 27.65 & 62.48 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.72 & 86.66 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.3}} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.800} & \textbf{29.22} & \textbf{63.28} & \textbf{0.275}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.00} & \textbf{87.83} & \textbf{0.048} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.9}98.9 & Local & 0.040 & 0.000 & 10.12 & 36.10 & 0.820\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.830 & 16.87 & 66.88 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.49 & 36.50 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.75 & 71.87 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{92.9}92.9 & Local & 0.330 & 0.270 & 21.85 & 62.10 & 0.570\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.880 & 0.870 & 29.30 & 71.76 & 0.140 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD }MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{95.5}95.5 & Local & 0.630 & 0.540 & 27.65 & 62.48 & 0.380\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.72 & 86.66 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.3}}\textbf{99.3} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.800} & \textbf{29.22} & \textbf{63.28} & \textbf{0.275}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.00} & \textbf{87.83} & \textbf{0.048} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swint_0_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.2} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.11 & 37.23 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.22 & 67.50 & 0.230 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 16.31 & 36.57 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.71 & 71.73 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{100} & Local & 0.340 & 0.300 & 19.85 & 60.84 & 0.600\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.910 & 29.82 & 80.01 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{94.87} & Local & 0.640 & 0.550 & 27.68 & 62.69 & 0.370\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.80 & 86.97 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.3}} & Local & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{0.820} & \textbf{29.80} & \textbf{63.00} & \textbf{0.240}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.60} & \textbf{88.20} & \textbf{0.043} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swint_2_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.2} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.11 & 37.23 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.22 & 67.50 & 0.230 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 16.31 & 36.57 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.71 & 71.73 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{100} & Local & 0.340 & 0.300 & 19.85 & 60.84 & 0.600\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.910 & 29.82 & 80.01 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{94.87} & Local & 0.640 & 0.550 & 27.68 & 62.69 & 0.370\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.80 & 86.97 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.3}} & Local & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{0.820} & \textbf{29.80} & \textbf{63.00} & \textbf{0.240}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.60} & \textbf{88.20} & \textbf{0.043} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.2}99.2 & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.11 & 37.23 & 0.780\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.22 & 67.50 & 0.230 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 16.31 & 36.57 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.71 & 71.73 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{100}100 & Local & 0.340 & 0.300 & 19.85 & 60.84 & 0.600\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.910 & 29.82 & 80.01 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD }MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{94.87}94.87 & Local & 0.640 & 0.550 & 27.68 & 62.69 & 0.370\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.80 & 86.97 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.3}}\textbf{99.3} & Local & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{0.820} & \textbf{29.80} & \textbf{63.00} & \textbf{0.240}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.60} & \textbf{88.20} & \textbf{0.043} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swint_2_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.3} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 12.60 & 38.84 & 0.820\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.48 & 63.13 & 0.290 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.45 & 36.67 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.82 & 72.06 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{92.4} & Local & 0.310 & 0.260 & 20.19 & 54.86 & 0.65\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.860 & 0.840 & 27.21 & 60.54 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{96.2} & Local & 0.640 & 0.550 & 27.76 & 61.90 & 0.360\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.85 & 87.30 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.60}} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.800} & \textbf{29.64} & \textbf{62.00} & \textbf{0.260}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.34} & \textbf{87.90} & \textbf{0.046} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swint_3_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.3} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 12.60 & 38.84 & 0.820\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.48 & 63.13 & 0.290 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.45 & 36.67 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.82 & 72.06 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{92.4} & Local & 0.310 & 0.260 & 20.19 & 54.86 & 0.65\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.860 & 0.840 & 27.21 & 60.54 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{96.2} & Local & 0.640 & 0.550 & 27.76 & 61.90 & 0.360\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.85 & 87.30 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.60}} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.800} & \textbf{29.64} & \textbf{62.00} & \textbf{0.260}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.34} & \textbf{87.90} & \textbf{0.046} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.3}99.3 & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 12.60 & 38.84 & 0.820\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.48 & 63.13 & 0.290 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.007 & 0.000 & 16.45 & 36.67 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.82 & 72.06 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{92.4}92.4 & Local & 0.310 & 0.260 & 20.19 & 54.86 & 0.65\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.860 & 0.840 & 27.21 & 60.54 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{96.2}96.2 & Local & 0.640 & 0.550 & 27.76 & 61.90 & 0.360\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.85 & 87.30 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{98.60}}\textbf{98.60} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.800} & \textbf{29.64} & \textbf{62.00} & \textbf{0.260}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.34} & \textbf{87.90} & \textbf{0.046} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Tiny} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swint_3_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.2} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.23 & 36.51 & 0.835\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.23 & 67.65 & 0.240 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 15.47 & 36.52 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 23.80 & 71.82 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{77.24} & Local & 0.410 & 0.360 & 21.59 & 58.14 & 0.56\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.900 & 29.66 & 72.23 & 0.110 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.9} & Local & 0.600 & 0.520 & 27.45 & 61.22 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 35.57 & 85.00 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.0}} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.780} & \textbf{29.8} & \textbf{63.00} & \textbf{0.300}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{38.10} & \textbf{86.00} & \textbf{0.055} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swinb_0_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.2} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.23 & 36.51 & 0.835\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.23 & 67.65 & 0.240 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 15.47 & 36.52 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 23.80 & 71.82 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{77.24} & Local & 0.410 & 0.360 & 21.59 & 58.14 & 0.56\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.900 & 29.66 & 72.23 & 0.110 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.9} & Local & 0.600 & 0.520 & 27.45 & 61.22 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 35.57 & 85.00 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.0}} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.780} & \textbf{29.8} & \textbf{63.00} & \textbf{0.300}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{38.10} & \textbf{86.00} & \textbf{0.055} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.2}98.2 & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.23 & 36.51 & 0.835\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.23 & 67.65 & 0.240 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.005 & 0.000 & 15.47 & 36.52 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 23.80 & 71.82 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{77.24}77.24 & Local & 0.410 & 0.360 & 21.59 & 58.14 & 0.56\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.900 & 29.66 & 72.23 & 0.110 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{97.9}97.9 & Local & 0.600 & 0.520 & 27.45 & 61.22 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.920 & 35.57 & 85.00 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.0}}\textbf{99.0} & Local & \textbf{0.860} & \textbf{0.780} & \textbf{29.8} & \textbf{63.00} & \textbf{0.300}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{38.10} & \textbf{86.00} & \textbf{0.055} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``A. J. Buckley''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swinb_0_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.2} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.78 & 36.85 & 0.900\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.10 & 69.36 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.3}} & Local & 0.004 & 0.000 & 15.00 & 36.49 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.824 & 23.40 & 71.68 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{55.1} & Local & 0.160 & 0.140 & 18.36 & 65.87 & 0.700\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.920 & 0.920 & 30.10 & 84.10 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{80.81} & Local & 0.610 & 0.530 & 27.35 & 61.22 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.47 & 85.28 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{97.0}} & Local & \textbf{0.840} & \textbf{0.760} & \textbf{29.63} & \textbf{61.00} & \textbf{0.300}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{37.84} & \textbf{86.00} & \textbf{0.055} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swinb_2_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.2} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.78 & 36.85 & 0.900\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.10 & 69.36 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.3}} & Local & 0.004 & 0.000 & 15.00 & 36.49 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.824 & 23.40 & 71.68 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{55.1} & Local & 0.160 & 0.140 & 18.36 & 65.87 & 0.700\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.920 & 0.920 & 30.10 & 84.10 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD } & \multirow{2}{*}{80.81} & Local & 0.610 & 0.530 & 27.35 & 61.22 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.47 & 85.28 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{97.0}} & Local & \textbf{0.840} & \textbf{0.760} & \textbf{29.63} & \textbf{61.00} & \textbf{0.300}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{37.84} & \textbf{86.00} & \textbf{0.055} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{97.2}97.2 & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 10.78 & 36.85 & 0.900\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 18.10 & 69.36 & 0.260 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.3}}\textbf{99.3} & Local & 0.004 & 0.000 & 15.00 & 36.49 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.824 & 23.40 & 71.68 & 0.220 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{55.1}55.1 & Local & 0.160 & 0.140 & 18.36 & 65.87 & 0.700\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.920 & 0.920 & 30.10 & 84.10 & 0.090 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD }MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{80.81}80.81 & Local & 0.610 & 0.530 & 27.35 & 61.22 & 0.390\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.940 & 0.930 & 35.47 & 85.28 & 0.080 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{97.0}}\textbf{97.0} & Local & \textbf{0.840} & \textbf{0.760} & \textbf{29.63} & \textbf{61.00} & \textbf{0.300}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.960} & \textbf{37.84} & \textbf{86.00} & \textbf{0.055} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aamir Khan''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swinb_2_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.3} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.86 & 35.58 & 0.920\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.78 & 68.63 & 0.280 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.8}} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 15.73 & 36.70 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.12 & 71.96 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{84.9} & Local & 0.290 & 0.260 & 19.76 & 57.25 & 0.620\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.910 & 29.72 & 78.20 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{94.9} & Local & 0.630 & 0.550 & 27.75 & 61.50 & 0.370\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.84 & 86.54 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.6}} & Local & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{0.810} & \textbf{30.50} & \textbf{63.50} & \textbf{0.250}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.84} & \textbf{88.40} & \textbf{0.045} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swinb_3_results}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Google Patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.3} & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.86 & 35.58 & 0.920\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.78 & 68.63 & 0.280 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{LaVAN} &\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.8}} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 15.73 & 36.70 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.12 & 71.96 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{GDPA} &\multirow{2}{*}{84.9} & Local & 0.290 & 0.260 & 19.76 & 57.25 & 0.620\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.910 & 29.72 & 78.20 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MPGD} & \multirow{2}{*}{94.9} & Local & 0.630 & 0.550 & 27.75 & 61.50 & 0.370\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.84 & 86.54 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.6}} & Local & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{0.810} & \textbf{30.50} & \textbf{63.50} & \textbf{0.250}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.84} & \textbf{88.40} & \textbf{0.045} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Method}}\textbf{Method} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Google Patch}Google Patch & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.3}98.3 & Local & 0.000 & 0.000 & 11.86 & 35.58 & 0.920\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.830 & 0.820 & 17.78 & 68.63 & 0.280 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{LaVAN}LaVAN &\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.8}}\textbf{99.8} & Local & 0.006 & 0.000 & 15.73 & 36.70 & 0.850\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.840 & 0.825 & 24.12 & 71.96 & 0.210 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{GDPA}GDPA &\multirow{2}2{*}*{84.9}84.9 & Local & 0.290 & 0.260 & 19.76 & 57.25 & 0.620\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.910 & 0.910 & 29.72 & 78.20 & 0.100 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{MPGD}MPGD & \multirow{2}2{*}*{94.9}94.9 & Local & 0.630 & 0.550 & 27.75 & 61.50 & 0.370\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.950 & 0.930 & 35.84 & 86.54 & 0.070 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{98.6}}\textbf{98.6} & Local & \textbf{0.880} & \textbf{0.810} & \textbf{30.50} & \textbf{63.50} & \textbf{0.250}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.980} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{38.84} & \textbf{88.40} & \textbf{0.045} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Detailed evaluation and comparison of attack efficacy through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the VGG Face dataset for the Target class \textbf{``Aaron Staton''}. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: swinb_3_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Patch Size(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{2} & \multirow{2}{*}{72.2} & Local & 0.640 & 0.530 & 21.07 & 70.00 & 0.413\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.985 & 38.10 & 98.20 & 0.014 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{4} &\multirow{2}{*}{90.7} & Local & 0.784 & 0.683 & 23.32 & 70.77 & 0.308\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.972 & 37.68 & 98.11 & 0.014 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{6} &\multirow{2}{*}{94.2} & Local & 0.854 & 0.756 & 25.02 & 74.74 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 37.86 & 98.18 & 0.013 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.3} & Local & 0.896 & 0.810 & 26.77 & 78.05 & 0.183\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 38.14 & 98.15 & 0.012 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{10} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.1} & Local & 0.920 & 0.840 & 27.90 & 80.91 & 0.152\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.970 & 38.31 & 97.97 & 0.011 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{12} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.0} & Local & 0.934 & 0.860 & 28.90 & 83.43 & 0.126\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.46 & 98.03 & 0.011 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{14} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.4}} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Impact of \textbf{patch size} on attack performance represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: PSabla}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Patch Size(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{2} & \multirow{2}{*}{72.2} & Local & 0.640 & 0.530 & 21.07 & 70.00 & 0.413\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.985 & 38.10 & 98.20 & 0.014 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{4} &\multirow{2}{*}{90.7} & Local & 0.784 & 0.683 & 23.32 & 70.77 & 0.308\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.972 & 37.68 & 98.11 & 0.014 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{6} &\multirow{2}{*}{94.2} & Local & 0.854 & 0.756 & 25.02 & 74.74 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 37.86 & 98.18 & 0.013 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.3} & Local & 0.896 & 0.810 & 26.77 & 78.05 & 0.183\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 38.14 & 98.15 & 0.012 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{10} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.1} & Local & 0.920 & 0.840 & 27.90 & 80.91 & 0.152\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.970 & 38.31 & 97.97 & 0.011 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{12} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.0} & Local & 0.934 & 0.860 & 28.90 & 83.43 & 0.126\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.46 & 98.03 & 0.011 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{14} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{99.4}} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Patch Size(\%)}}\textbf{Patch Size(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{2}2 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{72.2}72.2 & Local & 0.640 & 0.530 & 21.07 & 70.00 & 0.413\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.985 & 38.10 & 98.20 & 0.014 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{4}4 &\multirow{2}2{*}*{90.7}90.7 & Local & 0.784 & 0.683 & 23.32 & 70.77 & 0.308\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.972 & 37.68 & 98.11 & 0.014 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{6}6 &\multirow{2}2{*}*{94.2}94.2 & Local & 0.854 & 0.756 & 25.02 & 74.74 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 37.86 & 98.18 & 0.013 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{8}8 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{97.3}97.3 & Local & 0.896 & 0.810 & 26.77 & 78.05 & 0.183\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 38.14 & 98.15 & 0.012 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{10}10 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.1}98.1 & Local & 0.920 & 0.840 & 27.90 & 80.91 & 0.152\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.970 & 38.31 & 97.97 & 0.011 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{12}12 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.0}99.0 & Local & 0.934 & 0.860 & 28.90 & 83.43 & 0.126\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.46 & 98.03 & 0.011 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{14}14 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{99.4}}\textbf{99.4} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Impact of \textbf{patch size} on attack performance represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: PSabla}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{w$_3$}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{0} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.0} & Local & 0.943 & 0.873 & 29.76 & 85.54 & 0.111\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.964 & 38.59 & 97.95 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{1} &\multirow{2}{*}{98.9} & Local & 0.944 & 0.874 & 29.79 & 85.65 & 0.110\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.62 & 97.97 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{4} &\multirow{2}{*}{98.9} & Local & 0.945 & 0.875 & 29.83 & 85.66 & 0.109\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.67 & 97.99 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{7} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.8} & Local & 0.946 & 0.876 & 29.84 & 85.68 & 0.108\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.966 & 38.69 & 98.01 & 0.016 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{10} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.1} & Local & 0.945 & 0.875 & 29.83 & 85.71 & 0.108\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.66 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{13} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.0} & Local & 0.944 & 0.874 & 29.78 & 85.56 & 0.110\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.60 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Impact of distance term regularization coefficient $w_3$ on attack performance represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: w3abla}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{w$_3$}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{0} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.0} & Local & 0.943 & 0.873 & 29.76 & 85.54 & 0.111\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.964 & 38.59 & 97.95 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{1} &\multirow{2}{*}{98.9} & Local & 0.944 & 0.874 & 29.79 & 85.65 & 0.110\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.62 & 97.97 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{4} &\multirow{2}{*}{98.9} & Local & 0.945 & 0.875 & 29.83 & 85.66 & 0.109\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.67 & 97.99 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{7} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.8} & Local & 0.946 & 0.876 & 29.84 & 85.68 & 0.108\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.966 & 38.69 & 98.01 & 0.016 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{10} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.1} & Local & 0.945 & 0.875 & 29.83 & 85.71 & 0.108\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.66 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{13} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.0} & Local & 0.944 & 0.874 & 29.78 & 85.56 & 0.110\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.60 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{w$_3$}}\textbf{w$_3$} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{0}0 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.0}99.0 & Local & 0.943 & 0.873 & 29.76 & 85.54 & 0.111\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.964 & 38.59 & 97.95 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{1}1 &\multirow{2}2{*}*{98.9}98.9 & Local & 0.944 & 0.874 & 29.79 & 85.65 & 0.110\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.62 & 97.97 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{4}4 &\multirow{2}2{*}*{98.9}98.9 & Local & 0.945 & 0.875 & 29.83 & 85.66 & 0.109\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.67 & 97.99 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{7}7 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.8}98.8 & Local & 0.946 & 0.876 & 29.84 & 85.68 & 0.108\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.966 & 38.69 & 98.01 & 0.016 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{10}10 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.1}99.1 & Local & 0.945 & 0.875 & 29.83 & 85.71 & 0.108\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.66 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{13}13 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.0}99.0 & Local & 0.944 & 0.874 & 29.78 & 85.56 & 0.110\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.992 & 0.965 & 38.60 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Impact of distance term regularization coefficient $w_3$ on attack performance represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: w3abla}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Update Rule}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Adam} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.130 & 0.157 & 17.13 & 36.15 & 0.662\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.867 & 0.848 & 25.98 & 80.94 & 0.130 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.4} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Impact of the \textbf{update rule} on attack performance represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: URabla}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Update Rule}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Adam} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{100}} & Local & 0.130 & 0.157 & 17.13 & 36.15 & 0.662\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.867 & 0.848 & 25.98 & 80.94 & 0.130 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & \multirow{2}{*}{99.4} & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Update Rule}}\textbf{Update Rule} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Adam}Adam & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{100}}\textbf{100} & Local & 0.130 & 0.157 & 17.13 & 36.15 & 0.662\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.867 & 0.848 & 25.98 & 80.94 & 0.130 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{Ours}Ours & \multirow{2}2{*}*{99.4}99.4 & Local & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{31.30} & \textbf{89.33} & \textbf{0.070}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & \textbf{0.994} & \textbf{0.970} & \textbf{40.10} & \textbf{98.43} & \textbf{0.010} \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Impact of the \textbf{update rule} on attack performance represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS.}
\label{table: URabla}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. Iters}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{500} & \multirow{2}{*}{86.0} & Local & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{0.770} & \textbf{25.88} & \textbf{75.87} & \textbf{0.223}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & \textbf{0.992} & \textbf{0.972} & \textbf{38.48} & \textbf{98.23} & \textbf{0.015} \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{1000} &\multirow{2}{*}{94.2} & Local & 0.854 & 0.756 & 25.02 & 74.74 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 37.86 & 98.18 & 0.013 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{1500} &\multirow{2}{*}{96.2} & Local & 0.850 & 0.755 & 24.91 & 73.81 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.969 & 37.70 & 98.10 & 0.016 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{2000} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.3} & Local & 0.843 & 0.749 & 24.77 & 73.29 & 0.246\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.968 & 37.59 & 98.04 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{2500} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.0} & Local & 0.840 & 0.746 & 24.67 & 72.87 & 0.249\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.967 & 37.50 & 98.02 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{3000} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.5} & Local & 0.836 & 0.743 & 24.48 & 72.78 & 0.252\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.966 & 37.41 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{3500} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.6}} & Local & 0.834 & 0.741 & 24.65 & 72.49 & 0.254\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.969 & 37.40 & 97.92 & 0.017 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Impact of \textbf{number of update iterations} on attack performance, represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS. Patch size is kept fixed at $6$\%.}
\label{table: NIabla}
\end{table}
\centering
\small
\resizebox{\linewidth}\linewidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{cclccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. Iters}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{ASR(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Scale}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{500} & \multirow{2}{*}{86.0} & Local & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{0.770} & \textbf{25.88} & \textbf{75.87} & \textbf{0.223}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & \textbf{0.992} & \textbf{0.972} & \textbf{38.48} & \textbf{98.23} & \textbf{0.015} \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{1000} &\multirow{2}{*}{94.2} & Local & 0.854 & 0.756 & 25.02 & 74.74 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 37.86 & 98.18 & 0.013 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{1500} &\multirow{2}{*}{96.2} & Local & 0.850 & 0.755 & 24.91 & 73.81 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.969 & 37.70 & 98.10 & 0.016 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{2000} & \multirow{2}{*}{97.3} & Local & 0.843 & 0.749 & 24.77 & 73.29 & 0.246\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.968 & 37.59 & 98.04 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{2500} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.0} & Local & 0.840 & 0.746 & 24.67 & 72.87 & 0.249\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.967 & 37.50 & 98.02 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{3000} & \multirow{2}{*}{98.5} & Local & 0.836 & 0.743 & 24.48 & 72.78 & 0.252\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.966 & 37.41 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{3500} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{98.6}} & Local & 0.834 & 0.741 & 24.65 & 72.49 & 0.254\\
\cmidrule{3-8}
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.969 & 37.40 & 97.92 & 0.017 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{No. Iters}}\textbf{No. Iters} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{ASR(\%)}}\textbf{ASR(\%)} & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{Scale}}\textbf{Scale} & \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}}\textbf{Imperceptibility metric}\\
\cmidrule{4-8}4-8
{} &{} & {} & \textbf{SSIM ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{UIQ ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{SRE} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{CLIP} ($\uparrow$\uparrow) & \textbf{LPIPS} ($\downarrow$\downarrow)\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{500}500 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{86.0}86.0 & Local & \textbf{0.870} & \textbf{0.770} & \textbf{25.88} & \textbf{75.87} & \textbf{0.223}\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & \textbf{0.992} & \textbf{0.972} & \textbf{38.48} & \textbf{98.23} & \textbf{0.015} \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{1000}1000 &\multirow{2}2{*}*{94.2}94.2 & Local & 0.854 & 0.756 & 25.02 & 74.74 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.970 & 37.86 & 98.18 & 0.013 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{1500}1500 &\multirow{2}2{*}*{96.2}96.2 & Local & 0.850 & 0.755 & 24.91 & 73.81 & 0.024\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} & {} & Global & 0.991 & 0.969 & 37.70 & 98.10 & 0.016 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{2000}2000 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{97.3}97.3 & Local & 0.843 & 0.749 & 24.77 & 73.29 & 0.246\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.968 & 37.59 & 98.04 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{2500}2500 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.0}98.0 & Local & 0.840 & 0.746 & 24.67 & 72.87 & 0.249\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.967 & 37.50 & 98.02 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{3000}3000 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{98.5}98.5 & Local & 0.836 & 0.743 & 24.48 & 72.78 & 0.252\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.966 & 37.41 & 97.98 & 0.017 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}2{*}*{3500}3500 & \multirow{2}2{*}*{\textbf{98.6}}\textbf{98.6} & Local & 0.834 & 0.741 & 24.65 & 72.49 & 0.254\\
\cmidrule{3-8}3-8
{} &{} & Global & 0.990 & 0.969 & 37.40 & 97.92 & 0.017 \\
\bottomrule
\caption{Impact of \textbf{number of update iterations} on attack performance, represented through ASR ($\%$) and imperceptibility with \textbf{Swin Transformer Base} as the victim model on the ImageNet dataset. For SSIM, UIQ, SRE, and CLIP scores, the higher ($\uparrow$) the better, while the lower ($\downarrow$) the better for LPIPS. Patch size is kept fixed at $6$\%.}
\label{table: NIabla}
|
Additional Analyses
| false
|
2507.06856
| 10
|
352,244
|
Momentum \citep{nesterov1983method} is an important technique in optimization.
In the context of convex and smooth optimization, Nesterov's momentum (accelerated gradient descent (AGD)) achieves the minimax optimal convergence rate \citep{nesterov2014introductory} and provably accelerates the vanilla GD method.
Recent work by \citet{liu2018accelerating} shows that stochastic gradient descent (SGD) can also be accelerated by momentum in the overparameterized setting.
However, the effect of momentum on the generalization performance is less studied.
It has been empirically shown that ASGD does not always outperform SGD \citep{wang2023marginal}, but there has been little theoretical work justifying this observation.
Notable exceptions are \citet{jain2018accelerating} and \cite{varre2022accelerated}, which provide excess risk bounds for accelerated SGD (ASGD) (a.k.a., SGD with momentum) for least squares problems in the strongly convex~\citep{jain2018accelerating} and convex settings~\citep{varre2022accelerated}, respectively.
However, both of their results are limited to the classical, finite-dimensional regime, and cannot be applied when the number of parameters exceeds the number of samples.
On the other hand, a recent line of work completely characterizes the excess risk of SGD for least squares, even in the overparameterized regime \citep{DieuleveutB15, defossez2015averaged, jain2017parallelizing, berthier2020tight, zou2021benign, wu2022iterate}.
In particular, \citet{zou2021benign,wu2022iterate} provide finite-sample and dimension-free excess risk bounds for SGD that are sharp for each least squares instance.
Given these results, it becomes imperative to thoroughly investigate whether the inclusion of momentum proves beneficial in terms of generalization, particularly in the context of least squares problems.
\paragraph{Contributions.}Contributions.
In this paper, we tackle the question by
considering ASGD for (overparameterized) linear regression problems and comparing its performance with SGD.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Our main result provides an instance-dependent excess risk bound for ASGD that can be applied in the overparameterized regime.
Similar to the bounds for SGD in \citet{zou2021benign,wu2022iterate}, our bound for ASGD is independent of the ambient dimension and comprehensively depends on the spectrum of the data covariance matrix.
When applied to the classical, strongly-convex regime, our results recover the excess risk upper bounds in \citet{jain2018accelerating}, with significant improvements on the coefficient of the bias error.\footnote{Our excess risk bound contains an extra term, which can be removed by a fine-grained analysis used by \citet{jain2018accelerating} in the classical regime.}
\item Based on the excess risk bounds, we then compare the excess risk of ASGD and SGD.
We find that the variance error of ASGD is always no smaller than that of SGD.
Moreover, the bias error of ASGD is smaller than that of SGD along the small eigenvalue directions, but is larger than that of SGD along the large eigenvalue directions, with respect to the spectrum of the data covariance matrix.
Thus momentum can help with generalization only if the main signals are aligned with small eigenvalue directions of the data covariance matrix and if the noise is small.
\item From a technical perspective, we extend the analysis of the stationary covariance matrix in \citet{jain2018accelerating} to the overparameterized setting, where we remove all dimension-dependent factors with a fine-grained analysis of the ASGD iterates.
Our techniques might be of independent interest for analyzing ASGD in other settings.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Our main result provides an instance-dependent excess risk bound for ASGD that can be applied in the overparameterized regime.
Similar to the bounds for SGD in \citet{zou2021benign,wu2022iterate}, our bound for ASGD is independent of the ambient dimension and comprehensively depends on the spectrum of the data covariance matrix.
When applied to the classical, strongly-convex regime, our results recover the excess risk upper bounds in \citet{jain2018accelerating}, with significant improvements on the coefficient of the bias error.\footnote{Our excess risk bound contains an extra term, which can be removed by a fine-grained analysis used by \citet{jain2018accelerating} in the classical regime.}
\item Based on the excess risk bounds, we then compare the excess risk of ASGD and SGD.
We find that the variance error of ASGD is always no smaller than that of SGD.
Moreover, the bias error of ASGD is smaller than that of SGD along the small eigenvalue directions, but is larger than that of SGD along the large eigenvalue directions, with respect to the spectrum of the data covariance matrix.
Thus momentum can help with generalization only if the main signals are aligned with small eigenvalue directions of the data covariance matrix and if the noise is small.
\item From a technical perspective, we extend the analysis of the stationary covariance matrix in \citet{jain2018accelerating} to the overparameterized setting, where we remove all dimension-dependent factors with a fine-grained analysis of the ASGD iterates.
Our techniques might be of independent interest for analyzing ASGD in other settings.
\end{itemize}
\item Our main result provides an instance-dependent excess risk bound for ASGD that can be applied in the overparameterized regime.
Similar to the bounds for SGD in \citet{zou2021benign,wu2022iterate}, our bound for ASGD is independent of the ambient dimension and comprehensively depends on the spectrum of the data covariance matrix.
When applied to the classical, strongly-convex regime, our results recover the excess risk upper bounds in \citet{jain2018accelerating}, with significant improvements on the coefficient of the bias error.\footnote{Our excess risk bound contains an extra term, which can be removed by a fine-grained analysis used by \citet{jain2018accelerating} in the classical regime.}
\item Based on the excess risk bounds, we then compare the excess risk of ASGD and SGD.
We find that the variance error of ASGD is always no smaller than that of SGD.
Moreover, the bias error of ASGD is smaller than that of SGD along the small eigenvalue directions, but is larger than that of SGD along the large eigenvalue directions, with respect to the spectrum of the data covariance matrix.
Thus momentum can help with generalization only if the main signals are aligned with small eigenvalue directions of the data covariance matrix and if the noise is small.
\item From a technical perspective, we extend the analysis of the stationary covariance matrix in \citet{jain2018accelerating} to the overparameterized setting, where we remove all dimension-dependent factors with a fine-grained analysis of the ASGD iterates.
Our techniques might be of independent interest for analyzing ASGD in other settings.
\noindent\textbf{Notation.}~
In this paper, scalars are denoted by non-boldface letters. Vectors and matrices are denoted by lower-case and upper-case boldface letters, respectively. Denote linear operators on matrices by upper-case calligraphic letters. Denote the inner product of vectors by $\inner{\ub}{\vb}$\inner{\ub}\ub{\vb}\vb. For a vector $\vb$\vb, denote its $j$j-th entry as $(\vb)_j$(\vb)_j; For a matrix $\Mb$\Mb, denote its $ij$ij-entry as $(\Mb)_{ij}$(\Mb)_{ij}ij. For a PSD matrix $\Mb$\Mb, define $\|\ub\|_\Mb^2=\ub^\top\Mb\ub$\|\ub\|_\Mb^2=\ub^\top\Mb\ub. Denote the 2-norm of vector $\vb$\vb as $\|\vb\|_2=\sqrt{\vb^\top\vb}$\|\vb\|_2=\sqrt{\vb^\top\vb}. Denote the inner product of matrices $\Ab, \Bb\in\RR^{2d\times2d}$\Ab, \Bb\in\RR^{2d\times2d}2d\times2d as $\langle\Ab, \Bb\rangle=\sum_{i, j=1}^{2d}(\Ab)_{ij}(\Bb)_{ij}$\langle\Ab, \Bb\rangle=\sum_{i, j=1}i, j=1^{2d}2d(\Ab)_{ij}ij(\Bb)_{ij}ij. The Kronecker product of matrices is denoted by $\otimes$\otimes. The operation of a linear matrix operator on a matrix is denoted by $\circ$\circ.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2311.14222v1
| 1
|
76,368
|
\label{sec:appendix:description}
Following, we describe the benchmarking tool, \benchmark{}.
There exists no standardized tool for evaluating the performance of disparity estimation methods.
Thus, the codebase for such a tool had to be written from scratch.
In the following, we describe the benchmarking tool, \benchmark{}.
Currently it supports 4 unique architectures (new architectures to be added to \benchmark{} with time) and 3 distinct datasets, namely FlyingThings3D~\citep{flyingthings_dispnet}, KITTI2015~\citep{kitti15}, MPI Sintel~\citep{sintel1} (clean and final) (please refer \cref{sec:appendix:dataset_details} for additional details on the datasets).
It enables training and evaluations on all aforementioned datasets including evaluations using SotA adversarial attacks such as CosPGD~\citep{agnihotri2023cospgd}, and other commonly used adversarial attacks like BIM~\citep{bim}, PGD~\citep{pgd}, FGSM~\citep{fgsm}, under various Lipshitz ($l_p$l_p) norm bounds.
Additionally, it enables evaluations for Out-of-Distribution (OOD) robustness by corrupting the inference samples using 2D Common Corruptions~\citep{commoncorruptions}.
Following we show the basic commands to use \benchmark{}.
We describe each attack and common corruption supported by \benchmark{} in detail in \cref{sec:appendix:description}.
It enables training and evaluations on all aforementioned datasets including evaluations using SotA adversarial attacks such as CosPGD~\citep{agnihotri2023cospgd}, and other commonly used adversarial attacks like BIM~\citep{bim}, PGD~\citep{pgd}, FGSM~\citep{fgsm}, under various lipshitz ($l_p$l_p) norm bounds.
Additionally, it enables evaluations for Out-of-Distribution (OOD) robustness by corrupting the inference samples using 2D Common Corruptions~\citep{commoncorruptions}.
We follow the nomenclature set by RobustBench~\citep{robustbench} and use ``threat\_model'' to define the kind of evaluation to be performed.
When ``threat\_model'' is defined to be ``None'', the evaluation is performed on unperturbed and unaltered images, if the ``threat\_model'' is defined to be an adversarial attack, for example ``PGD'', ``CosPGD'' or ``PCFA'', then \benchmark{} performs an adversarial attack using the user-defined parameters.
Whereas, if ``threat\_model'' is defined to be ``2DCommonCorruptions'' or ``3DCommonCorruptions'', the \benchmark{} performs evaluations after perturbing the images with 2D Common Corruptions and 3D Common Corruptions respectively.
If the queried evaluation already exists in the benchmark provided by this work, then \benchmark{} simply retrieves the evaluations, thus saving computation.
\subsection{Adversarial Attacks}
\label{subsec:appendix:description:adv_attacks}
Please note that due to the similarity of the objective, many aspects of this appendix are very similar to \citet{flowbench}.
\benchmark{} enables the use of many white-box adversarial attacks to help users better study the reliability of their disparity methods.
We choose to specifically include these white-box adversarial attacks as they either serve as the common benchmark for adversarial attacks in classification literature (FGSM, BIM, PGD, APGD) or they are unique attacks proposed specifically for pixel-wise prediction tasks (CosPGD).
These attacks can either be \emph{Non-targeted} which are designed to simply fool the model into making incorrect predictions, irrespective of what the model eventually predicts, or can be \emph{Targeted}, where the model is fooled to make a certain prediction.
Most attacks can be, designed to be either Targeted or Non-targeted, these include, FGSM, BIM, PGD, APGD, CosPGD, and Adversarial Weather.
In our current implementation, we are limited to Non-targeted attacks.
Following, we discuss these attacks in detail and highlight their key differences.
\noindent\paragraph{FGSM. }FGSM. Assuming a non-targeted attack, given a model $f_{\theta}$f_{\theta}\theta and an unperturbed input sample $\boldsymbol{X}^\mathrm{clean}$\boldsymbol{X}X^\mathrm{clean} and ground truth label $\boldsymbol{Y}$\boldsymbol{Y}Y, FGSM attack adds noise $\delta$\delta to $\boldsymbol{X}^\mathrm{clean}$\boldsymbol{X}X^\mathrm{clean} as follows,
\begin{equation}
%\small
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_1}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}} = \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}}L(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}), \boldsymbol{Y}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
%\small
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_1}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}} = \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}}L(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}), \boldsymbol{Y}),
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_1}
\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}}\mathrm{adv} = \boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}}\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}L(f_{\theta}\theta(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}), \boldsymbol{Y}Y),
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_2}
\delta = \phi^{\epsilon}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}} - \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_2}
\delta = \phi^{\epsilon}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}} - \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}),
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_2}
\delta = \phi^{\epsilon}\epsilon(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}}\mathrm{adv} - \boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_3}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}} = \phi^{r}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}+ \delta).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_3}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}} = \phi^{r}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}+ \delta).
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:fgsm_attack_3}
\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}}\mathrm{adv} = \phi^{r}r(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}+ \delta).
Here, $L(\cdot)$L(\cdot) is the loss function (differentiable at least once) which calculates the loss between the model prediction and ground truth, $\boldsymbol{Y}$\boldsymbol{Y}Y.
$\alpha$\alpha is a small value of $\epsilon$\epsilon that decides the size of the step to be taken in the direction of the gradient of the loss w.r.t. the input image, which leads to the input sample being perturbed such that the loss increases.
$\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}}\mathrm{adv} is the adversarial sample obtained after perturbing $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}.
To make sure that the perturbed sample is semantically indistinguishable from the unperturbed clean sample to the human eye, steps from \cref{eqn:fgsm_attack_2} and \cref{eqn:fgsm_attack_3} are performed.
Here, function $\phi^{\epsilon}$\phi^{\epsilon}\epsilon is clipping the $\delta$\delta in $\epsilon$\epsilon-ball for $\ell_{\infty}$\ell_{\infty}\infty-norm bounded attacks or the $\epsilon$\epsilon-projection in other $l_{p}$l_{p}p-norm bounded attacks, complying with the $\ell_\infty$\ell_\infty-norm or other $l_p$l_p-norm constraints, respectively.
While function $\phi^{r}$\phi^{r}r clips the perturbed sample ensuring that it is still within the valid input space.
FGSM, as proposed, is a single step attack.
For targeted attacks, $\boldsymbol{Y}$\boldsymbol{Y}Y is the target and $\alpha$\alpha is multiplied by -1 so that a step is taken to minimize the loss between the model's prediction and the target prediction.
\noindent\paragraph{BIM. }BIM. This is the direct extension of FGSM into an iterative attack method.
In FGSM, $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean} was perturbed just once.
While in BIM, $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean} is perturbed iteratively for time steps $t \in [0, \boldsymbol{T}]$t \in [0, \boldsymbol{T}T], such that $t\in \mathbb{Z}^+$t\in \mathbb{Z}^+, where $\boldsymbol{T}$\boldsymbol{T}T are the total number of permissible attack iterations.
This changes the steps of the attack from FGSM to the following,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_1}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}} = \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}}L(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}), \boldsymbol{Y}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_1}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}} = \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}}L(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}), \boldsymbol{Y}),
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_1}
\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}t+1 = \boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}}\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_tL(f_{\theta}\theta(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t), \boldsymbol{Y}Y),
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_2}
\delta = \phi^{\epsilon}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}} - \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_2}
\delta = \phi^{\epsilon}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}} - \boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}),
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_2}
\delta = \phi^{\epsilon}\epsilon(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}t+1 - \boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_3}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}} = \phi^{r}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}+ \delta).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_3}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}} = \phi^{r}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}+ \delta).
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:bim_attack_3}
\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}t+1 = \phi^{r}r(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}+ \delta).
Here, at $t$t=0, $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t=$\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}.
\noindent\paragraph{PGD. }PGD. Since in BIM, the initial prediction always started from $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}, the attack required a significant amount of steps to optimize the adversarial noise and yet it was not guaranteed that in the permissible $\epsilon$\epsilon-bound, $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}t+1 was far from $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean}.
Thus, PGD proposed introducing stochasticity to ensure random starting points for attack optimization.
They achieved this by perturbing $\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{clean}}$\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{clean}}\mathrm{clean} with $\mathcal{U}(-\epsilon, \epsilon)$\mathcal{U}(-\epsilon, \epsilon), a uniform distribution in $[-\epsilon, \epsilon]$[-\epsilon, \epsilon], before making the first prediction, such that, at $t$t=0
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:pgd_random_start}
\boldsymbol{X}^{{adv}_t} = \phi^{r}(\boldsymbol{X}^{clean} + \mathcal{U}(-\epsilon, \epsilon)).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:pgd_random_start}
\boldsymbol{X}^{{adv}_t} = \phi^{r}(\boldsymbol{X}^{clean} + \mathcal{U}(-\epsilon, \epsilon)).
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:pgd_random_start}
\boldsymbol{X}X^{{adv}_t}{adv}adv_t = \phi^{r}r(\boldsymbol{X}X^{clean}clean + \mathcal{U}(-\epsilon, \epsilon)).
\noindent\paragraph{APGD. }APGD. Auto-PGD is an effective extension to the PGD attack that effectively scales the step size $\alpha$\alpha over attack iterations considering the compute budget and the success rate of the attack.
\noindent\paragraph{CosPGD. }CosPGD. All previously discussed attacks were proposed for the image classification task.
Here, the input sample is a 2D image of resolution $\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}$\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}, where $\mathrm{H}$\mathrm{H} and $\mathrm{W}$\mathrm{W} are the height and width of the spatial resolution of the sample, respectively.
Pixel-wise information is inconsequential for image classification.
This led to the pixel-wise loss $\mathcal{L}(\cdot)$\mathcal{L}(\cdot) being aggregated to $\mathrm{L}(\cdot)$\mathrm{L}(\cdot), as follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:pixel_wise_loss}
L(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}), \boldsymbol{Y}) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}}\sum_{i\in {\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}}} \mathcal{L}(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t})_i, \boldsymbol{Y}_i).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:pixel_wise_loss}
L(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}), \boldsymbol{Y}) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}}\sum_{i\in {\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}}} \mathcal{L}(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t})_i, \boldsymbol{Y}_i).
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:pixel_wise_loss}
L(f_{\theta}\theta(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t), \boldsymbol{Y}Y) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}}\sum_{i\in {\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}}}i\in {\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W}}\mathrm{H}\times\mathrm{W} \mathcal{L}(f_{\theta}\theta(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t)_i, \boldsymbol{Y}Y_i).
This aggregation of $\mathcal{L}(\cdot)$\mathcal{L}(\cdot) fails to account for pixel-wise information available in tasks other than image classification, such as pixel-wise prediction tasks like Optical Flow estimation, and disparity estimation.
Thus, in their work \cite{agnihotri2023cospgd} propose an effective extension of the PGD attack that takes pixel-wise information into account by scaling $\mathcal{L}(\cdot)$\mathcal{L}(\cdot) by the alignment between the distribution of the predictions and the distributions of $\boldsymbol{Y}$\boldsymbol{Y}Y before aggregating leading to a better-optimized attack, modifying \cref{eqn:bim_attack_1} as follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:cospgd_attack}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}=\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}}
\sum_{i\in H\times W}\mathrm{cos}\left(\psi(f_\theta(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t})_i), \Psi(\boldsymbol{Y}_i)\right) \cdot \mathcal{L}\left(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t})_i, \boldsymbol{Y}_i\right).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:cospgd_attack}
\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}=\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}}
\sum_{i\in H\times W}\mathrm{cos}\left(\psi(f_\theta(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t})_i), \Psi(\boldsymbol{Y}_i)\right) \cdot \mathcal{L}\left(f_{\theta}(\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t})_i, \boldsymbol{Y}_i\right).
\end{equation}
\label{eqn:cospgd_attack}
\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}}\mathrm{adv}_{t+1}t+1=\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t+\alpha \cdot \mathrm{sign}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{X}^{\mathrm{adv}_t}}\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t
\sum_{i\in H\times W}i\in H\times W\mathrm{cos}\left(\psi(f_\theta(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t)_i), \Psi(\boldsymbol{Y}Y_i)\right) \cdot \mathcal{L}\left(f_{\theta}\theta(\boldsymbol{X}X^{\mathrm{adv}_t}\mathrm{adv}_t)_i, \boldsymbol{Y}Y_i\right).
Where, functions $\psi$\psi and $\Psi$\Psi are used to obtain the distribution over the predictions and $\boldsymbol{Y}_i$\boldsymbol{Y}Y_i, respectively, and the function $\mathrm{cos}$\mathrm{cos} calculates the cosine similarity between the two distributions.
CosPGD is the unified SotA adversarial attack for pixel-wise prediction tasks.
In \Cref{fig:adv_exp_kitti_sttr}, we show examples of adversarial attacks, on STTR using the KITTI2015 dataset. We show the samples before and after the attacks and the predictions before and after the respective adversarial attacks.
|
Description of
| false
|
2505.05091
| 12
|
76,370
|
\label{sec:appendix:evaluation_details}
Following we provide a detailed description of the evaluation functions and their arguments provided in \benchmark{}.
\subsection{Adversarial Attacks}
\label{subsec:appendix:evaluation_details:adv_attack}
To evaluate a model for a given dataset, on an attack, the following lines of code are required.
\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispcbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015' retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispcbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015' retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}python
from dispcbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015' retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
Here, the `config.yml' contains the configuration for the threat model, for example, when the threat model is a PGD attack, `config.yml' could contain `threat\_model=\textit{``PGD''}', `iterations=\textit{20}', `alpha=\textit{0.01}', `epsilon=\textit{8}', and `lp\_norm=\textit{``Linf''}'.
The argument description is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the adversarial attack to be used, given as a string.
\item `iterations' are the number of attack iterations, given as an integer.
\item `epsilon' is the permissible perturbation budget $\epsilon$ given a floating point (float).
\item `alpha' is the step size of the attack, $\alpha$, given as a floating point (float).
\item `lp\_norm' is the Lipschitz continuity norm ($l_p$-norm) to be used for bounding the perturbation, possible options are `Linf' and `L2' given as a string.
\item `target' is false by default, but to do targeted attacks, either the user can set `target'=True, to use the default target of $\overrightarrow{0}$, or can pass a specific tensor to be used as the target.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the adversarial attack to be used, given as a string.
\item `iterations' are the number of attack iterations, given as an integer.
\item `epsilon' is the permissible perturbation budget $\epsilon$ given a floating point (float).
\item `alpha' is the step size of the attack, $\alpha$, given as a floating point (float).
\item `lp\_norm' is the Lipschitz continuity norm ($l_p$-norm) to be used for bounding the perturbation, possible options are `Linf' and `L2' given as a string.
\item `target' is false by default, but to do targeted attacks, either the user can set `target'=True, to use the default target of $\overrightarrow{0}$, or can pass a specific tensor to be used as the target.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False' then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the adversarial attack to be used, given as a string.
\item `iterations' are the number of attack iterations, given as an integer.
\item `epsilon' is the permissible perturbation budget $\epsilon$\epsilon given a floating point (float).
\item `alpha' is the step size of the attack, $\alpha$\alpha, given as a floating point (float).
\item `lp\_norm' is the Lipschitz continuity norm ($l_p$l_p-norm) to be used for bounding the perturbation, possible options are `Linf' and `L2' given as a string.
\item `target' is false by default, but to do targeted attacks, either the user can set `target'=True, to use the default target of $\overrightarrow{0}$\overrightarrow{0}, or can pass a specific tensor to be used as the target.
\subsection{2D Common Corruptions}
\label{subsec:appendix:evaluation_details:2dcc}
To evaluate a model for a given dataset, with 2D Common Corruptions, the following lines of code are required.
\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015', retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}\begin{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}
from dispbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015', retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
\end{minted}[fontsize=\small, breaklines]{python}python
from dispbench.evals import evaluate
model, results = evaluate(
model_name='STTR', dataset='KITTI2015', retrieve_existing=True,
threat_config='config.yml')
Here, the `config.yml' contains the configuration for the threat model; for example, when the threat model is 2D Common Corruption, `config.yml' could contain `threat\_model=\textit{``2DCommonCorruption''}', and `severity=\textit{3}'.
Please note, when the `threat\_model' is a common corruption type, \benchmark{} performs evaluations on all corruptions under the respective `threat\_model' and returns the method's performance on each corruption at the requested severity.
The argument description is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False', then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the common corruption to be used, given as a string, i.e.~`2DCommonCorruption'.
\item `severity' is the severity of the corruption, given as an integer between 1 and 5 (both inclusive).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False', then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the common corruption to be used, given as a string, i.e.~`2DCommonCorruption'.
\item `severity' is the severity of the corruption, given as an integer between 1 and 5 (both inclusive).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item `model\_name' is the name of the disparity estimation method to be used, given as a string.
\item `dataset' is the name of the dataset to be used also given as a string.
\item `retrieve\_existing' is a boolean flag, which when set to `True' will retrieve the evaluation from the benchmark if the queried evaluation exists in the benchmark provided by this work, else \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation.
If the `retrieve\_existing' boolean flag is set to `False', then \benchmark{} will perform the evaluation even if the queried evaluation exists in the provided benchmark.
\item The `config.yml' contains the following:
\item `threat\_model' is the name of the common corruption to be used, given as a string, i.e.~`2DCommonCorruption'.
\item `severity' is the severity of the corruption, given as an integer between 1 and 5 (both inclusive).
\benchmark{} supports the following 2D Common Corruption: `gaussian\_noise', shot\_noise', `impulse\_noise', `defocus\_blur', `frosted\_glass\_blur', `motion\_blur', `zoom\_blur', `snow', `frost', `fog', `brightness', `contrast', `elastic', `pixelate', `jpeg'.
For the evaluation, \benchmark{} will evaluate the model on the validation images from the respective dataset corrupted using each of the aforementioned corruptions for the given severity, and then report the mean performance over all of them.
\iffalse
|
Usage Details
| false
|
2505.05091
| 14
|
95,384
|
\label{sec:introduction}
Obtaining statistically significant results has long been a challenge in biometric system evaluations. Traditional approaches often involved conducting single-session tests with as many participants as possible. However, this method made it difficult to identify meaningful statistical influences, as individual variances and uncontrolled conditions compromised the reliability and generalization of the results.
A long-term evaluation approach offers a solution to this problem by enabling systematic and controlled testing over extended periods. By maintaining controlled and adjustable conditions, several key advantages can be realized. First, the same systems can be tested with the same individuals over time, enabling robust longitudinal analysis, to evaluate the aging processes of people and systems. Second, different systems can be evaluated either simultaneously or within a short time frame under identical conditions, which facilitates direct comparisons. Third, newer versions of a system can be assessed in relation to their predecessors, providing insights into technological progress. In addition, extensions and modifications of existing systems, as well as the development of entirely new systems, can be evaluated in a structured manner. Finally, usability aspects can be examined thoroughly under these consistent conditions.
Despite the evident benefits of long-term evaluations, current research lacks extensive datasets that reflect such conditions. Most studies rely on short-term assessments, failing to capture the effects of continuous system use, adaptation, and potential performance fluctuations over time. This study aims to bridge this gap by establishing a comprehensive long-term evaluation framework that systematically examines system performance, usability, and user adaptation over an extended period.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2507.06858
| 1
|
95,385
|
\label{sec:related_work}
\noindent In the field of biometric evaluations, traditional methodologies have predominantly relied on single-session data collection, where subjects are enrolled and authenticated within a limited time-frame. This approach, while practical, often fails to account for temporal variations in biometric traits, potentially impacting the long-term reliability and accuracy of biometric systems. However, a few research institutions worldwide addressed this issue by investigating the long-term stability of biometric traits and evaluating biometric systems over extended periods in their studies. These studies provide valuable insights into the effects of aging and repeated exposures on biometric performance.
The National Biometrics Laboratory at \gls{incd}incd has been instrumental in advancing biometric research, focusing on the long-term reliability of biometric systems. Their work contributes to national security measures and the development of robust biometric identification systems \cite{incd2025}.
In the United States, the Biometrics Research Group at \gls{msu}msu \cite{msubiometrics2025} has conducted extensive longitudinal studies on both fingerprint and facial recognition systems:
A significant study by L. Best-Rowden and A. K. Jain analyzed the permanence of facial features over time \cite{best-rowden_longitudinal_2018}. Utilizing large-scale mugshot databases, the researchers applied mixed-effects regression models to assess the degradation in genuine similarity scores as the time between enrolled and query images increased. Their findings indicated a measurable decline in recognition accuracy over extended periods, underscoring the necessity for longitudinal data to enhance the robustness of facial recognition systems.
Yoon and Jain conducted an extensive longitudinal analysis of fingerprint recognition, examining records from 15,597 subjects over a span of up to 12 years \cite{yoon_longitudinal_2015}. The study revealed a significant decrease in genuine match scores correlating with longer time intervals between fingerprint captures. Despite this decline, the overall recognition accuracy remained stable, provided the fingerprint images were of high quality.
Both of these studies highlight the importance of considering temporal factors in biometrics to maintain system reliability. However, the temporal distribution of data in these studies is often highly variable, as they rely on operational datasets such as mugshots, resulting in inconsistent intervals between recordings. Consequently, while such datasets offer valuable insights into long-term biometric performance, they may lack the controlled conditions and consistent measurement intervals required for specific precise temporal analysis.
|
Related Work
| false
|
2507.06858
| 2
|
95,389
|
\noindent In this work, we have presented a comprehensive controlled longitudinal evaluation of facial biometrics, spanning nearly three years and over 2476 high-quality frontal images. The controlled \gls{bez}bez setup allowed us to evaluate temporal effects in frontal face images. The resulting dataset exhibits exceptional integrity, evidenced by the near-zero \gls{fta}fta rates and the sharp separation of mated versus non-mated score distributions across both \gls{cots}cots and leading open-source algorithms.
Our analysis reveals a clear, statistically significant downward trend in genuine match scores as the time interval since enrollment increases. \gls{cots}cots systems demonstrate remarkable resilience, with only marginal score degradation over 2.5 years, whereas open-source models are more susceptible to temporal drift. Importantly, the observed rate of temporal score decline aligns closely with the European Union's current ID-card renewal guidelines, lending empirical support to existing policy.
These findings emphasize two crucial takeaways for biometric system designers and deployers: (1) longitudinal performance testing under consistent conditions is indispensable for understanding real-world system robustness; and (2) periodic re-enrollment or dynamic algorithm adaption enhances reliability over extended usage periods. The \gls{bez}bez infrastructure and dataset pave the way for further research into adaptive matching thresholds and the long-term utility of novel \gls{fr}fr architectures.
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06858
| 6
|
95,388
|
\noindent The results of this longitudinal analysis confirm that facial recognition performance is affected by temporal variation. Across all four algorithms tested, a general decline in similarity was observed over time. While the trend was present in all algorithms, the magnitude of degradation varied significantly. The \gls{cots}cots algorithms demonstrated more stable behavior over time, while open-source alternatives showed a steeper decline in performance.
These findings suggest that algorithmic robustness plays a crucial role in maintaining reliable identity verification over extended periods. Moreover, the relatively dense data points and consistent time intervals achieved through the controlled study setting at the \gls{bez}bez provide a high level of temporal resolution. This stands in contrast to other studies, which often span several years with irregular recording intervals and lack consistent environmental conditions \cite{best-rowden_longitudinal_2018}.
Extrapolating the linear trendline further suggests a future point at which recognition performance could fall below acceptable thresholds, particularly in non-adaptive systems.
The dataset acquired through this long-term study offers a unique opportunity for biometric research, particularly in assessing the stability and variance of facial biometric data over time. Our findings reveal that temporal changes in facial comparison scores over 2.5 years are minimal in \gls{cots}cots algorithms, with inter-individual score distances remaining significantly larger than intra-individual temporal variations. This underscores the reliability of facial biometrics as a stable identifier over time.
Ethical considerations were central to the study design. Advanced data protection measures (anonymization and pseudonymization of acquired data, storage on disconnected local servers, strict appliance of \gls{gdpr}gdpr-guidelines) and an automated kiosk-based registration system ensured the privacy and security of participants. This approach serves as a scalable and privacy-respecting model for future biometric research.
Future work will focus on improving synthetic character generation technologies to better emulate the diversity and complexity of real-world biometric data, thereby enhancing their applicability in large-scale biometric system development.
|
Discussion
| false
|
2507.06858
| 5
|
76,384
|
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Notations.}\label{tab:notations}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ll@{}}
\toprule
Symbol & Description \\
\midrule
$n$ & Number of clients \\
$K$ & Number of local SGD \\
$m$ & Number of selected clients\\
$m'$ & Maximum permissible age\\
$L$ & Lipschitz smoothness parameter \\
$\mu$ & $\mu$-strongly convex\\
$\eta_t$ & Learning rate \\
$\theta^t$ & Global model at server iteration $t$ \\
$\theta^*$ & Optimum of the federated loss function \\
$\theta_i^{t+1}$ & Local update of client $i$ on model $\theta^t$ \\
$y_{i,k}$ & Local model of client $i$ after $k$ SGD ($y_{i,K} = \theta_i^{t+1}$ \& $y_{i,0} = \theta^t$) \\
$q_i$ & Importance of client $i$ in the federated loss function \\
$p_a$ & Selection probability for a client at age \(a\) in the Markov chain\\
$S(h,t)$ & Set of participating clients given State $h$ in Iteration $t$ \\
$\omega_i(h',t)$ & Aggregation weight for client $i$ given State $h'$ in Iteration $t$ \\
$\omega_i$ & Aggregation weight for client $i$ \\
$\mathbb{E}_t[\cdot]$ & Expected value conditioned on $\theta_t$ \\
$F(\theta)$ & Global loss function \\
$F_i(\theta)$ & Local loss function of Client $i$ \\
$\nabla F_i(\theta)$ & Gradient of Client $i$.\\
%$\mathcal{B}_i$ & Random batch of samples from client $i$ of size $B$ \\
$g_i(\theta,\mathcal{B})$ & Stochastic gradient of Client $i$ using mini-batch $\mathcal{B}$. %We have $\mathbb{E}_{\xi_i}[g_i(\theta,\mathcal{B})] = \nabla F_i(\theta)$ with Assumption \ref{assumpt:3}
\\
$G^2$ & Bound on the variance of the stochastic gradients \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Notations.}\label{tab:notations}
\toprule
Symbol & Description \\
\midrule
$n$n & Number of clients \\
$K$K & Number of local SGD \\
$m$m & Number of selected clients\\
$m'$m' & Maximum permissible age\\
$L$L & Lipschitz smoothness parameter \\
$\mu$\mu & $\mu$\mu-strongly convex\\
$\eta_t$\eta_t & Learning rate \\
$\theta^t$\theta^t & Global model at server iteration $t$t \\
$\theta^*$\theta^* & Optimum of the federated loss function \\
$\theta_i^{t+1}$\theta_i^{t+1}t+1 & Local update of client $i$i on model $\theta^t$\theta^t \\
$y_{i,k}$y_{i,k}i,k & Local model of client $i$i after $k$k SGD ($y_{i,K} = \theta_i^{t+1}$y_{i,K}i,K = \theta_i^{t+1}t+1 \& $y_{i,0} = \theta^t$y_{i,0}i,0 = \theta^t) \\
$q_i$q_i & Importance of client $i$i in the federated loss function \\
$p_a$p_a & Selection probability for a client at age \(a\)a in the Markov chain\\
$S(h,t)$S(h,t) & Set of participating clients given State $h$h in Iteration $t$t \\
$\omega_i(h',t)$\omega_i(h',t) & Aggregation weight for client $i$i given State $h'$h' in Iteration $t$t \\
$\omega_i$\omega_i & Aggregation weight for client $i$i \\
$\mathbb{E}_t[\cdot]$\mathbb{E}_t[\cdot] & Expected value conditioned on $\theta_t$\theta_t \\
$F(\theta)$F(\theta) & Global loss function \\
$F_i(\theta)$F_i(\theta) & Local loss function of Client $i$i \\
$\nabla F_i(\theta)$\nabla F_i(\theta) & Gradient of Client $i$i.\\
$g_i(\theta,\mathcal{B})$g_i(\theta,\mathcal{B}) & Stochastic gradient of Client $i$i using mini-batch $\mathcal{B}$\mathcal{B}. \\
$G^2$G^2 & Bound on the variance of the stochastic gradients \\
\bottomrule
Table \ref{tab:notations} lists all the notations in the federated learning problem.
Consider the global loss function $F(\theta)$F(\theta) defined as:
\begin{align}
F(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} q_i F_i(\theta)
\end{align}\begin{align}
F(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} q_i F_i(\theta)
\end{align}
F(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n q_i F_i(\theta)
where $F_i(\theta) = \frac{1}{|D_i|} \sum_{x \in D_i} f(\theta; x)$F_i(\theta) = \frac{1}{|D_i|} \sum_{x \in D_i}x \in D_i f(\theta; x) is the local objective function of client \(i\)i with dataset $D_i$D_i and $q_i$q_i is the importance of client $i$i in the federated loss function. Let the global optimal model be $\theta^* = \arg\min_{\theta} F(\theta)$\theta^* = \arg\min_{\theta}\theta F(\theta) and the
local optimum be $\theta^*_i = \arg\min_{\theta} F_i(\theta)$\theta^*_i = \arg\min_{\theta}\theta F_i(\theta), $i \in \{1,\dots,n\}$i \in \{1,\dots,n\}.
We define $
F^* = \underset{\theta}{\min} F(\theta) = F(\theta^*)$
F^* = \underset{\theta}\theta{\min}\min F(\theta) = F(\theta^*) and $F^*_i = \underset{\theta}{\min} F
_i(\theta) = F_i(\theta^*_i)$F^*_i = \underset{\theta}\theta{\min}\min F
_i(\theta) = F_i(\theta^*_i).
Under a given policy, the set of selected clients is denoted by $S(h,t) \subseteq \{1,2, \dots,n\}$S(h,t) \subseteq \{1,2, \dots,n\}, where $h$h represents the state and $t$t is the iteration. Depending on the policy, $h$h can include the model parameters and the ages of the clients, etc.
Moreover, the policy also determines $\omega_k(h',t)$\omega_k(h',t), the aggregation weight for Client $k \in S(h,t)$k \in S(h,t), where $t$t is the iteration, and $h'$h' is the state that can include the selected subset $S(h,t)$S(h,t), the model parameters and the ages of the clients, etc.
These weights ensure that contributions from different clients are properly balanced.
Note that for fixed $t$t and $h$h (or $h'$h'), the variable $S(h,t)$S(h,t) (or $\omega_k(h',t)$\omega_k(h',t)) is random due to the probabilistic nature of the policy. Moreover, for each realization of the federated learning steps, the state $h$h (or $h'$h') is also random for a fixed $t$t. When it is clear from the context, we omit $h,h'$h,h' and/or $t$t in our notations.
Assume the number of selected clients is a constant $m$m:
\begin{align}
|S|=m,
\end{align}\begin{align}
|S|=m,
\end{align}
|S|=m,
and the weights satisfy the normalization condition,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i =1,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i =1,
\end{equation}
\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i =1,
ensuring that the sum of weights for the selected clients $S$S equals one, and that the global model is a convex combination of local models. We define the variability and expectation of the weighting strategy by:
\begin{align}
&\gamma_i = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]= \text{Var}[\omega_i] + \mathbb{E}[\omega_i]^2, \label{eq:gamma}\\
&\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^n \text{Var}[\omega_i], \label{eq:sigma}
\end{align}\begin{align}
&\gamma_i = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]= \text{Var}[\omega_i] + \mathbb{E}[\omega_i]^2, \label{eq:gamma}\\
&\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^n \text{Var}[\omega_i], \label{eq:sigma}
\end{align}
&\gamma_i = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]= \text{Var}[\omega_i] + \mathbb{E}[\omega_i]^2, \label{eq:gamma}\\
&\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}i=1^n \text{Var}[\omega_i], \label{eq:sigma}
where the variance and expectation are taken over the randomness of the states, $S$S, and $\omega_i$\omega_i. Whenever we take expectations with respect to the random policy, we need to take the maximum over all $t$t, because the states $h$h and $h'$h' may be of different distributions for different $t$t.
Here, $\gamma_i$\gamma_i captures the variance and squared expectation of the weights for client $i$i, and $\Sigma$\Sigma aggregates these variances across all clients, reflecting the diversity in client contributions.
{\bf Global aggregation.}\bf Global aggregation.
We introduce the global aggregation as follows:
\begin{equation}
\theta^{t+1} = \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \theta_i^{t+1}, \label{eq:global}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\theta^{t+1} = \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \theta_i^{t+1}, \label{eq:global}
\end{equation}
\theta^{t+1}t+1 = \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \theta_i^{t+1}t+1, \label{eq:global}
where $\theta^{t+1}$\theta^{t+1}t+1 represents the global model parameters at iteration $t+1$t+1, aggregated as a weighted sum of local model parameters $\theta_i^{t+1}$\theta_i^{t+1}t+1 from each client $i$i, with weights $\omega_i = \omega_i(h',t)$\omega_i = \omega_i(h',t).
{\bf Local update.}\bf Local update.
In Iteration $t$t, client $i$i runs $K$K epochs using random mini-batches of local data. Let $y_{i,k}^t, \mathcal{B}_{i,k}^t$y_{i,k}i,k^t, \mathcal{B}_{i,k}i,k^t represent the local model parameters and the random mini-batch for the $k$k-th epoch, respectively.
In the first local epoch, the local model is set to be equal to the global model:
\begin{align}
y_{i,k}^t = \theta^{t}.
\end{align}\begin{align}
y_{i,k}^t = \theta^{t}.
\end{align}
y_{i,k}i,k^t = \theta^{t}t.
The local gradient computation is defined by:
\begin{equation}
d_i^{t} =\frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=0}^K g_i(y_{i,k}^t, \mathcal{B}_{i,k}^t), \label{eq:K_epochs}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
d_i^{t} =\frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=0}^K g_i(y_{i,k}^t, \mathcal{B}_{i,k}^t), \label{eq:K_epochs}
\end{equation}
d_i^{t}t =\frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=0}k=0^K g_i(y_{i,k}i,k^t, \mathcal{B}_{i,k}i,k^t), \label{eq:K_epochs}
which is the average gradient for client $i$i at time $t$t, computed over $K$K stochastic gradient epochs.
Subsequently, local model updates are computed as:
\begin{equation}
\theta_i^{t+1} =\theta^{t} - \eta_t K d_i^{t},\label{eq:local}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\theta_i^{t+1} =\theta^{t} - \eta_t K d_i^{t},\label{eq:local}
\end{equation}
\theta_i^{t+1}t+1 =\theta^{t}t - \eta_t K d_i^{t}t,\label{eq:local}
indicating the adjustment of client $i$i's model parameters based on the global model parameters $\theta^{t}$\theta^{t}t, the learning rate $\eta_t$\eta_t, and the average gradient $d_i^t$d_i^t.
\begin{assump}\label{assumpt:1}
$F_1, \ldots, F_n$ are all $L$-smooth, i.e., for all $v$ and $u$,
\begin{align}
F_i(v) \leq F_i(u) + (v - u)^T \nabla F_i(u) + \frac{L}{2} \|v - u\|^2.
\end{align}
\end{assump}\begin{assump}\label{assumpt:1}
$F_1, \ldots, F_n$ are all $L$-smooth, i.e., for all $v$ and $u$,
\begin{align}
F_i(v) \leq F_i(u) + (v - u)^T \nabla F_i(u) + \frac{L}{2} \|v - u\|^2.
\end{align}
\end{assump}\label{assumpt:1}
$F_1, \ldots, F_n$F_1, \ldots, F_n are all $L$L-smooth, i.e., for all $v$v and $u$u,
F_i(v) \leq F_i(u) + (v - u)^T \nabla F_i(u) + \frac{L}{2} \|v - u\|^2.
\begin{assump}
$F_1, \ldots, F_n$ are all $\mu$-strongly convex, i.e., for all $v$ and $u$,
\begin{align}
F_i(v) \geq F_i(u) + (v - u)^T \nabla F_i(u) + \frac{\mu}{2} \|v - u\|^2.
\end{align}
\end{assump}\begin{assump}
$F_1, \ldots, F_n$ are all $\mu$-strongly convex, i.e., for all $v$ and $u$,
\begin{align}
F_i(v) \geq F_i(u) + (v - u)^T \nabla F_i(u) + \frac{\mu}{2} \|v - u\|^2.
\end{align}
\end{assump}
$F_1, \ldots, F_n$F_1, \ldots, F_n are all $\mu$\mu-strongly convex, i.e., for all $v$v and $u$u,
F_i(v) \geq F_i(u) + (v - u)^T \nabla F_i(u) + \frac{\mu}{2} \|v - u\|^2.
\begin{assump}\label{assumpt:3}
For the mini-batch $\mathcal{B}_i$ uniformly sampled at random from $B_i$ from Client $i$, the resulting stochastic gradient is unbiased, that is, $\mathbb{E}[g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i)] = \nabla F_i(\theta_i)$. Also, the variance of stochastic gradients is bounded:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\|g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i) - \nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2] \leq \sigma^2, \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.
\end{align}
\end{assump}\begin{assump}\label{assumpt:3}
For the mini-batch $\mathcal{B}_i$ uniformly sampled at random from $B_i$ from Client $i$, the resulting stochastic gradient is unbiased, that is, $\mathbb{E}[g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i)] = \nabla F_i(\theta_i)$. Also, the variance of stochastic gradients is bounded:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\|g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i) - \nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2] \leq \sigma^2, \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.
\end{align}
\end{assump}\label{assumpt:3}
For the mini-batch $\mathcal{B}_i$\mathcal{B}_i uniformly sampled at random from $B_i$B_i from Client $i$i, the resulting stochastic gradient is unbiased, that is, $\mathbb{E}[g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i)] = \nabla F_i(\theta_i)$\mathbb{E}[g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i)] = \nabla F_i(\theta_i). Also, the variance of stochastic gradients is bounded:
\mathbb{E}[\|g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i) - \nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2] \leq \sigma^2, \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.
\begin{assump}\label{assumpt:4}
The stochastic gradient’s expected squared norm is uniformly bounded, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\|g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i)\|^2] \leq G^2 \quad \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.
\end{align}
\end{assump}\begin{assump}\label{assumpt:4}
The stochastic gradient’s expected squared norm is uniformly bounded, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\|g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i)\|^2] \leq G^2 \quad \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.
\end{align}
\end{assump}\label{assumpt:4}
The stochastic gradient’s expected squared norm is uniformly bounded, i.e.,
\mathbb{E}[\|g_i(\theta_i, \mathcal{B}_i)\|^2] \leq G^2 \quad \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.
Following similar assumptions as \cite{cho2020client} and \cite{fraboni2022general}, we introduce the following metrics: the local-global objective gap, the selection skew, and the variance of the weights, which feature
prominently in the convergence analysis presented in Theorem \ref{th1}.
\begin{defn}[Local-Global Objective Gap and Selection Skew]\label{def1}
The Local-Global Objective Gap, \(\Gamma\), is defined as:
%\begin{align}
%\Gamma = \max_{t,h} \mathbb{E}\left[F(\theta^*) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega_k(h,t) F_k(\theta_k^*)\right],
%\end{align}
\begin{align}
\Gamma = F(\theta^*) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k(\theta_k^*),
\end{align}
where $q_k$ is the importance of client $k$ in the federated loss function, $\theta^*$ is the global optimum, and $\theta_k^*$ is the local optimum.
The selection skew for averaging scheme \(\omega\) is defined as:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime) = \frac{\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t)(F_k(\theta^\prime) - F_k(\theta_k^* )) \right] }{F(\theta^\prime) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k(\theta_k^*)}, \label{eq:rho}
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
with
\begin{equation}\label{min}
\underline{\rho} = \min_{h,h',t, \theta^\prime} \rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{max}
\overline{\rho} = \max_{h,h',t} \rho(h,h',t; \theta^*),
\end{equation}
where \(\omega_k(h',t)\) are the weights that vary per iteration, and the expectation is taken over the random selections and weights for fixed $t,h'$.
It follows from these definitions that \(\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}\), and $\rho \geq 0$.
\end{defn}\begin{defn}[Local-Global Objective Gap and Selection Skew]\label{def1}
The Local-Global Objective Gap, \(\Gamma\), is defined as:
%\begin{align}
%\Gamma = \max_{t,h} \mathbb{E}\left[F(\theta^*) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega_k(h,t) F_k(\theta_k^*)\right],
%\end{align}
\begin{align}
\Gamma = F(\theta^*) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k(\theta_k^*),
\end{align}
where $q_k$ is the importance of client $k$ in the federated loss function, $\theta^*$ is the global optimum, and $\theta_k^*$ is the local optimum.
The selection skew for averaging scheme \(\omega\) is defined as:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime) = \frac{\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t)(F_k(\theta^\prime) - F_k(\theta_k^* )) \right] }{F(\theta^\prime) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k(\theta_k^*)}, \label{eq:rho}
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
with
\begin{equation}\label{min}
\underline{\rho} = \min_{h,h',t, \theta^\prime} \rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{max}
\overline{\rho} = \max_{h,h',t} \rho(h,h',t; \theta^*),
\end{equation}
where \(\omega_k(h',t)\) are the weights that vary per iteration, and the expectation is taken over the random selections and weights for fixed $t,h'$.
It follows from these definitions that \(\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}\), and $\rho \geq 0$.
\end{defn}\label{def1}
The Local-Global Objective Gap, \(\Gamma\)\Gamma, is defined as:
\Gamma = F(\theta^*) - \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n q_k F_k(\theta_k^*),
where $q_k$q_k is the importance of client $k$k in the federated loss function, $\theta^*$\theta^* is the global optimum, and $\theta_k^*$\theta_k^* is the local optimum.
The selection skew for averaging scheme \(\omega\)\omega is defined as:
\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime) = \frac{\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t)(F_k(\theta^\prime) - F_k(\theta_k^* )) \right] }{F(\theta^\prime) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k(\theta_k^*)}, \label{eq:rho}
with
\label{min}
\underline{\rho} = \min_{h,h',t, \theta^\prime}h,h',t, \theta^\prime \rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime),
\label{max}
\overline{\rho} = \max_{h,h',t}h,h',t \rho(h,h',t; \theta^*),
where \(\omega_k(h',t)\)\omega_k(h',t) are the weights that vary per iteration, and the expectation is taken over the random selections and weights for fixed $t,h'$t,h'.
It follows from these definitions that \(\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}\)\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}, and $\rho \geq 0$\rho \geq 0.
The Local-Global Objective Gap, \(\Gamma\)\Gamma, quantifies the maximum expected discrepancy between the global objective \(F\)F and the weighted sum of local objectives \(F_k\)F_k across all iterations. The selection skew, \(\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime)\)\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime), measures the ratio of the expected weighted sum of discrepancies between local objectives \(F_k\)F_k and their optimal values \(F_k(\theta_k^* )\)F_k(\theta_k^* ) to the discrepancy between the global objective \(F\)F and the weighted sum of local objectives. In equation \eqref{eq:rho}, the numerator takes the expectation over the random choices of \(S(h,t)\)S(h,t) and \(\omega_{k}(h',t)\)\omega_{k}k(h',t) based on the policy, for fixed \(h,h',t\)h,h',t.
\begin{comment}
\bl{??Need to move all informal explanations outside the definition. The definition should only be mathematical and rigorous.}
\begin{defn}[Local-Global Objective Gap and Selection Skew]\label{def1}
The following equation defines the Local-Global Objective Gap, \(\Gamma\), which quantifies the maximum expected discrepancy between the global objective \(F\) and the weighted sum of local objectives \(F_k\) across all iterations. The weights \(\omega_k\) vary per iteration, reflecting changes in their influence or importance. The expectation is taken over these weights, and the maximization identifies the iteration with the greatest objective gap.
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
%\Gamma_\omega = F(\theta^*) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega_k F_k(\theta^*) = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*) - F_k(\theta^*_k)) \geq 0.\\
\Gamma = \max_t \mathbb{E}_{\omega_k}\left[F(\theta^*_t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega F_k(\theta^*_t)\right]
\end{align}
\end{small}
By defining the selection skew for averaging scheme $\omega$ we have:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime) = \frac{\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t)(F_k(\theta^\prime) - F_k(\theta_k^* )) \right] }{F(\theta^\prime) - \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t) F_k(\theta_k^*)} , \label{eq:rho}
\end{equation}
\end{small}
and
\begin{equation}\label{min}
\underline{\rho} = \min_{h,h',t, \theta^\prime} \rho(h; \theta^\prime),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{max} \overline{\rho}=\max_{h,h',t}\rho({h,\theta^*}) .
\end{equation}
Based on the definitions provided in equations \ref{min} and \ref{max}, it follows that $\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}$.
In \eqref{eq:rho}, the numerator takes the expectation over the random choices of $S(h,t)$ and $\omega_{k}(h',t)$ based on the policy, for fixed $h,h',t$.
\end{defn}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\bl{??Need to move all informal explanations outside the definition. The definition should only be mathematical and rigorous.}
\begin{defn}[Local-Global Objective Gap and Selection Skew]\label{def1}
The following equation defines the Local-Global Objective Gap, \(\Gamma\), which quantifies the maximum expected discrepancy between the global objective \(F\) and the weighted sum of local objectives \(F_k\) across all iterations. The weights \(\omega_k\) vary per iteration, reflecting changes in their influence or importance. The expectation is taken over these weights, and the maximization identifies the iteration with the greatest objective gap.
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
%\Gamma_\omega = F(\theta^*) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega_k F_k(\theta^*) = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*) - F_k(\theta^*_k)) \geq 0.\\
\Gamma = \max_t \mathbb{E}_{\omega_k}\left[F(\theta^*_t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} \omega F_k(\theta^*_t)\right]
\end{align}
\end{small}
By defining the selection skew for averaging scheme $\omega$ we have:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime) = \frac{\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t)(F_k(\theta^\prime) - F_k(\theta_k^* )) \right] }{F(\theta^\prime) - \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t) F_k(\theta_k^*)} , \label{eq:rho}
\end{equation}
\end{small}
and
\begin{equation}\label{min}
\underline{\rho} = \min_{h,h',t, \theta^\prime} \rho(h; \theta^\prime),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{max} \overline{\rho}=\max_{h,h',t}\rho({h,\theta^*}) .
\end{equation}
Based on the definitions provided in equations \ref{min} and \ref{max}, it follows that $\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}$.
In \eqref{eq:rho}, the numerator takes the expectation over the random choices of $S(h,t)$ and $\omega_{k}(h',t)$ based on the policy, for fixed $h,h',t$.
\end{defn}
\end{comment}
\bl{??Need to move all informal explanations outside the definition. The definition should only be mathematical and rigorous.}??Need to move all informal explanations outside the definition. The definition should only be mathematical and rigorous.
\label{def1}
The following equation defines the Local-Global Objective Gap, \(\Gamma\)\Gamma, which quantifies the maximum expected discrepancy between the global objective \(F\)F and the weighted sum of local objectives \(F_k\)F_k across all iterations. The weights \(\omega_k\)\omega_k vary per iteration, reflecting changes in their influence or importance. The expectation is taken over these weights, and the maximization identifies the iteration with the greatest objective gap.
\Gamma = \max_t \mathbb{E}_{\omega_k}\omega_k\left[F(\theta^*_t) - \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n \omega F_k(\theta^*_t)\right]
By defining the selection skew for averaging scheme $\omega$\omega we have:
\rho(h,h',t; \theta^\prime) = \frac{\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t)(F_k(\theta^\prime) - F_k(\theta_k^* )) \right] }{F(\theta^\prime) - \sum_{k \in S(h,t)} \omega_k(h',t) F_k(\theta_k^*)} , \label{eq:rho}
and
\label{min}
\underline{\rho} = \min_{h,h',t, \theta^\prime}h,h',t, \theta^\prime \rho(h; \theta^\prime),
\label{max} \overline{\rho}=\max_{h,h',t}h,h',t\rho({h,\theta^*}h,\theta^*) .
Based on the definitions provided in equations \ref{min} and \ref{max}, it follows that $\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}$\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}.
In \eqref{eq:rho}, the numerator takes the expectation over the random choices of $S(h,t)$S(h,t) and $\omega_{k}(h',t)$\omega_{k}k(h',t) based on the policy, for fixed $h,h',t$h,h',t.
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}
Consider a federated learning setting with \(n\) clients, where in each round \(k\) clients are selected randomly. Each selected client \(i\) is assigned a weight \(\omega_i\) such that \(\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i = 1\), where \(S\) is the set of selected clients, and \(\omega_j = 0\) for clients not selected. Then the expected sum of the variances of the weights is given by:
$$
\Sigma = \mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
$$
\textbf{Proof:}
We begin by considering the expectation:
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\right],
$$
where \(\mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\) is an indicator function that equals 1 if client \(i\) is selected in the set \(S\), and 0 otherwise.
The probability that any particular client \(i\) is selected can be calculated as:
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S_t) = 1 - \mathbb{P}(i \notin S_t) = 1 - \frac{n-1}{n} \cdot \frac{n-2}{n-1} \cdot \ldots \cdot \frac{n-k}{n-k+1} = 1 - \frac{n-k}{n} = \frac{k}{n}.
$$
Thus,
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\right] = \text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \frac{k}{n}.
$$
Therefore, the expectation can be rewritten as:
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i].
$$
Next, we calculate \(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\). The variance for each selected client \(i\) is:
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
$$
For a selected client, the expected square of the weight is:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{kn}.
$$
Thus,
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
$$
Summing this over all \(n\) clients:
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}.
$$
Finally, substituting this back into the expression for the expectation, we obtain:
$$
\Sigma=\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \left(\frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}\right) = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
$$
This completes the proof.
\end{theorem}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}
Consider a federated learning setting with \(n\) clients, where in each round \(k\) clients are selected randomly. Each selected client \(i\) is assigned a weight \(\omega_i\) such that \(\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i = 1\), where \(S\) is the set of selected clients, and \(\omega_j = 0\) for clients not selected. Then the expected sum of the variances of the weights is given by:
$$
\Sigma = \mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
$$
\textbf{Proof:}
We begin by considering the expectation:
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\right],
$$
where \(\mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\) is an indicator function that equals 1 if client \(i\) is selected in the set \(S\), and 0 otherwise.
The probability that any particular client \(i\) is selected can be calculated as:
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S_t) = 1 - \mathbb{P}(i \notin S_t) = 1 - \frac{n-1}{n} \cdot \frac{n-2}{n-1} \cdot \ldots \cdot \frac{n-k}{n-k+1} = 1 - \frac{n-k}{n} = \frac{k}{n}.
$$
Thus,
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\right] = \text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \frac{k}{n}.
$$
Therefore, the expectation can be rewritten as:
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i].
$$
Next, we calculate \(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\). The variance for each selected client \(i\) is:
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
$$
For a selected client, the expected square of the weight is:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{kn}.
$$
Thus,
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
$$
Summing this over all \(n\) clients:
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}.
$$
Finally, substituting this back into the expression for the expectation, we obtain:
$$
\Sigma=\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \left(\frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}\right) = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
$$
This completes the proof.
\end{theorem}
\end{comment}
Consider a federated learning setting with \(n\)n clients, where in each round \(k\)k clients are selected randomly. Each selected client \(i\)i is assigned a weight \(\omega_i\)\omega_i such that \(\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i = 1\)\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i = 1, where \(S\)S is the set of selected clients, and \(\omega_j = 0\)\omega_j = 0 for clients not selected. Then the expected sum of the variances of the weights is given by:
$$
\Sigma = \mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
$$
\Sigma = \mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
\textbf{Proof:}
We begin by considering the expectation:
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\right],
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\{i \in S\}\right],
where \(\mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\)\mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\{i \in S\} is an indicator function that equals 1 if client \(i\)i is selected in the set \(S\)S, and 0 otherwise.
The probability that any particular client \(i\)i is selected can be calculated as:
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S_t) = 1 - \mathbb{P}(i \notin S_t) = 1 - \frac{n-1}{n} \cdot \frac{n-2}{n-1} \cdot \ldots \cdot \frac{n-k}{n-k+1} = 1 - \frac{n-k}{n} = \frac{k}{n}.
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S_t) = 1 - \mathbb{P}(i \notin S_t) = 1 - \frac{n-1}{n} \cdot \frac{n-2}{n-1} \cdot \ldots \cdot \frac{n-k}{n-k+1} = 1 - \frac{n-k}{n} = \frac{k}{n}.
Thus,
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\right] = \text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \frac{k}{n}.
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\{i \in S\}}\{i \in S\}\right] = \text{Var}[\omega_i] \cdot \frac{k}{n}.
Therefore, the expectation can be rewritten as:
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i].
$$
\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i].
Next, we calculate \(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\)\sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i]. The variance for each selected client \(i\)i is:
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
For a selected client, the expected square of the weight is:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{kn}.
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{kn}.
Thus,
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
Summing this over all \(n\)n clients:
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}.
$$
\sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{kn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}.
Finally, substituting this back into the expression for the expectation, we obtain:
$$
\Sigma=\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \left(\frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}\right) = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
$$
\Sigma=\mathbb{E}_S\left[\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \text{Var}[\omega_i]\right] = \frac{k}{n} \left(\frac{1}{k} - \frac{1}{n}\right) = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{k}{n^2}.
This completes the proof.
\begin{theorem}\label{th1}
Under Assumptions \ref{assumpt:1} and \ref{assumpt:4}, considering a decaying learning rate $\eta_t = \frac{1}{\mu(t+\gamma)}$ where $\gamma = \frac{4K(K+1)L}{\mu}$, and any client selection scheme, the error after $T$ iterations of federated averaging with partial device participation is bounded as follows:
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[F(\theta(t))] - F^* \leq \frac{1}{T+\gamma} \frac{L}{2} \Bigg[ \gamma \|\theta^0 - \theta^*\|^2 \notag \\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\underline{\rho}(K-1)\mu^2} \Big( 16 G^2 K m^2 (K+1)( \Sigma + 1 ) + m K \sigma^2 \Big) \notag \\
&\quad + \frac{6L \Gamma}{(K-1)\mu^2} \Bigg] + \frac{KL}{(K-1)\mu} \Gamma \left(\frac{\overline{\rho}}{\underline{\rho}} - 1\right)
\end{align}
\end{theorem}\begin{theorem}\label{th1}
Under Assumptions \ref{assumpt:1} and \ref{assumpt:4}, considering a decaying learning rate $\eta_t = \frac{1}{\mu(t+\gamma)}$ where $\gamma = \frac{4K(K+1)L}{\mu}$, and any client selection scheme, the error after $T$ iterations of federated averaging with partial device participation is bounded as follows:
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{E}[F(\theta(t))] - F^* \leq \frac{1}{T+\gamma} \frac{L}{2} \Bigg[ \gamma \|\theta^0 - \theta^*\|^2 \notag \\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\underline{\rho}(K-1)\mu^2} \Big( 16 G^2 K m^2 (K+1)( \Sigma + 1 ) + m K \sigma^2 \Big) \notag \\
&\quad + \frac{6L \Gamma}{(K-1)\mu^2} \Bigg] + \frac{KL}{(K-1)\mu} \Gamma \left(\frac{\overline{\rho}}{\underline{\rho}} - 1\right)
\end{align}
\end{theorem}\label{th1}
Under Assumptions \ref{assumpt:1} and \ref{assumpt:4}, considering a decaying learning rate $\eta_t = \frac{1}{\mu(t+\gamma)}$\eta_t = \frac{1}{\mu(t+\gamma)} where $\gamma = \frac{4K(K+1)L}{\mu}$\gamma = \frac{4K(K+1)L}{\mu}, and any client selection scheme, the error after $T$T iterations of federated averaging with partial device participation is bounded as follows:
&\mathbb{E}[F(\theta(t))] - F^* \leq \frac{1}{T+\gamma} \frac{L}{2} \Bigg[ \gamma \|\theta^0 - \theta^*\|^2 \notag \\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\underline{\rho}(K-1)\mu^2} \Big( 16 G^2 K m^2 (K+1)( \Sigma + 1 ) + m K \sigma^2 \Big) \notag \\
&\quad + \frac{6L \Gamma}{(K-1)\mu^2} \Bigg] + \frac{KL}{(K-1)\mu} \Gamma \left(\frac{\overline{\rho}}{\underline{\rho}} - 1\right)
\textbf{Remark 1.} A critical observation from Theorem \ref{th1} is that the convergence bound is influenced by the clients' aggregation weights through the quantity $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i(S_t)]$\sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i(S_t)]. Minimizing these terms, which are non-negative, leads to a smaller $\Sigma$\Sigma, thereby resulting in faster convergence of the algorithm.
\textbf{Remark 2.} Theorem \ref{th1} also highlights that a larger selection skew, denoted by $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho}, contributes to faster convergence. This is a conservative estimate, since $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} is derived from the minimum selection skew $\rho$\rho. Given that $\rho$\rho varies during training based on the current global model $\theta$\theta and local models $\theta_k$\theta_k, the actual convergence rate can be improved by a factor that is at least as large as $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho}.
\textbf{Remark 3.} The term $\frac{KL}{(K-1)\mu } \Gamma \left(\frac{\overline{\rho}}{\underline{\rho}}-1\right)$\frac{KL}{(K-1)\mu } \Gamma \left(\frac{\overline{\rho}}{\underline{\rho}}-1\right) represents the bias, which depends on the selection strategy. By the definitions of $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} and $\overline{\rho}$\overline{\rho}, it follows that $\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}$\overline{\rho} \geq \underline{\rho}, implying the existence of a non-zero bias. However, simulation results indicate that even with biased selection strategies, this term can be close to zero, thereby having a negligible impact on the final error floor.
In Theorem \ref{th1}, two critical terms $\Sigma$\Sigma and $\rho$\rho are influenced by the client selection strategy, particularly by the selection policy and the Age of Information (AoI) metric. These factors directly affect the speed at which the federated learning algorithm converges.
The term $\Sigma$\Sigma represents the variability in the weights assigned to each client, which are determined by the selection policy. Policies that introduce greater randomness, such as \textit{random selection policies}, result in greater variance in the client weights. This larger $\Sigma$\Sigma increases the variability of local model updates, negatively impacting the convergence rate. Specifically, the term $16 G^2 K m^2 (K+1)( \Sigma + 1 )$16 G^2 K m^2 (K+1)( \Sigma + 1 ) in the theorem shows that as $\Sigma$\Sigma increases, the upper bound on the error grows, leading to slower convergence. On the other hand, \textit{AoI-based policies} aim to minimize $\Sigma$\Sigma by selecting clients with fresher updates more frequently, thus ensuring that their influence on the global model remains stable and reducing the variability in the weights. This reduction in $\Sigma$\Sigma improves convergence, as the model updates become more consistent across rounds.
Furthermore, the \textit{ selection skew} $\rho$\rho, defined as the ratio of the expected discrepancy between local and global objectives, affects the convergence behavior. Theorem \ref{th1} introduces the term $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho}, which captures the \textit{minimum selection skew} across all rounds. The term $\frac{1}{\underline{\rho}(K-1)\mu^2}$\frac{1}{\underline{\rho}(K-1)\mu^2} in the error bound illustrates that a smaller $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} (more imbalance in client selection) leads to a slower convergence rate. \textit{Random selection policies} can lead to smaller $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho}, as they may favor some clients more frequently in a given time frame. In contrast, \textit{AoI-based policies} increase $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} by ensuring that clients with more up-to-date information are chosen more regularly. This leads to a more balanced selection process over time, thereby reducing the selection skew and improving convergence. To empirically estimate the selection skew $\rho$\rho, we approximate $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} and $\overline{\rho}$\overline{\rho} through simulations. Specifically, we train each client individually with a large number of SGD iterations to obtain their local optimal models $\theta_k^*$\theta_k^*. The final global model from our experiments serves as an estimate of the global optimum $\theta^*$\theta^*. At each iteration $t$t, we compute the selection skew $\rho(S^t, \theta^t)$\rho(S^t, \theta^t) using the current global model $\theta^t$\theta^t, and $\rho(S^t, \theta^*)$\rho(S^t, \theta^*) using the estimated global optimum $\theta^*$\theta^*. We then record the minimum and maximum values over all iterations, denoted as $\min_t \rho(S^t, \theta^t)$\min_t \rho(S^t, \theta^t) and $\max_t \rho(S^t, \theta^*)$\max_t \rho(S^t, \theta^*), respectively. The results for the four policies investigated in this paper are summarized in Table~\ref{table2}. We observe that the Markov policy has a larger $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} in most scenarios and therefore, is expected to converge faster roughly.
It is important to note that while the selection skew $\rho$\rho influences convergence behavior, its value alone does not directly determine the superiority of a client selection policy. The convergence rate, as indicated by Theorem~\ref{th1}, depends on multiple parameters. Therefore, a policy with a higher estimated $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} may not necessarily mean the convergence is faster if other factors adversely affect performance. The interplay of these parameters ultimately dictates the effectiveness of a policy, and thus $\rho$\rho should be considered alongside other metrics when evaluating overall performance.
The effect of \textit{Age of Information (AoI)} is particularly important in the context of federated learning with partial participation. When AoI is considered in the selection policy, clients with lower AoI (fresher updates) are chosen more frequently, reducing the skew in client selection and lowering $\Sigma$\Sigma. This selection strategy not only reduces the variance in the client weights but also increases $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho}, as the selection becomes more balanced across clients. Theorems like this highlight that careful selection policies based on AoI can accelerate convergence by minimizing both $\Sigma$\Sigma and $\frac{1}{\underline{\rho}}$\frac{1}{\underline{\rho}}, improving the overall performance of the federated learning algorithm.
In the following, we calculate $\Sigma$\Sigma for three different selection policies: \textit{random selection}, \textit{data-size-based selection}, and \textit{AoI-based selection}. For each policy, $\Sigma$\Sigma represents the sum variance of the client weights $\omega_i$\omega_i, which reflects the variability in client participation across rounds.
\begin{theorem}\label{th3}
Consider a federated learning environment with $n$ clients, where in each round exactly $m$ clients are selected \emph{uniformly at random} as per policy \ref{policy:random}. For each client $i$, let $d_i>0$ be its data size. Let $S\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}$ be the randomly chosen subset of size $m$. Define the weight of client $i$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weight-datasize}
\omega_i \;=\;
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}, & \text{if } i \in S,\\[1em]
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then the sum of the variances of the weights is given by
\begin{align}
\Sigma
=&\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]\\
=&\;
\frac{1}{\displaystyle \binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}}
\;\sum_{i \in S}
\frac{d_i^2}{\Bigl(\sum_{j \in S} d_j\Bigr)^2}
\;\;\\ \;\;
-&\sum_{i=1}^n
\Biggl(
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S: \, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\Biggr)^2.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}\begin{theorem}\label{th3}
Consider a federated learning environment with $n$ clients, where in each round exactly $m$ clients are selected \emph{uniformly at random} as per policy \ref{policy:random}. For each client $i$, let $d_i>0$ be its data size. Let $S\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}$ be the randomly chosen subset of size $m$. Define the weight of client $i$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weight-datasize}
\omega_i \;=\;
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}, & \text{if } i \in S,\\[1em]
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then the sum of the variances of the weights is given by
\begin{align}
\Sigma
=&\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]\\
=&\;
\frac{1}{\displaystyle \binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}}
\;\sum_{i \in S}
\frac{d_i^2}{\Bigl(\sum_{j \in S} d_j\Bigr)^2}
\;\;\\ \;\;
-&\sum_{i=1}^n
\Biggl(
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S: \, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\Biggr)^2.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}\label{th3}
Consider a federated learning environment with $n$n clients, where in each round exactly $m$m clients are selected \emph{uniformly at random} as per policy \ref{policy:random}. For each client $i$i, let $d_i>0$d_i>0 be its data size. Let $S\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}$S\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\} be the randomly chosen subset of size $m$m. Define the weight of client $i$i by
\label{eq:weight-datasize}
\omega_i \;=\;
\dfrac{d_i}d_i{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\sum_{j \in S}j \in S d_j, & \text{if } i \in S,\\[1em]
0, & \text{otherwise.}
Then the sum of the variances of the weights is given by
\Sigma
=&\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]\\
=&\;
\frac{1}{\displaystyle \binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}}\substack{S \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}S \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m
\;\sum_{i \in S}i \in S
\frac{d_i^2}{\Bigl(\sum_{j \in S} d_j\Bigr)^2}
\;\;\\ \;\;
-&\sum_{i=1}i=1^n
\Biggl(
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S: \, i \in S}}\substack{S: \, i \in S}S: \, i \in S
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\Biggr)^2.
\textbf{Remark 4.}\label{remark:homogeneous}
In the special case where the data is homogeneous across all clients, i.e., $d_i = d$d_i = d for all $i$i, the weight for each selected client simplifies to
\[
\omega_i \;=\; \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} \;=\; \frac{d}{m \cdot d} \;=\; \frac{1}{m}.
\]
\omega_i \;=\; \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} \;=\; \frac{d}{m \cdot d} \;=\; \frac{1}{m}.
Hence, the weight distribution is uniform among the $m$m selected clients. Consequently, in this scenario:
\begin{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{m}{n} \times \frac{1}{m} \;=\; \frac{1}{n},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2 \;=\; \sum_{i \in S} \frac{1}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{m}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{1}{m}.
\]
\end{small}\begin{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{m}{n} \times \frac{1}{m} \;=\; \frac{1}{n},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2 \;=\; \sum_{i \in S} \frac{1}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{m}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{1}{m}.
\]
\end{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{m}{n} \times \frac{1}{m} \;=\; \frac{1}{n},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2 \;=\; \sum_{i \in S} \frac{1}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{m}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{1}{m}.
\]
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{m}{n} \times \frac{1}{m} \;=\; \frac{1}{n},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \omega_i^2 \;=\; \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \frac{1}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{m}{m^2} \;=\; \frac{1}{m}.
Taking expectations,
\begin{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2\Bigr] \;=\; \frac{1}{m},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m}
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \Bigl(\frac{1}{n}\Bigr)^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\]
\end{small}\begin{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2\Bigr] \;=\; \frac{1}{m},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m}
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \Bigl(\frac{1}{n}\Bigr)^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\]
\end{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2\Bigr] \;=\; \frac{1}{m},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m}
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \Bigl(\frac{1}{n}\Bigr)^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\]
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \omega_i^2\Bigr] \;=\; \frac{1}{m},
\quad
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m}
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \Bigl(\frac{1}{n}\Bigr)^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem} \label{th3}
Consider a federated learning environment with \(n\) clients, where in each round \(k\) clients are selected randomly as policy \ref{policy:random}. The sum of the variances of the weights is given by:
\begin{align}
\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \Bigg( &\frac{m}{n} \mathbb{E}\left[\left(\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\right)^2 \right] \notag \\
& - \left(\frac{m}{n} \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} \right]\right)^2 \Bigg).
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Remark 4.} In the special case where the data is homogeneous across all clients, i.e., \( d_i = d \) for all \( i \), the weight for each selected client simplifies to \( \omega_i = \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} = \frac{1}{m} \).
This implies that the weight distribution is uniform among the selected clients. Consequently, the variance calculation is simplified as follows:
Given that \( \omega_i = \frac{1}{m} \) for each selected client \( i \), the variance for each \( \omega_i \) becomes:
\[
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
\]
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m^2}=\frac{1}{mn}, \quad \mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m}= \frac{1}{n}
\]
Thus:
\[
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
\]
Summing this over all \( n \) clients:
\[
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\]
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem} \label{th3}
Consider a federated learning environment with \(n\) clients, where in each round \(k\) clients are selected randomly as policy \ref{policy:random}. The sum of the variances of the weights is given by:
\begin{align}
\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \Bigg( &\frac{m}{n} \mathbb{E}\left[\left(\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\right)^2 \right] \notag \\
& - \left(\frac{m}{n} \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} \right]\right)^2 \Bigg).
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Remark 4.} In the special case where the data is homogeneous across all clients, i.e., \( d_i = d \) for all \( i \), the weight for each selected client simplifies to \( \omega_i = \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} = \frac{1}{m} \).
This implies that the weight distribution is uniform among the selected clients. Consequently, the variance calculation is simplified as follows:
Given that \( \omega_i = \frac{1}{m} \) for each selected client \( i \), the variance for each \( \omega_i \) becomes:
\[
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
\]
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m^2}=\frac{1}{mn}, \quad \mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m}= \frac{1}{n}
\]
Thus:
\[
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
\]
Summing this over all \( n \) clients:
\[
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\]
\end{comment}
\label{th3}
Consider a federated learning environment with \(n\)n clients, where in each round \(k\)k clients are selected randomly as policy \ref{policy:random}. The sum of the variances of the weights is given by:
\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \Bigg( &\frac{m}{n} \mathbb{E}\left[\left(\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\right)^2 \right] \notag \\
& - \left(\frac{m}{n} \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} \right]\right)^2 \Bigg).
\textbf{Remark 4.} In the special case where the data is homogeneous across all clients, i.e., \( d_i = d \) d_i = d for all \( i \) i , the weight for each selected client simplifies to \( \omega_i = \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} = \frac{1}{m} \) \omega_i = \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j} = \frac{1}{m} .
This implies that the weight distribution is uniform among the selected clients. Consequently, the variance calculation is simplified as follows:
Given that \( \omega_i = \frac{1}{m} \) \omega_i = \frac{1}{m} for each selected client \( i \) i , the variance for each \( \omega_i \) \omega_i becomes:
\[
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
\]
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2.
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m^2}=\frac{1}{mn}, \quad \mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m}= \frac{1}{n}
\]
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m^2}=\frac{1}{mn}, \quad \mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{m}{n}\times\frac{1}{m}= \frac{1}{n}
Thus:
\[
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
\]
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}.
Summing this over all \( n \) n clients:
\[
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\]
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \left(\frac{1}{mn} - \frac{1}{n^2}\right) = \frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{n}.
\begin{theorem} \label{th4}
Consider a federated learning environment with \(n\) clients, where in each round, \(m\) clients are selected with replacement. The probability $q_i$ of choosing client \(i\) is proportional to the size of its data set, indicated by \(d_i\), according to policy \ref{policy:probabilistic}. The expected sum of the variances of the weights for the selected clients is:
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
$$
\end{theorem}\begin{theorem} \label{th4}
Consider a federated learning environment with \(n\) clients, where in each round, \(m\) clients are selected with replacement. The probability $q_i$ of choosing client \(i\) is proportional to the size of its data set, indicated by \(d_i\), according to policy \ref{policy:probabilistic}. The expected sum of the variances of the weights for the selected clients is:
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
$$
\end{theorem} \label{th4}
Consider a federated learning environment with \(n\)n clients, where in each round, \(m\)m clients are selected with replacement. The probability $q_i$q_i of choosing client \(i\)i is proportional to the size of its data set, indicated by \(d_i\)d_i, according to policy \ref{policy:probabilistic}. The expected sum of the variances of the weights for the selected clients is:
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}i=1^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
\textbf{Remark 5.}\label{remark5}
In the special case where all datasets are of equal size, i.e., \(d_i = d\)d_i = d for each \(i\)i, the selection probabilities become uniform across all \(n\)n clients:
\[
q_i = \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j=1}^{n} d_j} = \frac{d}{n \, d} = \frac{1}{n}.
\]
q_i = \frac{d_i}{\sum_{j=1}^{n} d_j} = \frac{d}{n \, d} = \frac{1}{n}.
Then each client is equally likely to be chosen in each of the \(m\)m selections. Substituting \(q_i = \tfrac{1}{n}\)q_i = \tfrac{1}1{n}n into
\[
\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m},
\]
\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i] = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m},
we obtain
\[
\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{\tfrac{1}{n}\bigl(1 - \tfrac{1}{n}\bigr)}{m}
= \frac{1}{m} \Bigl(1 - \tfrac{1}{n}\Bigr).
\]
\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \frac{\tfrac{1}{n}\bigl(1 - \tfrac{1}{n}\bigr)}{m}
= \frac{1}{m} \Bigl(1 - \tfrac{1}1{n}n\Bigr).
\begin{theorem}\label{th5}
Consider a federated learning environment with $n$ clients. In each round, each client $i$ is in an \emph{age state} $a \in \{0,1,\dots,m'\}$ and is selected with probability $p_{a}$, according to \emph{Policy~\ref{policy:markov}} (Markov selection based on age). Denote by $S \subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}$ the (random) set of selected clients in that round, assuming always $|S|>0$. Assign weights to the clients as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weight-markov}
\omega_i \;=\;
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{\sum_{j \in S} 1}\;=\;\dfrac{1}{\lvert S\rvert}, & \text{if } i \in S,\\[6pt]
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Where ages form a Markov chain with a unique stationary distribution
$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}\bigr)$ and \emph{steady-state} selection probability of a client is
\[
p_{\mathrm{avg}}
\;=\;
\sum_{a=0}^{m'} \pi_a \,p_a.
\]
Then, the sum of the variances of the weights over all $n$ clients is given by
\begin{align}
\Sigma=
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
=\;
\sum_{s=1}^{n}
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}\,\bigl(p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{s}
\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n},\
\label{eq:markov-var-result}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}\begin{theorem}\label{th5}
Consider a federated learning environment with $n$ clients. In each round, each client $i$ is in an \emph{age state} $a \in \{0,1,\dots,m'\}$ and is selected with probability $p_{a}$, according to \emph{Policy~\ref{policy:markov}} (Markov selection based on age). Denote by $S \subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}$ the (random) set of selected clients in that round, assuming always $|S|>0$. Assign weights to the clients as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weight-markov}
\omega_i \;=\;
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{\sum_{j \in S} 1}\;=\;\dfrac{1}{\lvert S\rvert}, & \text{if } i \in S,\\[6pt]
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Where ages form a Markov chain with a unique stationary distribution
$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}\bigr)$ and \emph{steady-state} selection probability of a client is
\[
p_{\mathrm{avg}}
\;=\;
\sum_{a=0}^{m'} \pi_a \,p_a.
\]
Then, the sum of the variances of the weights over all $n$ clients is given by
\begin{align}
\Sigma=
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
=\;
\sum_{s=1}^{n}
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}\,\bigl(p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{s}
\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n},\
\label{eq:markov-var-result}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}\label{th5}
Consider a federated learning environment with $n$n clients. In each round, each client $i$i is in an \emph{age state} $a \in \{0,1,\dots,m'\}$a \in \{0,1,\dots,m'\} and is selected with probability $p_{a}$p_{a}a, according to \emph{Policy~\ref{policy:markov}} (Markov selection based on age). Denote by $S \subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}$S \subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\} the (random) set of selected clients in that round, assuming always $|S|>0$|S|>0. Assign weights to the clients as
\label{eq:weight-markov}
\omega_i \;=\;
\dfrac{1}1{\sum_{j \in S} 1}\sum_{j \in S}j \in S 1\;=\;\dfrac{1}1{\lvert S\rvert}\lvert S\rvert, & \text{if } i \in S,\\[6pt]
0, & \text{otherwise}.
Where ages form a Markov chain with a unique stationary distribution
$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}\bigr)$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}m'\bigr) and \emph{steady-state} selection probability of a client is
\[
p_{\mathrm{avg}}
\;=\;
\sum_{a=0}^{m'} \pi_a \,p_a.
\]
p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg}
\;=\;
\sum_{a=0}a=0^{m'}m' \pi_a \,p_a.
Then, the sum of the variances of the weights over all $n$n clients is given by
\Sigma=
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
=\;
\sum_{s=1}s=1^{n}n
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}n{s}s\,\bigl(p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg}\bigr)^{s}s
\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg}\bigr)^{n-s}n-s
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n},\
\label{eq:markov-var-result}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Remark 5.}
In the special case where \( m' \le \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor - 1 \) and the optimal selection probabilities are given by \( [p_0^*, p_1^*, \dots, p_{m'-1}^*, p_{m'}^*] = [0, 0, \dots, 0, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}] \), the sum of variances $\Sigma$ simplifies to:
\[
\Sigma \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}
\]
\begin{proof}[Proof]
Given the conditions of the problem, the number of selected clients \(|S|\) can be modeled as a binomial distribution:
\[
|S| \sim \text{Binomial}(n - m, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'})
\]
with expected value \(\mathbb{E}[|S|] = \frac{n-m}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}\) and variance \(\text{Var}(|S|) = (n-m) \cdot \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left(1 - \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}\right)\).
The sum of variances \(\Sigma\) is given by:
\[
\Sigma = \frac{1 - \frac{m}{n}}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left[ n \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] - \left(\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]\right)^2 \right]
\]
Using the approximation:
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[|S|]} = \frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}
\]
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2} = \left(\frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}\right)^2
\]
Substituting into the expression for \(\Sigma\) and simplifying, we find:
\[
\Sigma = \frac{\left(\frac{n - m}{n}\right) \cdot (n - 1)}{(n - m)^2} \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}.
\]
\end{proof}
\textbf{Remark 6.} For the case where \( m' \ge \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor \), setting \( i = \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor \), the optimal values of \( p_i \) are:
\begin{align}
[p_0^*, p_1^*, \dots, p_{i-2}^*, p_{i-1}^*, p_{i}^*, \dots, p_{m'}^*] \\= [0, 0, \dots, 0, i+1 -\frac{n}{m}, 1, \dots, 1]
\end{align}
The sum of variances \(\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\) is given by:
%\begin{small}
%\[
%\Sigma \approx \left(i+1 - \frac{n}{k}\right) \cdot \left[ \frac{n}{(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i})^2} - \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \right]
%\]
%\end{small}
\begin{multline}
\Sigma \approx \left(i + 1 - \frac{n}{m}\right) \cdot \Bigg[ \frac{n}{\left(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\right)^2} \\
- \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \Bigg]
\end{multline}
where:
\(\mathbb{E}[|S|] = N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\)
and \(\mathbb{E}[|S|^2] \approx \left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2\)
\begin{proof}[Proof]
Given the optimal selection probabilities \( p_0^* = p_1^* = \dots = p_{i-2}^* = 0 \), \( p_{i-1}^* = i+1 - \frac{n}{m} \), and \( p_{i}^* = p_{i+1}^* = \dots = p_{m'}^* = 1 \), the number of selected clients \(|S|\) is the sum of the selected clients from two groups:
1. Clients at age \(i-1\):
- These clients are selected with probability \(p_{i-1} = i+1 - \frac{n}{m}\).
- The number of selected clients \(|S_{i-1}|\) from this group follows a binomial distribution:
\[
|S_{i-1}| \sim \text{Binomial}(N_{i-1}, p_{i-1})
\]
where \(N_{i-1}\) is the number of clients at age \(i-1\).
2. Clients at ages \(i, i+1, \dots, m'\):
- These clients are always selected, so the number of selected clients \(|S_{\geq i}|\) from these ages is deterministic:
\[
|S_{\geq i}| = N_{\geq i}
\]
where \(N_{\geq i}\) is the number of clients at ages \(i\) and above.
Therefore, the total number of selected clients \(|S|\) is given by:
\[
|S| = |S_{i-1}| + |S_{\geq i}|
\]
where \(|S|\) is a shifted binomial distribution, with the binomial component coming from the clients at age \(i-1\) and the deterministic shift from the clients at higher ages.
The sum of variances \(\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\) is given by:
%\begin{small}
%\[
%\Sigma \approx \left(i+1 - \frac{n}{k}\right) \cdot \left[ \frac{n}{(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i})^2} - \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \right]
%\]
%\end{small}
\begin{multline}
\Sigma \approx \left(i + 1 - \frac{n}{m}\right) \cdot \Bigg[ \frac{n}{\left(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\right)^2} \\
- \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \Bigg]
\end{multline}
This expression reflects the influence of both the binomial distribution of the selected clients at age \(i-1\) and the fixed contribution from the clients at ages \(i\) and above, resulting in the overall sum of variances \(\Sigma\).
\end{proof}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\textbf{Remark 5.}
In the special case where \( m' \le \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor - 1 \) and the optimal selection probabilities are given by \( [p_0^*, p_1^*, \dots, p_{m'-1}^*, p_{m'}^*] = [0, 0, \dots, 0, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}] \), the sum of variances $\Sigma$ simplifies to:
\[
\Sigma \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}
\]
\begin{proof}[Proof]
Given the conditions of the problem, the number of selected clients \(|S|\) can be modeled as a binomial distribution:
\[
|S| \sim \text{Binomial}(n - m, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'})
\]
with expected value \(\mathbb{E}[|S|] = \frac{n-m}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}\) and variance \(\text{Var}(|S|) = (n-m) \cdot \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left(1 - \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}\right)\).
The sum of variances \(\Sigma\) is given by:
\[
\Sigma = \frac{1 - \frac{m}{n}}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left[ n \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] - \left(\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]\right)^2 \right]
\]
Using the approximation:
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[|S|]} = \frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}
\]
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2} = \left(\frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}\right)^2
\]
Substituting into the expression for \(\Sigma\) and simplifying, we find:
\[
\Sigma = \frac{\left(\frac{n - m}{n}\right) \cdot (n - 1)}{(n - m)^2} \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}.
\]
\end{proof}
\textbf{Remark 6.} For the case where \( m' \ge \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor \), setting \( i = \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor \), the optimal values of \( p_i \) are:
\begin{align}
[p_0^*, p_1^*, \dots, p_{i-2}^*, p_{i-1}^*, p_{i}^*, \dots, p_{m'}^*] \\= [0, 0, \dots, 0, i+1 -\frac{n}{m}, 1, \dots, 1]
\end{align}
The sum of variances \(\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\) is given by:
%\begin{small}
%\[
%\Sigma \approx \left(i+1 - \frac{n}{k}\right) \cdot \left[ \frac{n}{(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i})^2} - \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \right]
%\]
%\end{small}
\begin{multline}
\Sigma \approx \left(i + 1 - \frac{n}{m}\right) \cdot \Bigg[ \frac{n}{\left(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\right)^2} \\
- \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \Bigg]
\end{multline}
where:
\(\mathbb{E}[|S|] = N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\)
and \(\mathbb{E}[|S|^2] \approx \left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2\)
\begin{proof}[Proof]
Given the optimal selection probabilities \( p_0^* = p_1^* = \dots = p_{i-2}^* = 0 \), \( p_{i-1}^* = i+1 - \frac{n}{m} \), and \( p_{i}^* = p_{i+1}^* = \dots = p_{m'}^* = 1 \), the number of selected clients \(|S|\) is the sum of the selected clients from two groups:
1. Clients at age \(i-1\):
- These clients are selected with probability \(p_{i-1} = i+1 - \frac{n}{m}\).
- The number of selected clients \(|S_{i-1}|\) from this group follows a binomial distribution:
\[
|S_{i-1}| \sim \text{Binomial}(N_{i-1}, p_{i-1})
\]
where \(N_{i-1}\) is the number of clients at age \(i-1\).
2. Clients at ages \(i, i+1, \dots, m'\):
- These clients are always selected, so the number of selected clients \(|S_{\geq i}|\) from these ages is deterministic:
\[
|S_{\geq i}| = N_{\geq i}
\]
where \(N_{\geq i}\) is the number of clients at ages \(i\) and above.
Therefore, the total number of selected clients \(|S|\) is given by:
\[
|S| = |S_{i-1}| + |S_{\geq i}|
\]
where \(|S|\) is a shifted binomial distribution, with the binomial component coming from the clients at age \(i-1\) and the deterministic shift from the clients at higher ages.
The sum of variances \(\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\) is given by:
%\begin{small}
%\[
%\Sigma \approx \left(i+1 - \frac{n}{k}\right) \cdot \left[ \frac{n}{(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i})^2} - \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \right]
%\]
%\end{small}
\begin{multline}
\Sigma \approx \left(i + 1 - \frac{n}{m}\right) \cdot \Bigg[ \frac{n}{\left(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\right)^2} \\
- \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \Bigg]
\end{multline}
This expression reflects the influence of both the binomial distribution of the selected clients at age \(i-1\) and the fixed contribution from the clients at ages \(i\) and above, resulting in the overall sum of variances \(\Sigma\).
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\textbf{Remark 5.}
In the special case where \( m' \le \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor - 1 \) m' \le \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor - 1 and the optimal selection probabilities are given by \( [p_0^*, p_1^*, \dots, p_{m'-1}^*, p_{m'}^*] = [0, 0, \dots, 0, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}] \) [p_0^*, p_1^*, \dots, p_{m'-1}m'-1^*, p_{m'}m'^*] = [0, 0, \dots, 0, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}] , the sum of variances $\Sigma$\Sigma simplifies to:
\[
\Sigma \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}
\]
\Sigma \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}
Given the conditions of the problem, the number of selected clients \(|S|\)|S| can be modeled as a binomial distribution:
\[
|S| \sim \text{Binomial}(n - m, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'})
\]
|S| \sim \text{Binomial}(n - m, \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'})
with expected value \(\mathbb{E}[|S|] = \frac{n-m}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}\)\mathbb{E}[|S|] = \frac{n-m}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} and variance \(\text{Var}(|S|) = (n-m) \cdot \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left(1 - \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}\right)\)\text{Var}(|S|) = (n-m) \cdot \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left(1 - \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m} - m'}\right).
The sum of variances \(\Sigma\)\Sigma is given by:
\[
\Sigma = \frac{1 - \frac{m}{n}}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left[ n \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] - \left(\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]\right)^2 \right]
\]
\Sigma = \frac{1 - \frac{m}{n}}{\frac{n}{m} - m'} \cdot \left[ n \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] - \left(\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]\right)^2 \right]
Using the approximation:
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[|S|]} = \frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}
\]
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[|S|]} = \frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2} = \left(\frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}\right)^2
\]
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|^2}\right] \approx \frac{1}{\left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2} = \left(\frac{\frac{n}{m} - m'}{n - m}\right)^2
Substituting into the expression for \(\Sigma\)\Sigma and simplifying, we find:
\[
\Sigma = \frac{\left(\frac{n - m}{n}\right) \cdot (n - 1)}{(n - m)^2} \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}.
\]
\Sigma = \frac{\left(\frac{n - m}{n}\right) \cdot (n - 1)}{(n - m)^2} \approx \frac{n - 1}{n \cdot (n - m)}.
\textbf{Remark 6.} For the case where \( m' \ge \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor \) m' \ge \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor , setting \( i = \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor \) i = \left\lfloor \frac{n}{m} \right\rfloor , the optimal values of \( p_i \) p_i are:
[p_0^*, p_1^*, \dots, p_{i-2}i-2^*, p_{i-1}i-1^*, p_{i}i^*, \dots, p_{m'}m'^*] \\= [0, 0, \dots, 0, i+1 -\frac{n}{m}, 1, \dots, 1]
The sum of variances \(\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\)\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i] is given by:
\Sigma \approx \left(i + 1 - \frac{n}{m}\right) \cdot \Bigg[ \frac{n}{\left(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\right)^2} \\
- \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \Bigg]
where:
\(\mathbb{E}[|S|] = N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\)\mathbb{E}[|S|] = N_{i-1}i-1 \cdot p_{i-1}i-1 + N_{\geq i}\geq i
and \(\mathbb{E}[|S|^2] \approx \left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2\)\mathbb{E}[|S|^2] \approx \left(\mathbb{E}[|S|]\right)^2
Given the optimal selection probabilities \( p_0^* = p_1^* = \dots = p_{i-2}^* = 0 \) p_0^* = p_1^* = \dots = p_{i-2}i-2^* = 0 , \( p_{i-1}^* = i+1 - \frac{n}{m} \) p_{i-1}i-1^* = i+1 - \frac{n}{m} , and \( p_{i}^* = p_{i+1}^* = \dots = p_{m'}^* = 1 \) p_{i}i^* = p_{i+1}i+1^* = \dots = p_{m'}m'^* = 1 , the number of selected clients \(|S|\)|S| is the sum of the selected clients from two groups:
1. Clients at age \(i-1\)i-1:
- These clients are selected with probability \(p_{i-1} = i+1 - \frac{n}{m}\)p_{i-1}i-1 = i+1 - \frac{n}{m}.
- The number of selected clients \(|S_{i-1}|\)|S_{i-1}i-1| from this group follows a binomial distribution:
\[
|S_{i-1}| \sim \text{Binomial}(N_{i-1}, p_{i-1})
\]
|S_{i-1}i-1| \sim \text{Binomial}(N_{i-1}i-1, p_{i-1}i-1)
where \(N_{i-1}\)N_{i-1}i-1 is the number of clients at age \(i-1\)i-1.
2. Clients at ages \(i, i+1, \dots, m'\)i, i+1, \dots, m':
- These clients are always selected, so the number of selected clients \(|S_{\geq i}|\)|S_{\geq i}\geq i| from these ages is deterministic:
\[
|S_{\geq i}| = N_{\geq i}
\]
|S_{\geq i}\geq i| = N_{\geq i}\geq i
where \(N_{\geq i}\)N_{\geq i}\geq i is the number of clients at ages \(i\)i and above.
Therefore, the total number of selected clients \(|S|\)|S| is given by:
\[
|S| = |S_{i-1}| + |S_{\geq i}|
\]
|S| = |S_{i-1}i-1| + |S_{\geq i}\geq i|
where \(|S|\)|S| is a shifted binomial distribution, with the binomial component coming from the clients at age \(i-1\)i-1 and the deterministic shift from the clients at higher ages.
The sum of variances \(\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]\)\Sigma = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i] is given by:
\Sigma \approx \left(i + 1 - \frac{n}{m}\right) \cdot \Bigg[ \frac{n}{\left(N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}\right)^2} \\
- \frac{1}{N_{i-1} \cdot p_{i-1} + N_{\geq i}} \Bigg]
This expression reflects the influence of both the binomial distribution of the selected clients at age \(i-1\)i-1 and the fixed contribution from the clients at ages \(i\)i and above, resulting in the overall sum of variances \(\Sigma\)\Sigma.
|
Assumptions and Definitions
| false
|
2505.05099
| 6
|
76,385
|
In this section, we evaluate the model's load distribution, convergence, and accuracy in scenarios where only a subset of clients $(15\%)$(15\%) participate in each communication round. We compare four client selection methods: random selection, probabilistic selection based on dataset size, our proposed decentralized policy using the optimal Markov model specifically designed for load balancing, and a Markov model with non-optimal $p_a$p_a values for load balancing that increases selection probabilities based on each client's age. Experiments are conducted on the MNIST, CIFAR-$10$10, and CIFAR-$100$100 datasets, using a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture as in \cite{mcmahan2017communication} for sample classification. For local optimization, we employ stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with a batch size of $50$50, running $5$5 local epochs per round with an initial learning rate of $0.1$0.1 and a decay rate of $0.998$0.998. The experimental setup includes $100$100 devices, $15$15 selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$10 in the Markov model. This configuration enables a thorough examination of both optimal and non-optimal selection strategies in terms of load balancing and their effects on FL convergence, allowing for comparison with other models as well.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:sigma_variance_over_time}, the total variance \(\Sigma\)\Sigma over $1000$1000 rounds is compared for four different client selection policies in federated learning. The experiment involves $100$100 clients, with $15$15 selected per round, and non-uniform dataset sizes. For Policies $3$3 and $4$4 (Markov-based), we consider steady-state behavior for a fair comparison, as the variance stabilizes after a few rounds. Both Markov-based policies exhibit significantly lower variance compared to random selection (Policy $1$1) and probabilistic selection (Policy $2$2). Policy $3$3 (optimal Markov) achieves the lowest variance (\(0.055\)0.055), indicating the most balanced client selection. Policy $4$4 (non-optimal Markov) also performs well with an average variance of \(0.061\)0.061. In contrast, random selection (Policy $1$1) yields the highest variance (\(0.204\)0.204), while probabilistic selection (Policy $2$2) results in (\(0.116\)0.116).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Sigma_over_time2.png}
\caption{Total Variance \(\Sigma\) over $1000$ rounds. The simulation was performed with \(n = 100\) clients, \(k = 15\) selected clients per round, and a maximum client age of \(m = 10\). The figure compares : Policy 1 (Random Weighted), Policy $2$ (Probabilistic), Policy $3$ (Markov Optimal), and Policy $4$ (Markov Non-Optimal).}
\label{fig:sigma_variance_over_time}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Sigma_over_time2.png}
\caption{Total Variance \(\Sigma\) over $1000$ rounds. The simulation was performed with \(n = 100\) clients, \(k = 15\) selected clients per round, and a maximum client age of \(m = 10\). The figure compares : Policy 1 (Random Weighted), Policy $2$ (Probabilistic), Policy $3$ (Markov Optimal), and Policy $4$ (Markov Non-Optimal).}
\label{fig:sigma_variance_over_time}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Interselection.png}
\caption{Empirical inter-selection interval distributions for four client selection policies over $1000$ rounds, with $100$ clients and $15$ clients selected per round.}
\label{inter}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Interselection.png}
\caption{Empirical inter-selection interval distributions for four client selection policies over $1000$ rounds, with $100$ clients and $15$ clients selected per round.}
\label{inter}
Figure \ref{inter} presents the empirical inter-selection interval distributions across four client selection policies, reflecting how often clients are re-selected over $1000$1000 rounds. These distributions were obtained through simulation, and the selection process involves $100$100 clients, with $15$15 clients selected per round. In Policy $1$1 (Random Selection), the histogram declines as the inter-selection interval increases, which is expected in a random selection process where clients are equally likely to be selected, resulting in many short inter-selection intervals and fewer long intervals. For Policy $2$2 (Probabilistic Selection), where clients are selected based on their dataset size following a Zipf distribution with shape parameter $a = 2.0$a = 2.0, a similar steep decline is observed. However, the longer tail indicates that clients with larger datasets are selected more frequently, while clients with smaller datasets experience longer gaps between selections, leading to less balanced load distribution.
In contrast, Policy $3$3 (Markov Optimal) shows a concentrated peak around $6$6 rounds, demonstrating regular client selection, as this policy is optimized to prioritize clients based on their selection age. This results in better load balancing, as the selection intervals are highly consistent, ensuring that all clients are selected at regular intervals with minimal variability. Finally, Policy $4$4 (Markov Non-Optimal) displays a broader distribution of intervals, indicating less consistency and regularity in selection compared to the optimal policy, though still more balanced than the random and probabilistic policies. These histograms effectively illustrate the distinct selection patterns of each policy, with Policy $3$3 (Markov Optimal) offering the best load balancing, aligning with the theoretical design of these client selection methods.
The metric \( \frac{\sqrt{\text{Var}(Y)}}{T} \) \frac{\sqrt{\text{Var}(Y)}}{T} assesses the stability of the client selection process, where \( Y \) Y represents the number of times each client is selected within a window of size \( T \) T . By examining the variance of \( Y \) Y , we capture how much the selection frequency fluctuates across clients within each window. Normalizing by \( T \) T allows us to account for different window sizes, enabling a fair comparison of client selection variability across time scales. A lower value of this metric indicates a more balanced and stable selection of clients.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Normalized_VarY_vs_T.png}
\caption{Normalized variance \( \frac{\sqrt{\text{Var}(Y)}}{T} \) versus window size \( T \) for four client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The setup involves $100$ clients, $1000$ rounds, and the selection of $15$ clients per round.}
\label{var_Y}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/Normalized_VarY_vs_T.png}
\caption{Normalized variance \( \frac{\sqrt{\text{Var}(Y)}}{T} \) versus window size \( T \) for four client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The setup involves $100$ clients, $1000$ rounds, and the selection of $15$ clients per round.}
\label{var_Y}
In Figure \ref{var_Y}, we plot this metric across different window sizes \( T \) T for four selection policies. As expected, increasing the window size \( T \) T generally reduces the normalized variance for all policies, indicating more stable client selection as the time window grows. Notably, Policy $2$2 exhibits the highest normalized variance across all window sizes. This reflects the inherent imbalance introduced by assigning selection probabilities based on client data sizes, leading to greater variability in client participation, even as the window size increases. Policy $1$1 (Random Selection) shows a lower normalized variance than Policy $2$2, but its randomness still results in relatively high variability, particularly at smaller window sizes.
Our proposed policy (Markov Optimal), demonstrates the lowest normalized variance across all window sizes, including small \( T \) T , indicating that it stabilizes client selection earlier and more effectively than the other methods. This suggests that even with smaller windows, our method ensures a balanced distribution of client selections, making it well-suited for scenarios that require frequent model updates or tight time constraints. Similarly, Policy $4$4 (Markov Non-Optimal), while not as stable as Policy $3$3, still shows relatively low variance compared to the probabilistic and random policies, benefiting from its Markov structure.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/mnist_iid}
\caption{}
\label{mnist_iid}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{1em} % Adjust spacing as needed
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/mnist_iid_non}
\caption{}
\label{mnist_noniid}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$. (a) IID dataset. (b) Non-IID dataset (generated using a Dirichlet distribution with $\alpha = 0.3$).}
\label{mnist_combined}
\end{figure}
\centering
[b]{\columnwidth}\columnwidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/mnist_iid}
\caption{}
\label{mnist_iid}
\vspace{1em} [b]{\columnwidth}\columnwidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/mnist_iid_non}
\caption{}
\label{mnist_noniid}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$. (a) IID dataset. (b) Non-IID dataset (generated using a Dirichlet distribution with $\alpha = 0.3$).}
\label{mnist_combined}
\begin{comment}
As illustrated in Figures \ref{mnist_iid} and \ref{mnist_noniid}, for both IID and non-IID scenarios on the MNIST dataset, Markov-based client selection policies outperform the FedAvg (random selection policy). Specifically, in the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy reaches 97\% accuracy in 39 rounds, compared to 45 rounds for random selection, representing a 13\% faster convergence. In the non-IID scenario, the Markov optimal policy achieves the same accuracy in 91 rounds, outperforming random selection at 99 rounds, which is an 8\% improvement in convergence speed. Among the Markov policies, the Markov optimal policy achieves the best performance in terms of both accuracy and convergence speed. We observe that with the Markov policies, particularly the optimal variant, convergence is not only faster but also more consistent, indicating a more stable learning process across rounds. Moreover, the Markov policies facilitate improved load balancing between clients, which is crucial for enhancing overall system efficiency. In contrast, the random selection policy exhibits slower convergence and higher variability in client participation, further highlighting the benefits of using structured, state-based selection mechanisms like Markov policies for federated learning.
As shown in Figures \ref{cifar10_iid} and \ref{cifar10_iid_non}, for both IID and non-IID CIFAR-10 datasets, Markov-based client selection policies outperform the FedAvg (random selection) and probabilistic policies. The Markov optimal policy achieves the best results, with faster and more stable convergence, demonstrating its superiority in both convergence speed and load balancing.
For the IID dataset, the Markov optimal policy reaches 75\% accuracy in 95 rounds, compared to 105 rounds for the non-optimal Markov policy, 108 rounds for random selection, and 111 rounds for the probabilistic method. In the non-IID setting, the Markov optimal policy achieves the same accuracy in 239 rounds, compared to 247 rounds for the non-optimal Markov policy, 261 rounds for random selection, and 271 rounds for the probabilistic method. These results highlight the consistent advantage of the Markov optimal policy, which is 10-15\% faster in convergence compared to the other methods.
The non-optimal Markov policy also demonstrates improved performance over random and probabilistic approaches but lacks the efficiency and precision of the optimal Markov policy. Overall, these results underline the effectiveness of Markov-based strategies, especially the optimal variant, in achieving faster convergence and better load balancing in federated learning.
As depicted in Figures \ref{cifar100_iid} and \ref{cifar100_iid_non}, the CIFAR-100 dataset results highlight the strengths of the Markov optimal policy, which demonstrates faster convergence across both IID and non-IID data. Specifically, for the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy achieves 30\% accuracy in 139 rounds, outperforming the non-optimal Markov policy at 158 rounds, random selection at 154 rounds, and the probabilistic method at 188 rounds. In the non-IID scenario, the Markov optimal and non-optimal policies reach the same accuracy in 87 rounds, compared to 93 rounds for random selection and 111 rounds for the probabilistic method.
These numerical results indicate that the Markov optimal policy is approximately 15-20\% faster in reaching 30\% accuracy compared to random and probabilistic methods in the IID setting, and similarly outperforms others in the non-IID context. Unlike the random and probabilistic methods, which exhibit greater variability and slower convergence, the optimal Markov model maintains a steady improvement across rounds. The non-optimal Markov policy, while a step up from random selection, lacks the precision in load balancing seen in the optimal approach. This comparison underscores the value of age-based client selection strategies, particularly for more complex datasets like CIFAR-100. The structured design of the Markov optimal policy not only results in the most effective and reliable learning performance but also achieves fair load balancing between all clients, ensuring both efficiency and equity in federated learning environments.
%As depicted in Figures \ref{cifar100_iid} and \ref{cifar100_iid_non}, the CIFAR-100 dataset results highlight the strengths of the Markov optimal policy which demonstrates faster convergence across both IID and non-IID data. Unlike the random and probabilistic methods, which exhibit greater variability and slower convergence, the optimal Markov model maintains a steady improvement across rounds. The non-optimal Markov policy, while a step up from random selection, lacks the precision in load balancing seen in the optimal approach. This comparison underscores the value of age-based client selection strategies, particularly for more complex datasets like CIFAR-100, where the structured design of the Markov optimal policy results in the most effective and reliable learning performance while achieving a fair load balancing between all clients. 30\% accury iid achieves it in 139 for markov, 154 random sel, 158 markov, 188 probabilistic method. non iid, markov achieves optimal and non optimal in 87, random in 93, and probabilistic in 111.
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
As illustrated in Figures \ref{mnist_iid} and \ref{mnist_noniid}, for both IID and non-IID scenarios on the MNIST dataset, Markov-based client selection policies outperform the FedAvg (random selection policy). Specifically, in the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy reaches 97\% accuracy in 39 rounds, compared to 45 rounds for random selection, representing a 13\% faster convergence. In the non-IID scenario, the Markov optimal policy achieves the same accuracy in 91 rounds, outperforming random selection at 99 rounds, which is an 8\% improvement in convergence speed. Among the Markov policies, the Markov optimal policy achieves the best performance in terms of both accuracy and convergence speed. We observe that with the Markov policies, particularly the optimal variant, convergence is not only faster but also more consistent, indicating a more stable learning process across rounds. Moreover, the Markov policies facilitate improved load balancing between clients, which is crucial for enhancing overall system efficiency. In contrast, the random selection policy exhibits slower convergence and higher variability in client participation, further highlighting the benefits of using structured, state-based selection mechanisms like Markov policies for federated learning.
As shown in Figures \ref{cifar10_iid} and \ref{cifar10_iid_non}, for both IID and non-IID CIFAR-10 datasets, Markov-based client selection policies outperform the FedAvg (random selection) and probabilistic policies. The Markov optimal policy achieves the best results, with faster and more stable convergence, demonstrating its superiority in both convergence speed and load balancing.
For the IID dataset, the Markov optimal policy reaches 75\% accuracy in 95 rounds, compared to 105 rounds for the non-optimal Markov policy, 108 rounds for random selection, and 111 rounds for the probabilistic method. In the non-IID setting, the Markov optimal policy achieves the same accuracy in 239 rounds, compared to 247 rounds for the non-optimal Markov policy, 261 rounds for random selection, and 271 rounds for the probabilistic method. These results highlight the consistent advantage of the Markov optimal policy, which is 10-15\% faster in convergence compared to the other methods.
The non-optimal Markov policy also demonstrates improved performance over random and probabilistic approaches but lacks the efficiency and precision of the optimal Markov policy. Overall, these results underline the effectiveness of Markov-based strategies, especially the optimal variant, in achieving faster convergence and better load balancing in federated learning.
As depicted in Figures \ref{cifar100_iid} and \ref{cifar100_iid_non}, the CIFAR-100 dataset results highlight the strengths of the Markov optimal policy, which demonstrates faster convergence across both IID and non-IID data. Specifically, for the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy achieves 30\% accuracy in 139 rounds, outperforming the non-optimal Markov policy at 158 rounds, random selection at 154 rounds, and the probabilistic method at 188 rounds. In the non-IID scenario, the Markov optimal and non-optimal policies reach the same accuracy in 87 rounds, compared to 93 rounds for random selection and 111 rounds for the probabilistic method.
These numerical results indicate that the Markov optimal policy is approximately 15-20\% faster in reaching 30\% accuracy compared to random and probabilistic methods in the IID setting, and similarly outperforms others in the non-IID context. Unlike the random and probabilistic methods, which exhibit greater variability and slower convergence, the optimal Markov model maintains a steady improvement across rounds. The non-optimal Markov policy, while a step up from random selection, lacks the precision in load balancing seen in the optimal approach. This comparison underscores the value of age-based client selection strategies, particularly for more complex datasets like CIFAR-100. The structured design of the Markov optimal policy not only results in the most effective and reliable learning performance but also achieves fair load balancing between all clients, ensuring both efficiency and equity in federated learning environments.
%As depicted in Figures \ref{cifar100_iid} and \ref{cifar100_iid_non}, the CIFAR-100 dataset results highlight the strengths of the Markov optimal policy which demonstrates faster convergence across both IID and non-IID data. Unlike the random and probabilistic methods, which exhibit greater variability and slower convergence, the optimal Markov model maintains a steady improvement across rounds. The non-optimal Markov policy, while a step up from random selection, lacks the precision in load balancing seen in the optimal approach. This comparison underscores the value of age-based client selection strategies, particularly for more complex datasets like CIFAR-100, where the structured design of the Markov optimal policy results in the most effective and reliable learning performance while achieving a fair load balancing between all clients. 30\% accury iid achieves it in 139 for markov, 154 random sel, 158 markov, 188 probabilistic method. non iid, markov achieves optimal and non optimal in 87, random in 93, and probabilistic in 111.
\end{comment}
As illustrated in Figures \ref{mnist_iid} and \ref{mnist_noniid}, for both IID and non-IID scenarios on the MNIST dataset, Markov-based client selection policies outperform the FedAvg (random selection policy). Specifically, in the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy reaches 97\% accuracy in 39 rounds, compared to 45 rounds for random selection, representing a 13\% faster convergence. In the non-IID scenario, the Markov optimal policy achieves the same accuracy in 91 rounds, outperforming random selection at 99 rounds, which is an 8\% improvement in convergence speed. Among the Markov policies, the Markov optimal policy achieves the best performance in terms of both accuracy and convergence speed. We observe that with the Markov policies, particularly the optimal variant, convergence is not only faster but also more consistent, indicating a more stable learning process across rounds. Moreover, the Markov policies facilitate improved load balancing between clients, which is crucial for enhancing overall system efficiency. In contrast, the random selection policy exhibits slower convergence and higher variability in client participation, further highlighting the benefits of using structured, state-based selection mechanisms like Markov policies for federated learning.
As shown in Figures \ref{cifar10_iid} and \ref{cifar10_iid_non}, for both IID and non-IID CIFAR-10 datasets, Markov-based client selection policies outperform the FedAvg (random selection) and probabilistic policies. The Markov optimal policy achieves the best results, with faster and more stable convergence, demonstrating its superiority in both convergence speed and load balancing.
For the IID dataset, the Markov optimal policy reaches 75\% accuracy in 95 rounds, compared to 105 rounds for the non-optimal Markov policy, 108 rounds for random selection, and 111 rounds for the probabilistic method. In the non-IID setting, the Markov optimal policy achieves the same accuracy in 239 rounds, compared to 247 rounds for the non-optimal Markov policy, 261 rounds for random selection, and 271 rounds for the probabilistic method. These results highlight the consistent advantage of the Markov optimal policy, which is 10-15\% faster in convergence compared to the other methods.
The non-optimal Markov policy also demonstrates improved performance over random and probabilistic approaches but lacks the efficiency and precision of the optimal Markov policy. Overall, these results underline the effectiveness of Markov-based strategies, especially the optimal variant, in achieving faster convergence and better load balancing in federated learning.
As depicted in Figures \ref{cifar100_iid} and \ref{cifar100_iid_non}, the CIFAR-100 dataset results highlight the strengths of the Markov optimal policy, which demonstrates faster convergence across both IID and non-IID data. Specifically, for the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy achieves 30\% accuracy in 139 rounds, outperforming the non-optimal Markov policy at 158 rounds, random selection at 154 rounds, and the probabilistic method at 188 rounds. In the non-IID scenario, the Markov optimal and non-optimal policies reach the same accuracy in 87 rounds, compared to 93 rounds for random selection and 111 rounds for the probabilistic method.
These numerical results indicate that the Markov optimal policy is approximately 15-20\% faster in reaching 30\% accuracy compared to random and probabilistic methods in the IID setting, and similarly outperforms others in the non-IID context. Unlike the random and probabilistic methods, which exhibit greater variability and slower convergence, the optimal Markov model maintains a steady improvement across rounds. The non-optimal Markov policy, while a step up from random selection, lacks the precision in load balancing seen in the optimal approach. This comparison underscores the value of age-based client selection strategies, particularly for more complex datasets like CIFAR-100. The structured design of the Markov optimal policy not only results in the most effective and reliable learning performance but also achieves fair load balancing between all clients, ensuring both efficiency and equity in federated learning environments.
As illustrated in Figures \ref{mnist_iid} and \ref{mnist_noniid}, Markov-based client selection policies outperform the FedAvg (random selection) policy for both IID and non-IID scenarios on the MNIST dataset. Specifically, in the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy reaches $97$97\% accuracy in $39$39 rounds, compared to 45 rounds for random selection, achieving a $13$13\% faster convergence. In the non-IID scenario, it achieves the same accuracy in $91$91 rounds versus $99$99 rounds for random selection, reflecting an $8$8\% improvement. Additionally, the Markov optimal policy ensures more consistent and stable learning while enhancing load balancing across clients, which is crucial for maintaining system efficiency and fairness. These results illustrate efficiency and reliability of Markov-based strategies in federated learning on the MNIST dataset, with their ability to facilitate a more balanced and effective training process.
As shown in Figures \ref{cifar10_iid} and \ref{cifar10_iid_non}, Markov-based client selection policies surpass FedAvg (random selection) and probabilistic methods for both IID and non-IID CIFAR-$10$10 datasets. In the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy reaches $75$75\% accuracy in $95$95 rounds, compared to $108$108 rounds for random selection, achieving a $12$12\% faster convergence. In the non-IID scenario, it attains the same accuracy in $239$239 rounds versus $261$261 rounds for random selection, marking a $9$9\% improvement. Furthermore, the non-optimal Markov policy reaches $105$105 rounds in the IID setting and $247$247 rounds in the non-IID setting, both of which are faster than random and probabilistic methods but still lag behind the optimal Markov policy. The Markov optimal policy consistently demonstrates faster and more stable convergence, highlighting its effectiveness in load balancing and overall federated learning performance.
As depicted in Figures \ref{cifar100_iid} and \ref{cifar100_iid_non}, the CIFAR-100 dataset results demonstrate faster convergence across both IID and non-IID data distributions. Specifically, for the IID setting, the Markov optimal policy achieves 30\% accuracy in $139$139 rounds, outperforming the non-optimal Markov policy at $158$158 rounds, random selection at $154$154 rounds, and the probabilistic method at $188$188 rounds, representing a $10$10-$20$20\% faster convergence compared to these methods. In the non-IID scenario, the Markov optimal policy reaches the same $30$30\% accuracy in $87$87 rounds, compared to $93$93 rounds for random selection and 111 rounds for the probabilistic method, indicating a $7.5$7.5\% improvement. The non-optimal Markov policy also performs better than random and probabilistic approaches, but does not match the efficiency of the optimal Markov policy. Additionally, the Markov optimal policy maintains steady improvement and superior load balancing, ensuring that all clients contribute effectively and equitably. These numerical results highlight the advantages of age-based client selection strategies for complex datasets like CIFAR-$100$100, demonstrating that the structured design of the Markov optimal policy leads to the most effective and reliable learning performance in federated learning environments.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/mnist_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$.}
\label{mnist_iid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/mnist_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The Non-IID dataset is generated using a Dirichlet distribution with $\alpha = 0.3$. The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$.}
\label{mnist_noniid}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/mnist_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$.}
\label{mnist_iid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/mnist_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The Non-IID dataset is generated using a Dirichlet distribution with $\alpha = 0.3$. The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$.}
\label{mnist_noniid}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/mnist_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$.}
\label{mnist_iid}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/mnist_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on MNIST Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The Non-IID dataset is generated using a Dirichlet distribution with $\alpha = 0.3$. The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$.}
\label{mnist_noniid}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-10 IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar10_iid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-10 Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar10_iid_non}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-10 IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar10_iid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-10 Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar10_iid_non}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-10 IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar10_iid}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-10 Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar10_iid_non}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid}
\caption{}
\label{cifar10_iid}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{1em} % Adjust spacing as needed
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid_non}
\caption{}
\label{cifar10_iid_non}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-$10$ dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$. (a) IID dataset. (b) Non-IID dataset.}
\label{cifar10_combined}
\end{figure}
\centering
[b]{\columnwidth}\columnwidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid}
\caption{}
\label{cifar10_iid}
\vspace{1em} [b]{\columnwidth}\columnwidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar10_iid_non}
\caption{}
\label{cifar10_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-$10$ dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$. (a) IID dataset. (b) Non-IID dataset.}
\label{cifar10_combined}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-100 IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar100_iid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-100 Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar100_iid_non}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-100 IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar100_iid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-100 Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar100_iid_non}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-100 IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar100_iid}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-100 Non-IID dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy 1), Probabilistic (Policy 2), Markov Optimal (Policy 3), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy 4). The experiment was conducted with 100 clients, 15 clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of 10.}
\label{cifar100_iid_non}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid}
\caption{}
\label{cifar100_iid}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{1em} % Adjust this spacing as needed
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid_non}
\caption{}
\label{cifar100_iid_non}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-$100$ dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$. (a) IID dataset. (b) Non-IID dataset.}
\label{cifar100_combined}
\end{figure}
\centering
[b]{\columnwidth}\columnwidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid}
\caption{}
\label{cifar100_iid}
\vspace{1em} [b]{\columnwidth}\columnwidth
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure/cifar100_iid_non}
\caption{}
\label{cifar100_iid_non}
\caption{Accuracy on CIFAR-$100$ dataset across different client selection policies: Random selection (Policy $1$), Probabilistic (Policy $2$), Markov Optimal (Policy $3$), and Markov Non-Optimal (Policy $4$). The experiment was conducted with $100$ clients, $15$ clients selected per round, and a maximum client age of $10$. (a) IID dataset. (b) Non-IID dataset.}
\label{cifar100_combined}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Average empirical $\underline{\rho}$ for different selection policies and datasets.}
\label{table2}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Selection Policy} & \textbf{MNIST} & \textbf{CIFAR10} & \textbf{CIFAR100} \\
\hline
Random Selection & 0.98 & 0.96 & 1.33 \\
\hline
Probabilistic & 0.83 & 0.85 & 0.93 \\
\hline
Markov Optimal & 0.98 & 1.5 &1.52 \\
\hline
Markov Non-Optimal & 0.99 & 1.27 & 1.41 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Average empirical $\underline{\rho}$ for different selection policies and datasets.}
\label{table2}
\hline
\textbf{Selection Policy} & \textbf{MNIST} & \textbf{CIFAR10} & \textbf{CIFAR100} \\
\hline
Random Selection & 0.98 & 0.96 & 1.33 \\
\hline
Probabilistic & 0.83 & 0.85 & 0.93 \\
\hline
Markov Optimal & 0.98 & 1.5 &1.52 \\
\hline
Markov Non-Optimal & 0.99 & 1.27 & 1.41 \\
\hline
|
Numerical Results
| false
|
2505.05099
| 7
|
76,386
|
This paper presents a novel Age of Information (AoI)-based client selection mechanism designed to directly address load imbalance and slow convergence. By employing a decentralized Markov scheduling policy, the proposed approach ensures balanced client participation and minimizes the variance in selection intervals. The theoretical framework offers a rigorous convergence proof for the AoI-based selection policy, establishing that it guarantees stable and reliable model convergence. Extensive simulations on datasets such as MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100 revealed that the optimal Markov policy outperformed traditional selection strategies, achieving faster convergence across both IID and non-IID scenarios, with improvements ranging from $7.5$7.5\% to $20$20\%. Additionally, the decentralized nature of the proposed method supports scalable implementations with minimal reliance on central coordination, making it well-suited for diverse and dynamic FL environments. This work highlights the potential of AoI as a useful metric for optimizing client selection in FL, paving the way for more efficient and fair collaborative learning systems.
\label{apen}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem1}
Suppose $F_i:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}$ is $L$-smooth with its global minimum at $\theta_i^*$. Then for any $\theta_i$ in its domain,
\begin{equation}
\lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i)\rVert^2
\;\le\;2L\,\bigl(F_i(\theta_i)-F_i(\theta_i^*)\bigr).
\label{eqn:lemma}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lem1}
Suppose $F_i:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}$ is $L$-smooth with its global minimum at $\theta_i^*$. Then for any $\theta_i$ in its domain,
\begin{equation}
\lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i)\rVert^2
\;\le\;2L\,\bigl(F_i(\theta_i)-F_i(\theta_i^*)\bigr).
\label{eqn:lemma}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma} \label{lem1}
Suppose $F_i:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}$F_i:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R} is $L$L-smooth with its global minimum at $\theta_i^*$\theta_i^*. Then for any $\theta_i$\theta_i in its domain,
\lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i)\rVert^2
\;\le\;2L\,\bigl(F_i(\theta_i)-F_i(\theta_i^*)\bigr).
\label{eqn:lemma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem1}}) \\
Defining the auxiliary point
\[
\theta_i' \;=\;\theta_i \;-\;\frac{1}{L}\,\nabla F_i(\theta_i).
\]
By $L$-smoothness,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
F_i(\theta_i')
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
+\nabla F_i(\theta_i)^{T}(\theta_i'-\theta_i)\\
&\quad+\frac{L}{2}\,\|\theta_i'-\theta_i\|^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Substituting $\theta_i'-\theta_i=-\tfrac{1}{L}\nabla F_i(\theta_i)$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
F_i(\theta_i')
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2\\
&=F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
With the global minimumat $\theta_i^*$ we have, $F_i(\theta_i^*)\le F_i(\theta_i')$. Hence
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
F_i(\theta_i^*)
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2,\\
\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2
&\le 2L\,\bigl(F_i(\theta_i)-F_i(\theta_i^*)\bigr).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem1}}) \\
Defining the auxiliary point
\[
\theta_i' \;=\;\theta_i \;-\;\frac{1}{L}\,\nabla F_i(\theta_i).
\]
By $L$-smoothness,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
F_i(\theta_i')
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
+\nabla F_i(\theta_i)^{T}(\theta_i'-\theta_i)\\
&\quad+\frac{L}{2}\,\|\theta_i'-\theta_i\|^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Substituting $\theta_i'-\theta_i=-\tfrac{1}{L}\nabla F_i(\theta_i)$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
F_i(\theta_i')
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2\\
&=F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
With the global minimumat $\theta_i^*$ we have, $F_i(\theta_i^*)\le F_i(\theta_i')$. Hence
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
F_i(\theta_i^*)
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2,\\
\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2
&\le 2L\,\bigl(F_i(\theta_i)-F_i(\theta_i^*)\bigr).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem1}}) \\
Defining the auxiliary point
\[
\theta_i' \;=\;\theta_i \;-\;\frac{1}{L}\,\nabla F_i(\theta_i).
\]
\theta_i' \;=\;\theta_i \;-\;\frac{1}{L}\,\nabla F_i(\theta_i).
By $L$L-smoothness,
F_i(\theta_i')
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
+\nabla F_i(\theta_i)^{T}T(\theta_i'-\theta_i)\\
&\quad+\frac{L}{2}\,\|\theta_i'-\theta_i\|^2.
Substituting $\theta_i'-\theta_i=-\tfrac{1}{L}\nabla F_i(\theta_i)$\theta_i'-\theta_i=-\tfrac{1}1{L}L\nabla F_i(\theta_i):
F_i(\theta_i')
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2\\
&=F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2.
With the global minimumat $\theta_i^*$\theta_i^* we have, $F_i(\theta_i^*)\le F_i(\theta_i')$F_i(\theta_i^*)\le F_i(\theta_i'). Hence
F_i(\theta_i^*)
&\le F_i(\theta_i)
-\frac{1}{2L}\,\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2,\\
\|\nabla F_i(\theta_i)\|^2
&\le 2L\,\bigl(F_i(\theta_i)-F_i(\theta_i^*)\bigr).
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem1}
Suppose $F_i$ is $L$-smooth with global minimum at $\theta_i$, then for any $\theta_i$ in the domain of $F_i$, we have that
\begin{equation}
\lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i) \rVert^2 \leq \frac{2L^2}{\mu} (F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*)) \label{eqn:lemma}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem1}}) \\
By $L$-smoothness and $\mu$-convexity,
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*) - \langle\nabla F_i(\theta_i^*), \theta_i - \theta_i^*\rangle
\leq & \frac{L}{2} \lVert \theta_i-\theta_i^* \rVert^2, \\
F_i(\theta_i) -F_i(\theta_i^*) - \langle\nabla F_i(\theta_i^*), \theta_i - \theta_i^*\rangle
\geq & \frac{\mu}{2} \lVert \theta_i-\theta_i^* \rVert^2, \\
F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*) \geq& \frac{1}{2L} \lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i) \rVert^2
\end{align*}
\end{small}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem1}
Suppose $F_i$ is $L$-smooth with global minimum at $\theta_i$, then for any $\theta_i$ in the domain of $F_i$, we have that
\begin{equation}
\lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i) \rVert^2 \leq \frac{2L^2}{\mu} (F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*)) \label{eqn:lemma}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem1}}) \\
By $L$-smoothness and $\mu$-convexity,
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*) - \langle\nabla F_i(\theta_i^*), \theta_i - \theta_i^*\rangle
\leq & \frac{L}{2} \lVert \theta_i-\theta_i^* \rVert^2, \\
F_i(\theta_i) -F_i(\theta_i^*) - \langle\nabla F_i(\theta_i^*), \theta_i - \theta_i^*\rangle
\geq & \frac{\mu}{2} \lVert \theta_i-\theta_i^* \rVert^2, \\
F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*) \geq& \frac{1}{2L} \lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i) \rVert^2
\end{align*}
\end{small}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\label{lem1}
Suppose $F_i$F_i is $L$L-smooth with global minimum at $\theta_i$\theta_i, then for any $\theta_i$\theta_i in the domain of $F_i$F_i, we have that
\lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i) \rVert^2 \leq \frac{2L^2}{\mu} (F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*)) \label{eqn:lemma}
(\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem1}}) \\
By $L$L-smoothness and $\mu$\mu-convexity,
F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*) - \langle\nabla F_i(\theta_i^*), \theta_i - \theta_i^*\rangle
\leq & \frac{L}{2} \lVert \theta_i-\theta_i^* \rVert^2, \\
F_i(\theta_i) -F_i(\theta_i^*) - \langle\nabla F_i(\theta_i^*), \theta_i - \theta_i^*\rangle
\geq & \frac{\mu}{2} \lVert \theta_i-\theta_i^* \rVert^2, \\
F_i(\theta_i) - F_i(\theta_i^*) \geq& \frac{1}{2L} \lVert \nabla F_i(\theta_i) \rVert^2
\begin{lemma} \label{lem2}
Let us consider $n$ vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ and a policy with client sampling set $S$ and weight assignment $\omega_i$, $i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$. We have:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \Bigl\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i x_i \Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i \,\|x_i\|^2,
\label{eq17}
\end{align}
where the expectation is over the random set $S$ and the random weights $\omega_i$, and $\gamma_i$ is defined in \eqref{eq:gamma}.
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lem2}
Let us consider $n$ vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ and a policy with client sampling set $S$ and weight assignment $\omega_i$, $i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$. We have:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \Bigl\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i x_i \Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i \,\|x_i\|^2,
\label{eq17}
\end{align}
where the expectation is over the random set $S$ and the random weights $\omega_i$, and $\gamma_i$ is defined in \eqref{eq:gamma}.
\end{lemma} \label{lem2}
Let us consider $n$n vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_n$x_1, \ldots, x_n and a policy with client sampling set $S$S and weight assignment $\omega_i$\omega_i, $i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}. We have:
\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \Bigl\| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i x_i \Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \gamma_i \,\|x_i\|^2,
\label{eq17}
where the expectation is over the random set $S$S and the random weights $\omega_i$\omega_i, and $\gamma_i$\gamma_i is defined in \eqref{eq:gamma}.
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem2}}) \\
Denote the Euclidean norm of $x_i$ by $\|x_i\|$. By Cauchy–Schwarz and $\omega_i\ge0$,
\[
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
\Bigl(1+\dots+1)
\Bigl(\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2\Bigr)
\;=
m\;\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2.
\]
Taking expectation over both $S$ and the $\omega_i$, and using
$\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]=\gamma_i$, we get
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
m\;\sum_{i\in S}\gamma_i\,\|x_i\|^2.
\]
Dividing by $m$ results in \eqref{eq17}.
\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem2}}) \\
Denote the Euclidean norm of $x_i$ by $\|x_i\|$. By Cauchy–Schwarz and $\omega_i\ge0$,
\[
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
\Bigl(1+\dots+1)
\Bigl(\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2\Bigr)
\;=
m\;\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2.
\]
Taking expectation over both $S$ and the $\omega_i$, and using
$\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]=\gamma_i$, we get
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
m\;\sum_{i\in S}\gamma_i\,\|x_i\|^2.
\]
Dividing by $m$ results in \eqref{eq17}.
\end{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem2}}) \\
Denote the Euclidean norm of $x_i$x_i by $\|x_i\|$\|x_i\|. By Cauchy–Schwarz and $\omega_i\ge0$\omega_i\ge0,
\[
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
\Bigl(1+\dots+1)
\Bigl(\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2\Bigr)
\;=
m\;\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2.
\]
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
\Bigl(1+\dots+1)
\Bigl(\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2\Bigr)
\;=
m\;\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\omega_i^2\,\|x_i\|^2.
Taking expectation over both $S$S and the $\omega_i$\omega_i, and using
$\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]=\gamma_i$\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]=\gamma_i, we get
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
m\;\sum_{i\in S}\gamma_i\,\|x_i\|^2.
\]
\mathbb{E}\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\omega_i\,x_i\Bigr\|^2
\;\le\;
m\;\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\gamma_i\,\|x_i\|^2.
Dividing by $m$m results in \eqref{eq17}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem2}
Let us consider $n$ vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ and a policy with client sampling set $S$ and weight assignment $\omega_i$, $i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$. We have:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i x_i \|^2 \leq \sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i \|x_i\|^2, \label{eq17}
\end{align}
where the expectation is over the random set $S$ and the random weight $\omega_i$, and $\gamma_i$ is in \eqref{eq:gamma}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem2}}) \\
Denote the length of $x_i$ by $\|x_i\|$. Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality twice and using $\omega_i \ge 0$,
\begin{align}
&(1+1+...+1)( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 ) \label{eq:35}\\
\geq & (\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \|x_i\|)^2\\
= & \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 + \sum_{i\neq j \in S} \omega_i \omega_j \| x_i\| \| x_j \|\\
\ge & \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 + \sum_{i\neq j \in S} \omega_i \omega_j \langle x_i, x_j\rangle\\
= & \|\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i x_i\|^2. \label{eqk}
\end{align}
Eq \eqref{eq17} can be proved by taking the expectation of \eqref{eq:35} and \eqref{eqk}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem2}
Let us consider $n$ vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ and a policy with client sampling set $S$ and weight assignment $\omega_i$, $i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$. We have:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i x_i \|^2 \leq \sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i \|x_i\|^2, \label{eq17}
\end{align}
where the expectation is over the random set $S$ and the random weight $\omega_i$, and $\gamma_i$ is in \eqref{eq:gamma}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem2}}) \\
Denote the length of $x_i$ by $\|x_i\|$. Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality twice and using $\omega_i \ge 0$,
\begin{align}
&(1+1+...+1)( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 ) \label{eq:35}\\
\geq & (\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \|x_i\|)^2\\
= & \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 + \sum_{i\neq j \in S} \omega_i \omega_j \| x_i\| \| x_j \|\\
\ge & \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 + \sum_{i\neq j \in S} \omega_i \omega_j \langle x_i, x_j\rangle\\
= & \|\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i x_i\|^2. \label{eqk}
\end{align}
Eq \eqref{eq17} can be proved by taking the expectation of \eqref{eq:35} and \eqref{eqk}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\label{lem2}
Let us consider $n$n vectors $x_1, \ldots, x_n$x_1, \ldots, x_n and a policy with client sampling set $S$S and weight assignment $\omega_i$\omega_i, $i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$i \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}. We have:
\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i x_i \|^2 \leq \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \gamma_i \|x_i\|^2, \label{eq17}
where the expectation is over the random set $S$S and the random weight $\omega_i$\omega_i, and $\gamma_i$\gamma_i is in \eqref{eq:gamma}.
(\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem2}}) \\
Denote the length of $x_i$x_i by $\|x_i\|$\|x_i\|. Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality twice and using $\omega_i \ge 0$\omega_i \ge 0,
&(1+1+...+1)( \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 ) \label{eq:35}\\
\geq & (\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \|x_i\|)^2\\
= & \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 + \sum_{i\neq j \in S}i\neq j \in S \omega_i \omega_j \| x_i\| \| x_j \|\\
\ge & \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i^2 \|x_i\|^2 + \sum_{i\neq j \in S}i\neq j \in S \omega_i \omega_j \langle x_i, x_j\rangle\\
= & \|\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i x_i\|^2. \label{eqk}
Eq \eqref{eq17} can be proved by taking the expectation of \eqref{eq:35} and \eqref{eqk}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem3}
The expected average discrepancy between $\theta^{t}$ and $\theta_k^{t}$ for $k \in S$ satisfies
\[
\frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k \in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\;\le\;
16\,G^2\,\eta_t^2\,K^2\,m\,(\Sigma+1).
\]
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lem3}
The expected average discrepancy between $\theta^{t}$ and $\theta_k^{t}$ for $k \in S$ satisfies
\[
\frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k \in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\;\le\;
16\,G^2\,\eta_t^2\,K^2\,m\,(\Sigma+1).
\]
\end{lemma} \label{lem3}
The expected average discrepancy between $\theta^{t}$\theta^{t}t and $\theta_k^{t}$\theta_k^{t}t for $k \in S$k \in S satisfies
\[
\frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k \in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\;\le\;
16\,G^2\,\eta_t^2\,K^2\,m\,(\Sigma+1).
\]
\frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k \in S}k \in S\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\;\le\;
16\,G^2\,\eta_t^2\,K^2\,m\,(\Sigma+1).
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem3}}) \\
From \eqref{eq:local} and \eqref{eq:global} we have for each $k\in S$,
\[
\theta^t - \theta_k^t
=\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i(\theta_i^t - \theta_k^t)
=\eta_{t-1}\,K\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,(d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}).
\]
Hence
\[
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2
=(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\;\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i(d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1})\Bigr\|^2.
\]
Taking expectation and applying Lemma~\ref{lem2} with $x_i=d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}$ yields
\[
\frac{1}{m}\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\le
(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\sum_{k\in S}
\;\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2.
\]
By \eqref{eq:K_epochs} and the bound $\mathbb{E}\|g_i\|^2\le G^2$, we have
$\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\|^2\le G^2$, and thus
\[
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2
\;\le\;
2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\|^2
+2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2
\;\le\;4G^2.
\]
Substituting gives
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{m}\,\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
&\le
(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\sum_{k\in S}\sum_{i\in S}\gamma_i\;4G^2
\\
&=
4G^2\,\eta_{t-1}^2\,K^2
\sum_{k\in S}\sum_{i\in S}\gamma_i
\\
&\le
4G^2\,\eta_{t-1}^2\,K^2\,m(\Sigma+1).
\end{align*}
Finally, using $\eta_{t-1}\le2\eta_t$ and $\displaystyle\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i
\le \Sigma+1$, gives us the claimed bound.
\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem3}}) \\
From \eqref{eq:local} and \eqref{eq:global} we have for each $k\in S$,
\[
\theta^t - \theta_k^t
=\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i(\theta_i^t - \theta_k^t)
=\eta_{t-1}\,K\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,(d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}).
\]
Hence
\[
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2
=(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\;\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i(d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1})\Bigr\|^2.
\]
Taking expectation and applying Lemma~\ref{lem2} with $x_i=d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}$ yields
\[
\frac{1}{m}\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\le
(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\sum_{k\in S}
\;\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2.
\]
By \eqref{eq:K_epochs} and the bound $\mathbb{E}\|g_i\|^2\le G^2$, we have
$\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\|^2\le G^2$, and thus
\[
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2
\;\le\;
2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\|^2
+2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2
\;\le\;4G^2.
\]
Substituting gives
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{m}\,\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
&\le
(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\sum_{k\in S}\sum_{i\in S}\gamma_i\;4G^2
\\
&=
4G^2\,\eta_{t-1}^2\,K^2
\sum_{k\in S}\sum_{i\in S}\gamma_i
\\
&\le
4G^2\,\eta_{t-1}^2\,K^2\,m(\Sigma+1).
\end{align*}
Finally, using $\eta_{t-1}\le2\eta_t$ and $\displaystyle\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i
\le \Sigma+1$, gives us the claimed bound.
\end{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem3}}) \\
From \eqref{eq:local} and \eqref{eq:global} we have for each $k\in S$k\in S,
\[
\theta^t - \theta_k^t
=\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i(\theta_i^t - \theta_k^t)
=\eta_{t-1}\,K\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i\,(d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}).
\]
\theta^t - \theta_k^t
=\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\omega_i(\theta_i^t - \theta_k^t)
=\eta_{t-1}t-1\,K\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\omega_i\,(d_i^{\,t-1}\,t-1-d_k^{\,t-1}\,t-1).
Hence
\[
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2
=(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\;\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}\omega_i(d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1})\Bigr\|^2.
\]
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}k\in S\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2
=(\eta_{t-1}t-1K)^2
\;\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k\in S}k\in S
\Bigl\|\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\omega_i(d_i^{\,t-1}\,t-1-d_k^{\,t-1}\,t-1)\Bigr\|^2.
Taking expectation and applying Lemma~\ref{lem2} with $x_i=d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}$x_i=d_i^{\,t-1}\,t-1-d_k^{\,t-1}\,t-1 yields
\[
\frac{1}{m}\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k\in S}\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\le
(\eta_{t-1}K)^2
\sum_{k\in S}
\;\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2.
\]
\frac{1}{m}\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k\in S}k\in S\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
\le
(\eta_{t-1}t-1K)^2
\sum_{k\in S}k\in S
\;\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \gamma_i
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\,t-1-d_k^{\,t-1}\,t-1\|^2.
By \eqref{eq:K_epochs} and the bound $\mathbb{E}\|g_i\|^2\le G^2$\mathbb{E}\|g_i\|^2\le G^2, we have
$\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\|^2\le G^2$\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\,t-1\|^2\le G^2, and thus
\[
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}-d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2
\;\le\;
2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\|^2
+2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_k^{\,t-1}\|^2
\;\le\;4G^2.
\]
\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\,t-1-d_k^{\,t-1}\,t-1\|^2
\;\le\;
2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_i^{\,t-1}\,t-1\|^2
+2\,\mathbb{E}\|d_k^{\,t-1}\,t-1\|^2
\;\le\;4G^2.
Substituting gives
\frac{1}{m}\,\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{k\in S}k\in S\|\theta^t - \theta_k^t\|^2\Bigr]
&\le
(\eta_{t-1}t-1K)^2
\sum_{k\in S}k\in S\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\gamma_i\;4G^2
\\
&=
4G^2\,\eta_{t-1}t-1^2\,K^2
\sum_{k\in S}k\in S\sum_{i\in S}i\in S\gamma_i
\\
&\le
4G^2\,\eta_{t-1}t-1^2\,K^2\,m(\Sigma+1).
Finally, using $\eta_{t-1}\le2\eta_t$\eta_{t-1}t-1\le2\eta_t and $\displaystyle\sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i
\le \Sigma+1$\displaystyle\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \gamma_i
\le \Sigma+1, gives us the claimed bound.
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma} The expected average discrepancy between $\theta^{t}$ and $\theta_k^{t}$ for $k \in S$ is upper bounded as
\[ \frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \|\theta^t - \theta_k^{t}\|^2 \right] \leq 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K( \Sigma +1 ).
\] \label{lem3}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem3}}) \\
The local model update equation in \eqref{eq:local} can also be expressed as:
\begin{align}
\theta_i^{t+1} -\theta^{t} &= - \eta_t K d_i^{t}, \label{eq:36}
\end{align}
highlighting the direct impact of the local updates on the global model.
Aggregating these local updates into the global model through \eqref{eq:global} yields:
\begin{equation}
\theta^{t+1} -\theta^{t} = -\eta_t K \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i d_i^t.
\end{equation}
Moreover, \eqref{eq:36} implies for Clients $i,k$,
\begin{align}
\theta_{i}^{t}-\theta_k^t&= -\eta_t K (d_i^{t-1}-d_k^{t-1}).
\end{align}
Now, we have
\begin{align}
&\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \|\theta^{t} - \theta_k^{t}\|^2\\
=&\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \|\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i(\theta_i^{t} - \theta_k^{t})\|^2 \\
=& \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \| \eta_t K \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} -d_k^{t-1})\|^2 \\
\leq&
\frac{{\eta_t}^2 K^2}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} -d_k^{t-1}) \|^2.
\end{align}
%\bl{By \eqref{eq:K_epochs} and Assumption \ref{assumpt:4}, $ \| (d_i^{t-1} -d_{k}^{t-1})\|^2 \le \| \frac{1}{K^2}(d_i^{t-1} -d_{k}^{t-1})\|^2 \leq \frac{2G^2}{K}$ for any $i,k$, ??My expression differs from yours??}
Given that \( |S| = m \), we define
\[
U = \max_{k \in S} \left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2.
\]
%Assume $k^{\prime}$ is the index for when the maximum happens.
Then, for each \( k \in S \),
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq U.
\]
So, the upper bound for the given expression is
\[
\sum_{k \in S} \left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq m \cdot U.
\]
Based on the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,
\begin{footnotesize}
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq \left( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \right) \left( \sum_{i \in S} (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1})^2 \right).
\]
\end{footnotesize}
Assume $i^{\prime}, k^{\prime}$ are indexes that maximize $(d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1})^2$. Consequently,
\begin{small}
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq
m \left( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \right) ((d_{i^{\prime}}^{t-1} - d_{k^{\prime}}^{t-1})^2)
\]
\end{small}
b Therefore, by taking the expectation we have:
\begin{align}
&\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \|\theta(t) - \theta_k^{t}\|^2 \right] \\
\leq&
\frac{{\eta_t}^2 K^2 m }{m} \mathbb{E}\left[ \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} -{d_{k^{\prime}}}^{t-1}) \|^2 \right]. \label{eq:48}
\end{align}
now assuming
\begin{align}
\leq& {\eta_t}^2 K^2 \sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i \| (d_i^{t-1} -{d_{k^{\prime}}}^{t-1})\|^2 \label{eq:49}\\
\leq&
4 G^2 {\eta_t}^2 K( \sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i )\label{42},\\
\leq&
16 G^2 {\eta_{t_0}}^2 K( \Sigma +1 ),
\end{align}
where \eqref{42} comes from the fact that $ \| (d_i^{t-1} -{d_{k^{\prime}}}^{t-1})\|^2 \leq \frac{4G^2}{K}$ for any $i$ and $k^\prime$.
The last inequality result from $\sum_{i \in S}\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]^2\leq (\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i \in S}\omega_i\right]
)^2 = 1$ and $\eta_{t_0} \leq 2\eta_t$.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma} The expected average discrepancy between $\theta^{t}$ and $\theta_k^{t}$ for $k \in S$ is upper bounded as
\[ \frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \|\theta^t - \theta_k^{t}\|^2 \right] \leq 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K( \Sigma +1 ).
\] \label{lem3}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem3}}) \\
The local model update equation in \eqref{eq:local} can also be expressed as:
\begin{align}
\theta_i^{t+1} -\theta^{t} &= - \eta_t K d_i^{t}, \label{eq:36}
\end{align}
highlighting the direct impact of the local updates on the global model.
Aggregating these local updates into the global model through \eqref{eq:global} yields:
\begin{equation}
\theta^{t+1} -\theta^{t} = -\eta_t K \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i d_i^t.
\end{equation}
Moreover, \eqref{eq:36} implies for Clients $i,k$,
\begin{align}
\theta_{i}^{t}-\theta_k^t&= -\eta_t K (d_i^{t-1}-d_k^{t-1}).
\end{align}
Now, we have
\begin{align}
&\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \|\theta^{t} - \theta_k^{t}\|^2\\
=&\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \|\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i(\theta_i^{t} - \theta_k^{t})\|^2 \\
=& \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \| \eta_t K \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} -d_k^{t-1})\|^2 \\
\leq&
\frac{{\eta_t}^2 K^2}{m} \sum_{k \in S} \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} -d_k^{t-1}) \|^2.
\end{align}
%\bl{By \eqref{eq:K_epochs} and Assumption \ref{assumpt:4}, $ \| (d_i^{t-1} -d_{k}^{t-1})\|^2 \le \| \frac{1}{K^2}(d_i^{t-1} -d_{k}^{t-1})\|^2 \leq \frac{2G^2}{K}$ for any $i,k$, ??My expression differs from yours??}
Given that \( |S| = m \), we define
\[
U = \max_{k \in S} \left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2.
\]
%Assume $k^{\prime}$ is the index for when the maximum happens.
Then, for each \( k \in S \),
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq U.
\]
So, the upper bound for the given expression is
\[
\sum_{k \in S} \left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq m \cdot U.
\]
Based on the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,
\begin{footnotesize}
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq \left( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \right) \left( \sum_{i \in S} (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1})^2 \right).
\]
\end{footnotesize}
Assume $i^{\prime}, k^{\prime}$ are indexes that maximize $(d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1})^2$. Consequently,
\begin{small}
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq
m \left( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \right) ((d_{i^{\prime}}^{t-1} - d_{k^{\prime}}^{t-1})^2)
\]
\end{small}
b Therefore, by taking the expectation we have:
\begin{align}
&\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \|\theta(t) - \theta_k^{t}\|^2 \right] \\
\leq&
\frac{{\eta_t}^2 K^2 m }{m} \mathbb{E}\left[ \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} -{d_{k^{\prime}}}^{t-1}) \|^2 \right]. \label{eq:48}
\end{align}
now assuming
\begin{align}
\leq& {\eta_t}^2 K^2 \sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i \| (d_i^{t-1} -{d_{k^{\prime}}}^{t-1})\|^2 \label{eq:49}\\
\leq&
4 G^2 {\eta_t}^2 K( \sum_{i \in S} \gamma_i )\label{42},\\
\leq&
16 G^2 {\eta_{t_0}}^2 K( \Sigma +1 ),
\end{align}
where \eqref{42} comes from the fact that $ \| (d_i^{t-1} -{d_{k^{\prime}}}^{t-1})\|^2 \leq \frac{4G^2}{K}$ for any $i$ and $k^\prime$.
The last inequality result from $\sum_{i \in S}\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]^2\leq (\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i \in S}\omega_i\right]
)^2 = 1$ and $\eta_{t_0} \leq 2\eta_t$.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
The expected average discrepancy between $\theta^{t}$\theta^{t}t and $\theta_k^{t}$\theta_k^{t}t for $k \in S$k \in S is upper bounded as
\[ \frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \|\theta^t - \theta_k^{t}\|^2 \right] \leq 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K( \Sigma +1 ).
\] \frac{1}{m}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \|\theta^t - \theta_k^{t}t\|^2 \right] \leq 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K( \Sigma +1 ).
\label{lem3}
(\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem3}}) \\
The local model update equation in \eqref{eq:local} can also be expressed as:
\theta_i^{t+1}t+1 -\theta^{t}t &= - \eta_t K d_i^{t}t, \label{eq:36}
highlighting the direct impact of the local updates on the global model.
Aggregating these local updates into the global model through \eqref{eq:global} yields:
\theta^{t+1}t+1 -\theta^{t}t = -\eta_t K \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i d_i^t.
Moreover, \eqref{eq:36} implies for Clients $i,k$i,k,
\theta_{i}i^{t}t-\theta_k^t&= -\eta_t K (d_i^{t-1}t-1-d_k^{t-1}t-1).
Now, we have
&\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \|\theta^{t}t - \theta_k^{t}t\|^2\\
=&\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \|\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i(\theta_i^{t}t - \theta_k^{t}t)\|^2 \\
=& \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \| \eta_t K \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 -d_k^{t-1}t-1)\|^2 \\
\leq&
\frac{{\eta_t}^2 K^2}{m} \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 -d_k^{t-1}t-1) \|^2.
Given that \( |S| = m \) |S| = m , we define
\[
U = \max_{k \in S} \left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2.
\]
U = \max_{k \in S}k \in S \left\| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 - d_k^{t-1}t-1) \right\|^2.
Then, for each \( k \in S \) k \in S ,
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq U.
\]
\left\| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 - d_k^{t-1}t-1) \right\|^2 \leq U.
So, the upper bound for the given expression is
\[
\sum_{k \in S} \left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq m \cdot U.
\]
\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \left\| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 - d_k^{t-1}t-1) \right\|^2 \leq m \cdot U.
Based on the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq \left( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \right) \left( \sum_{i \in S} (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1})^2 \right).
\]
\left\| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 - d_k^{t-1}t-1) \right\|^2 \leq \left( \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i^2 \right) \left( \sum_{i \in S}i \in S (d_i^{t-1}t-1 - d_k^{t-1}t-1)^2 \right).
Assume $i^{\prime}, k^{\prime}$i^{\prime}\prime, k^{\prime}\prime are indexes that maximize $(d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1})^2$(d_i^{t-1}t-1 - d_k^{t-1}t-1)^2. Consequently,
\[
\left\| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (d_i^{t-1} - d_k^{t-1}) \right\|^2 \leq
m \left( \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i^2 \right) ((d_{i^{\prime}}^{t-1} - d_{k^{\prime}}^{t-1})^2)
\]
\left\| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 - d_k^{t-1}t-1) \right\|^2 \leq
m \left( \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i^2 \right) ((d_{i^{\prime}}i^{\prime}\prime^{t-1}t-1 - d_{k^{\prime}}k^{\prime}\prime^{t-1}t-1)^2)
b Therefore, by taking the expectation we have:
&\frac{1}{m} \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \|\theta(t) - \theta_k^{t}t\|^2 \right] \\
\leq&
\frac{{\eta_t}^2 K^2 m }{m} \mathbb{E}\left[ \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (d_i^{t-1}t-1 -{d_{k^{\prime}}}d_{k^{\prime}}k^{\prime}\prime^{t-1}t-1) \|^2 \right]. \label{eq:48}
now assuming
\leq& {\eta_t}\eta_t^2 K^2 \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \gamma_i \| (d_i^{t-1}t-1 -{d_{k^{\prime}}}d_{k^{\prime}}k^{\prime}\prime^{t-1}t-1)\|^2 \label{eq:49}\\
\leq&
4 G^2 {\eta_t}\eta_t^2 K( \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \gamma_i )\label{42},\\
\leq&
16 G^2 {\eta_{t_0}}\eta_{t_0}t_0^2 K( \Sigma +1 ),
where \eqref{42} comes from the fact that $ \| (d_i^{t-1} -{d_{k^{\prime}}}^{t-1})\|^2 \leq \frac{4G^2}{K}$ \| (d_i^{t-1}t-1 -{d_{k^{\prime}}}d_{k^{\prime}}k^{\prime}\prime^{t-1}t-1)\|^2 \leq \frac{4G^2}{K} for any $i$i and $k^\prime$k^\prime.
The last inequality result from $\sum_{i \in S}\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]^2\leq (\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i \in S}\omega_i\right]
)^2 = 1$\sum_{i \in S}i \in S\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]^2\leq (\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i \in S}i \in S\omega_i\right]
)^2 = 1 and $\eta_{t_0} \leq 2\eta_t$\eta_{t_0}t_0 \leq 2\eta_t.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem4}
With $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$, the total expectation over all random sources including the random source from the selection strategy, we have the upper bound:
\[
\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t} - \theta^*||^2] \leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \right]. \tag{24}
\]
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lem4}
With $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$, the total expectation over all random sources including the random source from the selection strategy, we have the upper bound:
\[
\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t} - \theta^*||^2] \leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \right]. \tag{24}
\]
\end{lemma} \label{lem4}
With $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$\mathbb{E}[\cdot], the total expectation over all random sources including the random source from the selection strategy, we have the upper bound:
\[
\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t} - \theta^*||^2] \leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \right]. \tag{24}
\]
\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t}t - \theta^*||^2] \leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t}t - \theta^* \|^2 \right]. \tag{24}24
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem4}}) \\
Consider the expression for the expected squared norm difference:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t} - \theta^*||^2] &= \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*) \right\|^2 \right].
\end{align*}
Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain:
\begin{align*}
\left( \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*) \right)^2 \leq \left( \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \right) \left( \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*)^2 \right).
\end{align*}
Since $\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k = 1$ and by taking the expectation, this simplifies to:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*) \right\|^2 \right] &\leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \right].
\end{align*}
%:
%\begin{align*}
%\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t} - \theta^*||]^2 \leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \right].
%\end{align*}
\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem4}}) \\
Consider the expression for the expected squared norm difference:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t} - \theta^*||^2] &= \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*) \right\|^2 \right].
\end{align*}
Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain:
\begin{align*}
\left( \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*) \right)^2 \leq \left( \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \right) \left( \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*)^2 \right).
\end{align*}
Since $\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k = 1$ and by taking the expectation, this simplifies to:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k (\theta_k^{t} - \theta^*) \right\|^2 \right] &\leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \right].
\end{align*}
%:
%\begin{align*}
%\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t} - \theta^*||]^2 \leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \right].
%\end{align*}
\end{proof} (\textbf{Lemma \ref{lem4}}) \\
Consider the expression for the expected squared norm difference:
\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t}t - \theta^*||^2] &= \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k (\theta_k^{t}t - \theta^*) \right\|^2 \right].
Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain:
\left( \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k (\theta_k^{t}t - \theta^*) \right)^2 \leq \left( \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k \right) \left( \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k (\theta_k^{t}t - \theta^*)^2 \right).
Since $\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k = 1$\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k = 1 and by taking the expectation, this simplifies to:
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k (\theta_k^{t}t - \theta^*) \right\|^2 \right] &\leq \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k \| \theta_k^{t}t - \theta^* \|^2 \right].
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th1}}) \\
Building upon the established lemmas, we have:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
&\| \theta^{t+1} - \theta^* \|^2 = \| \theta^t - K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i d_i^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \\
&=\| \theta^{t} - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)\\& - K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i d_i^{t} + K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2 \\
&= \| \theta^{t} - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2\\& + K^2 {\eta_t}^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2\\
& + 2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t), \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^t) \rangle
\\
&= \| \theta^t - \theta^* \|^2 - 2K\eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\
&+ 2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t), \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^t) \rangle
\\&+ K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2+K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2.
\end{align}
\end{small}
Now, after breaking down $\| \theta^{t+1} - \theta^* \|^2$ to several terms, we find the upper bounds for the following terms:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}&=-2K \eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}&=2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)\\&, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^{t}) \rangle,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}&= K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}&=K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2.
\end{align}
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}$ we have,
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}=-2K \eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\&= -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\
&= -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta^{t} - \theta_i^{t}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ & \leq
K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} ( \frac{1}{\eta_t} ||\theta^t - \theta_i^t||^2+ \eta_t ||\omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)||^2 ) \label{eq45}\\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle\\
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&\leq K \sum_{i \in S} ||\theta^t - \theta_i^t||^2 + K \eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S} ||\omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)||^2\\& - 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ \label{49}&\leq
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2( \Sigma +1 ) \\&+ 2K \eta_t^2 L \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i(\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-F_i^*) \\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ &\leq
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 )\\&+ 2K \eta_t^2 L \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i(\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-F_i^*) \\ &
-2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i\left[ F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})+ \frac{\mu}{2} ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2)) \right] \label{52}
\end{align}
where we use the AM-GM inequality in \eqref{eq45}.
Lemma \ref{lem1}, Lemma \ref{lem3} and the fact that $\omega_{i}<1$ is used in \eqref{49}. \eqref{52} is due to $\mu$-convexity of $F_i$.%, and use of Lemma \ref{lem3}. %\eqref{49} results from Lemma \ref{lem4}.
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}$ in expectation, $\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}] = 0$ due to the unbiased gradient.
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}$, we determine the upper bound as follows using Lemma \ref{lem1}:
\begin{align}
\eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S} \|\omega_k \nabla F_k(\theta_k^t)\|^2 &\leq \eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \|\nabla F_k(\theta_k^t)\|^2
\\&\leq 2L\eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k).
\end{align}
Considering $\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}$ in expectation, the upper bound is:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}} &\leq K^2\eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S} \| (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2 \\&= K^2\eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S} \| \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K (g_i(y_{i,j}^t) -\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t))\|^2 \\&\leq
\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2,\label{74}
\end{align}
where \eqref{74} results from Assumption \ref{assumpt:3}.
Integrating the established bounds for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{step}},$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}$, it follows that the expected value is constrained as:
\begin{align}
& \mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t+1} - \theta^* \|^2 ]\leq \mathbb{E}[ \| \theta^{t} - \theta^* \|^2] +\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2\\& + 2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)] \\ &+ 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 ) \\&-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i\left[ F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})+ \frac{\mu}{2} ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2)) \right] ] \\ \label{79}&\leq (1-K \mu \eta_t) \mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t} - \theta^* \|^2] + 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2( \Sigma +1 )\\&+\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2
+2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)]\\&
-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E} [\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})) ],
\end{align}
where \eqref{79} is due to $\mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t} - \theta^* \|^2]\leq (\sum_{i \in S}\omega_i)(\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2)=\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2$.
We define $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$ as follows and perform some algebraic calculations:
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}= 2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)] \\&-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})) ]\\&= \mathbb{E} [2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k) \\&-2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*}))]\\&=\mathbb{E}[2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k F_k(\theta_k^t) -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i F_i (\theta_i^t)\\& -2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k F^*_k+2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i F_i(\theta^{*})]\\&=
\mathbb{E}[ 2K\eta_t (\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} -1) \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t)-F_k^*)] \\&+
2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)]
\end{align}
Let us define $\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}
$ as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}&= 2K\eta_t (\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} -1) \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t)-F_k^*),\\
a_t&= 2K\eta_t (1-\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} )
\end{align}
Assuming $\eta_t< \frac{1}{2L(K+1)}$, we have:
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}= -a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k)-F_k(\theta^t)+F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&=-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k)-F_k(\theta^t))\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&\leq
-a_t \sum_{k \in S}[ \langle \omega_k\nabla F_k(\theta^t), \theta_k^t -\theta^t \rangle + \frac{\mu}{2} || \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2]\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*) \label{76}\\&\leq
a_t \sum_{k \in S}[\eta_t L \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2] \label{78}\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&=-a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})\sum_{k \in S}|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2,
\end{align}
where \eqref{76} is due to $\mu$-convexity of $F_k$ and \eqref{78} is based on Lemma \ref{lem1}. Using the bound identified for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$, we can now determine the bound for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}$ as:
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}} \leq -a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2\\&+2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)] \\ &\leq \label{84}
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^2 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 )\\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)]\\&=16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^2 m^2( \Sigma +1 )\\& -a_t(1-\eta_tL)\mathbb{E}[\rho(h; \theta^t)( F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k^*)]\\& + 2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\rho(h; \theta^*)( F^* - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k^*)] \\ & \leq \label{89} 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^2m^2( \Sigma +1 )+ 2K\eta_t \overline{\rho} \Gamma \\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mathbb{E}[ F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k^*],
\end{align}
where \eqref{84} is due to Lemma \ref{lem3} and the fact that $a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})\leq 1$. \eqref{89} is due to the definitions of $\rho(h)$, $\overline{\rho}$, and $\underline{\rho}$ in \ref{def1}.
Defining $\mathcal{B}_{\text{global}}
$ as follows, we have:
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{B}_{\text{global}}=-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mathbb{E}[ F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k F_k^*]\\&=
-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k (\mathbb{E}[F_k(\theta^{t})]-F^*+F^* -F_k^*)\\&=
-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k (\mathbb{E}[F_k(\theta^{t})]-F^*)\\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma\\&=-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} (\mathbb{E}[F(\theta^{t})]-F^*)-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma\\&\leq \label{94}
\frac{-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mu}{2} \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma \\ &\leq -(K-1) \eta_t \underline{\rho} \mu \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]-2K\eta_t\underline{\rho} \Gamma \\&+6KL\eta_t^2\underline{\rho} \Gamma,
\end{align}
where \eqref{94} is due to $\mu$-convexity and the fact that $\frac{-a_t(1-\eta_tL) }{2} \leq -(K-1) \eta_t $.
Therefore, now we can bound $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$ as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}} &\leq-(K-1) \eta_t \underline{\rho} \mu \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]\\&+ 2K\eta_t(\overline{\rho}-\underline{\rho})\Gamma\\&+\eta_t^2(6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2( \Sigma +1 ))
\end{align}
Thus $\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}-\theta^*||^2]$ can be bounded as:
\begin{align}
& (1-\eta_t K\mu(1+\frac{K-1}{K}\underline{\rho}))\mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]\\&+2K\eta_t(\overline{\rho}_-\underline{\rho})\Gamma \\&+\eta_t^2(6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2(K +1)( \Sigma +1 )+ m K^2 \sigma^2)
\end{align}
Let us define $\Delta_{t+1}=\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}-\theta^*||^2]$, then:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{t+1} \leq (1-\eta_t \mu K B) \Delta_t +\eta_t^2 C+ \eta_t D,
\end{align}
where $B=1+\frac{K-1}{K}\underline{\rho}$, $C=6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2(K+1)( \Sigma +1 )+ m K^2 \sigma^2$, and $D=2K(\overline{\rho}-\underline{\rho})\Gamma$.
By setting $\Delta_t \leq \frac{\psi}{t+\gamma}, \eta_t = \frac{\beta}{t+\gamma }$, $\beta > \frac{1}{ \mu K B},$ assuming $(\beta = \frac{1}{ \mu K})$ and $\gamma>0$ by induction we have that:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\psi = \max \left\{ \gamma \|\theta^0 - \theta^*\|^2, \frac{1}{\beta \mu K B-1 } (\beta^2 C + D\beta(t + \gamma)) \right\}
\end{equation}
\end{small}
Then by the L-smoothness of \(F(\theta)\), we have that:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[F(\theta(t))] - F^* \leq \frac{L}{2} \Delta_t \leq \frac{L}{2} \frac{\psi}{t+\gamma}
\end{equation}\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th1}}) \\
Building upon the established lemmas, we have:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
&\| \theta^{t+1} - \theta^* \|^2 = \| \theta^t - K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i d_i^{t} - \theta^* \|^2 \\
&=\| \theta^{t} - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)\\& - K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i d_i^{t} + K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2 \\
&= \| \theta^{t} - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2\\& + K^2 {\eta_t}^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2\\
& + 2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t), \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^t) \rangle
\\
&= \| \theta^t - \theta^* \|^2 - 2K\eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\
&+ 2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t), \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^t) \rangle
\\&+ K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2+K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2.
\end{align}
\end{small}
Now, after breaking down $\| \theta^{t+1} - \theta^* \|^2$ to several terms, we find the upper bounds for the following terms:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}&=-2K \eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}&=2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)\\&, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^{t}) \rangle,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}&= K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}&=K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2.
\end{align}
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}$ we have,
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}=-2K \eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\&= -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\
&= -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta^{t} - \theta_i^{t}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ & \leq
K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} ( \frac{1}{\eta_t} ||\theta^t - \theta_i^t||^2+ \eta_t ||\omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)||^2 ) \label{eq45}\\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle\\
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&\leq K \sum_{i \in S} ||\theta^t - \theta_i^t||^2 + K \eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S} ||\omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)||^2\\& - 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ \label{49}&\leq
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2( \Sigma +1 ) \\&+ 2K \eta_t^2 L \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i(\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-F_i^*) \\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \langle \theta_i^{t} - \theta^{*}, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ &\leq
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 )\\&+ 2K \eta_t^2 L \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i(\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-F_i^*) \\ &
-2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i\left[ F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})+ \frac{\mu}{2} ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2)) \right] \label{52}
\end{align}
where we use the AM-GM inequality in \eqref{eq45}.
Lemma \ref{lem1}, Lemma \ref{lem3} and the fact that $\omega_{i}<1$ is used in \eqref{49}. \eqref{52} is due to $\mu$-convexity of $F_i$.%, and use of Lemma \ref{lem3}. %\eqref{49} results from Lemma \ref{lem4}.
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}$ in expectation, $\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}] = 0$ due to the unbiased gradient.
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}$, we determine the upper bound as follows using Lemma \ref{lem1}:
\begin{align}
\eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S} \|\omega_k \nabla F_k(\theta_k^t)\|^2 &\leq \eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k \|\nabla F_k(\theta_k^t)\|^2
\\&\leq 2L\eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k).
\end{align}
Considering $\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}$ in expectation, the upper bound is:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}} &\leq K^2\eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S} \| (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}) \|^2 \\&= K^2\eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S} \| \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^K (g_i(y_{i,j}^t) -\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t))\|^2 \\&\leq
\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2,\label{74}
\end{align}
where \eqref{74} results from Assumption \ref{assumpt:3}.
Integrating the established bounds for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{step}},$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}$, it follows that the expected value is constrained as:
\begin{align}
& \mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t+1} - \theta^* \|^2 ]\leq \mathbb{E}[ \| \theta^{t} - \theta^* \|^2] +\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2\\& + 2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)] \\ &+ 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 ) \\&-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i\left[ F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})+ \frac{\mu}{2} ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2)) \right] ] \\ \label{79}&\leq (1-K \mu \eta_t) \mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t} - \theta^* \|^2] + 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^3 m^2( \Sigma +1 )\\&+\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2
+2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)]\\&
-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E} [\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})) ],
\end{align}
where \eqref{79} is due to $\mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t} - \theta^* \|^2]\leq (\sum_{i \in S}\omega_i)(\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2)=\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2$.
We define $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$ as follows and perform some algebraic calculations:
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}= 2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)] \\&-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*})) ]\\&= \mathbb{E} [2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k) \\&-2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*}))]\\&=\mathbb{E}[2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k F_k(\theta_k^t) -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i F_i (\theta_i^t)\\& -2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k F^*_k+2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S} \omega_i F_i(\theta^{*})]\\&=
\mathbb{E}[ 2K\eta_t (\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} -1) \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t)-F_k^*)] \\&+
2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)]
\end{align}
Let us define $\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}
$ as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}&= 2K\eta_t (\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} -1) \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t)-F_k^*),\\
a_t&= 2K\eta_t (1-\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} )
\end{align}
Assuming $\eta_t< \frac{1}{2L(K+1)}$, we have:
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}= -a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k)-F_k(\theta^t)+F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&=-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k)-F_k(\theta^t))\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&\leq
-a_t \sum_{k \in S}[ \langle \omega_k\nabla F_k(\theta^t), \theta_k^t -\theta^t \rangle + \frac{\mu}{2} || \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2]\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*) \label{76}\\&\leq
a_t \sum_{k \in S}[\eta_t L \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2] \label{78}\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&=-a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})\sum_{k \in S}|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2,
\end{align}
where \eqref{76} is due to $\mu$-convexity of $F_k$ and \eqref{78} is based on Lemma \ref{lem1}. Using the bound identified for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$, we can now determine the bound for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}$ as:
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}} \leq -a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2\\&+2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)] \\ &\leq \label{84}
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^2 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 )\\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S} \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)]\\&=16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^2 m^2( \Sigma +1 )\\& -a_t(1-\eta_tL)\mathbb{E}[\rho(h; \theta^t)( F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k^*)]\\& + 2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\rho(h; \theta^*)( F^* - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k^*)] \\ & \leq \label{89} 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}^2 K^2m^2( \Sigma +1 )+ 2K\eta_t \overline{\rho} \Gamma \\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mathbb{E}[ F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} q_k F_k^*],
\end{align}
where \eqref{84} is due to Lemma \ref{lem3} and the fact that $a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})\leq 1$. \eqref{89} is due to the definitions of $\rho(h)$, $\overline{\rho}$, and $\underline{\rho}$ in \ref{def1}.
Defining $\mathcal{B}_{\text{global}}
$ as follows, we have:
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{B}_{\text{global}}=-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mathbb{E}[ F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k F_k^*]\\&=
-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k (\mathbb{E}[F_k(\theta^{t})]-F^*+F^* -F_k^*)\\&=
-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k (\mathbb{E}[F_k(\theta^{t})]-F^*)\\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma\\&=-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} (\mathbb{E}[F(\theta^{t})]-F^*)-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma\\&\leq \label{94}
\frac{-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mu}{2} \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma \\ &\leq -(K-1) \eta_t \underline{\rho} \mu \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]-2K\eta_t\underline{\rho} \Gamma \\&+6KL\eta_t^2\underline{\rho} \Gamma,
\end{align}
where \eqref{94} is due to $\mu$-convexity and the fact that $\frac{-a_t(1-\eta_tL) }{2} \leq -(K-1) \eta_t $.
Therefore, now we can bound $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$ as:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}} &\leq-(K-1) \eta_t \underline{\rho} \mu \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]\\&+ 2K\eta_t(\overline{\rho}-\underline{\rho})\Gamma\\&+\eta_t^2(6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2( \Sigma +1 ))
\end{align}
Thus $\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}-\theta^*||^2]$ can be bounded as:
\begin{align}
& (1-\eta_t K\mu(1+\frac{K-1}{K}\underline{\rho}))\mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]\\&+2K\eta_t(\overline{\rho}_-\underline{\rho})\Gamma \\&+\eta_t^2(6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2(K +1)( \Sigma +1 )+ m K^2 \sigma^2)
\end{align}
Let us define $\Delta_{t+1}=\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}-\theta^*||^2]$, then:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{t+1} \leq (1-\eta_t \mu K B) \Delta_t +\eta_t^2 C+ \eta_t D,
\end{align}
where $B=1+\frac{K-1}{K}\underline{\rho}$, $C=6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2(K+1)( \Sigma +1 )+ m K^2 \sigma^2$, and $D=2K(\overline{\rho}-\underline{\rho})\Gamma$.
By setting $\Delta_t \leq \frac{\psi}{t+\gamma}, \eta_t = \frac{\beta}{t+\gamma }$, $\beta > \frac{1}{ \mu K B},$ assuming $(\beta = \frac{1}{ \mu K})$ and $\gamma>0$ by induction we have that:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\psi = \max \left\{ \gamma \|\theta^0 - \theta^*\|^2, \frac{1}{\beta \mu K B-1 } (\beta^2 C + D\beta(t + \gamma)) \right\}
\end{equation}
\end{small}
Then by the L-smoothness of \(F(\theta)\), we have that:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[F(\theta(t))] - F^* \leq \frac{L}{2} \Delta_t \leq \frac{L}{2} \frac{\psi}{t+\gamma}
\end{equation}\end{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th1}}) \\
Building upon the established lemmas, we have:
&\| \theta^{t+1}t+1 - \theta^* \|^2 = \| \theta^t - K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i d_i^{t}t - \theta^* \|^2 \\
&=\| \theta^{t}t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)\\& - K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i d_i^{t}t + K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2 \\
&= \| \theta^{t}t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2\\& + K^2 {\eta_t}\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}t) \|^2\\
& + 2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t), \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^t) \rangle
\\
&= \| \theta^t - \theta^* \|^2 - 2K\eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\
&+ 2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t), \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^t) \rangle
\\&+ K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2+K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}t) \|^2.
Now, after breaking down $\| \theta^{t+1} - \theta^* \|^2$\| \theta^{t+1}t+1 - \theta^* \|^2 to several terms, we find the upper bounds for the following terms:
\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}\text{grad}&=-2K \eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}\text{noise}&=2K \eta_t\langle \theta^t - \theta^* -K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)\\&, \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) - d_i^{t}t) \rangle,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}\text{step}&= K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \|^2,\\
\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}\text{var}&=K^2\eta_t^2 \| \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}t) \|^2.
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}$\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}\text{grad} we have,
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}\text{grad}=-2K \eta_t \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\&= -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \langle \theta^t - \theta^*, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\
&= -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \langle \theta^{t}t - \theta_i^{t}t, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \langle \theta_i^{t}t - \theta^{*}*, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ & \leq
K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S ( \frac{1}{\eta_t} ||\theta^t - \theta_i^t||^2+ \eta_t ||\omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)||^2 ) \label{eq45}\\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \langle \theta_i^{t}t - \theta^{*}*, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle\\
&\leq K \sum_{i \in S}i \in S ||\theta^t - \theta_i^t||^2 + K \eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S}i \in S ||\omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)||^2\\& - 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \langle \theta_i^{t}t - \theta^{*}*, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ \label{49}&\leq
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K^3 m^2( \Sigma +1 ) \\&+ 2K \eta_t^2 L \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i(\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-F_i^*) \\&- 2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \langle \theta_i^{t}t - \theta^{*}*, \omega_i \nabla F_i(\theta_i^t) \rangle \\ &\leq
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K^3 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 )\\&+ 2K \eta_t^2 L \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i(\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-F_i^*) \\ &
-2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i\left[ F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*}*)+ \frac{\mu}{2} ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}*||^2)) \right] \label{52}
where we use the AM-GM inequality in \eqref{eq45}.
Lemma \ref{lem1}, Lemma \ref{lem3} and the fact that $\omega_{i}<1$\omega_{i}i<1 is used in \eqref{49}. \eqref{52} is due to $\mu$\mu-convexity of $F_i$F_i.
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}$\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}\text{noise} in expectation, $\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}] = 0$\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}\text{noise}] = 0 due to the unbiased gradient.
For $\mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}$\mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}\text{step}, we determine the upper bound as follows using Lemma \ref{lem1}:
\eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \|\omega_k \nabla F_k(\theta_k^t)\|^2 &\leq \eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k \|\nabla F_k(\theta_k^t)\|^2
\\&\leq 2L\eta_t^2 \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k).
Considering $\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}$\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}\text{var} in expectation, the upper bound is:
\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}\text{var} &\leq K^2\eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \| (\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t)-d_i^{t}t) \|^2 \\&= K^2\eta_t^2 \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \| \frac{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}j=1^K (g_i(y_{i,j}i,j^t) -\nabla F_i(\theta_i^t))\|^2 \\&\leq
\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2,\label{74}
where \eqref{74} results from Assumption \ref{assumpt:3}.
Integrating the established bounds for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{step}},$\mathcal{B}_{\text{grad}}\text{grad}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{noise}}\text{noise}, \mathcal{B}_{\text{step}}\text{step}, and $\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}$\mathcal{B}_{\text{var}}\text{var}, it follows that the expected value is constrained as:
& \mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t+1}t+1 - \theta^* \|^2 ]\leq \mathbb{E}[ \| \theta^{t}t - \theta^* \|^2] +\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2\\& + 2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)] \\ &+ 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K^3 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 ) \\&-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i\left[ F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*}*)+ \frac{\mu}{2} ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}*||^2)) \right] ] \\ \label{79}&\leq (1-K \mu \eta_t) \mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t}t - \theta^* \|^2] + 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K^3 m^2( \Sigma +1 )\\&+\eta_t^2 m K^2 \sigma^2
+2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)]\\&
-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E} [\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*}*)) ],
where \eqref{79} is due to $\mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t} - \theta^* \|^2]\leq (\sum_{i \in S}\omega_i)(\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2)=\sum_{i \in S} \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}||^2$\mathbb{E}[\| \theta^{t}t - \theta^* \|^2]\leq (\sum_{i \in S}i \in S\omega_i)(\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}*||^2)=\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i ||\theta_i^t - \theta^{*}*||^2.
We define $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}\text{gap}
as follows and perform some algebraic calculations:
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}\text{gap}= 2L\eta_t^2 (K+1) \mathbb{E} [\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k)] \\&-2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*}*)) ]\\&= \mathbb{E} [2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t) - F^*_k) \\&-2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i ( F_i (\theta_i^t) - F_i(\theta^{*}*))]\\&=\mathbb{E}[2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k F_k(\theta_k^t) -2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i F_i (\theta_i^t)\\& -2L\eta_t^2 (K+1)\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k F^*_k+2K \eta_t \sum_{i \in S}i \in S \omega_i F_i(\theta^{*}*)]\\&=
\mathbb{E}[ 2K\eta_t (\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} -1) \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t)-F_k^*)] \\&+
2K \eta_t \mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)]
Let us define $\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}
$\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}\text{drift}
as:
\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}\text{drift}&= 2K\eta_t (\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} -1) \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k^t)-F_k^*),\\
a_t&= 2K\eta_t (1-\frac{L\eta_t(K+1)}{K} )
Assuming $\eta_t< \frac{1}{2L(K+1)}$\eta_t< \frac{1}{2L(K+1)}, we have:
&\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}\text{drift}= -a_t \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k)-F_k(\theta^t)+F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&=-a_t \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta_k)-F_k(\theta^t))\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&\leq
-a_t \sum_{k \in S}k \in S[ \langle \omega_k\nabla F_k(\theta^t), \theta_k^t -\theta^t \rangle + \frac{\mu}{2} || \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2]\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*) \label{76}\\&\leq
a_t \sum_{k \in S}k \in S[\eta_t L \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2] \label{78}\\&-a_t \sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&=-a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})\sum_{k \in S}k \in S|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2,
where \eqref{76} is due to $\mu$\mu-convexity of $F_k$F_k and \eqref{78} is based on Lemma \ref{lem1}. Using the bound identified for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}\text{gap}
, we can now determine the bound for $\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}$\mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}\text{drift} as:
& \mathcal{B}_{\text{drift}}\text{drift} \leq -a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})|| \theta_k -\theta^t ||^2\\&+2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)] \\ &\leq \label{84}
16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K^2 m^2 ( \Sigma +1 )\\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL)\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^t)-F_k^*)\\&+2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\sum_{k \in S}k \in S \omega_k(F_k(\theta^*)-F_k^*)]\\&=16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K^2 m^2( \Sigma +1 )\\& -a_t(1-\eta_tL)\mathbb{E}[\rho(h; \theta^t)( F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n q_k F_k^*)]\\& + 2K \eta_t\mathbb{E}[\rho(h; \theta^*)( F^* - \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n q_k F_k^*)] \\ & \leq \label{89} 16 G^2 {\eta_{t}}\eta_{t}t^2 K^2m^2( \Sigma +1 )+ 2K\eta_t \overline{\rho} \Gamma \\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mathbb{E}[ F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n q_k F_k^*],
where \eqref{84} is due to Lemma \ref{lem3} and the fact that $a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})\leq 1$a_t(\frac{1}{2\eta_t}-\frac{\mu}{2})\leq 1. \eqref{89} is due to the definitions of $\rho(h)$\rho(h), $\overline{\rho}$\overline{\rho}, and $\underline{\rho}$\underline{\rho} in \ref{def1}.
Defining $\mathcal{B}_{\text{global}}
$\mathcal{B}_{\text{global}}\text{global}
as follows, we have:
& \mathcal{B}_{\text{global}}\text{global}=-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mathbb{E}[ F(\theta^t) - \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n p_k F_k^*]\\&=
-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n p_k (\mathbb{E}[F_k(\theta^{t}t)]-F^*+F^* -F_k^*)\\&=
-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \sum_{k=1}k=1^{n}n p_k (\mathbb{E}[F_k(\theta^{t}t)]-F^*)\\&-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma\\&=-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} (\mathbb{E}[F(\theta^{t}t)]-F^*)-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma\\&\leq \label{94}
\frac{-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \mu}{2} \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]-a_t(1-\eta_tL) \underline{\rho} \Gamma \\ &\leq -(K-1) \eta_t \underline{\rho} \mu \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]-2K\eta_t\underline{\rho} \Gamma \\&+6KL\eta_t^2\underline{\rho} \Gamma,
where \eqref{94} is due to $\mu$\mu-convexity and the fact that $\frac{-a_t(1-\eta_tL) }{2} \leq -(K-1) \eta_t $\frac{-a_t(1-\eta_tL) }{2} \leq -(K-1) \eta_t .
Therefore, now we can bound $\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}
$\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}\text{gap}
as:
\mathcal{B}_{\text{gap}}\text{gap} &\leq-(K-1) \eta_t \underline{\rho} \mu \mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]\\&+ 2K\eta_t(\overline{\rho}-\underline{\rho})\Gamma\\&+\eta_t^2(6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2( \Sigma +1 ))
Thus $\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}-\theta^*||^2]$\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}t+1-\theta^*||^2] can be bounded as:
& (1-\eta_t K\mu(1+\frac{K-1}{K}\underline{\rho}))\mathbb{E}[||\theta^t-\theta^*||^2]\\&+2K\eta_t(\overline{\rho}_-\underline{\rho})\Gamma \\&+\eta_t^2(6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2(K +1)( \Sigma +1 )+ m K^2 \sigma^2)
Let us define $\Delta_{t+1}=\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}-\theta^*||^2]$\Delta_{t+1}t+1=\mathbb{E}[||\theta^{t+1}t+1-\theta^*||^2], then:
\Delta_{t+1}t+1 \leq (1-\eta_t \mu K B) \Delta_t +\eta_t^2 C+ \eta_t D,
where $B=1+\frac{K-1}{K}\underline{\rho}$B=1+\frac{K-1}{K}\underline{\rho}, $C=6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2(K+1)( \Sigma +1 )+ m K^2 \sigma^2$C=6KL\underline{\rho} \Gamma+16 G^2 K^2m^2(K+1)( \Sigma +1 )+ m K^2 \sigma^2, and $D=2K(\overline{\rho}-\underline{\rho})\Gamma$D=2K(\overline{\rho}-\underline{\rho})\Gamma.
By setting $\Delta_t \leq \frac{\psi}{t+\gamma}, \eta_t = \frac{\beta}{t+\gamma }$\Delta_t \leq \frac{\psi}{t+\gamma}, \eta_t = \frac{\beta}{t+\gamma }, $\beta > \frac{1}{ \mu K B},$\beta > \frac{1}{ \mu K B}, assuming $(\beta = \frac{1}{ \mu K})$(\beta = \frac{1}{ \mu K}) and $\gamma>0$\gamma>0 by induction we have that:
\psi = \max \left\{ \gamma \|\theta^0 - \theta^*\|^2, \frac{1}{\beta \mu K B-1 } (\beta^2 C + D\beta(t + \gamma)) \right\}
Then by the L-smoothness of \(F(\theta)\)F(\theta), we have that:
\mathbb{E}[F(\theta(t))] - F^* \leq \frac{L}{2} \Delta_t \leq \frac{L}{2} \frac{\psi}{t+\gamma}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th3}}) \\
Since exactly $m$ clients are selected in each round, each subset $S$ of size $m$ occurs with probability $\tfrac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}$. By definition, for $i \in S$ we have $\omega_i = \tfrac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}$ and for $i \notin S$, $\omega_i = 0$. Observe that
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2 \;=\;
\sum_{i \in S}
\biggl(\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\biggr)^2,
\]
Therefore,
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2\Bigr]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}} \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}}
\;\sum_{i \in S}
\frac{d_i^2}{\Bigl(\sum_{j\in S}d_j\Bigr)^2}.
\]
Next, for each fixed client $i$, its mean weight is
\begin{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\;\times\;\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S: \, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}.
\]
\end{small}
Hence
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n
\biggl(
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i\in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\biggr)^2.
\]
%Since
%\[
%\mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
%\;=\;
%\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2,
%\]
And we have
\[
\Sigma= \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2.
\]
Combining these pieces yields the claimed formula.
\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th3}}) \\
Since exactly $m$ clients are selected in each round, each subset $S$ of size $m$ occurs with probability $\tfrac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}$. By definition, for $i \in S$ we have $\omega_i = \tfrac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}$ and for $i \notin S$, $\omega_i = 0$. Observe that
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2 \;=\;
\sum_{i \in S}
\biggl(\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\biggr)^2,
\]
Therefore,
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2\Bigr]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}} \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}}
\;\sum_{i \in S}
\frac{d_i^2}{\Bigl(\sum_{j\in S}d_j\Bigr)^2}.
\]
Next, for each fixed client $i$, its mean weight is
\begin{small}
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\;\times\;\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S: \, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}.
\]
\end{small}
Hence
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n
\biggl(
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i\in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\biggr)^2.
\]
%Since
%\[
%\mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
%\;=\;
%\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2,
%\]
And we have
\[
\Sigma= \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2.
\]
Combining these pieces yields the claimed formula.
\end{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th3}}) \\
Since exactly $m$m clients are selected in each round, each subset $S$S of size $m$m occurs with probability $\tfrac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}$\tfrac{1}1{\binom{n}{m}}\binom{n}n{m}m. By definition, for $i \in S$i \in S we have $\omega_i = \tfrac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}$\omega_i = \tfrac{d_i}d_i{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\sum_{j \in S}j \in S d_j and for $i \notin S$i \notin S, $\omega_i = 0$\omega_i = 0. Observe that
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2 \;=\;
\sum_{i \in S}
\biggl(\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\biggr)^2,
\]
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \omega_i^2 \;=\;
\sum_{i \in S}i \in S
\biggl(\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}\biggr)^2,
Therefore,
\[
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2\Bigr]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}} \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}}
\;\sum_{i \in S}
\frac{d_i^2}{\Bigl(\sum_{j\in S}d_j\Bigr)^2}.
\]
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \omega_i^2\Bigr]
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}} \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}}\substack{S\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m}S\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}\\|S|=m
\;\sum_{i \in S}i \in S
\frac{d_i^2}{\Bigl(\sum_{j\in S}d_j\Bigr)^2}.
Next, for each fixed client $i$i, its mean weight is
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\;\times\;\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S: \, i \in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}.
\]
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i \in S}}\substack{S:\, i \in S}S:\, i \in S
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\;\times\;\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S: \, i \in S}}\substack{S: \, i \in S}S: \, i \in S
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}.
Hence
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n
\biggl(
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i\in S}}
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\biggr)^2.
\]
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n
\biggl(
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{m}}
\sum_{\substack{S:\, i\in S}}\substack{S:\, i\in S}S:\, i\in S
\frac{d_i}{\sum_{j \in S} d_j}
\biggr)^2.
And we have
\[
\Sigma= \sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2.
\]
\Sigma= \sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;-\;
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\bigr)^2.
Combining these pieces yields the claimed formula.
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th4}})
We begin by defining the random variable \(X_i\), which represents the number of times client \(i\) is selected out of the \(k\) draws. Since the selection is performed with replacement, \(X_i\) follows a binomial distribution with parameters \(m\) and \(q_i\). Specifically, \(X_i\) is given by:
$$
\mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r},
$$
where \(r \in \{0, 1, \dots, m\}\).
The weight \(\omega_i\) for client \(i\) is defined as \(\omega_i = \frac{r}{m}\) if client \(i\) is selected \(r\) times, and \(\omega_i = 0\) if client \(i\) is not selected. The expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\) is given by:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{r=0}^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \frac{r}{m}.
$$
Substituting the probability mass function of \(X_i\), we have:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{r=0}^m r \cdot \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}.
$$
This expression can be simplified by recognizing that the sum represents the expected value of a binomial distribution:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i] = \sum_{r=0}^m r \cdot \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = mq_i.
$$
Thus, the expected weight for client \(i\) simplifies to:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{mq_i}{m} = q_i.
$$
Next, we calculate the expected square of the weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\):
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{r=0}^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \left(\frac{r}{m}\right)^2.
$$
Substituting the probability mass function of \(X_i\), we obtain:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{r=0}^m r^2 \cdot \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}.
$$
This sum corresponds to the second moment of the binomial distribution. The second moment \(\mathbb{E}[X_i^2]\) is given by:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = \text{Var}(X_i) + \left(\mathbb{E}[X_i]\right)^2,
$$
where the variance of \(X_i\) is \(\text{Var}(X_i) = mq_i(1 - q_i)\). Therefore:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = mq_i(1 - q_i) + (mq_i)^2.
$$
Substituting this into the expression for \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\), we have:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m} + q_i^2.
$$
The variance of the weight \(\omega_i\) is then given by:
\begin{align}
\text{Var}[\omega_i] &= \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2 \\ &= \left(\frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m} + q_i^2\right) - q_i^2 = \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
\end{align}
Therefore, we can calculate $\Sigma$ as:
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
$$
\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th4}})
We begin by defining the random variable \(X_i\), which represents the number of times client \(i\) is selected out of the \(k\) draws. Since the selection is performed with replacement, \(X_i\) follows a binomial distribution with parameters \(m\) and \(q_i\). Specifically, \(X_i\) is given by:
$$
\mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r},
$$
where \(r \in \{0, 1, \dots, m\}\).
The weight \(\omega_i\) for client \(i\) is defined as \(\omega_i = \frac{r}{m}\) if client \(i\) is selected \(r\) times, and \(\omega_i = 0\) if client \(i\) is not selected. The expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\) is given by:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{r=0}^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \frac{r}{m}.
$$
Substituting the probability mass function of \(X_i\), we have:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{r=0}^m r \cdot \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}.
$$
This expression can be simplified by recognizing that the sum represents the expected value of a binomial distribution:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i] = \sum_{r=0}^m r \cdot \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = mq_i.
$$
Thus, the expected weight for client \(i\) simplifies to:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{mq_i}{m} = q_i.
$$
Next, we calculate the expected square of the weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\):
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{r=0}^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \left(\frac{r}{m}\right)^2.
$$
Substituting the probability mass function of \(X_i\), we obtain:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{r=0}^m r^2 \cdot \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}.
$$
This sum corresponds to the second moment of the binomial distribution. The second moment \(\mathbb{E}[X_i^2]\) is given by:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = \text{Var}(X_i) + \left(\mathbb{E}[X_i]\right)^2,
$$
where the variance of \(X_i\) is \(\text{Var}(X_i) = mq_i(1 - q_i)\). Therefore:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = mq_i(1 - q_i) + (mq_i)^2.
$$
Substituting this into the expression for \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\), we have:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m} + q_i^2.
$$
The variance of the weight \(\omega_i\) is then given by:
\begin{align}
\text{Var}[\omega_i] &= \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2 \\ &= \left(\frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m} + q_i^2\right) - q_i^2 = \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
\end{align}
Therefore, we can calculate $\Sigma$ as:
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
$$
\end{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th4}})
We begin by defining the random variable \(X_i\)X_i, which represents the number of times client \(i\)i is selected out of the \(k\)k draws. Since the selection is performed with replacement, \(X_i\)X_i follows a binomial distribution with parameters \(m\)m and \(q_i\)q_i. Specifically, \(X_i\)X_i is given by:
$$
\mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r},
$$
\mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = \binom{m}m{r}r q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}m-r,
where \(r \in \{0, 1, \dots, m\}\)r \in \{0, 1, \dots, m\}.
The weight \(\omega_i\)\omega_i for client \(i\)i is defined as \(\omega_i = \frac{r}{m}\)\omega_i = \frac{r}{m} if client \(i\)i is selected \(r\)r times, and \(\omega_i = 0\)\omega_i = 0 if client \(i\)i is not selected. The expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] is given by:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{r=0}^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \frac{r}{m}.
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{r=0}r=0^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \frac{r}{m}.
Substituting the probability mass function of \(X_i\)X_i, we have:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{r=0}^m r \cdot \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}.
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{r=0}r=0^m r \cdot \binom{m}m{r}r q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}m-r.
This expression can be simplified by recognizing that the sum represents the expected value of a binomial distribution:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i] = \sum_{r=0}^m r \cdot \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = mq_i.
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i] = \sum_{r=0}r=0^m r \cdot \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) = mq_i.
Thus, the expected weight for client \(i\)i simplifies to:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{mq_i}{m} = q_i.
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \frac{mq_i}{m} = q_i.
Next, we calculate the expected square of the weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{r=0}^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \left(\frac{r}{m}\right)^2.
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{r=0}r=0^m \mathbb{P}(X_i = r) \cdot \left(\frac{r}{m}\right)^2.
Substituting the probability mass function of \(X_i\)X_i, we obtain:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{r=0}^m r^2 \cdot \binom{m}{r} q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}.
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{r=0}r=0^m r^2 \cdot \binom{m}m{r}r q_i^r (1 - q_i)^{m-r}m-r.
This sum corresponds to the second moment of the binomial distribution. The second moment \(\mathbb{E}[X_i^2]\)\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] is given by:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = \text{Var}(X_i) + \left(\mathbb{E}[X_i]\right)^2,
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = \text{Var}(X_i) + \left(\mathbb{E}[X_i]\right)^2,
where the variance of \(X_i\)X_i is \(\text{Var}(X_i) = mq_i(1 - q_i)\)\text{Var}(X_i) = mq_i(1 - q_i). Therefore:
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = mq_i(1 - q_i) + (mq_i)^2.
$$
\mathbb{E}[X_i^2] = mq_i(1 - q_i) + (mq_i)^2.
Substituting this into the expression for \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2], we have:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m} + q_i^2.
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m} + q_i^2.
The variance of the weight \(\omega_i\)\omega_i is then given by:
\text{Var}[\omega_i] &= \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2 \\ &= \left(\frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m} + q_i^2\right) - q_i^2 = \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
Therefore, we can calculate $\Sigma$\Sigma as:
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
$$
\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i]= \sum_{i=1}i=1^n \frac{q_i(1 - q_i)}{m}.
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th5}})
Assume each client's age follows a Markov chain with a unique stationary distribution
$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}\bigr)$, so that the \emph{marginal} probability that a client is selected in steady state is
\[
p_{\mathrm{avg}} \;=\; \sum_{a=0}^{m'} \pi_a\,p_a.
\]
We only consider these steady-state rounds. When different clients' selections are independent, the random variable $\lvert S\rvert$ follows a $\mathrm{Binomial}$ $\!\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)$ distribution, and assuming also $|S|>0$ using forced selection of a random client in the event no client is selected.
By definition,
\[
\omega_i \;=\;
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{|S|}, & \text{if } i\in S,\\
0, & \text{if } i\notin S.
\end{cases}
\]
Thus, whenever $|S|\ge1$, we have $\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i \;=\; 1.$
Hence,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i\Bigr]
\;=\; 1,
\]
which implies
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{1}{n}\quad\text{for each } i.
\]
%(Indeed, your expression
%\[
% \mathbb{E}(\omega_i)
% \;=\;
% \sum_{s=1}^{n}
% \frac{1}{s}
% \,\binom{n-1}{s-1}
% (p_{\mathrm{avg}})^{s}
% (1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}})^{n-s}
%\]
%also sums to $1/n$ when multiplied by $n$.)
\medskip
Next, we compute the second moments. Note that if $|S|\ge1$,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i \in S} \frac{1}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{|S|}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{|S|}.
\]
Therefore,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr].
\]
By symmetry, $\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]$ is the same for all $i$, so
\[
n\,\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr].
\]
Then the variance of each $\omega_i$ is
\[
\mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{n}\,\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;
\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2.
\]
Summing over $i=1,\dots,n$ yields
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n
\Bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2\Bigr)
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
\]
Finally, since $|S| \sim \mathrm{Binomial}\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)$ under the Markov-by-age policy and conditional independence, we have
\[
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}^{n}
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}})^s
\,\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}.
\]
Thus,
\[
\Sigma
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;\frac{1}{n}
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}^n
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}})^s
\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th5}})
Assume each client's age follows a Markov chain with a unique stationary distribution
$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}\bigr)$, so that the \emph{marginal} probability that a client is selected in steady state is
\[
p_{\mathrm{avg}} \;=\; \sum_{a=0}^{m'} \pi_a\,p_a.
\]
We only consider these steady-state rounds. When different clients' selections are independent, the random variable $\lvert S\rvert$ follows a $\mathrm{Binomial}$ $\!\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)$ distribution, and assuming also $|S|>0$ using forced selection of a random client in the event no client is selected.
By definition,
\[
\omega_i \;=\;
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{|S|}, & \text{if } i\in S,\\
0, & \text{if } i\notin S.
\end{cases}
\]
Thus, whenever $|S|\ge1$, we have $\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i \;=\; 1.$
Hence,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i\Bigr]
\;=\; 1,
\]
which implies
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{1}{n}\quad\text{for each } i.
\]
%(Indeed, your expression
%\[
% \mathbb{E}(\omega_i)
% \;=\;
% \sum_{s=1}^{n}
% \frac{1}{s}
% \,\binom{n-1}{s-1}
% (p_{\mathrm{avg}})^{s}
% (1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}})^{n-s}
%\]
%also sums to $1/n$ when multiplied by $n$.)
\medskip
Next, we compute the second moments. Note that if $|S|\ge1$,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i \in S} \frac{1}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{|S|}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{|S|}.
\]
Therefore,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr].
\]
By symmetry, $\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]$ is the same for all $i$, so
\[
n\,\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr].
\]
Then the variance of each $\omega_i$ is
\[
\mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{n}\,\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;
\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2.
\]
Summing over $i=1,\dots,n$ yields
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n
\Bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2\Bigr)
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
\]
Finally, since $|S| \sim \mathrm{Binomial}\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)$ under the Markov-by-age policy and conditional independence, we have
\[
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}^{n}
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}})^s
\,\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}.
\]
Thus,
\[
\Sigma
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;\frac{1}{n}
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}^n
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}})^s
\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th5}})
Assume each client's age follows a Markov chain with a unique stationary distribution
$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}\bigr)$\bigl(\pi_0,\pi_1,\dots,\pi_{m'}m'\bigr), so that the \emph{marginal} probability that a client is selected in steady state is
\[
p_{\mathrm{avg}} \;=\; \sum_{a=0}^{m'} \pi_a\,p_a.
\]
p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg} \;=\; \sum_{a=0}a=0^{m'}m' \pi_a\,p_a.
We only consider these steady-state rounds. When different clients' selections are independent, the random variable $\lvert S\rvert$\lvert S\rvert follows a $\mathrm{Binomial}$\mathrm{Binomial} $\!\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)$\!\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg}\bigr) distribution, and assuming also $|S|>0$|S|>0 using forced selection of a random client in the event no client is selected.
By definition,
\[
\omega_i \;=\;
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{|S|}, & \text{if } i\in S,\\
0, & \text{if } i\notin S.
\end{cases}
\]
\omega_i \;=\;
\dfrac{1}1{|S|}|S|, & \text{if } i\in S,\\
0, & \text{if } i\notin S.
Thus, whenever $|S|\ge1$|S|\ge1, we have $\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i \;=\; 1.$\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \omega_i \;=\; 1.
Hence,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i\Bigr]
\;=\; 1,
\]
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \omega_i\Bigr]
\;=\; 1,
which implies
\[
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{1}{n}\quad\text{for each } i.
\]
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] \;=\; \frac{1}{n}\quad\text{for each } i.
\medskip
Next, we compute the second moments. Note that if $|S|\ge1$|S|\ge1,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \omega_i^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i \in S} \frac{1}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{|S|}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{|S|}.
\]
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \omega_i^2
\;=\;
\sum_{i \in S}i \in S \frac{1}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{|S|}{|S|^2}
\;=\;
\frac{1}{|S|}.
Therefore,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr].
\]
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}1{|S|}|S|\Bigr].
By symmetry, $\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]$\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] is the same for all $i$i, so
\[
n\,\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr].
\]
n\,\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}1{|S|}|S|\Bigr].
Then the variance of each $\omega_i$\omega_i is
\[
\mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{n}\,\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;
\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2.
\]
\mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2
\;=\;
\frac{1}{n}\,\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}1{|S|}|S|\Bigr]
\;-\;
\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2.
Summing over $i=1,\dots,n$i=1,\dots,n yields
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}^n
\Bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2\Bigr)
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
\]
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n \mathrm{Var}[\omega_i]
\;=\;
\sum_{i=1}i=1^n
\Bigl(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] \;-\; (\mathbb{E}[\omega_i])^2\Bigr)
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}1{|S|}|S|\Bigr]
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
Finally, since $|S| \sim \mathrm{Binomial}\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)$|S| \sim \mathrm{Binomial}\bigl(n,p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg}\bigr) under the Markov-by-age policy and conditional independence, we have
\[
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}^{n}
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}})^s
\,\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}.
\]
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}1{|S|}|S|\Bigr]
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}s=1^{n}n
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}n{s}s
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg})^s
\,\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg}\bigr)^{n-s}n-s.
Thus,
\[
\Sigma
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}{|S|}\Bigr]
\;-\;\frac{1}{n}
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}^n
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}{s}
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}})^s
\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\bigr)^{n-s}
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
\]
\Sigma
\;=\;
\mathbb{E}\!\Bigl[\tfrac{1}1{|S|}|S|\Bigr]
\;-\;\frac{1}{n}
\;=\;
\sum_{s=1}s=1^n
\frac{1}{s}
\,\binom{n}n{s}s
\,(p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg})^s
\bigl(1 - p_{\mathrm{avg}}\mathrm{avg}\bigr)^{n-s}n-s
\;-\;
\frac{1}{n}.
This completes the proof.
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th5}})
We begin by considering a system with \(n\) clients, where the number of clients at age \(a\) is considered \(n \pi_a\) at the steady state. This assumption simplifies the analysis. Each client at age \(a\) is selected with probability \(p_a\). Consequently, the number of selected clients \(|S_a|\) from the group of clients at age \(a\) follows a binomial distribution:
$$
|S_a| \sim \text{Binomial}(n \pi_a, p_a)
$$
where \(|S_a|\) represents the number of clients selected from the group at age \(a\).
The total number of selected clients \(|S|\) is the sum over all age groups:
$$
|S| = \sum_{a=0}^m |S_a|
$$
where each \(|S_a|\) is independently distributed according to the binomial distribution. The probability mass function for \(|S| = s\) is then given by the convolution of the binomial distributions for each age group as:
$$
\sum_{\{s_a\} : \sum_{a=0}^m s_a = s} \prod_{a=0}^m \binom{n \pi_a}{s_a} p_a^{s_a} (1 - p_a)^{n \pi_a - s_a}.
$$
Given that the weight \(\omega_i\) assigned to each selected client is uniformly distributed among the selected clients, the expected weight should account for the probability that the client \(i\) is actually selected in the set \(S\). For large enough $n$, the expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\) is then approximately given by .
:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{P}(i \in S) \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]
$$
\(\mathbb{P}(i \in S)\) is the probability that the client \(i\) is selected. This probability must consider that the client could be at any age \(a\) from 0 to \(m\). Thus, we sum over all possible ages, weighted by the steady-state probability \(\pi_a\) and the selection probability \(p_a\):
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S) = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a
$$
Therefore, the expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\) becomes:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
$$
Similarly, the expected square of the weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\) should also include this probability:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
$$
The variance of the weight \(\text{Var}[\omega_i]\) is then given by:
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2
$$
Substituting the expressions for \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\) and \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\), we have:
\begin{align}
&\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s) \\&- \left(\sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\right)^2
\end{align}
Finally, the sum of the variances of the clients $\Sigma$ is given by:
\begin{align}
&\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\\& - n\left(\sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\right)^2.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{proof} (\textbf{Theorem \ref{th5}})
We begin by considering a system with \(n\) clients, where the number of clients at age \(a\) is considered \(n \pi_a\) at the steady state. This assumption simplifies the analysis. Each client at age \(a\) is selected with probability \(p_a\). Consequently, the number of selected clients \(|S_a|\) from the group of clients at age \(a\) follows a binomial distribution:
$$
|S_a| \sim \text{Binomial}(n \pi_a, p_a)
$$
where \(|S_a|\) represents the number of clients selected from the group at age \(a\).
The total number of selected clients \(|S|\) is the sum over all age groups:
$$
|S| = \sum_{a=0}^m |S_a|
$$
where each \(|S_a|\) is independently distributed according to the binomial distribution. The probability mass function for \(|S| = s\) is then given by the convolution of the binomial distributions for each age group as:
$$
\sum_{\{s_a\} : \sum_{a=0}^m s_a = s} \prod_{a=0}^m \binom{n \pi_a}{s_a} p_a^{s_a} (1 - p_a)^{n \pi_a - s_a}.
$$
Given that the weight \(\omega_i\) assigned to each selected client is uniformly distributed among the selected clients, the expected weight should account for the probability that the client \(i\) is actually selected in the set \(S\). For large enough $n$, the expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\) is then approximately given by .
:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{P}(i \in S) \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]
$$
\(\mathbb{P}(i \in S)\) is the probability that the client \(i\) is selected. This probability must consider that the client could be at any age \(a\) from 0 to \(m\). Thus, we sum over all possible ages, weighted by the steady-state probability \(\pi_a\) and the selection probability \(p_a\):
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S) = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a
$$
Therefore, the expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\) becomes:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
$$
Similarly, the expected square of the weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\) should also include this probability:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
$$
The variance of the weight \(\text{Var}[\omega_i]\) is then given by:
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2
$$
Substituting the expressions for \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\) and \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\), we have:
\begin{align}
&\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s) \\&- \left(\sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\right)^2
\end{align}
Finally, the sum of the variances of the clients $\Sigma$ is given by:
\begin{align}
&\sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\\& - n\left(\sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\right)^2.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
(\textbf{Theorem \ref{th5}})
We begin by considering a system with \(n\)n clients, where the number of clients at age \(a\)a is considered \(n \pi_a\)n \pi_a at the steady state. This assumption simplifies the analysis. Each client at age \(a\)a is selected with probability \(p_a\)p_a. Consequently, the number of selected clients \(|S_a|\)|S_a| from the group of clients at age \(a\)a follows a binomial distribution:
$$
|S_a| \sim \text{Binomial}(n \pi_a, p_a)
$$
|S_a| \sim \text{Binomial}(n \pi_a, p_a)
where \(|S_a|\)|S_a| represents the number of clients selected from the group at age \(a\)a.
The total number of selected clients \(|S|\)|S| is the sum over all age groups:
$$
|S| = \sum_{a=0}^m |S_a|
$$
|S| = \sum_{a=0}a=0^m |S_a|
where each \(|S_a|\)|S_a| is independently distributed according to the binomial distribution. The probability mass function for \(|S| = s\)|S| = s is then given by the convolution of the binomial distributions for each age group as:
$$
\sum_{\{s_a\} : \sum_{a=0}^m s_a = s} \prod_{a=0}^m \binom{n \pi_a}{s_a} p_a^{s_a} (1 - p_a)^{n \pi_a - s_a}.
$$
\sum_{\{s_a\} : \sum_{a=0}^m s_a = s}\{s_a\} : \sum_{a=0}a=0^m s_a = s \prod_{a=0}a=0^m \binom{n \pi_a}n \pi_a{s_a}s_a p_a^{s_a}s_a (1 - p_a)^{n \pi_a - s_a}n \pi_a - s_a.
Given that the weight \(\omega_i\)\omega_i assigned to each selected client is uniformly distributed among the selected clients, the expected weight should account for the probability that the client \(i\)i is actually selected in the set \(S\)S. For large enough $n$n, the expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] is then approximately given by .
:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{P}(i \in S) \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{P}(i \in S) \cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{|S|}\right]
\(\mathbb{P}(i \in S)\)\mathbb{P}(i \in S) is the probability that the client \(i\)i is selected. This probability must consider that the client could be at any age \(a\)a from 0 to \(m\)m. Thus, we sum over all possible ages, weighted by the steady-state probability \(\pi_a\)\pi_a and the selection probability \(p_a\)p_a:
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S) = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a
$$
\mathbb{P}(i \in S) = \sum_{a=0}a=0^{m}m \pi_a \cdot p_a
Therefore, the expected weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] becomes:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i] = \sum_{a=0}a=0^{m}m \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}s=1^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
Similarly, the expected square of the weight \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] should also include this probability:
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{a=0}^{m} \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
$$
\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] = \sum_{a=0}a=0^{m}m \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}s=1^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)
The variance of the weight \(\text{Var}[\omega_i]\)\text{Var}[\omega_i] is then given by:
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2
$$
\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] - \left(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\right)^2
Substituting the expressions for \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i^2] and \(\mathbb{E}[\omega_i]\)\mathbb{E}[\omega_i], we have:
&\text{Var}[\omega_i] = \sum_{a=0}a=0^{m}m \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}s=1^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s) \\&- \left(\sum_{a=0}a=0^{m}m \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}s=1^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\right)^2
Finally, the sum of the variances of the clients $\Sigma$\Sigma is given by:
&\sum_{i=1}i=1^{n}n \text{Var}[\omega_i] = n \sum_{a=0}a=0^{m}m \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}s=1^n \frac{1}{s^2} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\\& - n\left(\sum_{a=0}a=0^{m}m \pi_a \cdot p_a \cdot \sum_{s=1}s=1^n \frac{1}{s} \cdot \mathbb{P}(|S| = s)\right)^2.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Optimization of Transition Probabilities in a Markov Chain}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input:} Number of states $n$, target ratio $k/n$
\State \textbf{Output:} Optimized transition probabilities $\{p_i^*\}$, minimized variance $Var(X)^*$
\State \textbf{Initialize:} Initial guess for $\{p_i^{(0)}\}$ ensuring $0 < p_i < 1$
\State \textbf{Define} $\mathbb{E}[X]= 1+ \sum_{i=0}^{m-2} \prod_{j=0}^{i} (1-p_j) + \frac{1}{p_m} \prod_{i=0}^{m-1}(1-p_i)$, and $Var(X)=...$
\State \textbf{Optimization:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Employ Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) optimization algorithm
\item Implement a nonlinear constraint for $\pi_0 = \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}_0} = \frac{k}{n}$
\end{itemize}
\State Iterate the optimization process until convergence
\State Extract optimized transition probabilities $\{p_i^*\}$ and calculate $Var(X)^*$
\State \textbf{Return} $\{p_i^*\}$, $Var(X)^*$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Optimization of Transition Probabilities in a Markov Chain}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input:} Number of states $n$, target ratio $k/n$
\State \textbf{Output:} Optimized transition probabilities $\{p_i^*\}$, minimized variance $Var(X)^*$
\State \textbf{Initialize:} Initial guess for $\{p_i^{(0)}\}$ ensuring $0 < p_i < 1$
\State \textbf{Define} $\mathbb{E}[X]= 1+ \sum_{i=0}^{m-2} \prod_{j=0}^{i} (1-p_j) + \frac{1}{p_m} \prod_{i=0}^{m-1}(1-p_i)$, and $Var(X)=...$
\State \textbf{Optimization:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Employ Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) optimization algorithm
\item Implement a nonlinear constraint for $\pi_0 = \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}_0} = \frac{k}{n}$
\end{itemize}
\State Iterate the optimization process until convergence
\State Extract optimized transition probabilities $\{p_i^*\}$ and calculate $Var(X)^*$
\State \textbf{Return} $\{p_i^*\}$, $Var(X)^*$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\caption{Optimization of Transition Probabilities in a Markov Chain}
[1]
\State \textbf{Input:} Number of states $n$n, target ratio $k/n$k/n
\State \textbf{Output:} Optimized transition probabilities $\{p_i^*\}$\{p_i^*\}, minimized variance $Var(X)^*$Var(X)^*
\State \textbf{Initialize:} Initial guess for $\{p_i^{(0)}\}$\{p_i^{(0)}(0)\} ensuring $0 < p_i < 1$0 < p_i < 1
\State \textbf{Define} $\mathbb{E}[X]= 1+ \sum_{i=0}^{m-2} \prod_{j=0}^{i} (1-p_j) + \frac{1}{p_m} \prod_{i=0}^{m-1}(1-p_i)$\mathbb{E}[X]= 1+ \sum_{i=0}i=0^{m-2}m-2 \prod_{j=0}j=0^{i}i (1-p_j) + \frac{1}{p_m} \prod_{i=0}i=0^{m-1}m-1(1-p_i), and $Var(X)=...$Var(X)=...
\State \textbf{Optimization:}
\item Employ Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) optimization algorithm
\item Implement a nonlinear constraint for $\pi_0 = \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}_0} = \frac{k}{n}$\pi_0 = \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}_0} = \frac{k}{n}
\State Iterate the optimization process until convergence
\State Extract optimized transition probabilities $\{p_i^*\}$\{p_i^*\} and calculate $Var(X)^*$Var(X)^*
\State \textbf{Return} $\{p_i^*\}$\{p_i^*\}, $Var(X)^*$Var(X)^*
\printbibliography
|
Conclusions
| false
|
2505.05099
| 8
|
76,409
|
\label{sec:intro}
\par \Ac{mg}mg methods are powerful tools for enhancing the computational efficiency of numerical methods. They work by solving the problem at multiple levels of resolution, smoothing out high-frequency errors on coarser grids and then refining the solution on finer grids \cite{Briggs2000,trottenberg2000multigrid}. Originally developed for elliptic equations, \ac{mg}mg methods have been widely adopted to solve a variety of problems due to their optimal computational efficiency, which scales linearly with the number of computational nodes for sparse matrices, outperforming many other numerical solvers. A comprehensive survey of robust \ac{mg}mg methods for solving second-order elliptic \acp{pde}pde can be found in \cite{Chan2000}.
\par
While \ac{mg}mg methods are highly efficient for rectilinear domains, their optimal performance is not always guaranteed for more complex geometries. With the growing interest in solving PDEs on arbitrary domains, \ac{mg}mg techniques for irregularly shaped domains have attracted increasing attention. In such cases, boundary effects can significantly reduce \ac{mg}mg efficiency~\cite{Brandt1984, Coco2023}.
Modeling complex-shaped domains is commonly done using fitted-boundary methods, with the \acp{fem}fem~\cite{shaidurov2013multigrid, dePrenter2019} being the most widely adopted approach. The popularity of \acp{fem}fem relies on the use of isoparametric elements, which allow for flexible and precise domain discretization. However, \acp{fem}fem present significant difficulties when dealing with highly intricate geometries: (i) generating meshes that conform to irregular boundary curvatures can be cumbersome, and (ii) implementing parallel solvers requires considerable effort to partition the mesh efficiently for balanced computational workload distribution.
To overcome these challenges, unfitted-boundary methods have gained popularity in recent years.
In the context of \acp{fdm}fdm and level-set approaches~\cite{gibou2018review},
unfitted-boundary methods are particularly advantageous in \ac{hpc}hpc environments, as they naturally facilitate the design of parallel solvers and eliminate the need for mesh generation by embedding the domain within a fixed grid.
The typical approach of \acp{fdm}fdm for curved domains is the Ghost-Point method~\cite{Peskin:IBM, LeVequeLi:IIM, Fedkiw:GFM, Gibou:Ghost, Gibou:fourth_order}.
\par \ac{mg}mg methods have been successfully applied to Ghost-Point \acp{fdm}fdm on arbitrary domains for a range of problems. These include elliptic problems \cite{COCO2013464, Coco2023}, elliptic interface problems \cite{COCO2018299}, the Navier-Stokes equation \cite{COCO2020109623}, multi-scale modeling of sorption kinetics of a surfactant past an oscillating bubble \cite{ASTUTO2023111880}, and higher-order problems \cite{CocoHighOrder}. The stability analysis for the finite difference approximation of elliptic problems has also been explored in \cite{CocoStissi2023}. However, \acp{fdm}fdm often have limitations, particularly when dealing with complex geometries and irregular domains,
since a stability and convergence analysis is cumbersome~\cite{COCO2013464}.
\par In contrast, unfitted \acp{fem}fem utilize simple background meshes, such as Cartesian meshes, eliminating the need for a mesh that conforms to the geometry. This makes them a promising alternative to finite differences. However, they are prone to ill-conditioning when the intersection between a background cell and the domain is small \cite{dePrenter2017}. Several techniques have been proposed to mitigate this issue, including cell-aggregation methods \cite{Kummer2016,Badia2018}, the addition of stabilization terms on the boundary \cite{Burman2014}, and the use of a snapping-back-to-grid mechanism \cite{Astuto2024Ghost}. The ghost-\ac{fem}fem is a second-order accurate method that leverages a snapping-back-to-grid algorithm to address ill-conditioning problems \cite{Astuto2024Ghost}.
\par The existing literature on \ac{mg}mg methods for unfitted \ac{fe}fe approximations is sparse. \ac{mg}mg methods for the numerical approximation of elliptic interface problems have been explored using \ac{xfem}xfem in \cite{Kothari2021} and using Cut-\ac{fem}fem in \cite{Ludescher2020}. Additionally, a \ac{gmg}gmg preconditioner for higher-order immersed \acp{fem}fem has been introduced in \cite{dePrenter2019}. This technique has a linear computational cost and is robust to cut elements. To the best of our knowledge, no \ac{mg}mg methods have been developed for the ghost \ac{fe}fe framework. In this approach, Dirichlet boundary conditions are enforced weakly using Nitsche's method. A crucial aspect of this formulation is the choice of the stabilization parameter, which ensures the well-posedness of the problem. However, this parameter also significantly affects the conditioning of the \ac{mg}mg solver \cite{Saberi2023}. Thus, selecting an optimal stabilization parameter is essential for maintaining the well-posedness of the discrete formulation and achieving optimal \ac{mg}mg convergence.
\par The key contributions of this work are: (i) introducing \ac{mg}mg methods for the ghost-\ac{fem}fem, (ii) providing algebraic expressions for the stabilization parameter based on the configuration of the cut cell, and (iii) presenting an alternative approach to improve \ac{mg}mg efficiency with lower computational cost.
\par The outline of this paper is as follows. In \cref{sec:ghost_fem}, we briefly explain the nodal ghost-\ac{fem}fem for approximating elliptic \acp{pde}pde. We describe the 1D two-grid correction scheme in \cref{sec:2_grid_scheme_1D}, followed by the V-cycle and W-cycle methods in \cref{sec:1D_v_w_cycle}. The \ac{mg}mg methods for one-dimensional problems are discussed in \cref{sec:1D_mg}, where we first present the smoother in \cref{sec:1D_smoother}, followed by the transfer operators in \cref{sec:1D_transfer_op} and coarse grid operators in \cref{sec:1D_coarse_op}. The selection of the stabilization parameter is detailed in \cref{sec:optimal_par_1D}, and numerical simulations for one-dimensional problems are provided in \cref{sec:1D_tests}. Next, we extend our discussion to the two-dimensional setting in \cref{sec:2D_mg}. We describe the transfer operators for the two-grid correction scheme in \cref{sec:2D_transfer_op}, and discuss the choice of the stabilization parameter in \cref{sec:2D_optimal_lambda}. Numerical tests for two-dimensional problems are presented in \cref{sec:2D_tests}. Finally, we summarize our findings in \cref{sec:conclusions}.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2505.05105
| 1
|
76,410
|
\label{sec:ghost_fem}
\par Let us consider the Poisson equation with mixed boundary conditions as the model problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:poisson_model_prob}
-\boldsymbol{\Delta }u = f \text{~ in ~}\Omega, \quad u = g_D \text{~ on ~} \Gamma_D, \text{~ and } \quad \boldsymbol{n}\cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}u = g_N \text{~ on ~} \Gamma_N.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eq:poisson_model_prob}
-\boldsymbol{\Delta }u = f \text{~ in ~}\Omega, \quad u = g_D \text{~ on ~} \Gamma_D, \text{~ and } \quad \boldsymbol{n}\cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}u = g_N \text{~ on ~} \Gamma_N.
\end{equation}\label{eq:poisson_model_prob}
-\boldsymbol{\Delta }\Delta u = f \text{~ in ~}\Omega, \quad u = g_D \text{~ on ~} \Gamma_D, \text{~ and } \quad \boldsymbol{n}n\cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nablau = g_N \text{~ on ~} \Gamma_N.
Here, $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d, \text{~with~} d \in \{1,2\}$\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d, \text{~with~} d \in \{1,2\} represents the domain, $\Gamma_D$\Gamma_D and $\Gamma_N$\Gamma_N denote the Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries, respectively, with $\Gamma_D \cup \Gamma_N =\partial \Omega$\Gamma_D \cup \Gamma_N =\partial \Omega and
$\Gamma_D \cap \Gamma_N =\emptyset$\Gamma_D \cap \Gamma_N =\emptyset. The vector $\boldsymbol{n}$\boldsymbol{n}n is the outward unit normal to $\partial \Omega$\partial \Omega. The function $u:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$u:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R} represents the solution, $f \in H^{-1}(\Omega)$f \in H^{-1}-1(\Omega) is the source term, $g_D \in H^{1/2}(\Gamma_D)$g_D \in H^{1/2}1/2(\Gamma_D) is the Dirichlet boundary condition, and $g_N \in H^{-1/2}(\Gamma_N)$g_N \in H^{-1/2}-1/2(\Gamma_N) is the Neumann boundary condition.
\par The variational formulation corresponding to \cref{eq:poisson_model_prob} is to seek $u \in H^1(\Omega)$u \in H^1(\Omega) with a trace $g_D \in H^{1/2}(\Gamma_D)$g_D \in H^{1/2}1/2(\Gamma_D) such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:var_formulation}
a(u,v) = l(v) \quad \forall ~v \in H^1(\Omega),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eq:var_formulation}
a(u,v) = l(v) \quad \forall ~v \in H^1(\Omega),
\end{equation}\label{eq:var_formulation}
a(u,v) = l(v) \quad \forall ~v \in H^1(\Omega),
where the bilinear form $a(\cdot,\cdot)$a(\cdot,\cdot) and the linear functional $l(\cdot)$l(\cdot) are defined as
\begin{align}\label{eq:bil_forms}
a(u,v) &\doteq \int_{\Omega} \boldsymbol{\nabla}u \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} - \int_{\Gamma_D} \left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} u \right) v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}, \\
l(v) &\doteq \int_{\Omega} f ~v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{\Gamma_N} g_N ~ v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}.
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:bil_forms}
a(u,v) &\doteq \int_{\Omega} \boldsymbol{\nabla}u \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} - \int_{\Gamma_D} \left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} u \right) v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}, \\
l(v) &\doteq \int_{\Omega} f ~v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{\Gamma_N} g_N ~ v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}.
\end{align}\label{eq:bil_forms}
a(u,v) &\doteq \int_{\Omega}\Omega \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nablau \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nabla v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x}x - \int_{\Gamma_D}\Gamma_D \left(\boldsymbol{n}n \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nabla u \right) v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}S, \\
l(v) &\doteq \int_{\Omega}\Omega f ~v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x}x + \int_{\Gamma_N}\Gamma_N g_N ~ v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}S.
\par Before introducing the discrete approximation to \cref{eq:var_formulation}, we first define some key terms and notations. Let $\Omega_{art}$\Omega_{art}art be a rectilinear domain that can be easily meshed using a Cartesian grid, with $\Omega \subset \Omega_{art}$\Omega \subset \Omega_{art}art. We denote by $\mathcal{T}_h$\mathcal{T}_h a conforming, shape regular and quasi-uniform partition of $\Omega_{art}$\Omega_{art}art, where each cell is represented by $K \in \mathcal{T}_h$K \in \mathcal{T}_h. The size of a cell is given by $h_K \doteq meas(K)$h_K \doteq meas(K), and the overall mesh size of the partition $\mathcal{T}_h$\mathcal{T}_h is defined as $h \doteq \max_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} h_K$h \doteq \max_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h}K \in \mathcal{T}_h h_K. The cells of the background mesh are categorized as follows: A cell $K$K is called an internal cell if $K \subset \Omega$K \subset \Omega. A cell is an external cell if $K \cap \Omega = \emptyset$K \cap \Omega = \emptyset. Otherwise $K$K is called a cut cell. The set of internal, external and cut cells are denoted by $\mathcal{T}_{h,in},\mathcal{T}_{h,ext} $\mathcal{T}_{h,in}h,in,\mathcal{T}_{h,ext}h,ext and $\mathcal{T}_{h,cut}$\mathcal{T}_{h,cut}h,cut, respectively. The internal and cut cells are collectively referred to as active cells, and the corresponding active mesh is defined as $\mathcal{T}_{h,act} \doteq \mathcal{T}_{h,in}\cup \mathcal{T}_{h,cut}$\mathcal{T}_{h,act}h,act \doteq \mathcal{T}_{h,in}h,in\cup \mathcal{T}_{h,cut}h,cut. The active domain is defined as $\Omega_{h,act} = \bigcup_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}} K$\Omega_{h,act}h,act = \bigcup_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}}K\in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}h,act K.
\par Let $\mathcal{V}_{h,act} \subset H^1(\Omega_{h,act})$\mathcal{V}_{h,act}h,act \subset H^1(\Omega_{h,act}h,act) be a nodal Lagrangian \ac{fe}fe space defined on the active domain, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Vhact}
\mathcal{V}_{h,act} \doteq \{v_h \in H^1(\Omega_{h,act}) : v_h|_K \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \text{ for any } K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act} \},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eq:Vhact}
\mathcal{V}_{h,act} \doteq \{v_h \in H^1(\Omega_{h,act}) : v_h|_K \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \text{ for any } K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act} \},
\end{equation}\label{eq:Vhact}
\mathcal{V}_{h,act}h,act \doteq \{v_h \in H^1(\Omega_{h,act}h,act) : v_h|_K \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \text{ for any } K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}h,act \},
where $\mathcal{Q}_1$\mathcal{Q}_1 denotes the space of polynomials of degree atmost one in each spatial coordinate. The discrete approximation of \cref{eq:var_formulation} is to find $u_h \in \mathcal{V}_{h,act}$u_h \in \mathcal{V}_{h,act}h,act such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:disc_formulation}
a_h(u_h,v_h) = l_h(v_h) \quad \forall ~v_h \in \mathcal{V}_{h,act},
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:disc_formulation}
a_h(u_h,v_h) = l_h(v_h) \quad \forall ~v_h \in \mathcal{V}_{h,act},
\end{align}\label{eq:disc_formulation}
a_h(u_h,v_h) = l_h(v_h) \quad \forall ~v_h \in \mathcal{V}_{h,act}h,act,
where
\begin{align}
&a_h(u,v) \doteq \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}} \left( \int_{K \cap \Omega} \boldsymbol{\nabla}u \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{K \cap\Gamma_D} \lambda_K u ~v -\left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} u \right) v -\left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \right) u \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S} \right), \label{eq:disc_bil_form}\\
&l_h(v) \doteq \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}} \left( \int_{K \cap \Omega} f ~v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{K \cap\Gamma_D} \lambda_K g_D ~v -\left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \right) g_D \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S} + \int_{K \cap \Gamma_N} g_N ~ v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S} \right). \label{eq:disc_rhs}
\end{align}\begin{align}
&a_h(u,v) \doteq \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}} \left( \int_{K \cap \Omega} \boldsymbol{\nabla}u \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{K \cap\Gamma_D} \lambda_K u ~v -\left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} u \right) v -\left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \right) u \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S} \right), \label{eq:disc_bil_form}\\
&l_h(v) \doteq \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}} \left( \int_{K \cap \Omega} f ~v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x} + \int_{K \cap\Gamma_D} \lambda_K g_D ~v -\left(\boldsymbol{n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla} v \right) g_D \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S} + \int_{K \cap \Gamma_N} g_N ~ v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S} \right). \label{eq:disc_rhs}
\end{align}
&a_h(u,v) \doteq \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}}K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}h,act \left( \int_{K \cap \Omega}K \cap \Omega \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nablau \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nabla v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x}x + \int_{K \cap\Gamma_D}K \cap\Gamma_D \lambda_K u ~v -\left(\boldsymbol{n}n \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nabla u \right) v -\left(\boldsymbol{n}n \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nabla v \right) u \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}S \right), \label{eq:disc_bil_form}\\
&l_h(v) \doteq \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}}K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,act}h,act \left( \int_{K \cap \Omega}K \cap \Omega f ~v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{x}x + \int_{K \cap\Gamma_D}K \cap\Gamma_D \lambda_K g_D ~v -\left(\boldsymbol{n}n \cdot \boldsymbol{\nabla}\nabla v \right) g_D \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}S + \int_{K \cap \Gamma_N}K \cap \Gamma_N g_N ~ v \mathrm{~d}\boldsymbol{S}S \right). \label{eq:disc_rhs}
Here, the cell-wise stabilization parameter is defined as $\lambda_K = \gamma_K ~ h_K^{-\beta}$\lambda_K = \gamma_K ~ h_K^{-\beta}-\beta, where $\gamma_K \in \mathbb{R}^+$\gamma_K \in \mathbb{R}^+ and $\beta \ge 1$\beta \ge 1. The parameter must be chosen sufficiently large to guarantee the coercivity of the bilinear form $a_h$a_h on $\mathcal{V}_{h,act}$\mathcal{V}_{h,act}h,act \cite{Nitsche1971}.
\par The linear system corresponding to the discrete problem \cref{eq:disc_formulation} becomes severely ill-conditioned in the presence of small cut cells. To mitigate this issue, the ghost-\ac{fem}fem employs a snapping-back-to-grid mechanism \cite{Astuto2024Ghost}. Before describing this mechanism, we introduce the following preliminaries. We assume that the domain $\Omega$\Omega is defined using a level-set. Let $\psi : \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$\psi : \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R} be a function such that $\Omega = \{\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d : \psi(\boldsymbol{x}) < 0\}$\Omega = \{\boldsymbol{x}x \in \mathbb{R}^d : \psi(\boldsymbol{x}x) < 0\}. The boundary of $\Omega$\Omega is given by $\partial \Omega = \{\boldsymbol{x}: \psi(\boldsymbol{x}) = 0\}$\partial \Omega = \{\boldsymbol{x}x: \psi(\boldsymbol{x}x) = 0\}. We choose a snapping threshold as $h^\alpha$h^\alpha, for some $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^{+}+. If a point $\boldsymbol{x} \in \Omega$\boldsymbol{x}x \in \Omega, satisfies $| \psi(\boldsymbol{x}) | < h^\alpha$| \psi(\boldsymbol{x}x) | < h^\alpha, we enforce $\psi(\boldsymbol{x}) = 0$\psi(\boldsymbol{x}x) = 0, effectively snapping it to the closest boundary. Let $\mathcal{T}_{h,snap} \subseteq \mathcal{T}_{h,act}$\mathcal{T}_{h,snap}h,snap \subseteq \mathcal{T}_{h,act}h,act denote the set of active cells after snapping-back-to-grid and the corresponding active domain is $\Omega_{h,snap} \doteq \bigcup_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h,snap}} K$\Omega_{h,snap}h,snap \doteq \bigcup_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h,snap}}K\in \mathcal{T}_{h,snap}h,snap K. The \ac{fe}fe space on $\Omega_{h,snap}$\Omega_{h,snap}h,snap is defined as
\[ \mathcal{V}_{h} = \{v_h \in H^1(\Omega_{h,snap}) : v_h|_K \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \text{ for any } K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,snap} \}.\] \mathcal{V}_{h}h = \{v_h \in H^1(\Omega_{h,snap}h,snap) : v_h|_K \in \mathcal{Q}_1 \text{ for any } K \in \mathcal{T}_{h,snap}h,snap \}.
The linear system corresponding to the discrete approximation \cref{eq:disc_formulation} on $\mathcal{V}_{h}$\mathcal{V}_{h}h is well-conditioned.
\par For elliptic problems, the ghost-\ac{fem}fem is second-order accurate \cite{Astuto2024Ghost}. However, the numerical experiments in \cite{Astuto2024Ghost} use a direct solver, which becomes computationally expensive for large systems. Employing a \ac{mg}mg solver enhances computational efficiency.
|
The ghost finite element method
| false
|
2505.05105
| 2
|
76,411
|
\label{sec:mg_method}
We briefly summarize the main idea behind the \ac{mg}mg method and refer the reader to more detailed sources for an in-depth discussion (see, for example,~\cite{trottenberg2000multigrid}).
We denote by $\Omega_{h}$\Omega_{h}h the set of grid nodes that are associated with $\mathcal{T}_{h}$\mathcal{T}_{h}h, namely the vertices of the cells of $\mathcal{T}_{h}$\mathcal{T}_{h}h.
Let us denote by \( A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h \) A_h \boldsymbol{u}u_h = \boldsymbol{F}F_h the linear system arising from the ghost-\ac{fem}fem of Section~\ref{sec:ghost_fem}.
\subsection{Two-grid correction scheme in 1D} \label{sec:2_grid_scheme_1D}
The process begins by applying a relaxation scheme to the linear system \( A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h \) A_h \boldsymbol{u}u_h = \boldsymbol{F}F_h for a small number of iterations, typically \(\nu_1\)\nu_1, known as \textit{pre-smoothing} steps. This yields an approximate solution, denoted as \(\hat{\vec{u}}_h\)\hat{\vec{u}}_h. A commonly used relaxation method is a Richardson-type iteration:
\begin{equation}\label{RichRel}
\textbf{u}_h^{(m+1)} = \textbf{u}_h^{(m)} + P^{-1} (\textbf{F}_h-A_h \textbf{u}_h^{(m)})
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{RichRel}
\textbf{u}_h^{(m+1)} = \textbf{u}_h^{(m)} + P^{-1} (\textbf{F}_h-A_h \textbf{u}_h^{(m)})
\end{equation}\label{RichRel}
\textbf{u}_h^{(m+1)}(m+1) = \textbf{u}_h^{(m)}(m) + P^{-1}-1 (\textbf{F}_h-A_h \textbf{u}_h^{(m)}(m))
where \( P \) P is a suitable preconditioner matrix and $m$m is the iteration parameter.
Next, the residual \(\vec{r}_h = \vec{F}_h - A_h \hat{\vec{u}}_h\)\vec{r}_h = \vec{F}_h - A_h \hat{\vec{u}}_h is computed on the fine grid \(\Omega_h\)\Omega_h and then transferred to a coarser grid \(\Omega_{H}\)\Omega_{H}H, with $H>h$H>h, using a restriction operator $ \vec{r}_{H} = \mathcal{I}^h_{H} \vec{r}_h$ \vec{r}_{H}H = \mathcal{I}^h_{H}H \vec{r}_h.
On this coarse grid, the residual equation \( A_{H} \vec{e}_{H} = \vec{r}_{H} \) A_{H}H \vec{e}_{H}H = \vec{r}_{H}H is solved exactly, and the computed error correction \(\vec{e}_{H}\)\vec{e}_{H}H is interpolated back to the fine grid using the interpolation operator $\vec{e}_{h} = \mathcal{I}^{H}_{h} \vec{e}_{H}$\vec{e}_{h}h = \mathcal{I}^{H}H_{h}h \vec{e}_{H}H.
The initial approximation is then updated as \( \hat{\vec{u}}_h \coloneqq \hat{\vec{u}}_h + \vec{e}_h \) \hat{\vec{u}}_h \coloneqq \hat{\vec{u}}_h + \vec{e}_h , followed by \(\nu_2\)\nu_2 additional \textit{post-smoothing} iterations of \eqref{RichRel} on the fine grid. This completes one \textit{two-grid iteration (cycle)}, which is repeated until the residual on the fine grid meets a specified tolerance.
This approach is referred to as the {\em \ac{tgcs}}\em \ac{tgcs}tgcs because it involves only two grids: \(\Omega_h\)\Omega_h and \(\Omega_{H}\)\Omega_{H}H.
\par For simplicity, we use uniform Cartesian grids $\Omega_h$\Omega_h and $\Omega_{2h}$\Omega_{2h}2h as the fine and coarse grids (then $H=2h$H=2h). See Fig.~\ref{fig:ghostFem1D} for an illustration of the geometrical quantities associated with $\Omega_h$\Omega_h.
The key steps of one cycle of the \ac{tgcs}tgcs are presented in \cref{alg:2Grid_scheme}. The data transfer operations between the two grids, as well as the matrix on the coarse grid, are explained in detail in \cref{sec:1D_transfer_op,sec:1D_coarse_op}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{One cycle of the \ac{tgcs} (from $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m)}_{h}$ to $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m+1)}_{h}$)}
\label{alg:2Grid_scheme}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Relax $\nu_1$ times $A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h$ on $\Omega_h$ with an initial guess $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m)}_{h}$. Let $\hat{\vec{u}}_h$ be the solution after $\nu_1$ iterations.
\State Compute the residual $\boldsymbol{r}_h \doteq \boldsymbol{F}_h- A_h \hat{\vec{u}}_h$ on $\Omega_h$ and its restriction $\boldsymbol{r}_{2h} \doteq \mathcal{I}^h_{2h} \boldsymbol{r}_{h} $ on $\Omega_{2h}$.
\State Solve $A_{2h} \boldsymbol{e}_{2h} = \boldsymbol{r}_{2h}$ on $\Omega_{2h}$ exactly. \label{alg:state:reseq}
\State Compute the interpolation of the error $\boldsymbol{e}_{h} \doteq \mathcal{I}^{2h}_h \boldsymbol{e}_{2h} $ on $\Omega_h$.
\State The fine grid correction is calculated as $\boldsymbol{u}_h = \hat{\vec{u}}_h + \boldsymbol{e}_{h}$.
\State Relax $\nu_2$ times $A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h$ on $\Omega_h$ with an initial guess $\boldsymbol{u}_{h}$, obtaining $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m+1)}_h$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}\begin{algorithm}
\caption{One cycle of the \ac{tgcs} (from $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m)}_{h}$ to $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m+1)}_{h}$)}
\label{alg:2Grid_scheme}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Relax $\nu_1$ times $A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h$ on $\Omega_h$ with an initial guess $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m)}_{h}$. Let $\hat{\vec{u}}_h$ be the solution after $\nu_1$ iterations.
\State Compute the residual $\boldsymbol{r}_h \doteq \boldsymbol{F}_h- A_h \hat{\vec{u}}_h$ on $\Omega_h$ and its restriction $\boldsymbol{r}_{2h} \doteq \mathcal{I}^h_{2h} \boldsymbol{r}_{h} $ on $\Omega_{2h}$.
\State Solve $A_{2h} \boldsymbol{e}_{2h} = \boldsymbol{r}_{2h}$ on $\Omega_{2h}$ exactly. \label{alg:state:reseq}
\State Compute the interpolation of the error $\boldsymbol{e}_{h} \doteq \mathcal{I}^{2h}_h \boldsymbol{e}_{2h} $ on $\Omega_h$.
\State The fine grid correction is calculated as $\boldsymbol{u}_h = \hat{\vec{u}}_h + \boldsymbol{e}_{h}$.
\State Relax $\nu_2$ times $A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h$ on $\Omega_h$ with an initial guess $\boldsymbol{u}_{h}$, obtaining $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m+1)}_h$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\caption{One cycle of the \ac{tgcs} (from $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m)}_{h}$ to $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m+1)}_{h}$)}
\label{alg:2Grid_scheme}
[1]
\State Relax $\nu_1$\nu_1 times $A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h$A_h \boldsymbol{u}u_h = \boldsymbol{F}F_h on $\Omega_h$\Omega_h with an initial guess $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m)}_{h}$\boldsymbol{u}u^{(m)}(m)_{h}h. Let $\hat{\vec{u}}_h$\hat{\vec{u}}_h be the solution after $\nu_1$\nu_1 iterations.
\State Compute the residual $\boldsymbol{r}_h \doteq \boldsymbol{F}_h- A_h \hat{\vec{u}}_h$\boldsymbol{r}r_h \doteq \boldsymbol{F}F_h- A_h \hat{\vec{u}}_h on $\Omega_h$\Omega_h and its restriction $\boldsymbol{r}_{2h} \doteq \mathcal{I}^h_{2h} \boldsymbol{r}_{h} $\boldsymbol{r}r_{2h}2h \doteq \mathcal{I}^h_{2h}2h \boldsymbol{r}r_{h}h on $\Omega_{2h}$\Omega_{2h}2h.
\State Solve $A_{2h} \boldsymbol{e}_{2h} = \boldsymbol{r}_{2h}$A_{2h}2h \boldsymbol{e}e_{2h}2h = \boldsymbol{r}r_{2h}2h on $\Omega_{2h}$\Omega_{2h}2h exactly. \label{alg:state:reseq}
\State Compute the interpolation of the error $\boldsymbol{e}_{h} \doteq \mathcal{I}^{2h}_h \boldsymbol{e}_{2h} $\boldsymbol{e}e_{h}h \doteq \mathcal{I}^{2h}2h_h \boldsymbol{e}e_{2h}2h on $\Omega_h$\Omega_h.
\State The fine grid correction is calculated as $\boldsymbol{u}_h = \hat{\vec{u}}_h + \boldsymbol{e}_{h}$\boldsymbol{u}u_h = \hat{\vec{u}}_h + \boldsymbol{e}e_{h}h.
\State Relax $\nu_2$\nu_2 times $A_h \boldsymbol{u}_h = \boldsymbol{F}_h$A_h \boldsymbol{u}u_h = \boldsymbol{F}F_h on $\Omega_h$\Omega_h with an initial guess $\boldsymbol{u}_{h}$\boldsymbol{u}u_{h}h, obtaining $\boldsymbol{u}^{(m+1)}_h$\boldsymbol{u}u^{(m+1)}(m+1)_h.
\par After each iteration of the \ac{tgcs}tgcs, the residual is computed by $\boldsymbol{r}^{(m)}_h \doteq \boldsymbol{F}_h- A_h \boldsymbol{u}^{(m)}_h$\boldsymbol{r}r^{(m)}(m)_h \doteq \boldsymbol{F}F_h- A_h \boldsymbol{u}u^{(m)}(m)_h. The performance of the scheme is measured by its convergence factor $\rho^{(m)}$\rho^{(m)}(m), computed as
\[
\rho^{(m)} \doteq
\frac{\| \boldsymbol{r}^{(m)}_h \|}{\| \boldsymbol{r}^{(m-1)}_h \|}
\]
\rho^{(m)}(m) \doteq
\frac{\| \boldsymbol{r}^{(m)}_h \|}{\| \boldsymbol{r}^{(m-1)}_h \|}
where $\|\cdot\|_\infty$\|\cdot\|_\infty represents the $l_\infty$l_\infty-norm.
\subsection{V-cycle and W-cycle}\label{sec:1D_v_w_cycle}
When the coarse-grid equation \( A_{2h} \vec{e}_{2h} = \vec{r}_{2h} \) A_{2h}2h \vec{e}_{2h}2h = \vec{r}_{2h}2h is not solved exactly but rather approximated by applying \ac{tgcs}tgcs on $\Omega_{2h}$\Omega_{2h}2h and $\Omega_{4h}$\Omega_{4h}4h a few times, say \(\gamma^*\)\gamma^*, and so on recursively, the method extends into a \textit{\ac{mg} scheme}. The recursion stops when the grid becomes coarse enough that using an exact solver is computationally inexpensive.
The number of recursive cycles \(\gamma^*\)\gamma^* determines the type of \ac{mg}mg cycle used: {\em V-cycle}\em V-cycle if \(\gamma^* = 1\)\gamma^* = 1, meaning a single recursive application, and {\em W-cycle}\em W-cycle if \(\gamma^* = 2\)\gamma^* = 2, where the process is repeated twice per level.
Higher values of \(\gamma^*\)\gamma^* are rarely used, as they increase computational cost without providing significant efficiency gains~\cite{trottenberg2000multigrid}.
Finally, we note that it is sufficient to compute the convergence factor for the \ac{tgcs}tgcs, as the W-cycle exhibits similar convergence properties under natural assumptions, as detailed in Section 3.2 of~\cite{trottenberg2000multigrid}.
|
Multigrid method
| false
|
2505.05105
| 3
|
95,390
|
\noindent While this study provides valuable insights into the temporal stability and variability of facial biometrics over a three-year period, several avenues for future research remain open.
First, as the study at the \gls{bez}bez continues, the increasing volume of data per subject will enable more precise and statistically robust analyses. With a greater number of repeated measurements across longer time spans and a broader participant base, future evaluations can better capture individual and population-level trends in facial recognition performance. This will allow for more reliable estimations of temporal drift, potential thresholds for re-enrollment, and variations across demographic groups.
Second, extending the long-term analysis to include face images of lower quality, such as live-images obtained from \gls{abc}abc-gates. These images typically suffer from suboptimal lighting, pose variation and compression artifacts. Recognition systems often under-perform with these conditions.
In addition, the infrastructure at the \gls{bez}bez can be leveraged to expand the longitudinal analysis to other biometric modalities, such as fingerprints.
We are currently addressing these challenges through the continued collection of long-term biometric data and ongoing analyses. We believe these efforts will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of biometrics and facilitate the development of robust, ethically sound systems for real-world applications.
\printbibliography
|
Outlook
| false
|
2507.06858
| 7
|
95,392
|
\subsection{Using AI/ML in ADHD support: Trends, diagnosis vs assistive models}
There are many applications to support ADHD which have been built using AI and ML technologies and algorithms. They have been focussed on diagnosis, classification, symptom prediction. For example, studies such as those by Chen et al. (2023) and Maniruzzaman et al. (2022) \cite{chen_deep_2019, maniruzzaman_predicting_nodate} have used deep learning to distinguish ADHD vs non-ADHD individuals using clinical, behavioral or sensor data. These systems are typically built around pathology detection using large labeled datasets in controlled environments.
However, few systems apply AI to everyday support for adult ADHD populations. Some emerging tools like EndeavorRx \cite{noauthor_endeavorrx_nodate} for children or productivity-focused apps like the one quoted by Bhandarkar et al. (2024) \cite{IEEE10910758} offer reminders or nudges, but remain behavior focused and lack real time adaptation. Moreover, these tools rarely account for cognitive state fluctuation, emotional reactivity or individual rhythms. There exist mobile apps that allow ADHD affected students and adults to set their regular routines and assist them manage their schedules via alerts and insights \cite{knouse_usability_2022, kyriakaki_mobile_2023}.
The proposed work addresses this gap by applying lightweight, privacy-first AI not for adaptive support in professional work environments and not diagnosis. The system proposed here responds to moment-by-moment behavioral patterns such as tab usage or inactivity while preserving user autonomy and data privacy.
\subsection{Productivity Tools for Neurodivergent Users – Challenges with One-Size-Fits-All Design}
A wide range of productivity tools such as Trello, Todoist, Notion, Calendars etc are widely adopted in digital workspaces to help users manage tasks, deadlines and goals. While these systems offer powerful scheduling and collaboration capabilities, they often operate on the assumption of sequential planning, sustained attention and consistent executive functioning.
However, for neurodivergent users, especially those with ADHD, such tools can become sources of overwhelm rather than support. Users report “task paralysis”, fatigue and prioritization confusion when interacting with long, static task boards or nested checklist hierarchies \cite{dicks_adhd_2024}. Moreover, conventional productivity apps offer limited adaptability in response to fluctuating cognitive states, resulting in nudges that are ignored or trigger stress. As Perry et al. (2024) note, \cite{perry_ai_2024} the challenge lies in designing systems that account for executive load, emotional regulation and behavioral variability. Few mainstream platforms currently offer neuroinclusive personalization or context-sensitive support.
This paper responds to this gap by proposing a lightweight, adaptive assistant that tailors its interventions based on behavioral context, rather than expecting the user to conform to a fixed workflow model.
\subsection{Co-Design and Human-In-the-Loop in Cognitive Technologies}
Human-in-the-loop (HITL) systems have long been used in critical decision-making domains like aviation, medicine and AI ethics. In recent years, their application has extended into mental health and human-computer interaction, where co-regulation between a user and an intelligent system can enhance agency, reduce cognitive burden and promote sustained engagement \cite{perry_ai_2024, ekellem2024enhancing}.
Within ADHD support tools, however, few designs incorporate real-time user feedback or learning mechanisms beyond initial customization. Most interventions remain static once deployed, lacking the ability to adapt based on evolving attention patterns or task strategies. This stands in contrast to participatory design methodologies emerging from the cognitive accessibility and inclusive UX communities, which emphasize designing with, not just for, neurodivergent users \cite{heublein_designing_2023}. It is also noticed that while AI based systems are considered effective to offer interventions, people prefer a HITL approach \cite{lee_artificial_2025}.
Recent research has emphasized the role of AI-enabled body doubling in supporting task initiation and emotional regulation for ADHD-affected individuals. A design-led study by Malmö University \cite{eugenia_leveraging_2024} developed a chatbot prototype to simulate body doubling, particularly for users with social anxiety or limited access to real-time co-working partners, highlighting the importance of presence-based support, non-judgmental interaction and emotional safety as pillars of neuroinclusive design.
Based by these findings and our own co-design process, our proposed system integrates a human-in-the-loop architecture that includes an optional digital body doubling mode, designed to provide gentle presence, reflective cues and accountability-based support. This dynamic layer allows the assistant to evolve through continuous interaction and user feedback, ensuring it remains context-aware, respectful and emotionally attuned, rather than prescriptive or interruptive.
\subsection{Systems Thinking and Feedback Models in Attention Regulation}
While AI based productivity tools often focus on distinct behaviors (e.g., time-on-task, clickstream patterns) they typically lack a systems-level understanding of how attention emerges and fluctuates over time. Systems thinking offers a valuable lens for modeling attention not as a fixed trait but as an output of interacting feedback loops between internal states, external tools and environmental stimuli. \cite{meadows_thinking_2008, capra_systems_2014}.
In the context of ADHD, attention regulation is profoundly shaped by dynamic interactions—task urgency, emotional context, ambient interruptions and internal motivators. Yet few systems have been designed to observe and respond to these feedback patterns in real time. Models from affective computing \cite{picard_affective_2003} and metacognitive scaffolding in education \cite{greene_theoretical_2007} offer promising analogues but remain underutilized in ADHD related tool design.
This paper introduces a novel approach that treats user attention as a state in flux, responding to behavioral, contextual and reflective triggers. Through real-time sensing and adaptive prompting, the system is designed not as a linear tracker but as a feedback-sensitive assistant inspired by the loop-driven logic of systems thinking. This perspective enables interventions that are timely, non-intrusive and situated within the user's cognitive ecosystem.
|
Literature Review
| false
|
2507.06864
| 2
|
95,393
|
The development of this ADHD-focused productivity assistant is based on a multi-dimensional approach that aligns with the central hypothesis: that attention challenges faced by ADHD-affected professionals in digital work environments can be mitigated through adaptive, human-centered and systems-aware interventions. To explore this hypothesis, the research combines theoretical frameworks—systems thinking, human-in-the-loop design and privacy-first machine learning—with a participatory co-design process involving ADHD-affected professionals. This section outlines the guiding design philosophy, the survey methodology and user insight process, the ethical foundations of privacy-preserving AI and the principles behind soft-touch nudging strategies.
\subsection{Framework: Systems Thinking, Human-In-The-Loop and Machine Learning}
The design of the proposed productivity assistant is grounded in a hybrid methodological framework that draws from three key disciplines: systems thinking, human-in-the-loop (HITL) design and lightweight, privacy-preserving machine learning. These perspectives collectively shape not just the functionality of the tool, but its underlying logic, interaction model and user-first philosophy.
Systems thinking offers a foundational lens through which attention is conceptualized not as a binary or static trait, but as a dynamic state influenced by a feedback-rich ecosystem involving tasks, tools, context, emotion and self-regulation. Inspired by Capra and Luisi's (2014) \cite{capra_systems_2014} view of cognition as an emergent, interconnected process and Meadows’ (2008) \cite{meadows_thinking_2008} model of systemic feedback loops, the assistant is designed to recognize and respond to fluctuations in attentional state—such as disengagement, hyperfocus or task-switching inertia—rather than treat these as isolated behaviors. This approach enables the tool to intervene not by enforcing external order, but by helping restore self-regulatory balance within the user's workflow ecosystem.
At the interaction level, the tool is shaped by Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) principles drawn from cognitive technology design and inclusive UX research (Perry et al., 2024; Ekellem, 2025) \cite{perry_ai_2024, ekellem2024enhancing}. Rather than acting as a prescriptive, fully autonomous system, the assistant is built to learn with the user, adapting over time through reflective prompts, soft feedback loops and optional input. The HITL model allows for iterative and adaptive learning and mutual regulation where the assistant adapts to individual routines, preferences and fluctuations in energy or focus, while ensuring the user retains control and customization \cite{tejasvi_smart_2024}.
To operationalize this adaptive logic, the system employs lightweight, on-device machine learning models capable of tracking non-invasive behavioral signals such as tab switching frequency, idle time and application usage. Importantly, the ML component is designed with a privacy-first philosophy: all inference and behavioral modeling occur locally, without transmitting personal data to cloud servers. This approach ensures user autonomy and trust, while enabling the system to build a real-time profile of attention dynamics without relying on intrusive data capture.
Together, this framework enables the development of a cognitive support tool that is not just technically adaptive but ethically aligned, context-aware and deeply rooted in the lived experiences and cognitive rhythms of ADHD-affected professionals.
\subsection{Survey and Co-Design}
To determine the assistant’s design in real-world experiences, a preliminary survey was conducted with about 25 self and professionally diagnosed ADHD-affected individuals, including early-career professionals and mid-senior knowledge workers across technology, software design and engineering domains. The survey included both structured and open-ended questions and focused on themes such as attention management, executive dysfunction, digital work overload, coping mechanisms and expectations from supportive tools.
Responses revealed recurring challenges with task prioritization, context switching fatigue and “attention crash” moments particularly during unstructured work periods and transitions between tasks or meetings. Many participants described digital productivity tools (e.g., calendars, to-do lists, jira, obsidian, pomodoro timers) as either limiting or too passive to be effective, citing a desire for non-judgmental, presence-based support rather than gamified motivation or hard deadlines. Several participants expressed a preference for interventions that are quiet, customizable and responsive to their own behavioral rhythms, rather than time-based triggers. Moreover, participants wanted to have a weekly summary of their usage patterns and wanted quiet check-ins from the system.
In addition to the survey, the co-design process was further informed by the lived experience of the authors, a senior software professional diagnosed with ADHD. Their perspective helped translate user pain points into nuanced design choices—such as the inclusion of “body doubling” mechanics, the avoidance of intrusive notifications and the preference for soft, voice-based engagement over text-based interactions. These participatory elements formed the empathic backbone of the assistant’s design, ensuring that the system reflects neurodivergent realities rather than neurotypical assumptions.
\subsection{Privacy by Design: On device ML, User Sovereignty}
Neurodivergent individuals often experience heightened vulnerability in digital settings due to challenges with attention, impulsivity and sensory integration. As Jones et al. (2023) \cite{jones_privacy_2023} emphasize, privacy breaches and behavioral data misuse can exacerbate stigma and isolation, particularly for users with ADHD or ASD in immersive work environments.
A foundational principle guiding the development of this assistant is privacy by design—an ethical and technical commitment to ensuring that user data is never collected, stored or transmitted without consent. Given the cognitive vulnerability and masking behaviors often experienced by ADHD-affected professionals in digital settings, the assistant is intentionally designed to operate entirely on-device, without sending behavioral or usage data to external servers or cloud-based inference engines.
Behavioral cues such as application usage, tab switching and idle time are processed using lightweight machine learning models embedded locally within the user’s environment. These models detect attentional state changes without requiring high-volume data transfer or persistent surveillance. No personally identifiable information (PII), browsing content or communication data is analyzed or stored.
This architectural choice is particularly critical given the potential misuse or misinterpretation of behavioral data in workplace contexts. ADHD-affected professionals often experience pressure to mask symptoms such as inattention, hyperfocus or time blindness traits that could be stigmatized if exposed or misunderstood by employers or colleagues. Storing such sensitive data on cloud environments brings in integrity and reputational challenges that may deter usage altogether.
As part of a systems-informed design, the assistant addresses not only technical privacy but also cognitive and emotional safety, as advocated in neurodiversity centered design literature \cite{jones_privacy_2023}. Users must feel safe enough to engage with the tool as a supportive partner rather than an intrusive monitor. To build trust and ensure autonomy, users are granted full control over sensing and feedback functions. The assistant can be paused, customized or disabled entirely ensuring that support is always consensual, transparent and self-directed. This approach aligns with the privacy values expressed by survey participants and reflects a commitment to neuroinclusive design ethics. To build trust and ensure autonomy, users are granted full control over sensing and feedback functions. The assistant can be paused, customized or disabled entirely ensuring that support is always consensual, transparent and self-directed.
In addition, any behavioral data retained for on-device processing is stored in a non human readable format and may be optionally encrypted at the file system level, further reducing the risk of unintended access or misinterpretation. To reinforce autonomy and safety, users have the option to purge all data stored at any time. This includes activity history, inferences created, nudges etc. The action of purging is non-reversible and does not impact how the assistant functions. This reinforces the tool’s alignment with data minimization, user sovereignty and neuroinclusive design ethics.
While prior explorations into AI-supported body doubling \cite{eugenia_leveraging_2024} have shown promise in fostering motivation and task engagement, they often lack explicit strategies for safeguarding user privacy. In contrast, our assistant processes presence cues and behavioral signals entirely on-device, ensuring that emotionally sensitive data—such as attention drift or inactivity—remains local and encrypted. This aligns with ADHD users’ stated preferences for privacy, autonomy and control.
|
Methodology
| false
|
2507.06864
| 3
|
76,423
|
Real-world embodied tasks often involve multiple agents or human-AI collaboration and competition, where dynamic interactions among agents in a shared environment give rise to emergent group-level behaviors that individuals cannot achieve alone. As a result, directly transferring methods designed for single-agent settings to MAS is typically inefficient. MAS research primarily focuses on enabling effective collaboration. Here, we review recent advances in multi-agent collaboration along the same three aspects as in the single-agent setting in Section \ref{sec:SAembodied}: \textbf{control and planning methods}, \textbf{learning-based methods} and \textbf{generative model-based methods}, typical methods are listed in Table \ref{tbl:MAmethods}.
\subsection{Multi-agent Control and Planning} \label{subsec:MAcontrol} \begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_control_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of control-based multi-agent trajectory optimization~\cite{Hou2022GroupedSwarmPlan1}.}
\label{fig:ma_control}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_control_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of control-based multi-agent trajectory optimization~\cite{Hou2022GroupedSwarmPlan1}.}
\label{fig:ma_control}
In MAS, control-based methods remain a fundamental approach for achieving high-precision, real-time decision-making under task constraints. Early methods model MAS as single agents and perform centralized control and planning~\cite{Silver2005CentralizedSwarmPlan1, Augugliaro2012CentralizedSwarmPlan2} methods on them. However, these approaches face significant scalability challenges. To address this, some methods adopt distributed strategies that control each agent in the MAS independently~\cite{Tordesillas2022DecentralizedSwarmPlan1}, making them more suitable for large-scale MAS. Nevertheless, such fully decentralized methods often struggle with resolving conflicts between agents. To overcome these limitations, EMAPF~\cite{Hou2022GroupedSwarmPlan1} proposes a grouped multi-agent control framework. It dynamically clusters agents based on their spatial proximity, applying centralized control within each group while ensuring that inter-group control remains independent, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_control}. This enables efficient coordination among large teams of aerial robots. Alternatively, Swarm-Formation~\cite{Quan2022AsynchronousSwarmPlan1} employs a decentralized sequential decision-making scheme: agents are pre-ordered and each agent plans its trajectory based on its predecessor’s plan in turn, thereby eliminating inter-agent conflicts.
\subsection{Learning for Multi-agent Interaction} \label{subsec:MARL}
Control-based methods in MAS, much like in single-agent scenarios, still face challenges such as high computational overhead and limited generalizability. As a result, learning-based approaches remain crucial in constructing multi-agent embodied AI. However, unlike single-agent settings, learning-based methods in MAS must additionally address unique challenges, including \textbf{asynchronous decision-making}, \textbf{heterogeneous team composition} and \textbf{open multi-agent environments}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{figures/ma_async_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of multi-agent asynchronous learning~\cite{Yu2023MAAsynchronousLearning2}.}
\label{fig:ma_async}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{figures/ma_async_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of multi-agent asynchronous learning~\cite{Yu2023MAAsynchronousLearning2}.}
\label{fig:ma_async}
\paragraph{Asynchronous collaboration.}Asynchronous collaboration.
In multi-agent embodied systems, challenges such as communication delays and hardware heterogeneity across agents often disrupt synchronized interactions and feedback from the real environment, making effective policy learning under asynchronous decision-making a significant challenge. To address this, ACE~\cite{Yu2023MAAsynchronousLearning2} introduces the concept of macro-actions, where a macro-action serves as a centralized goal for the entire MAS. Individual agents then make multiple asynchronous decisions based on this goal, with delayed feedback from the environment provided only after the macro-action is completed. To facilitate policy learning in this setup, ACE employs a macro-action-based MAPPO algorithm, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_async}. This approach has proven effective and has inspired several other works tackling asynchronous decision-making challenges~\cite{Xiao2022MAAsynchronousLearning1, Xiao2025MAAsynchronousLearning3}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_hetor_v2.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of multi-agent heterogeneous learning~\cite{Cai2024MAchangescale1}.}
\label{fig:ma_hetor}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_hetor_v2.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of multi-agent heterogeneous learning~\cite{Cai2024MAchangescale1}.}
\label{fig:ma_hetor}
\paragraph{Heterogeneous collaboration.}Heterogeneous collaboration.
Beyond differences in decision timing, another key distinction in embodied MAS is agent heterogeneity. This refers to the variations among agents in terms of perception capabilities, action spaces, task objectives, physical properties, communication abilities, and decision-making models. For instance, in a collaborative manufacturing scenario, autonomous vehicles might be responsible for transporting goods, while robotic arms handle sorting tasks. These two agent types differ significantly in their observation spaces, action spaces, and task goals, making them a prime example of heterogeneous agents. To tackle the challenges posed by such differences in observation and action spaces, approaches like HetGPPO~\cite{Matteo2023MAHeterogeneousLearning1} and COMAT~\cite{Cai2024MAchangescale1} propose using separate observation and policy networks for different agent types. These networks are connected through graph-based communication, enabling effective information exchange, as illustrated in the architecture of COMAT in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_hetor}. Another approach focuses on adapting the learning algorithm itself, such as by decomposing the advantage function across heterogeneous agents to facilitate more effective credit assignment~\cite{Zhong2024HARL}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_evol_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of self-evolving multi-agent learning~\cite{Yuan2025MADynamicLearning1}.}
\label{fig:ma_evol}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_evol_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of self-evolving multi-agent learning~\cite{Yuan2025MADynamicLearning1}.}
\label{fig:ma_evol}
\paragraph{Self-evolution in open environments.}Self-evolution in open environments.
Unlike well-defined simulated scenarios, real-world embodied tasks typically take place in open environments, where key elements such as task objectives, environmental factors (e.g., states, actions, and reward functions), and collaboration patterns (e.g., teammates and opponents) evolve continuously and unpredictably~\cite{Yuan2023OpenSurvey}. To address these challenges in MARL, researchers have proposed methods such as robust training~\cite{yuan2024robust,yuan2023robust} and continual coordination~\cite{yuan2024multiagent}, which have yielded promising results. However, the unpredictable nature of open environments in embodied scenarios presents even greater difficulties, requiring specialized approaches beyond conventional MARL techniques. Recently, several innovative solutions leveraging the strong generalization capabilities of generative models have emerged. For example, when the number of collaborators dynamically changes, scalable architectures like graph neural networks (GNNs) and transformers can effectively encode interaction information, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_evol}. By combining these architectures with distributed policy networks, agents can adapt seamlessly to fluctuations in team size, ensuring robust coordination~\cite{Cai2024MAchangescale1}. Moreover, by incorporating self-play and other mechanisms for self-reflection and policy evolution, MAS can continuously improve collaborative performance in dynamic and open environments~\cite{Gao2023MASelfPlayLearning1,Yuan2025MADynamicLearning1}.
\subsection{Generative Models based Multi-agent Interaction} \label{subsec:MAWM}
Although algorithms designed for asynchronous decision-making, heterogeneous agents and open environments have advanced learning-based methods in embodied MAS, challenges persist due to the diversity of cooperative behaviors and the partial or missing nature of observations, leading to low exploration efficiency and increased learning complexity. To address these issues, generative models have emerged as a powerful tool for enhancing decision-making in embodied MAS. They can introduce prior knowledge to facilitate explicit task allocation and leverage their strong information-processing capabilities to enable inter-agent communication and observation completion for distributed decision-making. Furthermore, MAS may not only involve autonomous agents but also humans. By harnessing the language understanding and generation capabilities of generative models, human-agent interaction and collaboration can be significantly improved, marking a unique and critical application in this domain. Lastly, the significantly larger exploration space in multi-agent settings makes the challenge of sample efficiency even more pronounced than in single-agent scenarios. Consequently, data augmentation techniques based on generative models are essential for improving data efficiency in multi-agent embodied AI.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen1_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of generative models based multi-agent task allocation~\cite{Kannan2024MALLMPlanning2}.}
\label{fig:ma_gen1}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen1_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of generative models based multi-agent task allocation~\cite{Kannan2024MALLMPlanning2}.}
\label{fig:ma_gen1}
\paragraph{Multi-agent task allocation.}Multi-agent task allocation.
To address the challenges posed by the diverse collaborative behaviors in embodied MAS, an increasing number of studies have begun leveraging the prior knowledge and reasoning capabilities of pre-trained generative models to explicitly assign distinct tasks to different agents, significantly reducing the individual exploration spaces of each agent. For example, SMART-LLM~\cite{Kannan2024MALLMPlanning2} utilizes a pre-trained language model to first decompose a given task into multiple parallel sub-tasks and then group agents based on their capabilities. The sub-tasks are subsequently assigned to each group accordingly, enabling multi-agent decentralized task executions. For instance, different robotic vacuum cleaners are each allocated a distinct cleaning area, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_gen1}. This paradigm of task decomposition and assignment has become a mainstream planning strategy in embodied MAS~\cite{Singh2024MALLMPlanning3,Chen2024MALLMPlanning4,Wan2025MALLMPlanning5}.
Building on this, a series of works integrates task assignment and execution. These approaches first use generative models for task allocation, then continue using the same or similar models to execute the tasks, adjusting the allocation based on execution outcomes to form a more complete workflow~\cite{Venkatesh2024MALLMPlanningandExecuting1,Liu2024MALLMPlanningandExecuting2,Wu2024MALLMPlanningandExecuting3,Chen2025MALLMPlanningandExecuting4}.
However, the aforementioned methods generally focus on task assignment based solely on generative reasoning, often overlooking the dependencies among sub-tasks. For instance, in the task ``retrieve the wrench from a closed box'', the sub-task ``open the box'' must be completed before ``take the wrench out of the box''. To better capture such dependencies, recent works have been focused on exploring the use of sub-task dependency graphs to enhance task allocation~\cite{Wang2024MALLMDependencyPlanning1,Obata2025MALLMDependencyPlanning2}.
In addition to explicit task decomposition, another line of work employs centralized generative models to produce global decisions. These are then implicitly distributed across agents by having each agent imitate the behavior generated by the centralized model, thus achieving implicit task assignment~\cite{Liu2025MALLMCentralizedTeacher}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen2_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of generative models based multi-agent distributed collaboration~\cite{Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4}.}
\label{fig:ma_gen2}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen2_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of generative models based multi-agent distributed collaboration~\cite{Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4}.}
\label{fig:ma_gen2}
\paragraph{Multi-agent distributed decision making.}Multi-agent distributed decision making. Using generative models for multi-agent embodied task decomposition and planning leverages the prior knowledge and reasoning capabilities acquired during pretraining to meet the demands of real-world collaborative tasks. However, centralized task planning and allocation can compromise the flexibility and scalability of cooperation, often requiring frequent recalls for adjustment.
Therefore, exploring the coordination among multiple generative models is essential.
Unlike independent methods in MARL that often fail in complex tasks, the outstanding perception and reasoning capabilities of generative models make it feasible to deploy multiple LLM-based agents that independently perform decision-making and policy evaluation effectively \cite{Zhang2024MALLMDecentralizedCollabration1,Wang2025MALLMDecentralizedCollabration2,Bo2025MALLMDecentralizedCollabration3,Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4,Tan2020MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration5,Wang2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration6,Yu2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration7}.
For example, \cite{Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4} equips each agent with a unique pre-trained generative model. These models leverage their strong information processing capabilities to communicate with other agents, either to complete missing observations or to request assistance, thus facilitating decentralized collaboration, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_gen2}.
However, challenges such as credit assignment and policy conflicts still hinder the effectiveness of fully distributed collaborative architectures.
Therefore, similar to practices in MARL, some studies have begun to incorporate an additional centralized generative model to evaluate the decisions made by distributed generative models, enhancing their overall decision-making capabilities~\cite{Zhang2024MALLMDecentralizedCollabration1,Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4}.
Furthermore, by introducing a shared global LLM-based reflector to assess the contribution of each individual during collaboration, effective credit assignment in multi-LLM cooperation can also be achieved. \cite{Bo2025MALLMDecentralizedCollabration3}.
With appropriately designed system topologies and hierarchical collaboration frameworks, generative model-based distributed decision making is capable of scaling to large-scale systems including up to thousands of agents \cite{Zhang2024MALLMLargeScaleDecentralizedCollabration1,Qian2025MALLMLargeScaleDecentralizedCollabration2}.
Beyond classic centralized or decentralized frameworks for embodied collaboration, generative models introduce a unique advantage: they allow negotiation among agents \cite{Liu2023MALLMDecentralizedConsensusCollabration1,Chen2023MALLMDecentralizedConsensusCollabration2,Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4}.
Unlike traditional collaboration pipelines where agents plan once every step, multiple LLMs are capable of engaging in iterative negotiation rounds during each planning phase, aiming to collectively identify an optimal course of action \cite{Chen2023MALLMDecentralizedConsensusCollabration2}.
Beyond conventional coordination, multi-LLM negotiation enables embodied MAS to dynamically select and evolve their membership, organizational frameworks and leadership roles, thereby enhancing their capacity to handle complex tasks in open environments \cite{Liu2023MALLMDecentralizedConsensusCollabration1,Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen3_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of generative models based human-AI collaboration~\cite{Zhang2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration1}.}
\label{fig:ma_gen3}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen3_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of generative models based human-AI collaboration~\cite{Zhang2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration1}.}
\label{fig:ma_gen3}
\paragraph{Human-AI coordination.}Human-AI coordination. Efficient collaboration between humans and embodied agents has long been a critical objective of research~\cite{ajoudani2018progress}. Human-AI coordination~\cite{vicentini2021collaborative}, closely related to research fields such as human-AI interaction (HAI)~\cite{van2021human} and human-robot interaction (HRI)~\cite{onnasch2021taxonomy}, focuses on enhancing teamwork between humans and robots to effectively achieve complex tasks. Cooperative MARL, recognized for its robust problem-solving capabilities, provides promising avenues for improving human-AI collaboration across diverse user groups. However, traditional RL approaches often fall short in fully capturing the intricacies and variability inherent in human behaviors. Recently, with the rise of multi-modal large models such as LLMs which inherently involve human-in-the-loop training processes, researchers have begun leveraging the extensive knowledge embedded in them to design sophisticated and adaptive strategies for human-AI collaboration~\cite{Zhang2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration1,Sun2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration2,Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4,Feng2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration3,guan2023efficient,Liu2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration6,Asuzu2025MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration7,Liu2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration8,Gao2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration10} as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_gen3}.
In scenarios including multiple LLM-based agents, collaboration between humans and agents can be partially facilitated by substituting human participants for communication partners or team leaders~\cite{Zhang2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration1,Sun2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration2,Guo2024MALLMDecentralizedCollaboration4}. Nevertheless, this approach often under-utilizes the strengths that humans bring to the collaboration process. Given humans' superior capacities for understanding, reasoning, and adapting, recent methods have emphasized active human involvement to address limitations inherent in LLM-based agents~\cite{Feng2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration3}. For example, during navigation tasks, agents encountering uncertainty can proactively seek missing perceptual or decisional information from humans through natural language queries, allowing humans to offer guidance without directly engaging in detailed task planning or execution~\cite{Liu2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration4}. Additionally, LLM-based agents can proactively infer human intentions based on verbal and behavioral cues, facilitating more intuitive, flexible, and effective human-AI collaboration without explicit communication requests~\cite{Wan2025MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration5}. Furthermore, these agents can autonomously adapt and refine their collaborative behaviors over time, evolving through interactions without the need for explicit human instructions, thereby supporting sustained and effective long-term human-AI collaboration~\cite{Liu2024MALLMHumanAgentCollaboration6}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.98\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen4_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of different multi-agent world model structures.}
\label{fig:ma_gen4}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.98\columnwidth]{figures/ma_gen4_v1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of different multi-agent world model structures.}
\label{fig:ma_gen4}
\paragraph{Data-efficient multi-agent learning.}Data-efficient multi-agent learning. Due to the high sample efficiency of model-based RL approaches, applying world models to enhance multi-agent collaborative learning has always been a significant topic. However, modeling the interactions between agents and inferring the global state from local observations remains a key difficulty in leveraging world models to improve multi-agent collaboration efficiency. Early work attempted to model the dynamics of two collaborative robots simultaneously, achieving some success \cite{Krupnik2020MAWM1}, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_gen4}(a). However, as the number of collaborative agents increases, this approach quickly becomes inefficient.
Through the use of generative models such as VAE and Transformers for local observation fusion, decoupling of global and local modeling and auto-regressive trajectory prediction, it is now possible to model the dynamic collaboration of MAS using world models \cite{Shi2025MAWM2,Venugopal2024MAWM3,Barde2024MAWM4,Liu2024MAWM5}, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_gen4}(b).
One approach addresses these challenges in the context of urban traffic by constructing a generative world model that simulates large-scale heterogeneous agents under physical and social constraints, using destination- and personality-conditioned dynamics to promote realistic and safe multi-agent behaviors \cite{ZhangMAWM6}.
Complementarily, another line of work focuses on physically embodied agents operating with egocentric RGBD observations, introducing a diffusion-based reconstruction process to establish a shared representation of the environment and incorporating intention inference to facilitate implicit coordination without direct communication \cite{Zhang2025MAWM7}, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ma_gen4}(c).
\subsection{Benchmarks} \label{subsec:MABM} \begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfloat[Grid-MAPF \cite{Stern2019MABench17}]{
\label{fig:Grid-MAPF}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/Grid-MAPF.pdf}
}
\subfloat[FurnMove \cite{Jain2020MABench19}]{
\label{fig:FurnMove}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/FurnMove.pdf}
}
\subfloat[SMARTS \cite{Zhou2021MABench20}]{
\label{fig:SMARTS}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/SMARTS.pdf}
}
\subfloat[Megaverse \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1}]{
\label{fig:Megaverse}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/Megaverse.pdf}
}
\\
\subfloat[V2X-Sim \cite{Li2022MABench18}]{
\label{fig:V2X-Sim}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/V2X-Sim.pdf}
}
\subfloat[BiDexhands \cite{Chen2022MABench2}]{
\label{fig:BiDexhands}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/BiDexhands.pdf}
}
\subfloat[MRP-Bench \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3}]{
\label{fig:MRP-Bench}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MRP.pdf}
}
\subfloat[LEMMA \cite{Gong2023MABench4}]{
\label{fig:LEMMA}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/LEMMA.pdf}
}
\\
\subfloat[CHAIC \cite{Du2024MABench16}]{
\label{fig:CHAIC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CHAIC.pdf}
}
\subfloat[RoCo \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1}]{
\label{fig:RoCo}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/RoCo.pdf}
}
\subfloat[MAP-THOR \cite{Nayak2024MABench15}]{
\label{fig:MAP-THOR}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MAP-THOR.pdf}
}
\subfloat[REMROC \cite{Heuer2024MABench6}]{
\label{fig:REMROC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/REMROC.pdf}
}
\\
\subfloat[T2E \cite{Zhang2024MABench7}]{
\label{fig:T2E}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/T2E.pdf}
}
\subfloat[SocialGym2.0 \cite{Chandra2024MABench8}]{
\label{fig:SocialGym2}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/SocialGym2.pdf}
}
\subfloat[Cambrige RoboMaster \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9}]{
\label{fig:CambrigeRoboMaster}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CambrigeRoboMaster.pdf}
}
\subfloat[S3E \cite{Feng2024MABench10}]{
\label{fig:S3E}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/S3E.pdf}
}
\\
\subfloat[PARTNR \cite{Chang2025MABench11}]{
\label{fig:PARTNR}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/PARTNR.pdf}
}
\subfloat[EmbodiedBench \cite{Yang2025MABench12}]{
\label{fig:EmbodiedBench}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/EmbodiedBench.pdf}
}
\subfloat[MRMG-Planning \cite{Hartmann2025MABench13}]{
\label{fig:MRMG-Planning}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MRMG-Planning.pdf}
}
\subfloat[CARIC \cite{Cao2025MABench14}]{
\label{fig:CARIC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CARIC.pdf}
}
\caption{An overview of multi-embodied benchmarks listed in Table \ref{tbl:MABenchmarks}.}
\label{fig:MABenchmarks}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat[Grid-MAPF \cite{Stern2019MABench17}]{
\label{fig:Grid-MAPF}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/Grid-MAPF.pdf}
}
\label{fig:Grid-MAPF}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/Grid-MAPF.pdf}
\subfloat[FurnMove \cite{Jain2020MABench19}]{
\label{fig:FurnMove}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/FurnMove.pdf}
}
\label{fig:FurnMove}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/FurnMove.pdf}
\subfloat[SMARTS \cite{Zhou2021MABench20}]{
\label{fig:SMARTS}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/SMARTS.pdf}
}
\label{fig:SMARTS}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/SMARTS.pdf}
\subfloat[Megaverse \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1}]{
\label{fig:Megaverse}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/Megaverse.pdf}
}
\label{fig:Megaverse}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/Megaverse.pdf}
\\
\subfloat[V2X-Sim \cite{Li2022MABench18}]{
\label{fig:V2X-Sim}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/V2X-Sim.pdf}
}
\label{fig:V2X-Sim}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/V2X-Sim.pdf}
\subfloat[BiDexhands \cite{Chen2022MABench2}]{
\label{fig:BiDexhands}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/BiDexhands.pdf}
}
\label{fig:BiDexhands}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/BiDexhands.pdf}
\subfloat[MRP-Bench \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3}]{
\label{fig:MRP-Bench}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MRP.pdf}
}
\label{fig:MRP-Bench}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MRP.pdf}
\subfloat[LEMMA \cite{Gong2023MABench4}]{
\label{fig:LEMMA}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/LEMMA.pdf}
}
\label{fig:LEMMA}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/LEMMA.pdf}
\\
\subfloat[CHAIC \cite{Du2024MABench16}]{
\label{fig:CHAIC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CHAIC.pdf}
}
\label{fig:CHAIC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CHAIC.pdf}
\subfloat[RoCo \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1}]{
\label{fig:RoCo}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/RoCo.pdf}
}
\label{fig:RoCo}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/RoCo.pdf}
\subfloat[MAP-THOR \cite{Nayak2024MABench15}]{
\label{fig:MAP-THOR}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MAP-THOR.pdf}
}
\label{fig:MAP-THOR}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MAP-THOR.pdf}
\subfloat[REMROC \cite{Heuer2024MABench6}]{
\label{fig:REMROC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/REMROC.pdf}
}
\label{fig:REMROC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/REMROC.pdf}
\\
\subfloat[T2E \cite{Zhang2024MABench7}]{
\label{fig:T2E}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/T2E.pdf}
}
\label{fig:T2E}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/T2E.pdf}
\subfloat[SocialGym2.0 \cite{Chandra2024MABench8}]{
\label{fig:SocialGym2}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/SocialGym2.pdf}
}
\label{fig:SocialGym2}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/SocialGym2.pdf}
\subfloat[Cambrige RoboMaster \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9}]{
\label{fig:CambrigeRoboMaster}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CambrigeRoboMaster.pdf}
}
\label{fig:CambrigeRoboMaster}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CambrigeRoboMaster.pdf}
\subfloat[S3E \cite{Feng2024MABench10}]{
\label{fig:S3E}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/S3E.pdf}
}
\label{fig:S3E}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/S3E.pdf}
\\
\subfloat[PARTNR \cite{Chang2025MABench11}]{
\label{fig:PARTNR}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/PARTNR.pdf}
}
\label{fig:PARTNR}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/PARTNR.pdf}
\subfloat[EmbodiedBench \cite{Yang2025MABench12}]{
\label{fig:EmbodiedBench}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/EmbodiedBench.pdf}
}
\label{fig:EmbodiedBench}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/EmbodiedBench.pdf}
\subfloat[MRMG-Planning \cite{Hartmann2025MABench13}]{
\label{fig:MRMG-Planning}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MRMG-Planning.pdf}
}
\label{fig:MRMG-Planning}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/MRMG-Planning.pdf}
\subfloat[CARIC \cite{Cao2025MABench14}]{
\label{fig:CARIC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CARIC.pdf}
}
\label{fig:CARIC}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\columnwidth]{MABench/CARIC.pdf}
\caption{An overview of multi-embodied benchmarks listed in Table \ref{tbl:MABenchmarks}.}
\label{fig:MABenchmarks}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Benchmarks for testing multi-agent embodied AI.}
\small
\label{tbl:MABenchmarks}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|ccc|cccc|cc|ccc|ccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Year}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Category}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\textbf{Input}}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{View}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Data}}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Agent Type}}
\\
& \rotatebox{90}{\quad}
& \rotatebox{90}{Perception} & \rotatebox{90}{Planning} & \rotatebox{90}{Control}
& \rotatebox{90}{Image} & \rotatebox{90}{Pointcloud} & \rotatebox{90}{Language} & \rotatebox{90}{Proprioception}
& \rotatebox{90}{Global} & \rotatebox{90}{Local}
& \rotatebox{90}{Real} & \rotatebox{90}{Sim} & \rotatebox{90}{Hybrid}
& \rotatebox{90}{Humanoid/Human} & \rotatebox{90}{Quadruped} & \rotatebox{90}{UAV/UGV/USV} & \rotatebox{90}{Manipulator} & \rotatebox{90}{No certain type}
\\
\midrule
\href{https://movingai.com/benchmarks/mapf.html}{Grid-MAPF} \cite{Stern2019MABench17} & 2019 & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://unnat.github.io/cordial-sync}{FurnMove} \cite{Jain2020MABench19} & 2020 & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/huawei-noah/SMARTS}{SMARTS} \cite{Zhou2021MABench20} & 2021 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{www.megaverse.info}{Megaverse} \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1} & 2021 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://ai4ce.github.io/V2X-Sim/}{V2X-Sim} \cite{Li2022MABench18} & 2022 & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/PKU-MARL/DexterousHands}{Bi-DexHands} \cite{Chen2022MABench2} & 2022 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/boschresearch/mrp_bench}{MRP-Bench} \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3} & 2023 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://lemma-benchmark.github.io}{LEMMA} \cite{Gong2023MABench4} & 2023 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/UMass-Foundation-Model/CHAIC}{CHAIC} \cite{Du2024MABench16} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://project-roco.github.io}{RoCo} \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/nsidn98/LLaMAR}{MAP-THOR} \cite{Nayak2024MABench15} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://github.
com/boschresearch/remroc}{REMROC} \cite{Heuer2024MABench6} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/Dr-Xiaogaren/T2E}{T2E} \cite{Zhang2024MABench7} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/ut-amrl/SocialGym2}{SocialGym 2.0} \cite{Chandra2024MABench8} & 2024 & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://proroklab.github.io/cambridge-robomaster}{Cambridge RoboMaster} \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://pengyu-team.github.io/S3E/}{S3E} \cite{Feng2024MABench10} & 2024 & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/facebookresearch/partnr-planner}{PARTNR} \cite{Chang2025MABench11} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & \\
\href{https://embodiedbench.github.io}{EmbodiedBench} \cite{Yang2025MABench12} & 2025 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/vhartman/multirobot-pathplanning-benchmark}{MRMG-Planning }\cite{Hartmann2025MABench13} & 2025 & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://ntu-aris.github.io/caric/}{CARIC} \cite{Cao2025MABench14} & 2025 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Benchmarks for testing multi-agent embodied AI.}
\small
\label{tbl:MABenchmarks}
\resizebox{\textwidth}\textwidth{!}!{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|ccc|cccc|cc|ccc|ccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Year}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Category}}
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\textbf{Input}}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{View}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Data}}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Agent Type}}
\\
& \rotatebox{90}{\quad}
& \rotatebox{90}{Perception} & \rotatebox{90}{Planning} & \rotatebox{90}{Control}
& \rotatebox{90}{Image} & \rotatebox{90}{Pointcloud} & \rotatebox{90}{Language} & \rotatebox{90}{Proprioception}
& \rotatebox{90}{Global} & \rotatebox{90}{Local}
& \rotatebox{90}{Real} & \rotatebox{90}{Sim} & \rotatebox{90}{Hybrid}
& \rotatebox{90}{Humanoid/Human} & \rotatebox{90}{Quadruped} & \rotatebox{90}{UAV/UGV/USV} & \rotatebox{90}{Manipulator} & \rotatebox{90}{No certain type}
\\
\midrule
\href{https://movingai.com/benchmarks/mapf.html}{Grid-MAPF} \cite{Stern2019MABench17} & 2019 & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://unnat.github.io/cordial-sync}{FurnMove} \cite{Jain2020MABench19} & 2020 & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/huawei-noah/SMARTS}{SMARTS} \cite{Zhou2021MABench20} & 2021 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{www.megaverse.info}{Megaverse} \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1} & 2021 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://ai4ce.github.io/V2X-Sim/}{V2X-Sim} \cite{Li2022MABench18} & 2022 & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/PKU-MARL/DexterousHands}{Bi-DexHands} \cite{Chen2022MABench2} & 2022 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/boschresearch/mrp_bench}{MRP-Bench} \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3} & 2023 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://lemma-benchmark.github.io}{LEMMA} \cite{Gong2023MABench4} & 2023 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/UMass-Foundation-Model/CHAIC}{CHAIC} \cite{Du2024MABench16} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://project-roco.github.io}{RoCo} \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/nsidn98/LLaMAR}{MAP-THOR} \cite{Nayak2024MABench15} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://github.
com/boschresearch/remroc}{REMROC} \cite{Heuer2024MABench6} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/Dr-Xiaogaren/T2E}{T2E} \cite{Zhang2024MABench7} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/ut-amrl/SocialGym2}{SocialGym 2.0} \cite{Chandra2024MABench8} & 2024 & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://proroklab.github.io/cambridge-robomaster}{Cambridge RoboMaster} \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://pengyu-team.github.io/S3E/}{S3E} \cite{Feng2024MABench10} & 2024 & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/facebookresearch/partnr-planner}{PARTNR} \cite{Chang2025MABench11} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & \\
\href{https://embodiedbench.github.io}{EmbodiedBench} \cite{Yang2025MABench12} & 2025 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/vhartman/multirobot-pathplanning-benchmark}{MRMG-Planning }\cite{Hartmann2025MABench13} & 2025 & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://ntu-aris.github.io/caric/}{CARIC} \cite{Cao2025MABench14} & 2025 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{1}1{c|}c|{\textbf{Year}}\textbf{Year}
& \multicolumn{3}3{c|}c|{\textbf{Category}}\textbf{Category}
& \multicolumn{4}4{c|}c|{\textbf{Input}}\textbf{Input}
& \multicolumn{2}2{c|}c|{\textbf{View}}\textbf{View}
& \multicolumn{3}3{c|}c|{\textbf{Data}}\textbf{Data}
& \multicolumn{5}5{c}c{\textbf{Agent Type}}\textbf{Agent Type}
\\
& \rotatebox{90}90{\quad}\quad
& \rotatebox{90}90{Perception}Perception & \rotatebox{90}90{Planning}Planning & \rotatebox{90}90{Control}Control
& \rotatebox{90}90{Image}Image & \rotatebox{90}90{Pointcloud}Pointcloud & \rotatebox{90}90{Language}Language & \rotatebox{90}90{Proprioception}Proprioception
& \rotatebox{90}90{Global}Global & \rotatebox{90}90{Local}Local
& \rotatebox{90}90{Real}Real & \rotatebox{90}90{Sim}Sim & \rotatebox{90}90{Hybrid}Hybrid
& \rotatebox{90}90{Humanoid/Human}Humanoid/Human & \rotatebox{90}90{Quadruped}Quadruped & \rotatebox{90}90{UAV/UGV/USV}UAV/UGV/USV & \rotatebox{90}90{Manipulator}Manipulator & \rotatebox{90}90{No certain type}No certain type
\\
\midrule
\href{https://movingai.com/benchmarks/mapf.html}https://movingai.com/benchmarks/mapf.html{Grid-MAPF}Grid-MAPF \cite{Stern2019MABench17} & 2019 & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://unnat.github.io/cordial-sync}https://unnat.github.io/cordial-sync{FurnMove}FurnMove \cite{Jain2020MABench19} & 2020 & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/huawei-noah/SMARTS}https://github.com/huawei-noah/SMARTS{SMARTS}SMARTS \cite{Zhou2021MABench20} & 2021 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{www.megaverse.info}www.megaverse.info{Megaverse}Megaverse \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1} & 2021 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://ai4ce.github.io/V2X-Sim/}https://ai4ce.github.io/V2X-Sim/{V2X-Sim}V2X-Sim \cite{Li2022MABench18} & 2022 & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/PKU-MARL/DexterousHands}https://github.com/PKU-MARL/DexterousHands{Bi-DexHands}Bi-DexHands \cite{Chen2022MABench2} & 2022 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/boschresearch/mrp_bench}https://github.com/boschresearch/mrp_bench{MRP-Bench}MRP-Bench \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3} & 2023 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://lemma-benchmark.github.io}https://lemma-benchmark.github.io{LEMMA}LEMMA \cite{Gong2023MABench4} & 2023 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/UMass-Foundation-Model/CHAIC}https://github.com/UMass-Foundation-Model/CHAIC{CHAIC}CHAIC \cite{Du2024MABench16} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://project-roco.github.io}https://project-roco.github.io{RoCo}RoCo \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/nsidn98/LLaMAR}https://github.com/nsidn98/LLaMAR{MAP-THOR}MAP-THOR \cite{Nayak2024MABench15} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & & & \checkmark \\
\href{https://github.
com/boschresearch/remroc}https://github.
com/boschresearch/remroc{REMROC}REMROC \cite{Heuer2024MABench6} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/Dr-Xiaogaren/T2E}https://github.com/Dr-Xiaogaren/T2E{T2E}T2E \cite{Zhang2024MABench7} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/ut-amrl/SocialGym2}https://github.com/ut-amrl/SocialGym2{SocialGym 2.0}SocialGym 2.0 \cite{Chandra2024MABench8} & 2024 & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://proroklab.github.io/cambridge-robomaster}https://proroklab.github.io/cambridge-robomaster{Cambridge RoboMaster}Cambridge RoboMaster \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://pengyu-team.github.io/S3E/}https://pengyu-team.github.io/S3E/{S3E}S3E \cite{Feng2024MABench10} & 2024 & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\href{https://github.com/facebookresearch/partnr-planner}https://github.com/facebookresearch/partnr-planner{PARTNR}PARTNR \cite{Chang2025MABench11} & 2024 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & \\
\href{https://embodiedbench.github.io}https://embodiedbench.github.io{EmbodiedBench}EmbodiedBench \cite{Yang2025MABench12} & 2025 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://github.com/vhartman/multirobot-pathplanning-benchmark}https://github.com/vhartman/multirobot-pathplanning-benchmark{MRMG-Planning }MRMG-Planning \cite{Hartmann2025MABench13} & 2025 & & \checkmark & & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
\href{https://ntu-aris.github.io/caric/}https://ntu-aris.github.io/caric/{CARIC}CARIC \cite{Cao2025MABench14} & 2025 & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & & & \checkmark & & \\
\bottomrule
In contrast to the rapid advances observed in single-agent embodied intelligence, progress in multi-agent embodied intelligence has been relatively limited, especially in the development of standardized benchmarks. Existing benchmarks in this area frequently target highly specialized tasks or narrowly-defined scenarios, restricting their broader applicability and generalizability. To address this issue, this paper provides a comprehensive and systematic review of current benchmarks for multi-agent embodied intelligence(see Table~\ref{tbl:MABenchmarks} and Figure~\ref{fig:MABenchmarks}). Through detailed analyses and structured comparisons, we aim to offer researchers a clear overview of the state-of-the-art, highlight critical gaps in existing benchmarks, and facilitate the development of more robust, versatile, and widely applicable evaluation frameworks to support future research in this domain.
\begin{itemize}
\item Grid-MAPF \cite{Stern2019MABench17} is a comprehensive benchmark for MAPF featuring 24 diverse grid maps that cover city layouts, game environments and warehouse-style grids, with 25 scenarios provided for each map.
It systematically generates source-target pairs using random, clustered or designated methods and supports progressive agent scaling to test solver performance under increasing difficulty. Grid-MAPF formalizes various conflict types (e.g., vertex, edge, swapping) and supports multiple objectives such as makespan and sum of costs, enabling standardized and reproducible comparisons across MAPF algorithms.
\item FurnMove \cite{Jain2020MABench19} is a simulated benchmark designed to evaluate interactive furniture rearrangement, requiring agents to perceive, navigate, and manipulate multiple objects to achieve a target room layout. Built upon Habitat 2.0, it offers diverse 3D environments with varying furniture types and spatial configurations. Tasks are framed as multi-step, object-centric transformations toward a predefined goal state. The benchmark defines structured scenarios with different levels of difficulty and introduces comprehensive evaluation metrics, including layout accuracy, motion efficiency, and collision count, making it a robust testbed for embodied planning and control in visually complex environments.
\item SMARTS \cite{Zhou2021MABench20} is a scalable simulation platform and benchmark suite specifically designed for MARL in autonomous driving. It enables diverse and realistic interaction scenarios through a modular architecture, incorporating heterogeneous social agents from an extensible ``Social Agent Zoo.'' SMARTS provides fine-grained simulation control via ``bubbles'' for localized agent interactions, supports distributed multi-agent training, and maintains compatibility with mainstream MARL libraries. The benchmark includes challenging driving tasks such as double merges and unprotected intersections, and offers a comprehensive set of evaluation metrics covering safety, agility, cooperation, and game-theoretic behavior, establishing it as a powerful testbed for complex MARL-based driving research.
\item Megaverse \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1} is an eight-task embodied AI benchmark. It features procedurally generated 3D environments designed to evaluate a wide range of agent capabilities, including maze navigation, obstacle traversal, exploration, puzzle solving, object manipulation and memory-based reasoning. The platform achieves high-throughput simulation with over 1M observations per second through GPU-accelerated batched execution. It also supports multi-agent teams and enables infinite random instantiations of tasks, promoting generalization and robustness. As an open-source benchmark, Megaverse facilitates reproducible evaluation of embodied AI methods in navigation, exploration, planning, and manipulation.
\item V2X-Sim \cite{Li2022MABench18} is a comprehensive benchmark for multi-agent collaborative perception in autonomous driving, supporting realistic vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication scenarios. Built upon CARLA-SUMO co-simulation, it provides multi-modal sensor data including RGB, LiDAR, GPS and semantic labels from both vehicles and roadside units. V2X-Sim evaluates collaborative 3D object detection, tracking and bird eye view semantic segmentation under various fusion strategies. With rich annotations, spatial diversity and support for intermediate feature sharing, V2X-Sim offers a rigorous testbed for assessing perception robustness under occlusion, sensor noise and communication limitations.
\item Bi-Dexhands \cite{Chen2022MABench2} is a unified benchmark built on Isaac Gym \cite{Makoviychuk2021IssacGym} that achieves over 30,000 FPS on a single NVIDIA RTX 3090 by running thousands of environments in parallel, enabling highly efficient RL. It includes twenty bi-manual manipulation tasks inspired by the Fine Motor Sub-test, supporting single-agent, multi-agent, offline, multi-task and meta-RL settings within a coherent benchmark. Unlike prior benchmarks, Bi-DexHands treats each joint, finger and hand as a truly heterogeneous agent, and leverages a diverse set of everyday objects from the YCB \cite{Calli2015YCBdataset} and SAPIEN datasets to evaluate task generalization. The platform also provides rich multi-modal observations including contact forces, RGB images, RGB-D images and point clouds, and aligns task difficulty with human motor development milestones, enabling direct comparisons between robotic performance and infant dexterity.
\item MRP-Bench \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3} is an open-source benchmark for evaluating full-stack multi-robot navigation systems, integrating both centralized and decentralized MAPF algorithms as well as task assignment methods within realistic 3D environments from intralogistics and household domains. Built upon ROS2 \cite{Steven2022ROS2}, Gazebo \cite{Koenig2004Gazebo}, Nav2 package and the robotics middle-ware framework, it supports end-to-end evaluation of planning and coordination methods. MRP-Bench offers modular interfaces, configurable scenarios and standardized evaluation metrics including success rate, planning time, makespan and execution quality, enabling direct comparisons of multi-robot solutions under cluttered, dynamic and complex conditions.
\item LEMMA \cite{Gong2023MABench4} is a language-conditioned benchmark for multi-robot manipulation, consisting of eight procedurally generated, long-horizon tabletop tasks. Each involved task is designed to require true collaboration, as successful completion depends on two heterogeneous robot arms operating under minimal high-level or crowd-sourced natural language instructions. To support learning and evaluation, the benchmark provides 6,400 expert demonstrations paired with corresponding language commands, along with rich multi-modal observations such as RGB-D images and fused point clouds. The tasks are structured to enforce strong temporal dependencies and require exclusive multi-agent participation, reflecting the complexity of real-world collaborative manipulation. Evaluation is based on standardized success-rate metrics under a strict 100-second time constraint, enabling comprehensive assessment of agents’ capabilities in language-guided planning, task allocation, and fine-grained coordination.
\item CHAIC \cite{Du2024MABench16} introduces the first large-scale benchmark for embodied social intelligence with a specific focus on accessibility. It simulates interactions between helper agents and four types of physically constrained human partners, including wheelchair users, children, frail adults, and bicyclists. These interactions are carried out across eight long-horizon tasks set in both indoor and outdoor environments, many of which involve emergency scenarios. To successfully assist their partners, agents must infer individual goals and physical limitations based on egocentric RGB-D observations, and generate user-adaptive cooperative plans grounded in realistic physics. The benchmark evaluates performance using metrics such as transport success rate, efficiency improvement, and goal inference accuracy, enabling rigorous assessment of socially aware embodied collaboration.
\item RoCo \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1} is a benchmark consisting of six tasks for evaluating multi-robot manipulation. It is specifically designed to probe key dimensions of collaboration, including task decomposition into parallel or sequential subtasks, symmetry of observations between agents, and varying degrees of workspace overlap. The environment is built on MuJoCo and is accompanied by a text-only dataset. Tasks in RoCo involve everyday household objects and require agents to demonstrate zero-shot adaptation, feedback-driven re-planning and language-grounded task reasoning. The evaluations in RoCo are based on metrics including success rate, environment step efficiency and the number of re-planning attempts, allowing rigorous assessment of both high-level coordination and low-level motion planning performance.
\item MAP-THOR \cite{Nayak2024MABench15} is a benchmark consisting of 45 long-horizon, language-instructed multi-agent tasks situated in the AI2-THOR simulator under partial observability. To evaluate spatial generalization, each task is instantiated across five distinct floor plans. The benchmark also categorizes tasks into four levels according to the explicitness of item types, quantities, and target locations. These levels span a spectrum from fully specified instructions to entirely implicit goals, progressively increasing the demands on planner robustness in the face of linguistic ambiguity. To support consistent and comprehensive evaluation, the benchmark adopts standardized metrics such as success rate, transport rate, coverage, balance, and average decision steps. Together, these metrics enable rigorous end-to-end comparisons of multi-agent planning approaches without relying on privileged simulator information.
\item REMROC \cite{Heuer2024MABench6} is a modular, open-source benchmark designed to evaluate multi-robot coordination algorithms in realistic and unstructured environments that are shared with humans. It is built on ROS2, Gazebo Ignition and Navigation2, and supports heterogeneous robot platforms, configurable environments with varying human densities, and integrated human motion models. To enable systematic assessment, the benchmark records a variety of performance metrics, including time-to-goal and path efficiency, which allow researchers to quantify the impact of human presence on coordination effectiveness.
\item T2E \cite{Zhang2024MABench7} is a 2D simulation benchmark where heterogeneous captor and target robots must coordinate to trap opponents, rather than simply pursue them. This is achieved by combining inter-agent cooperation with environmental constraints. The trapping process is formalized using the absolutely safe zone (ASZ) metric, which measures the degree of spatial confinement. The benchmark includes open-source environments based on real-world maps and provides tailored MARL baselines through a unified TrapNet architecture. It supports both fully cooperative and competitive evaluation settings. Standardized metrics, including completion time, success rate, path length, and ASZ area change, are used to rigorously assess collaborative behaviors in complex spatial layouts.
\item SocialGym 2.0 \cite{Chandra2024MABench8} is a multi-agent social navigation benchmark for training and evaluating autonomous robots with individual kino-dynamic constraints. It supports a variety of environments including both open spaces and geometrically constrained areas such as doorways, hallways, intersections and roundabouts. The simulator integrates the PettingZoo \cite{Terry2021PettingZoo} with ROS messaging, allowing for fully customizable observation and reward functions. SocialGym2.0 includes a set of social mini-games along with realistic building layouts. It defines evaluation metrics such as success rate, collision rate and stopping time, which are used to rigorously assess policy performance in diverse social interaction scenarios.
\item Cambridge RoboMaster \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9} offers an agile and low-cost research testbed for MAS by retrofitting DJI RoboMaster S1 platforms with advanced onboard compute such as NVIDIA Jetson Orin, custom ROS2 drivers, and dual-network communication capabilities using both CAN and WiFi. The platform supports seamless sim-to-real transfer through integration with the VMAS framework\cite{Bettini2024VMAS}, allowing zero-shot deployment of both traditional model-based controllers and decentralized MARL policies driven by GNNs. This hardware-software integration enables real-world experimentation under controlled yet realistic conditions. The testbed supports a variety of embodied multi-agent tasks, including trajectory tracking, visual SLAM, and cooperative navigation, thereby facilitating reproducible, scalable, and physically grounded evaluation of coordination strategies and policy generalization in embodied systems.
\item S3E \cite{Feng2024MABench10} is a large-scale benchmark for collaborative SLAM (C-SLAM). It features synchronized 360$\circ$ LiDAR, high-resolution stereo imagery, high-frequency IMU and novel UWB ranging data collected from three mobile platforms. The dataset covers 18 indoor and outdoor sequences and totals over 263 GB. To support systematic evaluation, S3E defines four representative trajectory patterns: concentric circles, intersecting circles, intersection curve and rays. These patterns test the ability of C-SLAM methods to handle both intra- and inter-loop closures under different levels of spatial overlap.
\item PARTNR \cite{Chang2025MABench11} ~\cite{Chang2025MABench11} is a large-scale benchmark for embodied human–AI collaboration driven by natural language. It includes 100,000 procedurally generated tasks distributed across 60 diverse multi-room houses containing 5,819 unique objects. All the included tasks are divided into four types: constraint-free, spatial, temporal and heterogeneous, which are designed to evaluate long-horizon planning and inter-agent coordination under realistic physical conditions. Each instruction is paired with a simulation-grounded evaluation function that is automatically generated, enabling rigorous assessment of task completion. The benchmark is built using a semi-automated pipeline that integrates LLM-based task generation, evaluation synthesis, in-the-loop simulation filtering, and human validation. This design enables PARTNR to reach an unprecedented scale and diversity. It also highlights the performance gap between current LLM-based planners and human collaborators in complex multi-agent embodied tasks.
\item EmbodiedBench \cite{Yang2025MABench12} provides a comprehensive suite of 1,128 testing instances across four embodied environments. These include household scenarios (EB-ALFRED and EB-Habitat) and low-level control domains (EB-Navigation and EB-Manipulation). The tasks span both high- and low-level action hierarchies and are organized into six capability-oriented subsets: base, common sense, complex instruction, spatial awareness, visual perception and long-horizon reasoning. The benchmark supports fine-grained, multi-modal evaluation of 19 state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source multi-modal large language models (MLLMs), enabling systematic assessment across a wide range of embodied AI challenges.
\item MRMG-Planning \cite{Hartmann2025MABench13} formalizes the problem of multi-modal, multi-robot, multi-goal path planning in continuous spaces. The benchmark includes 21 diverse scenarios, ranging from simple validation tasks to complex cases involving up to five heterogeneous robots and 74 sequential goals. MRMG-Planning supports dynamic environment changes by modeling mode transitions that modify both robot assignments and scene geometry, such as during object handovers. Each scenario is instantiated in a composite configuration space and paired with two baseline planners based on RRT* and PRM*, both of which are asymptotically optimal and probabilistically complete. This design enables rigorous evaluation of end-to-end planning performance under varying robot counts, goal sequences and cost formulations.
\item CARIC \cite{Cao2025MABench14} provides a benchmark for heterogeneous multi-UAV inspection, in which LiDAR-equipped explorers and camera-only photographers must collaboratively map unknown structures using only bounding box constraints while capturing high-quality structural imagery. CARIC incorporates realistic limitations on kinematics, communication and sensing capabilities. It includes a variety of inspection scenarios such as buildings, cranes and aircraft, and defines rich evaluation metrics that decompose the inspection score into components for visibility, motion blur and spatial resolution. These metrics enable systematic evaluation of task allocation and planning under tight constraints and support reproducible comparisons for real-world aerial inspection tasks demonstrated in CDC 2023 and IROS 2024.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Grid-MAPF \cite{Stern2019MABench17} is a comprehensive benchmark for MAPF featuring 24 diverse grid maps that cover city layouts, game environments and warehouse-style grids, with 25 scenarios provided for each map.
It systematically generates source-target pairs using random, clustered or designated methods and supports progressive agent scaling to test solver performance under increasing difficulty. Grid-MAPF formalizes various conflict types (e.g., vertex, edge, swapping) and supports multiple objectives such as makespan and sum of costs, enabling standardized and reproducible comparisons across MAPF algorithms.
\item FurnMove \cite{Jain2020MABench19} is a simulated benchmark designed to evaluate interactive furniture rearrangement, requiring agents to perceive, navigate, and manipulate multiple objects to achieve a target room layout. Built upon Habitat 2.0, it offers diverse 3D environments with varying furniture types and spatial configurations. Tasks are framed as multi-step, object-centric transformations toward a predefined goal state. The benchmark defines structured scenarios with different levels of difficulty and introduces comprehensive evaluation metrics, including layout accuracy, motion efficiency, and collision count, making it a robust testbed for embodied planning and control in visually complex environments.
\item SMARTS \cite{Zhou2021MABench20} is a scalable simulation platform and benchmark suite specifically designed for MARL in autonomous driving. It enables diverse and realistic interaction scenarios through a modular architecture, incorporating heterogeneous social agents from an extensible ``Social Agent Zoo.'' SMARTS provides fine-grained simulation control via ``bubbles'' for localized agent interactions, supports distributed multi-agent training, and maintains compatibility with mainstream MARL libraries. The benchmark includes challenging driving tasks such as double merges and unprotected intersections, and offers a comprehensive set of evaluation metrics covering safety, agility, cooperation, and game-theoretic behavior, establishing it as a powerful testbed for complex MARL-based driving research.
\item Megaverse \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1} is an eight-task embodied AI benchmark. It features procedurally generated 3D environments designed to evaluate a wide range of agent capabilities, including maze navigation, obstacle traversal, exploration, puzzle solving, object manipulation and memory-based reasoning. The platform achieves high-throughput simulation with over 1M observations per second through GPU-accelerated batched execution. It also supports multi-agent teams and enables infinite random instantiations of tasks, promoting generalization and robustness. As an open-source benchmark, Megaverse facilitates reproducible evaluation of embodied AI methods in navigation, exploration, planning, and manipulation.
\item V2X-Sim \cite{Li2022MABench18} is a comprehensive benchmark for multi-agent collaborative perception in autonomous driving, supporting realistic vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication scenarios. Built upon CARLA-SUMO co-simulation, it provides multi-modal sensor data including RGB, LiDAR, GPS and semantic labels from both vehicles and roadside units. V2X-Sim evaluates collaborative 3D object detection, tracking and bird eye view semantic segmentation under various fusion strategies. With rich annotations, spatial diversity and support for intermediate feature sharing, V2X-Sim offers a rigorous testbed for assessing perception robustness under occlusion, sensor noise and communication limitations.
\item Bi-Dexhands \cite{Chen2022MABench2} is a unified benchmark built on Isaac Gym \cite{Makoviychuk2021IssacGym} that achieves over 30,000 FPS on a single NVIDIA RTX 3090 by running thousands of environments in parallel, enabling highly efficient RL. It includes twenty bi-manual manipulation tasks inspired by the Fine Motor Sub-test, supporting single-agent, multi-agent, offline, multi-task and meta-RL settings within a coherent benchmark. Unlike prior benchmarks, Bi-DexHands treats each joint, finger and hand as a truly heterogeneous agent, and leverages a diverse set of everyday objects from the YCB \cite{Calli2015YCBdataset} and SAPIEN datasets to evaluate task generalization. The platform also provides rich multi-modal observations including contact forces, RGB images, RGB-D images and point clouds, and aligns task difficulty with human motor development milestones, enabling direct comparisons between robotic performance and infant dexterity.
\item MRP-Bench \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3} is an open-source benchmark for evaluating full-stack multi-robot navigation systems, integrating both centralized and decentralized MAPF algorithms as well as task assignment methods within realistic 3D environments from intralogistics and household domains. Built upon ROS2 \cite{Steven2022ROS2}, Gazebo \cite{Koenig2004Gazebo}, Nav2 package and the robotics middle-ware framework, it supports end-to-end evaluation of planning and coordination methods. MRP-Bench offers modular interfaces, configurable scenarios and standardized evaluation metrics including success rate, planning time, makespan and execution quality, enabling direct comparisons of multi-robot solutions under cluttered, dynamic and complex conditions.
\item LEMMA \cite{Gong2023MABench4} is a language-conditioned benchmark for multi-robot manipulation, consisting of eight procedurally generated, long-horizon tabletop tasks. Each involved task is designed to require true collaboration, as successful completion depends on two heterogeneous robot arms operating under minimal high-level or crowd-sourced natural language instructions. To support learning and evaluation, the benchmark provides 6,400 expert demonstrations paired with corresponding language commands, along with rich multi-modal observations such as RGB-D images and fused point clouds. The tasks are structured to enforce strong temporal dependencies and require exclusive multi-agent participation, reflecting the complexity of real-world collaborative manipulation. Evaluation is based on standardized success-rate metrics under a strict 100-second time constraint, enabling comprehensive assessment of agents’ capabilities in language-guided planning, task allocation, and fine-grained coordination.
\item CHAIC \cite{Du2024MABench16} introduces the first large-scale benchmark for embodied social intelligence with a specific focus on accessibility. It simulates interactions between helper agents and four types of physically constrained human partners, including wheelchair users, children, frail adults, and bicyclists. These interactions are carried out across eight long-horizon tasks set in both indoor and outdoor environments, many of which involve emergency scenarios. To successfully assist their partners, agents must infer individual goals and physical limitations based on egocentric RGB-D observations, and generate user-adaptive cooperative plans grounded in realistic physics. The benchmark evaluates performance using metrics such as transport success rate, efficiency improvement, and goal inference accuracy, enabling rigorous assessment of socially aware embodied collaboration.
\item RoCo \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1} is a benchmark consisting of six tasks for evaluating multi-robot manipulation. It is specifically designed to probe key dimensions of collaboration, including task decomposition into parallel or sequential subtasks, symmetry of observations between agents, and varying degrees of workspace overlap. The environment is built on MuJoCo and is accompanied by a text-only dataset. Tasks in RoCo involve everyday household objects and require agents to demonstrate zero-shot adaptation, feedback-driven re-planning and language-grounded task reasoning. The evaluations in RoCo are based on metrics including success rate, environment step efficiency and the number of re-planning attempts, allowing rigorous assessment of both high-level coordination and low-level motion planning performance.
\item MAP-THOR \cite{Nayak2024MABench15} is a benchmark consisting of 45 long-horizon, language-instructed multi-agent tasks situated in the AI2-THOR simulator under partial observability. To evaluate spatial generalization, each task is instantiated across five distinct floor plans. The benchmark also categorizes tasks into four levels according to the explicitness of item types, quantities, and target locations. These levels span a spectrum from fully specified instructions to entirely implicit goals, progressively increasing the demands on planner robustness in the face of linguistic ambiguity. To support consistent and comprehensive evaluation, the benchmark adopts standardized metrics such as success rate, transport rate, coverage, balance, and average decision steps. Together, these metrics enable rigorous end-to-end comparisons of multi-agent planning approaches without relying on privileged simulator information.
\item REMROC \cite{Heuer2024MABench6} is a modular, open-source benchmark designed to evaluate multi-robot coordination algorithms in realistic and unstructured environments that are shared with humans. It is built on ROS2, Gazebo Ignition and Navigation2, and supports heterogeneous robot platforms, configurable environments with varying human densities, and integrated human motion models. To enable systematic assessment, the benchmark records a variety of performance metrics, including time-to-goal and path efficiency, which allow researchers to quantify the impact of human presence on coordination effectiveness.
\item T2E \cite{Zhang2024MABench7} is a 2D simulation benchmark where heterogeneous captor and target robots must coordinate to trap opponents, rather than simply pursue them. This is achieved by combining inter-agent cooperation with environmental constraints. The trapping process is formalized using the absolutely safe zone (ASZ) metric, which measures the degree of spatial confinement. The benchmark includes open-source environments based on real-world maps and provides tailored MARL baselines through a unified TrapNet architecture. It supports both fully cooperative and competitive evaluation settings. Standardized metrics, including completion time, success rate, path length, and ASZ area change, are used to rigorously assess collaborative behaviors in complex spatial layouts.
\item SocialGym 2.0 \cite{Chandra2024MABench8} is a multi-agent social navigation benchmark for training and evaluating autonomous robots with individual kino-dynamic constraints. It supports a variety of environments including both open spaces and geometrically constrained areas such as doorways, hallways, intersections and roundabouts. The simulator integrates the PettingZoo \cite{Terry2021PettingZoo} with ROS messaging, allowing for fully customizable observation and reward functions. SocialGym2.0 includes a set of social mini-games along with realistic building layouts. It defines evaluation metrics such as success rate, collision rate and stopping time, which are used to rigorously assess policy performance in diverse social interaction scenarios.
\item Cambridge RoboMaster \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9} offers an agile and low-cost research testbed for MAS by retrofitting DJI RoboMaster S1 platforms with advanced onboard compute such as NVIDIA Jetson Orin, custom ROS2 drivers, and dual-network communication capabilities using both CAN and WiFi. The platform supports seamless sim-to-real transfer through integration with the VMAS framework\cite{Bettini2024VMAS}, allowing zero-shot deployment of both traditional model-based controllers and decentralized MARL policies driven by GNNs. This hardware-software integration enables real-world experimentation under controlled yet realistic conditions. The testbed supports a variety of embodied multi-agent tasks, including trajectory tracking, visual SLAM, and cooperative navigation, thereby facilitating reproducible, scalable, and physically grounded evaluation of coordination strategies and policy generalization in embodied systems.
\item S3E \cite{Feng2024MABench10} is a large-scale benchmark for collaborative SLAM (C-SLAM). It features synchronized 360$\circ$ LiDAR, high-resolution stereo imagery, high-frequency IMU and novel UWB ranging data collected from three mobile platforms. The dataset covers 18 indoor and outdoor sequences and totals over 263 GB. To support systematic evaluation, S3E defines four representative trajectory patterns: concentric circles, intersecting circles, intersection curve and rays. These patterns test the ability of C-SLAM methods to handle both intra- and inter-loop closures under different levels of spatial overlap.
\item PARTNR \cite{Chang2025MABench11} ~\cite{Chang2025MABench11} is a large-scale benchmark for embodied human–AI collaboration driven by natural language. It includes 100,000 procedurally generated tasks distributed across 60 diverse multi-room houses containing 5,819 unique objects. All the included tasks are divided into four types: constraint-free, spatial, temporal and heterogeneous, which are designed to evaluate long-horizon planning and inter-agent coordination under realistic physical conditions. Each instruction is paired with a simulation-grounded evaluation function that is automatically generated, enabling rigorous assessment of task completion. The benchmark is built using a semi-automated pipeline that integrates LLM-based task generation, evaluation synthesis, in-the-loop simulation filtering, and human validation. This design enables PARTNR to reach an unprecedented scale and diversity. It also highlights the performance gap between current LLM-based planners and human collaborators in complex multi-agent embodied tasks.
\item EmbodiedBench \cite{Yang2025MABench12} provides a comprehensive suite of 1,128 testing instances across four embodied environments. These include household scenarios (EB-ALFRED and EB-Habitat) and low-level control domains (EB-Navigation and EB-Manipulation). The tasks span both high- and low-level action hierarchies and are organized into six capability-oriented subsets: base, common sense, complex instruction, spatial awareness, visual perception and long-horizon reasoning. The benchmark supports fine-grained, multi-modal evaluation of 19 state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source multi-modal large language models (MLLMs), enabling systematic assessment across a wide range of embodied AI challenges.
\item MRMG-Planning \cite{Hartmann2025MABench13} formalizes the problem of multi-modal, multi-robot, multi-goal path planning in continuous spaces. The benchmark includes 21 diverse scenarios, ranging from simple validation tasks to complex cases involving up to five heterogeneous robots and 74 sequential goals. MRMG-Planning supports dynamic environment changes by modeling mode transitions that modify both robot assignments and scene geometry, such as during object handovers. Each scenario is instantiated in a composite configuration space and paired with two baseline planners based on RRT* and PRM*, both of which are asymptotically optimal and probabilistically complete. This design enables rigorous evaluation of end-to-end planning performance under varying robot counts, goal sequences and cost formulations.
\item CARIC \cite{Cao2025MABench14} provides a benchmark for heterogeneous multi-UAV inspection, in which LiDAR-equipped explorers and camera-only photographers must collaboratively map unknown structures using only bounding box constraints while capturing high-quality structural imagery. CARIC incorporates realistic limitations on kinematics, communication and sensing capabilities. It includes a variety of inspection scenarios such as buildings, cranes and aircraft, and defines rich evaluation metrics that decompose the inspection score into components for visibility, motion blur and spatial resolution. These metrics enable systematic evaluation of task allocation and planning under tight constraints and support reproducible comparisons for real-world aerial inspection tasks demonstrated in CDC 2023 and IROS 2024.
\end{itemize}
\item Grid-MAPF \cite{Stern2019MABench17} is a comprehensive benchmark for MAPF featuring 24 diverse grid maps that cover city layouts, game environments and warehouse-style grids, with 25 scenarios provided for each map.
It systematically generates source-target pairs using random, clustered or designated methods and supports progressive agent scaling to test solver performance under increasing difficulty. Grid-MAPF formalizes various conflict types (e.g., vertex, edge, swapping) and supports multiple objectives such as makespan and sum of costs, enabling standardized and reproducible comparisons across MAPF algorithms.
\item FurnMove \cite{Jain2020MABench19} is a simulated benchmark designed to evaluate interactive furniture rearrangement, requiring agents to perceive, navigate, and manipulate multiple objects to achieve a target room layout. Built upon Habitat 2.0, it offers diverse 3D environments with varying furniture types and spatial configurations. Tasks are framed as multi-step, object-centric transformations toward a predefined goal state. The benchmark defines structured scenarios with different levels of difficulty and introduces comprehensive evaluation metrics, including layout accuracy, motion efficiency, and collision count, making it a robust testbed for embodied planning and control in visually complex environments.
\item SMARTS \cite{Zhou2021MABench20} is a scalable simulation platform and benchmark suite specifically designed for MARL in autonomous driving. It enables diverse and realistic interaction scenarios through a modular architecture, incorporating heterogeneous social agents from an extensible ``Social Agent Zoo.'' SMARTS provides fine-grained simulation control via ``bubbles'' for localized agent interactions, supports distributed multi-agent training, and maintains compatibility with mainstream MARL libraries. The benchmark includes challenging driving tasks such as double merges and unprotected intersections, and offers a comprehensive set of evaluation metrics covering safety, agility, cooperation, and game-theoretic behavior, establishing it as a powerful testbed for complex MARL-based driving research.
\item Megaverse \cite{Petrenko2021MABench1} is an eight-task embodied AI benchmark. It features procedurally generated 3D environments designed to evaluate a wide range of agent capabilities, including maze navigation, obstacle traversal, exploration, puzzle solving, object manipulation and memory-based reasoning. The platform achieves high-throughput simulation with over 1M observations per second through GPU-accelerated batched execution. It also supports multi-agent teams and enables infinite random instantiations of tasks, promoting generalization and robustness. As an open-source benchmark, Megaverse facilitates reproducible evaluation of embodied AI methods in navigation, exploration, planning, and manipulation.
\item V2X-Sim \cite{Li2022MABench18} is a comprehensive benchmark for multi-agent collaborative perception in autonomous driving, supporting realistic vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication scenarios. Built upon CARLA-SUMO co-simulation, it provides multi-modal sensor data including RGB, LiDAR, GPS and semantic labels from both vehicles and roadside units. V2X-Sim evaluates collaborative 3D object detection, tracking and bird eye view semantic segmentation under various fusion strategies. With rich annotations, spatial diversity and support for intermediate feature sharing, V2X-Sim offers a rigorous testbed for assessing perception robustness under occlusion, sensor noise and communication limitations.
\item Bi-Dexhands \cite{Chen2022MABench2} is a unified benchmark built on Isaac Gym \cite{Makoviychuk2021IssacGym} that achieves over 30,000 FPS on a single NVIDIA RTX 3090 by running thousands of environments in parallel, enabling highly efficient RL. It includes twenty bi-manual manipulation tasks inspired by the Fine Motor Sub-test, supporting single-agent, multi-agent, offline, multi-task and meta-RL settings within a coherent benchmark. Unlike prior benchmarks, Bi-DexHands treats each joint, finger and hand as a truly heterogeneous agent, and leverages a diverse set of everyday objects from the YCB \cite{Calli2015YCBdataset} and SAPIEN datasets to evaluate task generalization. The platform also provides rich multi-modal observations including contact forces, RGB images, RGB-D images and point clouds, and aligns task difficulty with human motor development milestones, enabling direct comparisons between robotic performance and infant dexterity.
\item MRP-Bench \cite{Schaefer2023MABench3} is an open-source benchmark for evaluating full-stack multi-robot navigation systems, integrating both centralized and decentralized MAPF algorithms as well as task assignment methods within realistic 3D environments from intralogistics and household domains. Built upon ROS2 \cite{Steven2022ROS2}, Gazebo \cite{Koenig2004Gazebo}, Nav2 package and the robotics middle-ware framework, it supports end-to-end evaluation of planning and coordination methods. MRP-Bench offers modular interfaces, configurable scenarios and standardized evaluation metrics including success rate, planning time, makespan and execution quality, enabling direct comparisons of multi-robot solutions under cluttered, dynamic and complex conditions.
\item LEMMA \cite{Gong2023MABench4} is a language-conditioned benchmark for multi-robot manipulation, consisting of eight procedurally generated, long-horizon tabletop tasks. Each involved task is designed to require true collaboration, as successful completion depends on two heterogeneous robot arms operating under minimal high-level or crowd-sourced natural language instructions. To support learning and evaluation, the benchmark provides 6,400 expert demonstrations paired with corresponding language commands, along with rich multi-modal observations such as RGB-D images and fused point clouds. The tasks are structured to enforce strong temporal dependencies and require exclusive multi-agent participation, reflecting the complexity of real-world collaborative manipulation. Evaluation is based on standardized success-rate metrics under a strict 100-second time constraint, enabling comprehensive assessment of agents’ capabilities in language-guided planning, task allocation, and fine-grained coordination.
\item CHAIC \cite{Du2024MABench16} introduces the first large-scale benchmark for embodied social intelligence with a specific focus on accessibility. It simulates interactions between helper agents and four types of physically constrained human partners, including wheelchair users, children, frail adults, and bicyclists. These interactions are carried out across eight long-horizon tasks set in both indoor and outdoor environments, many of which involve emergency scenarios. To successfully assist their partners, agents must infer individual goals and physical limitations based on egocentric RGB-D observations, and generate user-adaptive cooperative plans grounded in realistic physics. The benchmark evaluates performance using metrics such as transport success rate, efficiency improvement, and goal inference accuracy, enabling rigorous assessment of socially aware embodied collaboration.
\item RoCo \cite{Mandi2024EnvReflection1} is a benchmark consisting of six tasks for evaluating multi-robot manipulation. It is specifically designed to probe key dimensions of collaboration, including task decomposition into parallel or sequential subtasks, symmetry of observations between agents, and varying degrees of workspace overlap. The environment is built on MuJoCo and is accompanied by a text-only dataset. Tasks in RoCo involve everyday household objects and require agents to demonstrate zero-shot adaptation, feedback-driven re-planning and language-grounded task reasoning. The evaluations in RoCo are based on metrics including success rate, environment step efficiency and the number of re-planning attempts, allowing rigorous assessment of both high-level coordination and low-level motion planning performance.
\item MAP-THOR \cite{Nayak2024MABench15} is a benchmark consisting of 45 long-horizon, language-instructed multi-agent tasks situated in the AI2-THOR simulator under partial observability. To evaluate spatial generalization, each task is instantiated across five distinct floor plans. The benchmark also categorizes tasks into four levels according to the explicitness of item types, quantities, and target locations. These levels span a spectrum from fully specified instructions to entirely implicit goals, progressively increasing the demands on planner robustness in the face of linguistic ambiguity. To support consistent and comprehensive evaluation, the benchmark adopts standardized metrics such as success rate, transport rate, coverage, balance, and average decision steps. Together, these metrics enable rigorous end-to-end comparisons of multi-agent planning approaches without relying on privileged simulator information.
\item REMROC \cite{Heuer2024MABench6} is a modular, open-source benchmark designed to evaluate multi-robot coordination algorithms in realistic and unstructured environments that are shared with humans. It is built on ROS2, Gazebo Ignition and Navigation2, and supports heterogeneous robot platforms, configurable environments with varying human densities, and integrated human motion models. To enable systematic assessment, the benchmark records a variety of performance metrics, including time-to-goal and path efficiency, which allow researchers to quantify the impact of human presence on coordination effectiveness.
\item T2E \cite{Zhang2024MABench7} is a 2D simulation benchmark where heterogeneous captor and target robots must coordinate to trap opponents, rather than simply pursue them. This is achieved by combining inter-agent cooperation with environmental constraints. The trapping process is formalized using the absolutely safe zone (ASZ) metric, which measures the degree of spatial confinement. The benchmark includes open-source environments based on real-world maps and provides tailored MARL baselines through a unified TrapNet architecture. It supports both fully cooperative and competitive evaluation settings. Standardized metrics, including completion time, success rate, path length, and ASZ area change, are used to rigorously assess collaborative behaviors in complex spatial layouts.
\item SocialGym 2.0 \cite{Chandra2024MABench8} is a multi-agent social navigation benchmark for training and evaluating autonomous robots with individual kino-dynamic constraints. It supports a variety of environments including both open spaces and geometrically constrained areas such as doorways, hallways, intersections and roundabouts. The simulator integrates the PettingZoo \cite{Terry2021PettingZoo} with ROS messaging, allowing for fully customizable observation and reward functions. SocialGym2.0 includes a set of social mini-games along with realistic building layouts. It defines evaluation metrics such as success rate, collision rate and stopping time, which are used to rigorously assess policy performance in diverse social interaction scenarios.
\item Cambridge RoboMaster \cite{Blumenkamp2024MABench9} offers an agile and low-cost research testbed for MAS by retrofitting DJI RoboMaster S1 platforms with advanced onboard compute such as NVIDIA Jetson Orin, custom ROS2 drivers, and dual-network communication capabilities using both CAN and WiFi. The platform supports seamless sim-to-real transfer through integration with the VMAS framework\cite{Bettini2024VMAS}, allowing zero-shot deployment of both traditional model-based controllers and decentralized MARL policies driven by GNNs. This hardware-software integration enables real-world experimentation under controlled yet realistic conditions. The testbed supports a variety of embodied multi-agent tasks, including trajectory tracking, visual SLAM, and cooperative navigation, thereby facilitating reproducible, scalable, and physically grounded evaluation of coordination strategies and policy generalization in embodied systems.
\item S3E \cite{Feng2024MABench10} is a large-scale benchmark for collaborative SLAM (C-SLAM). It features synchronized 360$\circ$\circ LiDAR, high-resolution stereo imagery, high-frequency IMU and novel UWB ranging data collected from three mobile platforms. The dataset covers 18 indoor and outdoor sequences and totals over 263 GB. To support systematic evaluation, S3E defines four representative trajectory patterns: concentric circles, intersecting circles, intersection curve and rays. These patterns test the ability of C-SLAM methods to handle both intra- and inter-loop closures under different levels of spatial overlap.
\item PARTNR \cite{Chang2025MABench11} ~\cite{Chang2025MABench11} is a large-scale benchmark for embodied human–AI collaboration driven by natural language. It includes 100,000 procedurally generated tasks distributed across 60 diverse multi-room houses containing 5,819 unique objects. All the included tasks are divided into four types: constraint-free, spatial, temporal and heterogeneous, which are designed to evaluate long-horizon planning and inter-agent coordination under realistic physical conditions. Each instruction is paired with a simulation-grounded evaluation function that is automatically generated, enabling rigorous assessment of task completion. The benchmark is built using a semi-automated pipeline that integrates LLM-based task generation, evaluation synthesis, in-the-loop simulation filtering, and human validation. This design enables PARTNR to reach an unprecedented scale and diversity. It also highlights the performance gap between current LLM-based planners and human collaborators in complex multi-agent embodied tasks.
\item EmbodiedBench \cite{Yang2025MABench12} provides a comprehensive suite of 1,128 testing instances across four embodied environments. These include household scenarios (EB-ALFRED and EB-Habitat) and low-level control domains (EB-Navigation and EB-Manipulation). The tasks span both high- and low-level action hierarchies and are organized into six capability-oriented subsets: base, common sense, complex instruction, spatial awareness, visual perception and long-horizon reasoning. The benchmark supports fine-grained, multi-modal evaluation of 19 state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source multi-modal large language models (MLLMs), enabling systematic assessment across a wide range of embodied AI challenges.
\item MRMG-Planning \cite{Hartmann2025MABench13} formalizes the problem of multi-modal, multi-robot, multi-goal path planning in continuous spaces. The benchmark includes 21 diverse scenarios, ranging from simple validation tasks to complex cases involving up to five heterogeneous robots and 74 sequential goals. MRMG-Planning supports dynamic environment changes by modeling mode transitions that modify both robot assignments and scene geometry, such as during object handovers. Each scenario is instantiated in a composite configuration space and paired with two baseline planners based on RRT* and PRM*, both of which are asymptotically optimal and probabilistically complete. This design enables rigorous evaluation of end-to-end planning performance under varying robot counts, goal sequences and cost formulations.
\item CARIC \cite{Cao2025MABench14} provides a benchmark for heterogeneous multi-UAV inspection, in which LiDAR-equipped explorers and camera-only photographers must collaboratively map unknown structures using only bounding box constraints while capturing high-quality structural imagery. CARIC incorporates realistic limitations on kinematics, communication and sensing capabilities. It includes a variety of inspection scenarios such as buildings, cranes and aircraft, and defines rich evaluation metrics that decompose the inspection score into components for visibility, motion blur and spatial resolution. These metrics enable systematic evaluation of task allocation and planning under tight constraints and support reproducible comparisons for real-world aerial inspection tasks demonstrated in CDC 2023 and IROS 2024.
|
Multi-agent Embodied AI
| false
|
2505.05108
| 4
|
76,424
|
\label{sec:disscussions}
Despite of the rapid progress of embodied AI and the primary development of multi-agent embodied AI, it faces several challenges and presents exciting future directions.
\paragraph{Theory for complex Embodied AI interaction.}Theory for complex Embodied AI interaction.
Building upon the theoretical foundations provided by Markov games, MARL has introduced various frameworks for effectively modeling cooperative relationships among agents in complex environments~\cite{zhang2021multi}. Methods such as value decomposition (e.g., VDN~\cite{Sunehag2017VDN}, QMIX~\cite{rashid2020monotonic}) have improved scalability by decomposing joint objectives into individual utilities, while counterfactual reasoning approaches like COMA~\cite{foerster2018counterfactual} have significantly enhanced attribution accuracy for individual agent contributions. Advances in transfer learning and networked MARL have mitigated challenges posed by agent heterogeneity and environmental non-stationarity. Additionally, the integration of control and game theory has fostered effective coordination strategies, exemplified by consensus protocols and distributed task allocation methods~\cite{Chu2020Multi-agent}. However, embodied multi-agent intelligence introduces unique theoretical challenges, including asynchronous sensing, delayed actions, limited observability, communication constraints, and substantial heterogeneity, complicating both theoretical formulation and practical implementation. Furthermore, while large generative models, particularly LLMs, offer significant potential in facilitating planning and inter-agent communication, their theoretical characteristics such as stability, generalization and interpretability still remain inadequately understood~\cite{strachan2024testing}. To address these limitations, future research should explore new theoretical paradigms specifically tailored to embodied MAS, leveraging approaches such as causal inference to uncover inter-agent dependencies, complex systems theory to understand emergent behaviors, and hierarchical, bio-inspired coordination frameworks adaptable to real-world complexity.
\paragraph{New algorithm design.}New algorithm design.
Recent developments have solidified the role of MARL as a foundational framework for cooperative and competitive multi-agent scenarios. Notable algorithms, including QMIX~\cite{rashid2020monotonic} with its monotonic value decomposition and MAPPO~\cite{yu2022surprising}, an adaptation of proximal policy optimization, have demonstrated compelling results in benchmark environments such as SMAC and Google research football (GRF)\cite{Yuan2023OpenSurvey}. Nevertheless, these successes predominantly rely on the CTDE paradigm\cite{amato2024introduction}, assuming ideal conditions and unrestricted access to agent actions—conditions rarely achievable in embodied scenarios. Physical deployment introduces significant complexities such as sensor noise, limited actuation, delayed feedback, and partial observability. Moreover, existing multi-agent learning frameworks typically struggle with generalization beyond training distributions and have limited scalability when dealing with heterogeneous teams. Embodied multi-agent tasks involve multi-modal sensory data, diverse capabilities, and dynamic interactions, necessitating alternative algorithmic frameworks beyond traditional paradigms such as CTDE, DTDE (decentralized training and execution), or CTCE (centralized training and execution). Promising future directions include hierarchical coordination structures, agent-grouping mechanisms, and the integration of structured priors or classic control theories to achieve scalable and robust performance in embodied MAS.
\paragraph{Effective and efficient learning.}Effective and efficient learning.
Most multi-agent learning methodologies have been developed in simulation or gaming environments, benefiting from low-cost, highly repeatable scenarios that allow extensive policy optimization through frequent interaction sampling. However, embodied multi-agent tasks exponentially increase complexity, severely reducing sample efficiency and complicating joint exploration due to vast state and policy spaces~\cite{albrecht2024multi}. These challenges are amplified in real-world contexts, where each interaction incurs considerable time, financial cost, and hardware wear~\cite{yu2018towards}. Although recent advancements in single-agent embodied learning—such as extracting knowledge from large multi-modal models like LLMs~\cite{cao2024survey}, employing world-model-based simulations for policy rollouts~\cite{luo2024survey}, and leveraging offline data-driven policy calibration~\cite{jiang2024multi}—have improved sample efficiency, these strategies often struggle in multi-agent contexts owing to complex interactions and non-stationary dynamics. To overcome these barriers, specialized multi-agent world models accurately simulating interactive dynamics, exploration strategies informed by structured prior knowledge, rapid initialization through IL, and meta-learning for improved generalization are necessary. Additionally, developing robust methodologies supporting effective multi-task and sim-to-real transfer is vital for real-world applicability.
\paragraph{Large generative models assisted learning.}Large generative models assisted learning.
Recent advances in pre-trained large models, such as GPT-4, PaLM, CLIP, SAM and Gemini, have significantly reshaped language, vision and multi-modal learning landscapes by offering powerful capabilities in representation, perception, and reasoning~\cite{huang2024large}. These foundation models, trained on vast and diverse datasets, provide rich prior knowledge and robust cross-modal alignment, presenting promising avenues for enhancing embodied AI. Leveraging these models allows agents to attain deeper semantic understanding, superior generalization, and more adaptive interactions. However, directly deploying these foundation models in embodied multi-agent scenarios remains challenging~\cite{Chen2024MALLMPlanning4}, as they typically derive from static, single-agent contexts and lack inductive biases essential for dynamic interactions involving asynchronous communication, partial observability, tightly coupled policies, and non-stationarity. Furthermore, embodied MAS usually involve high-dimensional multi-modal inputs, extensive action spaces and sparse feedback, limiting the adaptability and efficiency of the learning algorithms. Insights from recent single-agent embodied learning—such as few-shot adaptation, multi-modal joint pretraining and simulation-driven data augmentation provide valuable transferable knowledge~\cite{ma2024survey} for multi-agent research. Future research should focus on developing scalable multi-agent pretraining paradigms, integrating foundation models with reinforcement learning and graph-based coordination methods, and enhancing sim-to-real transfer, thereby forming robust and generalizable frameworks for multi-agent embodied AI in complex, open-ended environments.
\paragraph{General multi-agent Embodied AI framework.}General multi-agent Embodied AI framework.
Recent advancements in multi-agent embodied AI have primarily emphasized solving specific tasks within constrained scenarios. While progress is notable, this focus significantly limits the generalizability and scalability of policies. Benchmarks such as SMAC and GRF have driven progress in MARL, yet existing methods continue to struggle with variable task objectives, environmental dynamics, and agent team compositions~\cite{Yuan2023OpenSurvey}. Single-agent generalist models like Gato~\cite{reed2022a} and RT-X~\cite{Neill2024SABenchmark} demonstrate unified architectures' potential in broadly generalizing across vision, language, and control domains. Extending generalist principles to multi-agent settings introduces additional complexity from inherent non-stationarity, intricate agent interactions, and multiple equilibria. Moreover, current architectures often assume fixed team sizes and agent homogeneity, restricting scalability and adaptability. Recent innovations such as the multi-agent Transformer (MAT)~\cite{wen2022multi} address scalability via permutation-invariant representations but substantial challenges remain, particularly in integrating multimodal knowledge (e.g., physical embodiment, social reasoning, linguistic interaction) into unified frameworks. Future advancements will require equilibrium-aware training methodologies, modular and scalable architectures, and robust multimodal representation learning techniques, enabling reliable coordination and generalization in dynamic multi-agent environments.
\paragraph{Adaptation to open environments.}Adaptation to open environments.
Unlike the stable and closed task settings that commonly assumed in embodied AI research, scenarios with open environments~\cite{zhou2022open} present significant challenges for embodied MAS due to their inherently dynamic, uncertain and non-stationary characteristics. Agents operating within such environments often encounter unpredictable sensory inputs, shifting reward structures, evolving tasks and frequently changing agent populations. For instance, the environments may include noisy observations, delayed or disrupted feedback and task transitions ranging from navigation and exploration to cooperative or competitive interactions. Additionally, the shifting team compositions with teammates and adversaries changing unpredictably further complicate coordinations. The human involvement also introduces extra layers of uncertainty due to diverse, less predictable behaviors. Such variability undermines the consistency between training and deployment environments, revealing the fragility of policies~\cite{Yuan2023OpenSurvey}. Thus, achieving effective performance in open environments requires agents with robust policies resilient to sensory and environmental disturbances, continual learning capabilities that integrate new experiences without compromising previously acquired skills and contextual reasoning abilities for dynamic interactions and coordinations with novel agents. Methods enabling rapid strategy adaptation such as policy reuse, latent variable modeling and meta-learning have become indispensable for generalizing quickly to unseen circumstances. Although recent advances in robust MARL, lifelong learning, and context-aware decision-making are promising, critical challenges remain unsolved. Future research should prioritize accurate modeling of open-environment dynamics, anticipating heterogeneous agent and human behaviors, and enabling real-time algorithmic adaptation.
\paragraph{Evaluation and verification.}Evaluation and verification.
Establishing rigorous and comprehensive evaluation frameworks is crucial yet challenging for advancing multi-agent embodied AI. Recent platforms, including CHAIC~\cite{Du2024MABench16} (further benchmarks in Table~\ref{tbl:MABenchmarks}), have provided valuable resources but often suffer from limited representational complexity and insufficient ecological validity. Current benchmarks predominantly focus on single-modality tasks, neglecting essential multi-modal signals (vision, language, audio, video) necessary for realistic perception and decision-making. Furthermore, benchmarks commonly involve small-scale, homogeneous MAS, inadequately representing the complexity encountered in heterogeneous MAS comprising diverse embodiments such as drones, robotic arms, autonomous vehicles, and quadrupedal robots. Additionally, idealized assumptions such as ignoring partial observability, communication latency, adversarial behaviors and asynchronous execution widen the sim-to-real gap, undermining policy robustness and transferability. Subsequently, future research should aim to develop general-purpose, modular and scalable evaluation frameworks analogous to Gym, MuJoCo or PyMARL~\cite{samvelyan2019starcraft}, incorporating multi-modal interactions, heterogeneous coordination and reproducibility features. Physical testbeds, including robot soccer platforms (e.g., RoboCup~\cite{farias2025robocup}) and drone swarm arenas are also essential to validate real-world feasibility and bridge sim-to-real gaps. Moreover, the absence of standardized and interpretable evaluation metrics remains unresolved, as existing measures (e.g., coordination scores, network-based metrics) often lack consistency and generalizability. Therefore, developing unified benchmarks with clearly defined tasks, comprehensive evaluation criteria (robustness, scalability, energy efficiency, behavioral diversity), open-access leader-boards, and formal verification methods is imperative, especially for safety-critical applications.
\paragraph{Applications and implementations.}Applications and implementations.
Multi-agent embodied AI holds immense promise across diverse domains including robotics, education, healthcare, military operations, interactive simulations and smart-city infrastructures. In robotics, particularly within industrial manufacturing, warehouse logistics, and autonomous driving, successful deployment necessitates robust real-time coordination, reliable collision avoidance, and adaptable platforms, emphasizing algorithmic generalizability. Educational applications involving virtual agent teams demand controlled, socially appropriate behaviors, thus placing substantial requirements on advanced natural language processing and affective computing capabilities. In healthcare, integrating robotic agents within medical teams highlights the necessity for reliable decision-making, robust privacy safeguards, and strict adherence to ethical standards. Military applications, such as coordinated drone swarms, further underline these challenges, stressing policy robustness under adversarial conditions and the crucial role of human oversight to mitigate ethical and operational risks associated with autonomy. Interactive simulations and competitive gaming environments, exemplified by platforms like OpenAI Five~\cite{berner2019dota} and AlphaStar~\cite{vinyals2019grandmaster}, have provided valuable benchmarks but face limitations due to high computational requirements and difficulties in transferring learned strategies to real-world contexts. Smart-city scenarios, including traffic management and energy-grid optimization, involve extensive interactions among numerous autonomous agents, necessitating highly reliable, efficient, and safe solutions with direct societal impacts. Addressing these diverse yet interconnected challenges requires integrating expert domain knowledge, rigorous validation procedures, and comprehensive safety frameworks, enabling practical real-world deployments of embodied intelligent MAS.
\paragraph{Other future directions.}Other future directions.
While the previously sections highlight significant challenges within multi-agent embodied AI, several additional fundamental issues warrant deeper investigation. First, multi-modal perception and collaborative learning remain underexplored, with current research typically focusing on isolated sensory modalities and rarely effectively integrating vision, audio and language inputs. Future studies should thus prioritize developing robust cross-modal fusion methods and efficient communication protocols to handle modality disparities, information inconsistencies and latency issues~\cite{duan2024multimodal}. Second, social learning presents a promising pathway toward emergent collective AI. Although approaches such as IL and policy distillation enable agent populations to exhibit coordination surpassing individual capabilities, theoretical foundations and conditions necessary for stable emergent behaviors remain inadequately understood~\cite{ndousse2021emergent}. Lastly, as MAS are increasingly gain autonomy, addressing safety and ethical considerations becomes critically important, especially within sensitive or high-stakes environments~\cite{ruane2019conversational}. Explicit safety constraints, clear ethical guidelines and transparent explainability mechanisms must be developed to ensure fair, accountable and interpretable decision-making, thereby minimizing unintended risks arising from complex agent interactions and ensuring trustworthy AI deployments.
|
The Challenges and Future Works
| false
|
2505.05108
| 5
|
76,426
|
Large Language Models (LLMs)~\citep{openai2024gpt4technicalreport,grattafiori2024llama3herdmodels,qwen2025qwen25technicalreport} exhibit impressive abilities in various domains such as text generation~\citep{openai2024gpt4technicalreport,grattafiori2024llama3herdmodels,xu2025personalized}, instruction following~\citep{zhang2024instructiontuninglargelanguage,lou2024largelanguagemodelinstruction}, and reasoning~\citep{DBLP:conf/acl/0009C23}. Recently, considerable efforts have been made to enhance the multilingual capabilities of LLMs to meet the growing demand for their deployment in multilingual environments~\citep{qin2024multilinguallargelanguagemodel,huang2025surveylargelanguagemodels}. For instance, Gemini 1.5 incorporates a variety of multilingual data in its training process and emphasizes its multilingual capabilities~\citep{geminiteam2024gemini15unlockingmultimodal}.~\citet{yang2024qwen2technicalreport} claim that Qwen2 supports over 30 languages and achieves great performance on multilingual benchmarks. Moreover, multilingual training data comprises approximately 3\% of the training data for Llama 3, and there are also high-quality multilingual instruction-tuning data for 8 languages~\citep{grattafiori2024llama3herdmodels}. As the significance of multilingual capabilities in LLMs continues to grow, it is crucial to delve into the mechanisms of these capabilities to enhance them further.
Works focusing on the mechanisms of multilingual capabilities in LLMs can be broadly divided into neuron-based and internal-activation-based methods. Neuron-based methods aim to identify language-specific neurons and analyze their impact on the corresponding language~\citep{DBLP:conf/acl/ZhangZ0G024,DBLP:conf/nips/0006ZCKB24,DBLP:conf/acl/TangLH0WZWW24,DBLP:conf/naacl/KojimaOIYM24}. And activation-based method attempts to obtain token distributions at intermediate layers using the unembedding matrix in the final layer~\citep{zhong2024englishcentricllmslanguagemultilingual,DBLP:conf/acl/WendlerVM024}.
However, neuron-based methods are sometimes unreliable, due to ``superposition''~\citep{elhage2022toymodelssuperposition}, which suggests that neural networks often consolidate multiple unrelated concepts into a single neuron.
Additionally, activation-based method often has significant errors except in the last few layers, due to the varying distribution of activations across different layers. As such, it is important to use a more reliable and interpretable method to analyze multilingual capabilities in LLMs.
To achieve this, we use Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs)~\citep{bricken2023monosemanticity,cunningham2023sparse}, which are designed to decompose language model activations in each layer into a sparse linear combination of SAE features. The advantages of SAEs in analyzing multilingual capabilities in LLMs are threefold. First, SAEs can be applied to individual tokens, providing a more monosemous analysis compared to neuron-based methods. Second, SAEs are trained on each layer separately, making them more reliable when analyzing activations from different layers than current activation-based methods. Third, multilingual data is naturally parallel, meaning that ideally, the main difference between multilingual data is the language, so it is easy to identify monolingual features with SAEs.
Given the advantages of SAEs, we use them to analyze multilingual capabilities in LLMs. Concretely, we start with a preliminary experiment in which we find high activation of some features in a certain language. Inspired by this, we propose a metric to measure the monolinguality of a feature based on the activation difference across different languages. The results show that some features possess strong monolingual characteristics. Moreover, we believe that these language-specific features are not only related to language-specific tokens, so we experiment on a ``code-switching''~\citep{kuwanto2024linguistics,winata-etal-2023-decades} dataset and find that language-specific features are also closely associated with the language-specific linguistic context. Furthermore, we use \textit{directional ablation}~\citep{NEURIPS2024_f5454485,ferrando2024iknowentityknowledge} to ``zero out'' language-specific features during the forward pass of LLMs, resulting in a loss of capabilities in only certain language. Interestingly, we observe that some languages may exhibit more than one specific feature. And these features have a synergistic relationship, meaning ablating these features together results in a significant improvement compared to ablating them individually.
The language-specific features we find are of great monolinguality, so we further leverage them to improve \textit{steering vectors}~\citep{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2308-10248}. Concretely, we use language-specific features as gating signals to control steering vectors and achieve better control over the language generated by LLMs, which validates the practical potential of these language-specific features.
In summary, our main contributions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item We use SAE, a more human-interpretable method, to analyze multilingual capabilities of LLMs, and propose a metric to measure the monolinguality of SAE features.
\item We find some SAE features that are not only related to language-specific tokens but also related to language-specific linguistic context.
\item We find that ablating language-specific features only significantly decreases the language-specific capabilities of LLMs.
\item We use language-specific features as gating signals to improve \textit{steering vectors}, and achieve better control over the language generated by LLMs.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item We use SAE, a more human-interpretable method, to analyze multilingual capabilities of LLMs, and propose a metric to measure the monolinguality of SAE features.
\item We find some SAE features that are not only related to language-specific tokens but also related to language-specific linguistic context.
\item We find that ablating language-specific features only significantly decreases the language-specific capabilities of LLMs.
\item We use language-specific features as gating signals to improve \textit{steering vectors}, and achieve better control over the language generated by LLMs.
\end{itemize}
\item We use SAE, a more human-interpretable method, to analyze multilingual capabilities of LLMs, and propose a metric to measure the monolinguality of SAE features.
\item We find some SAE features that are not only related to language-specific tokens but also related to language-specific linguistic context.
\item We find that ablating language-specific features only significantly decreases the language-specific capabilities of LLMs.
\item We use language-specific features as gating signals to improve \textit{steering vectors}, and achieve better control over the language generated by LLMs.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2505.05111
| 1
|
95,394
|
Based on the methodology of systems-oriented design and participatory insights discussed in the methodology, this section presents the core architecture of the proposed assistant. The framework integrates lightweight on-device sensing, voice-based interaction and adaptive, context-sensitive feedback mechanisms designed to support ADHD-affected professionals in digital work environments.
Unlike conventional productivity tools that rely on rigid scheduling or performance metrics, the assistant functions as a co-regulatory digital companion responding in real time to fluctuations in attention, emotional tone and engagement patterns. Based on systems thinking and human-in-the-loop design, the assistant’s architecture is modular, private by design and highly configurable.
The following subsections detail the key components of the system, the nudging strategies used to support user engagement and the feedback-loop model that governs behavioral adaptation over time.
\subsection{Assistant Components: Enabling Human Centric and Systems Aware Interaction}
The assistant comprises three interlinked components: behavior sensing, voice interface and an adaptive feedback engine, each designed to support the fluctuating attention rhythms and emotional states of ADHD affected professionals. Based onn systems thinking principles, these modules do not function in isolation. Instead, they act as dynamic subsystems within a real-time feedback loop that senses, interprets and responds to user context in a manner that is gentle, situationally aware and emotionally safe.
The Behavior Sensing Module forms the system’s input layer, passively capturing low-friction behavioral signals such as tab switches, application transitions, inactivity windows and focus loss patterns. One of its unique features is the \textbf{“Where Was I?”} activity recall layer, which maintains a lightweight, local history buffer of the user’s last N actions across the digital workspace (e.g., moving from a project tracker to Slack to a spreadsheet). This history can be surfaced at any point through a floating interface (say a button) that responds to voice or click with prompts like:
\textit{“You were last working on your report, then checked email. Want to return?”}
The Voice Interface acts as both a communication bridge and a companion layer, providing intuitive access to assistance without intrusive visual popups or auditory overload. Instead of enforcing action, it offers soft invitations to reflect or resume and it adapts to the user’s preferred tone be it affirming, playful or calming.
Finally, the Adaptive Feedback Engine serves as the brain of the system, mapping sensed behaviors to timely, configurable nudges or suggestions. It constantly refines its response strategy through a human-in-the-loop feedback model, ensuring that the assistant adapts not only to behavioral patterns but to what feels right for the user in different contexts.
Collectively, these components embody a co-regulatory system—not one that tells users what to do, but one that stays alongside them, ready to support focus, recall or rest in ways that are neuroinclusive, respectful and responsive.
\subsection{Nudging Strategy: Soft Interventions for Adaptive Co-regulation}
Nudging in this system is designed not as behavioral enforcement but as soft cognitive companionship. Drawing from systems-aware modeling, nudges are triggered only when the assistant senses attention drift, fatigue patterns, or cognitive overload. Rather than rigid timers, the system responds to behavioral thresholds extended tab churn, long focus stretches, or missed task re-entry.
These nudges are delivered through the voice interface as non-intrusive invitations rather than commands. They may appear as brief reflections (\textit{“Want to pick up where you left off?”}), environmental presence cues (\textit{“Still here with you”}), or supportive reminders (\textit{“You’ve been going strong—need a breather?”}). Each nudge is emotionally safe and configurable. Users can tune frequency, mute cues during specific hours, or select their preferred nudge style from hype-based encouragement to calm affirmation.
A core part of the nudging system is the DopBoost feature—a dopamine-aligned micro-intervention designed to re-engage motivation and reset fatigue. If the assistant detects prolonged uninterrupted work or subtle signs of disengagement, it can offer: \textit{“Want a quick DopBoost? I’ve got a Glow Factor or Zen Zest ready.”} Users can pre-select their preferred DopBoost modes, which may include:
\begin{itemize}
\item Mood Fuel: a favorite playlist or word puzzle link
\item Zen Zest: a short breathing guide or mindful stretch reminder
\item Reward Rush: affirmation followed by a positive reinforcement loop
\item Focus Ritual: 2-minute intentional reset with light soundscapes or visuals
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Mood Fuel: a favorite playlist or word puzzle link
\item Zen Zest: a short breathing guide or mindful stretch reminder
\item Reward Rush: affirmation followed by a positive reinforcement loop
\item Focus Ritual: 2-minute intentional reset with light soundscapes or visuals
\end{itemize}
\item Mood Fuel: a favorite playlist or word puzzle link
\item Zen Zest: a short breathing guide or mindful stretch reminder
\item Reward Rush: affirmation followed by a positive reinforcement loop
\item Focus Ritual: 2-minute intentional reset with light soundscapes or visuals
Unlike static Pomodoro systems, DopBoosts are context-aware and gently suggested only when needed. This makes them particularly suited for ADHD-affected individuals who may struggle with rigid break patterns but still need cyclical motivational input.
Ultimately, the nudging layer supports autonomy, not automation. It respects silence, accepts rejection, and adapts over time shaping itself as a co-regulatory peer, not a taskmaster.
\subsection{Digital Body Doubling and Accountability Presence}
Among the assistant’s most distinctive features is its support for digital body doubling a technique inspired by peer-based accountability strategies frequently used in ADHD communities. Traditional body doubling involves the silent presence of another person during tasks, helping individuals sustain focus, initiate action, and resist avoidance. In our system, this concept is translated into a context-aware co-presence experience, designed not to simulate conversation, but to anchor attention through ambient support and rhythmic affirmation.
When enabled, body doubling mode activates a low-friction companion rhythm, offering subtle cues that affirm presence without distraction. These may include periodic voice-based affirmations (\textit{“Still with you let’s keep going”}), soft ambient tones, or brief check-ins triggered after long stretches of inactivity or tab cycling. Users can configure the style, tone, and frequency of these cues to match their preference whether it's a calm guide, an energetic motivator, or a silent rhythmic pulse. This allows the assistant to serve as a scaffold for executive function, helping users transition into tasks, persist through difficulty, and recover focus without judgment.
Theoretically, this feature draws on concepts from social computing, affective presence, and attention regulation. Studies in human-computer interaction suggest that even minimal ambient cues of shared presence can improve task engagement and reduce perceived isolation, especially in remote and asynchronous work settings. For ADHD-affected users, the absence of real-time co-working structures can exacerbate time blindness, motivational inertia and task initiation difficulty. Digital body doubling acts as a counterbalance, offering externalized presence that modulates emotional overwhelm and supports action initiation.
From a systems perspective, body doubling operates as a feedback loop intervention, not a linear prompt. It senses moments of drift, passivity, or cognitive load, and responds with co-regulatory cues that gently re-anchor the user’s attention. Over time, these cues can adapt based on user feedback—some may prefer less frequent affirmations, while others find rhythmic nudges helpful to maintain flow.
This mode is not framed as a timer or focus lock; instead, it is designed as a non-intrusive presence layer that honors user autonomy while supporting attention as a fluctuating, relational state. Future iterations may allow for multi-user body doubling, where two or more neurodivergent users synchronize their assistants to support co-working remotely while maintaining privacy boundaries.
Some of the ways the digital body doubling can interact with the user are as below:
\begin{itemize}
\item Light gentle verbal affirmations (e.g., \textit{“Still here with you,” “Let’s keep going”}).
\item Passive presence cues (e.g., \textit{ambient tones at intervals}).
\item Gentle accountability prompts (e.g., \textit{“Would you like to reflect on that tab you’ve reopened 3 times?”}).
\item Voice based reflections if signs of fatigue or drift in attention are detected (e.g., \textit{““You’ve been circling between tasks. Want to reset or re-center?”}).
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Light gentle verbal affirmations (e.g., \textit{“Still here with you,” “Let’s keep going”}).
\item Passive presence cues (e.g., \textit{ambient tones at intervals}).
\item Gentle accountability prompts (e.g., \textit{“Would you like to reflect on that tab you’ve reopened 3 times?”}).
\item Voice based reflections if signs of fatigue or drift in attention are detected (e.g., \textit{““You’ve been circling between tasks. Want to reset or re-center?”}).
\end{itemize}
\item Light gentle verbal affirmations (e.g., \textit{“Still here with you,” “Let’s keep going”}).
\item Passive presence cues (e.g., \textit{ambient tones at intervals}).
\item Gentle accountability prompts (e.g., \textit{“Would you like to reflect on that tab you’ve reopened 3 times?”}).
\item Voice based reflections if signs of fatigue or drift in attention are detected (e.g., \textit{““You’ve been circling between tasks. Want to reset or re-center?”}).
\subsection{Feedback loops: Modelling Cognitive States through Systems Design}
At the core of the assistant’s logic is a systems-inspired feedback model that treats user attention not as a fixed trait, but as an emergent, modifiable state. This state is shaped through continuous interaction between digital tools, task context, emotional regulation, and environmental inputs. Drawing from cybernetics and learning sciences, this approach repositions attention away from compliance-based models (e.g., time-on-task) and toward dynamic state modulation, where the goal is stability, recovery, and adaptation.
The assistant leverages its behavioral sensing layer as a real-time input mechanism, detecting patterns such as tab churn, pause thresholds, re-activation sequences, and prolonged idle states. These indicators are passed through a lightweight inference model that maps them to cognitive state profiles—such as drift, hyperfocus, emotional fatigue or decision inertia. The system then selects a corresponding micro-intervention, such as a reflective prompt, soft accountability cue, or passive ambient nudge. Importantly, the assistant allows users to calibrate the sensitivity and frequency of these looped interventions.
Unlike traditional productivity systems that log tasks or generate scores, the assistant does not accumulate history as a performance ledger. It does not rank, penalize or gamify. Instead, it operates as a real-time, non-evaluative support loop, with each cycle focused on detecting subtle transitions in user engagement and gently steering toward re-regulation.
This design supports a model of “fluid cognitive scaffolding” where interventions are offered when needed, withdrawn when not, and always subject to user override. Over time, the system can learn user-specific patterns: for instance, distinguishing between intentional multitasking and fragmented attention. This adaptive learning supports a broader vision of the assistant as a contextually intelligent companion, helping users build rhythms that align with their neurocognitive patterns, rather than override them.
\subsection{AI and ML Techniques for User Activity Monitoring and Behavior Analysis}
To develop the assistant capable of monitoring and analyzing user behavior on laptops and desktops, several advanced machine learning (ML) and AI techniques can be employed. Given that the user's activity is time-dependent, one critical aspect of the tool is time-series analysis to track behavior patterns over time. Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), specifically Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, are ideal for modeling sequential data, such as switching between apps or tabs, as they can capture dependencies and trends in user behavior over extended periods. LSTMs are well-suited to handle the temporal aspect of the data, making them effective in detecting periods of intense engagement (rapid switching) versus more focused work periods. LSTM-based models have been used successfully in various behavioral sequence detection tasks, including recognizing activity patterns and predicting future behaviors in time-series data. [Ref: Kannagi paper]
To train such models, labeled datasets of user behavior would be required. This dataset could include time-stamped logs of app and tab usage, window switching and web browsing activities. For a robust model, data labeling could be based on predefined categories such as "focus mode," "multitasking," or "distraction" based on specific thresholds of behavior, like the number of windows open or the frequency of switching. Alternatively, user self-reporting or external feedback (e.g., productivity surveys) could be used for labeling to ensure that the model learns to differentiate between productive and non-productive behavior. This labeled data can then be fed into the LSTM model for training, allowing the system to predict and recognize the user’s state at any given time.
Additionally, activity recognition is another essential aspect of the tool, which involves classifying different user behaviors based on usage patterns. Machine learning algorithms like Random Forests, Support Vector Machines (SVMs), and k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN) can be applied for this classification task. These models are especially useful for differentiating between periods of intense focus versus moments of distraction \cite{mcdonald_classification_2020}. These classifiers can learn from a variety of features, such as the number of apps open, the frequency of window switching, or the length of time spent on a particular task. Feature engineering would play a crucial role here, as relevant features need to be extracted from raw data, such as counts of active windows, app usage time, and engagement duration with individual apps or websites.
For model training, the first step is to collect a sufficiently large dataset of user activities. This can be achieved through user logging applications that track window switching and app usage behavior across different times of the day. Data could be gathered through a lightweight, privacy-preserving background application that logs user behavior locally, ensuring that no sensitive information is transmitted externally. The data would then be annotated (either manually or semi-automatically) to mark periods of focused work, multitasking, or browsing. Once the dataset is prepared, models can be trained using supervised learning techniques, with algorithms like SVMs or Random Forests.
Anomaly detection techniques, such as Isolation Forests, One-Class SVM, and Autoencoders, can be applied to identify abnormal patterns in user behavior. These algorithms are well-suited to flag behaviors that deviate from typical usage, such as excessive multitasking or prolonged engagement with non-work-related activities, which may indicate burnout or decreased productivity. In training anomaly detection models, normal behavioral patterns need to be established through representative datasets, which can be generated by tracking users over a period of time to capture typical engagement patterns \cite{liu_isolation-based_2012}. Outliers such as sudden spikes in browser tab switching or abnormal work patterns—can then be detected as anomalies, prompting the system to recommend a break or intervention.
Another critical component of the system is reinforcement learning (RL), which can be applied to personalize and optimize break suggestions and nudges. By learning from user responses to previous recommendations, the system can tailor the timing, frequency, and content of interventions to maximize effectiveness. This process involves training RL models with reward functions based on the success of previous suggestions (e.g., user productivity after a break) and adjusting the policy over time to provide more contextually relevant reminders. The model would require continuous feedback, which could come from user behavior (e.g., improved focus after a break) or explicit ratings provided by the user on the utility of the break suggestions \cite{hassouni_personalization_2018}. This allows the system to become increasingly efficient at suggesting breaks or productivity tips as it learns the user's preferences and response patterns.
To enhance the tool's context-awareness, the system needs to track the last accessed apps and browser tabs, so it can provide reminders based on the user’s recent activities. A context-aware model might use semantic understanding of the user's recent work, enabling it to provide more accurate nudges. For instance, if a user has been engaging in work-related tasks, a reminder might encourage them to stay focused, while a reminder after a long period of social media browsing might encourage a productive break. Context-aware systems that leverage this kind of information have been widely used in recommendation systems to improve engagement and productivity \cite{canada_item_2022}.
\subsection{Datasets and Model Training}
The development of these models requires access to high-quality, privacy-preserving datasets. For behavior monitoring, datasets should include app usage logs, tab switching frequencies, window activity times, and browsing habits. Collecting these datasets requires ensuring that no personal data is transmitted or stored externally, aligning with the privacy goals of the tool. Additionally, datasets for training anomaly detection and activity recognition algorithms could be augmented with user self-reports, where users provide feedback on their perceived productivity and focus levels, or by employing user surveys that capture how users engage with the tool over time.
For training the models, a combination of supervised learning for activity classification (e.g., focused vs. distracted behavior) and unsupervised learning for anomaly detection would be effective. Pretrained models for similar tasks, such as user activity recognition (e.g., mobile usage datasets for activity recognition), can be adapted for this task by fine-tuning on the laptop/desktop-specific data. Several existing datasets for user activity logging, such as the BID (Behavioral Information and Data) dataset or MULTI (Multitasking Interaction) dataset, could provide foundational data for training models in activity recognition and multitasking behavior.
By using these AI/ML techniques, datasets and privacy-preserving strategies, the tool can provide meaningful, personalized recommendations to users while respecting their privacy. It can dynamically track behavior, detect patterns and make timely interventions that encourage healthier, more productive working habits.
Datasets play a key role in helping the assistant get the right kind of pattern recognition across time for the various activities that the user shall perform. Task switching and multi tasking research from the perspective of using computers and work-from-home remote meetings yield a good set of informative and interesting datasets \cite{cao_large_2021, zhang_look_2015}.
The ADHD behavior information and data (BID) dataset is another rich source of behavioral data and offers various patterns of user behaviors. The Hyperaktiv by Simula is another rich source of activity data of 100+ people's activity where the source of data is from 51 ADHD patients and 52 people in clinical trials \cite{hicks_hyperaktiv:_2021}. Additionally sources like Kaggle, UCI Machine Learning etc have supplimentary datasets on behaviors, attention switching etc.
\subsection{System Design}
The high level design component design for the assistant is highlighted in the following diagrams.
Figure~\ref{fig:adhd-framework} shows the assistant's components that interact with the user and each other to deliver the on-device experience for the user. The user can control their preferences which are used to control the feedback engine, voice interface and signal the use of digital body double.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{ADHD-Assistant-Design.png}
\caption{Proposed ADHD productivity assistant framework.}
\Description{Diagram showing a loop between the user, environment, AI module and nudging system.}
\label{fig:adhd-framework}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{ADHD-Assistant-Design.png}
\caption{Proposed ADHD productivity assistant framework.}
\Description{Diagram showing a loop between the user, environment, AI module and nudging system.}Diagram showing a loop between the user, environment, AI module and nudging system.
\label{fig:adhd-framework}
Figure~\ref{fig:seq1} shows the soft nudge workflow for the users based on their preferences. Here the behavior sensing module will understand the behavior patterns and uses the on-device ML model to determine a distraction state and use the feedback interface to trigger a soft nudge to the user.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{SoftNudge.png}
\caption{Soft Nudge Sequence Diagram.}
\Description{The Sequence diagram for the soft nudge that the user receives based on their preferences}
\label{fig:seq1}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{SoftNudge.png}
\caption{Soft Nudge Sequence Diagram.}
\Description{The Sequence diagram for the soft nudge that the user receives based on their preferences}The Sequence diagram for the soft nudge that the user receives based on their preferences
\label{fig:seq1}
Figure~\ref{fig:seq2} shows the behavior sensing module using the preferences to understand inactivity pattern and offer a digital body double option.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{BodyDoubling.png}
\caption{Digital Body Doubling Sequence Diagram.}
\Description{The Sequence diagram for the digital body double mode being activated based on the user preferences.}
\label{fig:seq2}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{BodyDoubling.png}
\caption{Digital Body Doubling Sequence Diagram.}
\Description{The Sequence diagram for the digital body double mode being activated based on the user preferences.}The Sequence diagram for the digital body double mode being activated based on the user preferences.
\label{fig:seq2}
|
Proposed Framework: A privacy-first and neuro-inclusive productivity assistant
| false
|
2507.06864
| 4
|
95,395
|
To anchor the assistant to the everyday experiences of ADHD-affected professionals, a survey was conducted with 25 ADHD-affected digital professionals, primarily from the software engineering and IT services industry. Participants ranged from 21 to 54 years and included both professionally diagnosed and self-diagnosed individuals. Their work contexts included remote, hybrid and in-office roles with digital tools playing a central role in their workflows.
Respondents regularly used devices such as laptops, desktops and smartphones and were highly dependent on multi-tab browsing and application switching. This population represents the real-world demographic most affected by digital work fragmentation and executive dysfunction.
\subsection{Challenges reported in digital work}
The survey revealed recurring cognitive challenges that align closely with existing ADHD research:\newline
\begin{itemize}
\item Tab overload and bookmarking paralysis: A significant number of users (37\%) reported having 21+ browser tabs open at any given time, with 22\% of them reporting having 12 to 20 browser tabs open at any given time and 20\% saying that they “do not track” their tab usage, \textbf{indicating a lack of awareness or control}. Over 80\% also reported bookmarking content with the intention to return later, but never doing so.
\item Attention fragmentation and task switching: More than 70\% of respondents admitted to being constantly or frequently pulled away from high-priority tasks owing to distractions or lower-priority work. \textbf{This confirms a core executive dysfunction pattern}.
\item Tool fatigue and productivity shame: While some users employed productivity apps (e.g., Notes, calendar reminders) several reported that such tools often felt rigid, impersonal or guilt-inducing. Tools designed for neurotypical workflows were seen as overwhelming or ineffective.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Tab overload and bookmarking paralysis: A significant number of users (37\%) reported having 21+ browser tabs open at any given time, with 22\% of them reporting having 12 to 20 browser tabs open at any given time and 20\% saying that they “do not track” their tab usage, \textbf{indicating a lack of awareness or control}. Over 80\% also reported bookmarking content with the intention to return later, but never doing so.
\item Attention fragmentation and task switching: More than 70\% of respondents admitted to being constantly or frequently pulled away from high-priority tasks owing to distractions or lower-priority work. \textbf{This confirms a core executive dysfunction pattern}.
\item Tool fatigue and productivity shame: While some users employed productivity apps (e.g., Notes, calendar reminders) several reported that such tools often felt rigid, impersonal or guilt-inducing. Tools designed for neurotypical workflows were seen as overwhelming or ineffective.
\end{itemize}
\item Tab overload and bookmarking paralysis: A significant number of users (37\%) reported having 21+ browser tabs open at any given time, with 22\% of them reporting having 12 to 20 browser tabs open at any given time and 20\% saying that they “do not track” their tab usage, \textbf{indicating a lack of awareness or control}. Over 80\% also reported bookmarking content with the intention to return later, but never doing so.
\item Attention fragmentation and task switching: More than 70\% of respondents admitted to being constantly or frequently pulled away from high-priority tasks owing to distractions or lower-priority work. \textbf{This confirms a core executive dysfunction pattern}.
\item Tool fatigue and productivity shame: While some users employed productivity apps (e.g., Notes, calendar reminders) several reported that such tools often felt rigid, impersonal or guilt-inducing. Tools designed for neurotypical workflows were seen as overwhelming or ineffective.
A few users commented:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{“I often don't see meeting reminders when I'm switching between apps.”}
\item \textit{“It’s just so hard to not drift away from videocalls.”}
\item \textit{“I get 8 hours of work done in 1 or 2 hours or I get nothing done for days.”}
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{“I often don't see meeting reminders when I'm switching between apps.”}
\item \textit{“It’s just so hard to not drift away from videocalls.”}
\item \textit{“I get 8 hours of work done in 1 or 2 hours or I get nothing done for days.”}
\end{itemize}
\item \textit{“I often don't see meeting reminders when I'm switching between apps.”}
\item \textit{“It’s just so hard to not drift away from videocalls.”}
\item \textit{“I get 8 hours of work done in 1 or 2 hours or I get nothing done for days.”}
\subsection{Design preferences and feedback expectations}
When asked about an on-device assistant that detects attention states and offers gentle nudges, Most participants responded with “Maybe, depending on how it works,” indicating openness if privacy, customization and tone were appropriate. Preferred nudging modes included:
\begin{itemize}
\item Gentle pop-up reminders - 55\%
\item Scheduled quiet check-ins - 54\%
\item Weekly summaries and usage patterns - 59\%
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Gentle pop-up reminders - 55\%
\item Scheduled quiet check-ins - 54\%
\item Weekly summaries and usage patterns - 59\%
\end{itemize}
\item Gentle pop-up reminders - 55\%
\item Scheduled quiet check-ins - 54\%
\item Weekly summaries and usage patterns - 59\%
Respondents strongly rejected intrusive automation, emphasizing the need for soft, emotionally safe support rather than performance tracking.
A user remarked as below:\newline
\textit{The main problem I would find with tools is I strongly dislike being told or suggested what to do, even if that thing is the right thing to do. Any tool designed to help me should focus on accountability, not prompting or suggestions. For example, If I tell the tool that I'm going to try to get 2hrs of work done this afternoon and "quiet mode" will help, knowing the tool will check up on me can often give me the drive to do it.}
\subsection{Privacy and trust signals}
The importance of privacy emerged as a clear priority from the respondents:
\begin{itemize}
\item 41\% said that it is very important and 36\% said that it is mandatory, which makes it a very healthy 77\% who prioritize privacy. This describes privacy to be a very critical in adopting any cognitive support tool.
\item Participants expressed discomfort with telemetry based systems that monitor behavior or transmit data externally.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item 41\% said that it is very important and 36\% said that it is mandatory, which makes it a very healthy 77\% who prioritize privacy. This describes privacy to be a very critical in adopting any cognitive support tool.
\item Participants expressed discomfort with telemetry based systems that monitor behavior or transmit data externally.
\end{itemize}
\item 41\% said that it is very important and 36\% said that it is mandatory, which makes it a very healthy 77\% who prioritize privacy. This describes privacy to be a very critical in adopting any cognitive support tool.
\item Participants expressed discomfort with telemetry based systems that monitor behavior or transmit data externally.
\textbf{This validates the assistant’s on-device, privacy-first design and supports the architecture choice that favour local ML inference, user-controlled sensing and non-human-readable data storage.}
\subsection{Supplementary insights from online ADHD communities}
In addition to the survey, reflections from public ADHD-focused Reddit threads (e.g., \texttt{r/adhd\_Programmers}, \texttt{r/ADHD}) were reviewed to deepen qualitative understanding. While not formally analyzed, these anecdotes echoed key themes:
\begin{itemize}
\item Emotional burnout from overusing “productivity” systems
\item The desire for tools that simply “keep me company quietly”
\item Community-driven acknowledgement for body doubling, silent co-working and soft accountability cues
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Emotional burnout from overusing “productivity” systems
\item The desire for tools that simply “keep me company quietly”
\item Community-driven acknowledgement for body doubling, silent co-working and soft accountability cues
\end{itemize}
\item Emotional burnout from overusing “productivity” systems
\item The desire for tools that simply “keep me company quietly”
\item Community-driven acknowledgement for body doubling, silent co-working and soft accountability cues
\textbf{These narratives supported the assistant’s inclusion of a digital body doubling mode, reinforcing the need for emotional presence without performance pressure.}
\subsection{Linking Insights to Design Decisions}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{User Insights and Corresponding Design Decisions}
\label{tab:user-insights}
\begin{tabular*}{\linewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} p{0.45\linewidth} p{0.45\linewidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Insight} & \textbf{Design Decision} \\
\midrule
Users struggle with task-switching and tab overload &
Behavioral sensing module detects rapid switching, inactivity \\
Users bookmark without follow-through &
Nudges suggest revisiting uncompleted tasks contextually \\
Traditional tools feel overwhelming &
System offers soft-touch voice nudges and co-regulatory presence \\
Privacy is critical &
All behavior modelling is performed on-device, with no telemetry \\
Users want presence, not pressure &
Ambient voice affirmations and body doubling simulate companionship \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\caption{User Insights and Corresponding Design Decisions}
\label{tab:user-insights}
\toprule
\textbf{Insight} & \textbf{Design Decision} \\
\midrule
Users struggle with task-switching and tab overload &
Behavioral sensing module detects rapid switching, inactivity \\
Users bookmark without follow-through &
Nudges suggest revisiting uncompleted tasks contextually \\
Traditional tools feel overwhelming &
System offers soft-touch voice nudges and co-regulatory presence \\
Privacy is critical &
All behavior modelling is performed on-device, with no telemetry \\
Users want presence, not pressure &
Ambient voice affirmations and body doubling simulate companionship \\
\bottomrule
\subsection{Survey Takeaways}
The survey confirmed that ADHD-affected digital workers face unique challenges that are not addressed by mainstream productivity tools. Their input directly shaped the assistant’s architecture specifically the use of voice-based interaction, soft adaptive nudging, privacy-first local sensing and presence-based support. These insights bridge the gap between theoretical design goals and real-world user needs making the assistant not just inclusive, but authentically user-aligned.
|
Survey insights and user informed design decisions
| false
|
2507.06864
| 5
|
95,396
|
As digital work environments continue to evolve, so too must the tools that support cognitive regulation, especially for neurodivergent professionals. This section reflects on the broader implications of our proposed assistant, exploring how it challenges conventional paradigms of productivity, how it may reshape collaborative norms within teams and how its core design principles could generalize to other neurodivergent populations. Through these lenses, we reframe the role of AI in workplace cognition and highlight opportunities for inclusive innovation in attention-aware technologies.
\subsection{Reframing AI/ML as a Co-regulator and not a Task Manager}
A central contribution of this work is its repositioning of AI and machine learning—not as task automation engines, but as co-regulators within a neuroinclusive cognitive ecosystem. Traditional productivity tools powered by AI tend to emphasize efficiency: optimizing calendars, tracking completion rates, and triggering reminders based on surface behaviors. While helpful in some contexts, such tools often overlook the emotional and attentional scaffolding required by ADHD-affected users. By contrast, our assistant deploys lightweight, on-device ML not to enforce structure, but to detect patterns of overload, attention drift, and behavioral rhythms—responding with empathetic, user-aligned support.
This approach draws from the emerging domain of affective computing and relational AI, where agents are designed to understand and respond to human emotional and cognitive states rather than operate in strictly transactional terms. Inspired by the ethos of companion technologies, our system emphasizes presence, adaptability and consent over control, integrating with the user’s flow rather than attempting to dictate it. The assistant’s interventions—whether nudges, DopBoosts or digital body doubling function more like a gentle colleague or rhythm partner than a taskmaster.
Conceptually, this also reflects a broader systems thinking ethos: attention is not a trait to be optimized but a process to be supported. ML in this model becomes a background participant in a live feedback system—not the source of automation, but the interpreter of context. In doing so, it enables a shift from productivity tracking to co-regulatory alignment, reframing success as sustainable engagement rather than task throughput.
As human-computer interaction moves toward inclusive, context-aware systems, we argue that AI-based tools should not merely emulate neurotypical focus patterns, but accommodate neurodivergent rhythms. This reframing can help prevent AI from replicating normative biases in attention modeling and instead foster tools that uplift rather than pathologize cognitive diversity.
\subsection{Implications for Team Dynamics (future scope)}
While the current design focuses on individual support, the assistant’s underlying architecture and presence-based logic suggest possibilities for enhancing team-level awareness and coordination in neurodiverse teams. For example, a future iteration of the assistant could serve as a transparent layer of co-working presence, making it easier for teams to understand cognitive availability or engagement patterns without compromising privacy.
Features like shared “body doubling” blocks, reflective prompts during group planning or ambient status cues could help reduce friction in hybrid or asynchronous teams, especially when some members experience ADHD-related communication gaps, delays or social fatigue. These features must be designed with strict user agency and consent but they open up a rich future direction for neuroinclusive collaboration systems.
\subsection{Relevance for Wider Neurodivergent Support and Remote Work}
The assistant’s design principles—context sensitivity, privacy preservation, voice-based reflection and adaptive co-regulation—are relevant beyond ADHD-specific use cases. Individuals on the autism spectrum, those with anxiety or people experiencing executive dysfunction due to burnout or long-COVID may also benefit from systems that support rather than correct, accompany rather than monitor.
Furthermore, as remote and hybrid work become the norm, the challenges of digital distraction, emotional disconnection and unstructured work environments are becoming universal. The assistant's ability to create a quiet rhythm of presence and accountability without external surveillance offers a model for more humane digital work ecosystems—not only for neurodivergent individuals but for all users seeking stability in attention-fragmented environments.
|
Discussion and Implications
| false
|
2507.06864
| 6
|
95,397
|
\subsection{Limitations}
While this paper introduces a novel, privacy-first cognitive assistant for ADHD-affected professionals, it is not without limitations. First, the system is currently conceptual and in a very early stage of prototyping, with no deployment data. While initial user preferences were captured via a 25-participant survey and author lived experience, more rigorous long-term user testing is required to evaluate real-world engagement, behavioral outcomes and emotional safety over time.
Second, the assistant’s on-device ML models are currently defined as rules-based and interpretable. Although suitable for privacy and explainability, more complex behaviors and patterns (e.g., emotional drift, motivational spirals) may benefit from personalized ML models, requiring federated learning or encrypted local training — which remains an open challenge.
While our co-design approach provided valuable qualitative insights, the broader spectrum of neurodivergent experiences is still not fully represented. We believe that incorporating perspectives from individuals with other conditions such as autism and from more diverse cultural backgrounds would make the assistant more inclusive and widely relevant.
\subsection{Future work}
As attention, autonomy and ambient presence become critical dimensions of digital life, the tools we design must move beyond automation and toward relational intelligence—co-regulating with us, not just computing for us.
Future work will focus on three promising directions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Functional Prototyping and User Testing: A deployable prototype will be developed for controlled in-situ testing with ADHD-affected professionals. This will allow for real-time data collection on engagement patterns, the effectiveness of nudges and perceived emotional support. User journaling and A/B comparisons with static tools may provide deeper insight into assistant efficacy.
\item Shared Body Doubling for Teams (Privacy-Preserving Multi-User Co-Regulation):
A promising future direction is extending the assistant for neuroinclusive teams, where multiple ADHD or neurodivergent users may opt into a shared digital presence—such as synchronized body doubling, co-check-ins or group reflection prompts. Research on mutual body doubling (Eagle et al., 2024) \cite{eagle_proposing_2023} suggests that peer-based co-regulation is not only effective but emotionally meaningful. A privacy-first assistant could facilitate these interactions without exposing individual attention data, using ambient group cues or synchronized availability windows.
\item Cross-Domain Adaptation:
While this assistant is designed for professional digital work, its architecture is potentially applicable in adjacent domains such as remote education, creative workflows and digital therapy. Exploring its impact for users with long-COVID cognitive fatigue, anxiety or sensory regulation needs could broaden its role as a universal neuroadaptive co-regulator.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item Functional Prototyping and User Testing: A deployable prototype will be developed for controlled in-situ testing with ADHD-affected professionals. This will allow for real-time data collection on engagement patterns, the effectiveness of nudges and perceived emotional support. User journaling and A/B comparisons with static tools may provide deeper insight into assistant efficacy.
\item Shared Body Doubling for Teams (Privacy-Preserving Multi-User Co-Regulation):
A promising future direction is extending the assistant for neuroinclusive teams, where multiple ADHD or neurodivergent users may opt into a shared digital presence—such as synchronized body doubling, co-check-ins or group reflection prompts. Research on mutual body doubling (Eagle et al., 2024) \cite{eagle_proposing_2023} suggests that peer-based co-regulation is not only effective but emotionally meaningful. A privacy-first assistant could facilitate these interactions without exposing individual attention data, using ambient group cues or synchronized availability windows.
\item Cross-Domain Adaptation:
While this assistant is designed for professional digital work, its architecture is potentially applicable in adjacent domains such as remote education, creative workflows and digital therapy. Exploring its impact for users with long-COVID cognitive fatigue, anxiety or sensory regulation needs could broaden its role as a universal neuroadaptive co-regulator.
\end{itemize}
\item Functional Prototyping and User Testing: A deployable prototype will be developed for controlled in-situ testing with ADHD-affected professionals. This will allow for real-time data collection on engagement patterns, the effectiveness of nudges and perceived emotional support. User journaling and A/B comparisons with static tools may provide deeper insight into assistant efficacy.
\item Shared Body Doubling for Teams (Privacy-Preserving Multi-User Co-Regulation):
A promising future direction is extending the assistant for neuroinclusive teams, where multiple ADHD or neurodivergent users may opt into a shared digital presence—such as synchronized body doubling, co-check-ins or group reflection prompts. Research on mutual body doubling (Eagle et al., 2024) \cite{eagle_proposing_2023} suggests that peer-based co-regulation is not only effective but emotionally meaningful. A privacy-first assistant could facilitate these interactions without exposing individual attention data, using ambient group cues or synchronized availability windows.
\item Cross-Domain Adaptation:
While this assistant is designed for professional digital work, its architecture is potentially applicable in adjacent domains such as remote education, creative workflows and digital therapy. Exploring its impact for users with long-COVID cognitive fatigue, anxiety or sensory regulation needs could broaden its role as a universal neuroadaptive co-regulator.
|
Limitations and Future work
| false
|
2507.06864
| 7
|
95,398
|
As digital work environments become increasingly fragmented and cognitively demanding, professionals affected by ADHD continue to navigate persistent challenges—task switching, time blindness, emotional dysregulation and executive dysfunction—often without meaningful support. Our survey findings echo what lived experience already suggests: that existing tools, while well-intentioned, tend to focus on behavioral correction, rigid task tracking or notification-driven reminders, which can increase stress and lead to disengagement.
ADHD-affected IT workers, especially in remote or hybrid roles, often work in isolation. The stigma surrounding neurodivergence means many are hesitant to disclose their needs to colleagues or managers, making self-regulation both a private burden and an invisible barrier to productivity. Moreover, with increased digital exposure across both early-career and experienced professionals, the risk of attention fatigue and emotional burnout is not only growing—it is being normalized.
In response, this paper has proposed a privacy first, voice-enabled productivity assistant that reimagines support for ADHD-affected professionals. Rather than enforcing compliance, the assistant functions as a context-aware, soft-touch co-regulator, offering presence, reflection and adaptive nudging based on real-time behavioral signals all processed locally and under user control. Its inclusion of a digital body doubling mode, based on community-driven coping strategies, affirms that neuroinclusive design must move beyond features and toward empathetic experience modeling.
Ulimately, this assistant is not just a tool it is a proposition: that cognitive support technologies can be quiet, respectful, emotionally intelligent and aligned with lived neurodivergent realities. As attention becomes the new currency of digital work, we must ask not just how we manage it.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}ACM-Reference-Format
\bibliography{ADHD-Paper-BibFile}
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06864
| 8
|
95,407
|
\label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
Let $\mathcal{H}_A$\mathcal{H}_A be a Hilbert space of dimension $d_A$d_A and $\tau_A\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$\tau_A\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A) the density matrix of a quantum state, $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A) being the set of all density operators acting on $\mathcal{H}_A$\mathcal{H}_A. Let $\mathcal{H}_B$\mathcal{H}_B, $d_B$d_B, $\sigma_B$\sigma_B and $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B)$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B) be similarly defined.
In the most general form of \ac{CQ}CQ channels \cite{wildeBook_2021}, an input state $\tau_A$\tau_A is measured using an orthonormal basis, and a density operator conditioned on the result of such measurement is found at the channel output. Specifically, given an input state $\tau_A$\tau_A, an orthonormal basis $\{|x\rangle_A\}$\{|x\rangle_A\} in $\mathcal{H}_A$\mathcal{H}_A and a set of generic (non necessarily pure) states $\{\sigma^x_B\}$\{\sigma^x_B\} belonging to $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B)$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B), a \ac{CQ}CQ channel operates on $\tau_A$\tau_A as follows
\begin{align}
\mathcal N_{A \rightarrow B}(\tau_A)=\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}} \langle x|_A\tau_A|x\rangle_A \sigma^x_B,
\end{align}\begin{align}
\mathcal N_{A \rightarrow B}(\tau_A)=\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}} \langle x|_A\tau_A|x\rangle_A \sigma^x_B,
\end{align}
\mathcal N_{A \rightarrow B}A \rightarrow B(\tau_A)=\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X} \langle x|_A\tau_A|x\rangle_A \sigma^x_B,
where $\langle x|_A\tau_A|x\rangle_A$\langle x|_A\tau_A|x\rangle_A is a probability, hence $\sum_x\langle x|_A\tau_A|x\rangle_A=1$\sum_x\langle x|_A\tau_A|x\rangle_A=1. Such general model can be specialized as follows: given a set $\mathcal{X}=\{1,\ldots,|\mathcal{X}|\}$\mathcal{X}=\{1,\ldots,|\mathcal{X}|\} of classical symbols, with $|\mathcal{X}|=d_A$|\mathcal{X}|=d_A, in order to transmit symbol $x\in\mathcal{X}$x\in\mathcal{X} the pure state $\ket{x}$\ket{x} is selected from an orthonormal set of state vectors and used as input to the quantum channel, obtaining as output a state with density matrix $\sigma^x_B$\sigma^x_B. Given the above, the \ac{CQ}CQ channel can be modeled as a mapping from an input symbol $x$x to an output state $\sigma^x_B$\sigma^x_B
\begin{align}
%\mathcal N_{X \rightarrow B}(X)=\sum_{x=1}^{|\mathcal{X}|} Q(x) \sigma^x_B
\mathcal N_{X \rightarrow B}= \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}p_X(x)\sigma^x_B.
\end{align}\begin{align}
%\mathcal N_{X \rightarrow B}(X)=\sum_{x=1}^{|\mathcal{X}|} Q(x) \sigma^x_B
\mathcal N_{X \rightarrow B}= \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}p_X(x)\sigma^x_B.
\end{align}
\mathcal N_{X \rightarrow B}X \rightarrow B= \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}p_X(x)\sigma^x_B.
Accordingly, a sequence of symbols $\x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$\x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n) has an associated input state $\ket{\x}=\ket{x_1}\otimes\ket{x_2}\otimes\ldots \otimes\ket{x_n}\in \mathcal{H}_A^{\otimes n}$\ket{\x}=\ket{x_1}\otimes\ket{x_2}\otimes\ldots \otimes\ket{x_n}\in \mathcal{H}_A^{\otimes n}\otimes n, which induces the output state $\sigma_B^{\x}=\sigma_B^{x_1}\otimes\sigma_B^{x_2}\otimes\ldots \otimes\sigma_B^{x_n}\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B^{\otimes n})$\sigma_B^{\x}\x=\sigma_B^{x_1}x_1\otimes\sigma_B^{x_2}x_2\otimes\ldots \otimes\sigma_B^{x_n}x_n\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B^{\otimes n}\otimes n). Given the deterministic mapping between $\x$\x and $\sigma_B^{\x}$\sigma_B^{\x}\x, the \ac{CQ}CQ channel can be equivalently considered to have a classical input $\x$\x and a quantum output $\sigma_B^{\x}$\sigma_B^{\x}\x. In the sequel, subscript $B$B will be omitted unless needed.
A channel code $\CnallMdet$\CnallMdet for such channel is a mapping from a set of $M_n=2^{nR}$M_n=2^{nR}nR messages $\mathcal{M}_n=\{1,\ldots,M_n\}$\mathcal{M}_n=\{1,\ldots,M_n\} to a set of codewords $\{\x_1,\x_2,\ldots,\x_{M_n}\}$\{\x_1,\x_2,\ldots,\x_{M_n}M_n\}, $\x_j\in\mathcal{X}^n, \forall j\in\{1,\ldots,M_n\}$\x_j\in\mathcal{X}^n, \forall j\in\{1,\ldots,M_n\}, $R=\frac{1}{n}\log M_n$R=\frac{1}{n}\log M_n being the rate of the code\footnote{In this definition we use a slight abuse of notation since $R$ is a function of $n$. We omit such dependence in the following to limit visual clutter.}. All logarithms are assumed to be in base $2$2.
A quantum decision rule for such code is a \ac{POVM}POVM \cite{math_foun_QMech_VonNeumann2018} $\{\Pi_0, \Pi_1,\Pi_2,\ldots,\Pi_{M_n}\}$\{\Pi_0, \Pi_1,\Pi_2,\ldots,\Pi_{M_n}M_n\}, where $\Pi_i$\Pi_i, $i=0, \ldots, M_n$i=0, \ldots, M_n, are positive semi-definite linear operators in $\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n}$\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n}\otimes n that satisfy completeness, that is $\Pi_i\succeq 0$\Pi_i\succeq 0 $\forall i$\forall i and $\sum_{m=0}^{M_n} \Pi_m= I$\sum_{m=0}m=0^{M_n}M_n \Pi_m= I, where $I$I is the identity matrix and $\Pi_0=I-\sum_{m=1}^{M_n} \Pi_m$\Pi_0=I-\sum_{m=1}m=1^{M_n}M_n \Pi_m.
The \ac{POVM}POVM is used to measure the output of the \ac{CQ}CQ channel. When codeword $\x_m$\x_m is transmitted, the probability that, for the chosen \ac{POVM}POVM, the measurement yields the result $\hat{m}$\hat{m} is given by $\text{Pr}\{\hat{m}|m\}=\tr\{\Pi_{\hat{m}}\sigma^{\x_m} \}$\text{Pr}\{\hat{m}|m\}=\tr\{\Pi_{\hat{m}}\hat{m}\sigma^{\x_m}\x_m \}. Thus, for a given code $\CnallMdet$\CnallMdet the probability of error when transmitting $\x_m, m\in\{1,\ldots,M_n\}$\x_m, m\in\{1,\ldots,M_n\}, is:
\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_m}
\PecnmallMdet = 1- \tr\{\Pi_{m}\sigma^{\x_m} \}.
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_m}
\PecnmallMdet = 1- \tr\{\Pi_{m}\sigma^{\x_m} \}.
\end{align}\label{eq:pe_m}
\PecnmallMdet = 1- \tr\{\Pi_{m}m\sigma^{\x_m}\x_m \}.
Using \eqref{eq:pe_m}, and assuming equally likely codewords, the average probability of error for code $\CnallMdet$\CnallMdet is:
\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_code}
\PecnallMdet &= \frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\PecnmallMdet\\
&= 1 - \frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\tr\{\Pi_{m}\sigma^{\x_m} \}.
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_code}
\PecnallMdet &= \frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\PecnmallMdet\\
&= 1 - \frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\tr\{\Pi_{m}\sigma^{\x_m} \}.
\end{align}\label{eq:pe_code}
\PecnallMdet &= \frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}m=1^{M_n}M_n\PecnmallMdet\\
&= 1 - \frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}m=1^{M_n}M_n\tr\{\Pi_{m}m\sigma^{\x_m}\x_m \}.
Let us now indicate with $\CnallM=\{\X_1, \dotsc, \X_{M_n}\}$\CnallM=\{\X_1, \dotsc, \X_{M_n}M_n\} a random code from an \ac{i.i.d.}i.i.d. ensemble, so that codewords are generated independently with a distribution $Q^n(\X)=\prod_{i=1}^n Q(X_i)$Q^n(\X)=\prod_{i=1}i=1^n Q(X_i), $Q^n(\X)$Q^n(\X) being the codeword distribution while $Q(X)$Q(X) is the symbol distribution defined over $\mathcal{X}$\mathcal{X}. To simplify the notation, in the following we will use $\Cn$\Cn in place of $\CnallM$\CnallM.
Let $\EE[\Pecn]$\EE[\Pecn] be the ensemble average of the error probability and let $-\frac{1}{n}\log\EE[\Pecn]$-\frac{1}{n}\log\EE[\Pecn] be its negative and normalized exponent.
For classical channels, Gallager derived an upper bound on $\EE[\Pecn]$\EE[\Pecn]~\cite[Eq.~(5.6.16)]{gallagerBook} and called its exponent the \ac{RC}RC exponent. An analogous upper bound on the ensemble-average error probability for random i.i.d. codes in \ac{CQ}CQ channels was derived for the case of pure quantum states by Burnashev and Holevo in \cite{Q_randomCoding_Brunashev1998}. In \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200} Holevo conjectured that the same expression also holds for \ac{CQ}CQ channels with arbitrary (mixed) states, showing that this is indeed the case for some specific setup. In \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} Dalai derived the sphere-packing (upper) bound on the largest exponent in the ensemble (i.e., the reliability function \cite[Chapter 5]{gallagerBook}) and pointed out that, at rates close to capacity, the sphere-packing bound coincides with the conjectured expression of the \ac{RC}RC exponent.
Holevo's conjecture was recently confirmed independently by Renes \cite{renesTIT2025_tight_LB} and Li and Yang \cite{reliability_CQ_Li_Yang_2025}. This, together with \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023}, implies that at high rates the \ac{RC}RC exponent is in fact the reliability function of \ac{CQ}CQ channels with generic quantum states.
The \ac{RC}RC exponent for \ac{CQ}CQ channels with general quantum states is \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}\cite{renesTIT2025_tight_LB}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:QEr}
\Er(R,Q)\max_{0\leq s\leq 1} -\log \left(\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\right)^{1+s}\right]
\right) - sR.
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:QEr}
\Er(R,Q)\max_{0\leq s\leq 1} -\log \left(\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\right)^{1+s}\right]
\right) - sR.
\end{align}\label{eq:QEr}
\Er(R,Q)\max_{0\leq s\leq 1}0\leq s\leq 1 -\log \left(\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\frac{1}{1+s}\right)^{1+s}1+s\right]
\right) - sR.
The exponent $\Er(R,Q)$\Er(R,Q) is strictly positive at rates below the mutual information of the channel for a given input distribution $Q(x)$Q(x). If the input distribution is optimized, the exponent is positive for rates below the classical capacity of the \ac{CQ}CQ channel $C$C given by \cite[Theorem 1]{holevo_capacity_quantum_1998}\cite{Schumacher_quantum_capacity_1997}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:capacity}
C=\max_{Q(x)} \left[H\left(\sigma\right)-\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)H(\sigma^x)\right]
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:capacity}
C=\max_{Q(x)} \left[H\left(\sigma\right)-\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)H(\sigma^x)\right]
\end{align}\label{eq:capacity}
C=\max_{Q(x)}Q(x) \left[H\left(\sigma\right)-\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}Q(x)H(\sigma^x)\right]
where $\sigmaav=\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)\sigma^x$\sigmaav=\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}Q(x)\sigma^x while $H(\sigmaav)$H(\sigmaav) is the Von Neuman entropy of $\sigmaav$\sigmaav, defined as:
\begin{align}
H(\sigma) &= -\text{Tr}\{\sigmaav\log \sigmaav\}\\
&=-\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i\log \lambda_i
\end{align}\begin{align}
H(\sigma) &= -\text{Tr}\{\sigmaav\log \sigmaav\}\\
&=-\sum_{i=1}^d\lambda_i\log \lambda_i
\end{align}
H(\sigma) &= -\text{Tr}\{\sigmaav\log \sigmaav\}\\
&=-\sum_{i=1}i=1^d\lambda_i\log \lambda_i
and $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_d\}$\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_d\} are the eigenvalues of $\sigmaav$\sigmaav. Notice that, while for general quantum channels a regularization is needed in the definition of capacity, this is not the case in \eqref{eq:capacity}. This is because the considered channel is a special case of an entanglement-breaking channel, for which the additivity of Holevo information holds and regularization is not needed \cite{wildeBook_2021}.
For classical channels Gallager \cite{gallager1965simple} showed that there exists at least one code with an error exponent larger than or equal to the so-called expurgated exponent. For some channels and ensembles, at low rates the expurgated exponent is strictly larger than the \ac{RC}RC exponent. An analogous result is derived in \cite{Q_randomCoding_Brunashev1998} for \ac{CQ}CQ channels with pure states, then generalized in \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200} to the case of generic states.
The \ac{CQ}CQ expurgated exponent is:
\begin{align}\label{eqn:expu}
\Eex = \max_{\Grho\geq 1} \left\{E_{\rm x}(\Grho,Q) - \Grho R\right\},
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eqn:expu}
\Eex = \max_{\Grho\geq 1} \left\{E_{\rm x}(\Grho,Q) - \Grho R\right\},
\end{align}\label{eqn:expu}
\Eex = \max_{\Grho\geq 1}\Grho\geq 1 \left\{E_{\rm x}\rm x(\Grho,Q) - \Grho R\right\},
where
\begin{align}\label{eqn:ex}
\Exvarrho =-\Grho\log \left( \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x') \left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^x}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right).
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eqn:ex}
\Exvarrho =-\Grho\log \left( \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x') \left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^x}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right).
\end{align}\label{eqn:ex}
\Exvarrho =-\Grho\log \left( \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}}x'\in\mathcal{X} Q(x)Q(x') \left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^x}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right).
\subsection{Contribution}
While the results mentioned so far add important pieces to the knowledge about ensembles of quantum codes in \ac{CQ}CQ channels, they do not study the distribution of the error exponent as such.
In this context, we show that the mass of the exponent distribution for i.i.d. code ensembles in \ac{CQ}CQ channels lays above the quantity $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb, which we derive in the next section. In other words, the probability of finding a code with an exponent lower than $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb is vanishingly small in the codeword length.
At rates close to the mutual information of the channel $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb coincides with the \ac{RC}RC exponent (Eq. \eqref{eq:QEr}), while at low rates it coincides with $\Eexx+R$\Eexx+R and is strictly larger than $\Er(R,Q)$\Er(R,Q).
Up to our knowledge, $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb is the largest known value above which the exponent distribution of \ac{CQ}CQ channels with arbitrary states accumulates. Moreover, we show that the exponent distribution shows concentration around its mean value at rates close to the mutual information of the channel.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2507.06868
| 1
|
95,408
|
Let us define the following quantity:
\begin{align}\label{eq:ranges}
\Etrccclb=
\begin{cases}
\EexRR+R \ \ \text{ for } R \leq R^*\\
\Er(R,Q) \ \ \text{ for } R > R^*
\end{cases}
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:ranges}
\Etrccclb=
\begin{cases}
\EexRR+R \ \ \text{ for } R \leq R^*\\
\Er(R,Q) \ \ \text{ for } R > R^*
\end{cases}
\end{align}\label{eq:ranges}
\Etrccclb=
\EexRR+R \ \ \text{ for } R \leq R^*\\
\Er(R,Q) \ \ \text{ for } R > R^*
where $R^*=\frac{E_{\rm x}(1,Q)}{2}$R^*=\frac{E_{\rm x}(1,Q)}{2}, while functions $E_{\rm x}(r,Q)$E_{\rm x}\rm x(r,Q), $\Eex$\Eex and $\Er(R,Q)$\Er(R,Q) are defined in Section \ref{sec:prelim}.
Let us define the negative normalized error exponent for a random code $\Cn$\Cn as:
\begin{align}
\En = -\frac{1}{n}\log \Pecn.
\end{align}\begin{align}
\En = -\frac{1}{n}\log \Pecn.
\end{align}
\En = -\frac{1}{n}\log \Pecn.
Our main result is the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:1}
For i.i.d. code ensembles over classical-quantum channels the following holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:theo1_statement}
\mathbb{P}\bigl[ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\En > \Etrccclb\bigr]= 1.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}\begin{theorem}\label{theo:1}
For i.i.d. code ensembles over classical-quantum channels the following holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:theo1_statement}
\mathbb{P}\bigl[ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\En > \Etrccclb\bigr]= 1.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}\label{theo:1}
For i.i.d. code ensembles over classical-quantum channels the following holds:
\label{eqn:theo1_statement}
\mathbb{P}\bigl[ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty\En > \Etrccclb\bigr]= 1.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 1]
We start with the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:main}
Let $\gamn \geq 1$ be a real-valued sequence in $n$. For an arbitrary random-coding ensemble and channel and any $\Grho>0$, it holds that
\beq
\PP\Bigl [ \Pecn \geq \gamn^{\Grho}\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho} \Bigr ]\leq \frac{1}{\gamn}.
\label{eq:4}
\eeq
\end{lemma}
Expression \eqref{eq:4} applies to arbitrary random variables. In \cite{coccoTIT2022}\footnote{Here we use a slight variation of \cite[Lemma 1]{coccoTIT2022} imposing $\gamn\geq 1$, which simplifies the proof.} it was specialized to the probability of error for pairwise independent code ensembles and generic classical channels. However, the results in \cite{coccoTIT2022} cannot be applied to \ac{CQ} channels since they require the existence of a channel transition probability $\Wnvec$, which is not defined in the general case for CQ channels.
In turn, it is always possible to find an equivalent \ac{CQ} channel for any given classical channel (see, e.g., \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} for a discussion on the subject).
This implies that the result presented in \cite{coccoTIT2022} relative to i.i.d. codes over discrete memoryless channels is a special case of what shown in this paper.
Now we proceed to bound from below $\EE[\Pecn]$ and $\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}$.
The first term is the ensemble average of the error probability. An upper bound on such quantity is \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}
\cite{renesTIT2025_tight_LB}:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_r}
\EE[\Pecn] \leq\min_{0\leq s\leq 1} 2(M_n-1)^s\left\{\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\right)^{1+s}\right]\right\}^n.
\end{align}
We will refer to the bound at the \ac{r.h.s.} in \eqref{eq:pe_r} as $\Prc$.
%
The term $\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}$ is the tilted ensemble-average of the error probability. An upper bound on such quantity is provided in the following lemma:\\
%
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ex}
For general \ac{CQ} channels and \ac{i.i.d.} codes and for $\Grho\geq 1$ the following holds:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:lemma_ex}
\mathbb{E}\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right] \leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right)^n.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
%
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma 2]
See Appendix
\end{proof}
%
We will refer to the bound at the \ac{r.h.s.} of \eqref{eq:lemma_ex} as $\Pex$.
We now apply Lemma \ref{lem:main}, choosing $\gamma_n$ to be a positive sequence such that $\gamn\geq 1$ and $ \gamma_n \xrightarrow{n} \infty$. We also allow the parameter $\Grho$ to depend on $n$, indicating it as $\Grho_n$. Notice that Lemma \ref{lem:main} holds $\forall n\in \mathbb{N}$. By using Equations \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eq:lemma_ex}, we find a lower bound on the \ac{l.h.s.} of \eqref{eq:4}:
%
\begin{align}
\PP\Bigl [& \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n} \Bigr ] \notag\\\label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1}
=&\PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\left(\min\left\{\gamn\EE[\Pecn],\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n}\right\}\right) \right]\\
\geq& \PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\left(\min\left\{\gamn \Prc,\gamn^{\Grho_n} \Pexn\right\} \right)\right] \label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2}\\
=&\PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min\left\{\gamn \Prc, \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n} \Pexn\right\} \right] \label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3}
\end{align}
%
where \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1} is a rewriting of the optimization problem, \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2} follows from the bounds \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eq:lemma_ex} on the ensemble average of the probability of error and of the tilted probability of error, respectively, while \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3} follows from the fact that the minimum over $\Grho_n$ only affects the second term within curled brackets in \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2}.
%
Taking the negative normalized logarithm of the quantities inside the outer square brackets in \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3} and using \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1}, we obtain the following chain of inequalities:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp_ineq_0}
\PP\Bigl [& \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\Bigl[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\Bigr]^{\Grho_n} \Bigr ]
\\\notag
\geq&\PP\left[ -\frac{1}{n}\log\Pecn \leq -\frac{1}{n}\log\left(\min\left\{\gamn \Prc, \min_{r_n\geq 1} \gamn^{{\Grho}_n} \Pexn\right\}\right) \right] \\\notag
\geq & \PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{-\frac{1}{n}\log\gamn -\frac{1}{n} + \max_{0\leq s\leq 1} - sR -\log \left(\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\right)^{1+s}\right]\right), \right.\right.\notag\\ \label{eq:exp_ineq_end}
& \left.\left.
\max_{\Grho_n\geq 1} -{\Grho}_n\frac{\log\gamn}{n} + R -{\Grho}_n2R -{\Grho}_n\log\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{{\Grho}_n}\right)\right\} \right] \\\label{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1}
= &\PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\right.\right.\\\notag
&\left.\left.\max_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\ \delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn \right\} \right]
\end{align}
%
where in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end} we used the facts that $-\frac{1}{n}\log M_n(M_n-1) > -2R$ and $-\frac{1}{n}\log (M_n-1) > -R$ while in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} we rewrote the \ac{r.h.s.} of the inequality in terms of $\Er(R,Q)$ and $\Exq$, given in \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eqn:ex}, respectively, and we defined
%
$\iota_n = -\frac{(1+\log \gamma_n)}{n}$ and $\delta_n(\Grho_n) = -{\Grho}_n\frac{\log \gamma_n}{n}$.
%
Using \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} in \eqref{eq:4} we have:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp_ineq}
\PP\left[\right.&\left.\En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) +R - \hat{\Grho}_n 2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \\\label{eq:exp_ineq_b}
\leq &\PP\Bigl [ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\Bigl[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\Bigr]^{\Grho_n} \Bigr ]\\\label{eq:exp_ineq_c}
\leq& \frac{1}{\gamma_n}
\end{align}
%
where in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq} we defined:
%
\begin{align}
\hat{\Grho}_n = \arg\max_{\Grho_n} \delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn
\end{align}
that is, the parameter that maximizes the expression for a given $n$. Notice that the only term that actually depends on $n$ in the second line of expression \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} is $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$.
Removing $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$ from such expression, we define the maximizing parameter as:
%
\begin{align}
\hat{\Grho} = \arg\max_{\Grho} R - \Grho 2R + \Exq.
\end{align}
%
If $\gamma_n$ in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq}-\eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} is chosen so that it diverges sub-exponentially, we have the following implications: the first is that \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} goes to $0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. The second is that $\iota_n\xrightarrow{n}0$. The third implication is that for all rates, ensembles and codes for which $\hat{\Grho} <\infty$ we have that $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)=-\hat{\Grho}_n\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n} 0$, since $-\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n}0$, and $\hat{\Grho}_n\xrightarrow{n} \hat{\Grho}$. In turn, the latter implies that:
%
\begin{align}\notag
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R - \hat{\Grho}_n 2R +\Exqnh = \EexRR+R.
\end{align}
%
%
If $\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$ we need to evaluate whether or not $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)$ diverges to $-\infty$.
We start by considering the case $R=0$, for which $\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$. A rate equal to $0$ occurs if the number of codewords $M_n$ grows sub-exponentially or is constant in $n$, which implies $R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$.
The behavior of $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$ for $R=0$ is considered in the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:R0}
For general \ac{CQ} channel and \ac{i.i.d.} codes, if $\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$ the following holds:
\begin{align}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \delta_n(\Grho_n) = 0.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma 3]
See Appendix.
\end{proof}
Let us now consider the cases in which $\hat{\Grho}_n\rightarrow\infty$ for strictly positive rates. The second term in Eqn. \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} can be written as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:rect}
R (1- 2\Grho) + \Exq - \Grho\frac{\log \gamn}{n},
\end{align}
which, for any $r$, is linear in $R$ with slope $(1- 2\Grho)<0$. We will now calculate the $R$-axis intercept of \eqref{eq:rect} and then take the limit for ${\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$ first, and for $n\rightarrow\infty$ afterwards\footnote{Note that the order in which the limits are taken has no impact in this case, that is, the limit does not change if the order is inverted.}. This gives us the rate at which \eqref{eq:rect} has a vertical asymptote, that is, the rate below which the second term in Eqn. \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} goes to $\infty$. We indicate such rate with $\Rinf$.
%
Setting \eqref{eq:rect} to $0$, solving in $R$ and taking the limit for ${\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$ we have:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:rect2}
\lim_{{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty} &\frac{\Exq}{2{\Grho}-1} - \frac{{\Grho}}{2{\Grho}-1}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}=-\frac{1}{2}\log \PP\left[{\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}>0\right] - \frac{{1}}{2}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}.
\end{align}
%
Finally, taking the limit for $n\rightarrow\infty$ we find:
\begin{align}\label{eq:rect3}
\Rinf =-\frac{1}{2}\log \PP\left[{\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}>0\right].
\end{align}
It can be easily shown that the derivative of $\Exq$ with respect to $\Grho$ is strictly positive. This, together with the fact that in \eqref{eq:rect} the rate multiplies the negative term $1-2\Grho$, implies that, for any rate below $\Rinf$, the maximum of \eqref{eq:rect} takes an infinite value, which is achieved for an asymptotically large ${\Grho}$. The threshold rate $\Rinf$ can be equal to $0$ or can be positive. This procedure is similar to the derivation of Gallager's $R_x^{\infty}$ \cite{gallagerBook} for the expurgated exponent in classical channels. In fact, we have $\Rinf=1/2 R_x^{\infty}$.
This relates the threshold rate $\Rinf$ given in \eqref{eq:rect3} to the zero-error capacity of \ac{CQ} channels, for which $R_x^{\infty}$ is a lower bound. A thorough study of the zero-error capacity for \ac{CQ} channel is out of the scope of the present paper. We remind the interested reader to, e.g., \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} and \cite{ze_cap_duan_TIT2013} for a discussion and further references on the topic.
The analysis just carried out yields the following: (i) $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)\rightarrow 0$ $\forall R\geq\Rinf$ for any \ac{CQ} channel. (ii) $R-\Grho_n2R+\Exqn + \delta_n(\Grho_n) \rightarrow \infty$ for $0<R<\Rinf$, which implies that the \ac{r.h.s.} of the inequality in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} is $\infty$. In both cases, such term is nontrivial, i.e., nonzero.
Taking the limit for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq} and \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} we have:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp_ineq_2}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R -\hat{\Grho}_n2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_n}.
\end{align}
%
In order to bring the limit inside the probability at the \ac{l.h.s.} of \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} we apply the Borell-Cantelli lemma \cite[Sec. 2.3]{Durett_probab_Book}. To do so, the sequence $\gamma_n$ has to satisfy the following two conditions:
\begin{align}
\gamma_n&\rightarrow \infty\\
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_n}&<\infty.
\end{align}
The first one is satisfied by imposing that $\gamn$ diverges. The second condition is satisfied by choosing, for instance, $\gamn=n^{a}$ with $a>1$. This guarantees the sub-exponential growth of $\gamn$ which is required for $\iota_n$ and $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)$ to vanish.
Using such a sequence we can bring the limit inside the probability in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} and obtain:
%
\begin{align}
&\PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \En \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R - \hat{\Grho}_n2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \notag\\
&= \PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \En \leq \max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R \right\} \right]\label{eq:exp_ineq_3a}.
\end{align}
%
The result of $\max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R\right\}$ depends on the rate. By studying the two functions involved (see expressions \eqref{eq:QEr} and \eqref{eqn:expu}) it can be shown that\footnote{We do not report the derivation here since it is lengthy and is similar in spirit to the one used in \cite[Appendix]{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}.}:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:ranges_2}
\max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \right.\left.\EexRR + R \right\}=\begin{cases}
\EexRR+R \ \ \text{ for } R \leq R^*\\
\Er(R,Q) \ \ \text{ for } R > R^*
\end{cases}
\end{align}
%
where $R^*=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial E_{\rm x}(r,Q)}{\partial r}|_{r=1}$. By combining \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} and \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_3a} and using \eqref{eq:ranges_2}, for general \ac{CQ} channels and any rate we have:
%
\begin{align}
&= \PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \En \leq \max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R \right\} \right]\notag\\
&=\mathbb{P}\left[ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\En \leq \Etrccclb\right]\label{eq:exp_ineq_4}\notag\\
& \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_n}\notag\\
&= 0\notag.
\end{align}
%
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 1]
We start with the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:main}
Let $\gamn \geq 1$ be a real-valued sequence in $n$. For an arbitrary random-coding ensemble and channel and any $\Grho>0$, it holds that
\beq
\PP\Bigl [ \Pecn \geq \gamn^{\Grho}\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho} \Bigr ]\leq \frac{1}{\gamn}.
\label{eq:4}
\eeq
\end{lemma}
Expression \eqref{eq:4} applies to arbitrary random variables. In \cite{coccoTIT2022}\footnote{Here we use a slight variation of \cite[Lemma 1]{coccoTIT2022} imposing $\gamn\geq 1$, which simplifies the proof.} it was specialized to the probability of error for pairwise independent code ensembles and generic classical channels. However, the results in \cite{coccoTIT2022} cannot be applied to \ac{CQ} channels since they require the existence of a channel transition probability $\Wnvec$, which is not defined in the general case for CQ channels.
In turn, it is always possible to find an equivalent \ac{CQ} channel for any given classical channel (see, e.g., \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} for a discussion on the subject).
This implies that the result presented in \cite{coccoTIT2022} relative to i.i.d. codes over discrete memoryless channels is a special case of what shown in this paper.
Now we proceed to bound from below $\EE[\Pecn]$ and $\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}$.
The first term is the ensemble average of the error probability. An upper bound on such quantity is \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}
\cite{renesTIT2025_tight_LB}:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_r}
\EE[\Pecn] \leq\min_{0\leq s\leq 1} 2(M_n-1)^s\left\{\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\right)^{1+s}\right]\right\}^n.
\end{align}
We will refer to the bound at the \ac{r.h.s.} in \eqref{eq:pe_r} as $\Prc$.
%
The term $\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}$ is the tilted ensemble-average of the error probability. An upper bound on such quantity is provided in the following lemma:\\
%
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:ex}
For general \ac{CQ} channels and \ac{i.i.d.} codes and for $\Grho\geq 1$ the following holds:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:lemma_ex}
\mathbb{E}\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right] \leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right)^n.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
%
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma 2]
See Appendix
\end{proof}
%
We will refer to the bound at the \ac{r.h.s.} of \eqref{eq:lemma_ex} as $\Pex$.
We now apply Lemma \ref{lem:main}, choosing $\gamma_n$ to be a positive sequence such that $\gamn\geq 1$ and $ \gamma_n \xrightarrow{n} \infty$. We also allow the parameter $\Grho$ to depend on $n$, indicating it as $\Grho_n$. Notice that Lemma \ref{lem:main} holds $\forall n\in \mathbb{N}$. By using Equations \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eq:lemma_ex}, we find a lower bound on the \ac{l.h.s.} of \eqref{eq:4}:
%
\begin{align}
\PP\Bigl [& \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n} \Bigr ] \notag\\\label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1}
=&\PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\left(\min\left\{\gamn\EE[\Pecn],\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n}\right\}\right) \right]\\
\geq& \PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\left(\min\left\{\gamn \Prc,\gamn^{\Grho_n} \Pexn\right\} \right)\right] \label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2}\\
=&\PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min\left\{\gamn \Prc, \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n} \Pexn\right\} \right] \label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3}
\end{align}
%
where \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1} is a rewriting of the optimization problem, \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2} follows from the bounds \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eq:lemma_ex} on the ensemble average of the probability of error and of the tilted probability of error, respectively, while \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3} follows from the fact that the minimum over $\Grho_n$ only affects the second term within curled brackets in \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2}.
%
Taking the negative normalized logarithm of the quantities inside the outer square brackets in \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3} and using \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1}, we obtain the following chain of inequalities:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp_ineq_0}
\PP\Bigl [& \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\Bigl[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\Bigr]^{\Grho_n} \Bigr ]
\\\notag
\geq&\PP\left[ -\frac{1}{n}\log\Pecn \leq -\frac{1}{n}\log\left(\min\left\{\gamn \Prc, \min_{r_n\geq 1} \gamn^{{\Grho}_n} \Pexn\right\}\right) \right] \\\notag
\geq & \PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{-\frac{1}{n}\log\gamn -\frac{1}{n} + \max_{0\leq s\leq 1} - sR -\log \left(\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\right)^{1+s}\right]\right), \right.\right.\notag\\ \label{eq:exp_ineq_end}
& \left.\left.
\max_{\Grho_n\geq 1} -{\Grho}_n\frac{\log\gamn}{n} + R -{\Grho}_n2R -{\Grho}_n\log\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{{\Grho}_n}\right)\right\} \right] \\\label{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1}
= &\PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\right.\right.\\\notag
&\left.\left.\max_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\ \delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn \right\} \right]
\end{align}
%
where in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end} we used the facts that $-\frac{1}{n}\log M_n(M_n-1) > -2R$ and $-\frac{1}{n}\log (M_n-1) > -R$ while in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} we rewrote the \ac{r.h.s.} of the inequality in terms of $\Er(R,Q)$ and $\Exq$, given in \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eqn:ex}, respectively, and we defined
%
$\iota_n = -\frac{(1+\log \gamma_n)}{n}$ and $\delta_n(\Grho_n) = -{\Grho}_n\frac{\log \gamma_n}{n}$.
%
Using \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} in \eqref{eq:4} we have:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp_ineq}
\PP\left[\right.&\left.\En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) +R - \hat{\Grho}_n 2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \\\label{eq:exp_ineq_b}
\leq &\PP\Bigl [ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\Bigl[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\Bigr]^{\Grho_n} \Bigr ]\\\label{eq:exp_ineq_c}
\leq& \frac{1}{\gamma_n}
\end{align}
%
where in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq} we defined:
%
\begin{align}
\hat{\Grho}_n = \arg\max_{\Grho_n} \delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn
\end{align}
that is, the parameter that maximizes the expression for a given $n$. Notice that the only term that actually depends on $n$ in the second line of expression \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} is $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$.
Removing $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$ from such expression, we define the maximizing parameter as:
%
\begin{align}
\hat{\Grho} = \arg\max_{\Grho} R - \Grho 2R + \Exq.
\end{align}
%
If $\gamma_n$ in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq}-\eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} is chosen so that it diverges sub-exponentially, we have the following implications: the first is that \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} goes to $0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. The second is that $\iota_n\xrightarrow{n}0$. The third implication is that for all rates, ensembles and codes for which $\hat{\Grho} <\infty$ we have that $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)=-\hat{\Grho}_n\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n} 0$, since $-\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n}0$, and $\hat{\Grho}_n\xrightarrow{n} \hat{\Grho}$. In turn, the latter implies that:
%
\begin{align}\notag
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R - \hat{\Grho}_n 2R +\Exqnh = \EexRR+R.
\end{align}
%
%
If $\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$ we need to evaluate whether or not $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)$ diverges to $-\infty$.
We start by considering the case $R=0$, for which $\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$. A rate equal to $0$ occurs if the number of codewords $M_n$ grows sub-exponentially or is constant in $n$, which implies $R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$.
The behavior of $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$ for $R=0$ is considered in the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:R0}
For general \ac{CQ} channel and \ac{i.i.d.} codes, if $\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$ the following holds:
\begin{align}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \delta_n(\Grho_n) = 0.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma 3]
See Appendix.
\end{proof}
Let us now consider the cases in which $\hat{\Grho}_n\rightarrow\infty$ for strictly positive rates. The second term in Eqn. \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} can be written as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:rect}
R (1- 2\Grho) + \Exq - \Grho\frac{\log \gamn}{n},
\end{align}
which, for any $r$, is linear in $R$ with slope $(1- 2\Grho)<0$. We will now calculate the $R$-axis intercept of \eqref{eq:rect} and then take the limit for ${\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$ first, and for $n\rightarrow\infty$ afterwards\footnote{Note that the order in which the limits are taken has no impact in this case, that is, the limit does not change if the order is inverted.}. This gives us the rate at which \eqref{eq:rect} has a vertical asymptote, that is, the rate below which the second term in Eqn. \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} goes to $\infty$. We indicate such rate with $\Rinf$.
%
Setting \eqref{eq:rect} to $0$, solving in $R$ and taking the limit for ${\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$ we have:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:rect2}
\lim_{{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty} &\frac{\Exq}{2{\Grho}-1} - \frac{{\Grho}}{2{\Grho}-1}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}=-\frac{1}{2}\log \PP\left[{\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}>0\right] - \frac{{1}}{2}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}.
\end{align}
%
Finally, taking the limit for $n\rightarrow\infty$ we find:
\begin{align}\label{eq:rect3}
\Rinf =-\frac{1}{2}\log \PP\left[{\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}>0\right].
\end{align}
It can be easily shown that the derivative of $\Exq$ with respect to $\Grho$ is strictly positive. This, together with the fact that in \eqref{eq:rect} the rate multiplies the negative term $1-2\Grho$, implies that, for any rate below $\Rinf$, the maximum of \eqref{eq:rect} takes an infinite value, which is achieved for an asymptotically large ${\Grho}$. The threshold rate $\Rinf$ can be equal to $0$ or can be positive. This procedure is similar to the derivation of Gallager's $R_x^{\infty}$ \cite{gallagerBook} for the expurgated exponent in classical channels. In fact, we have $\Rinf=1/2 R_x^{\infty}$.
This relates the threshold rate $\Rinf$ given in \eqref{eq:rect3} to the zero-error capacity of \ac{CQ} channels, for which $R_x^{\infty}$ is a lower bound. A thorough study of the zero-error capacity for \ac{CQ} channel is out of the scope of the present paper. We remind the interested reader to, e.g., \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} and \cite{ze_cap_duan_TIT2013} for a discussion and further references on the topic.
The analysis just carried out yields the following: (i) $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)\rightarrow 0$ $\forall R\geq\Rinf$ for any \ac{CQ} channel. (ii) $R-\Grho_n2R+\Exqn + \delta_n(\Grho_n) \rightarrow \infty$ for $0<R<\Rinf$, which implies that the \ac{r.h.s.} of the inequality in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} is $\infty$. In both cases, such term is nontrivial, i.e., nonzero.
Taking the limit for $n\rightarrow\infty$ in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq} and \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} we have:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp_ineq_2}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R -\hat{\Grho}_n2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_n}.
\end{align}
%
In order to bring the limit inside the probability at the \ac{l.h.s.} of \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} we apply the Borell-Cantelli lemma \cite[Sec. 2.3]{Durett_probab_Book}. To do so, the sequence $\gamma_n$ has to satisfy the following two conditions:
\begin{align}
\gamma_n&\rightarrow \infty\\
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_n}&<\infty.
\end{align}
The first one is satisfied by imposing that $\gamn$ diverges. The second condition is satisfied by choosing, for instance, $\gamn=n^{a}$ with $a>1$. This guarantees the sub-exponential growth of $\gamn$ which is required for $\iota_n$ and $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)$ to vanish.
Using such a sequence we can bring the limit inside the probability in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} and obtain:
%
\begin{align}
&\PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \En \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R - \hat{\Grho}_n2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \notag\\
&= \PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \En \leq \max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R \right\} \right]\label{eq:exp_ineq_3a}.
\end{align}
%
The result of $\max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R\right\}$ depends on the rate. By studying the two functions involved (see expressions \eqref{eq:QEr} and \eqref{eqn:expu}) it can be shown that\footnote{We do not report the derivation here since it is lengthy and is similar in spirit to the one used in \cite[Appendix]{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}.}:
%
\begin{align}\label{eq:ranges_2}
\max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \right.\left.\EexRR + R \right\}=\begin{cases}
\EexRR+R \ \ \text{ for } R \leq R^*\\
\Er(R,Q) \ \ \text{ for } R > R^*
\end{cases}
\end{align}
%
where $R^*=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial E_{\rm x}(r,Q)}{\partial r}|_{r=1}$. By combining \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} and \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_3a} and using \eqref{eq:ranges_2}, for general \ac{CQ} channels and any rate we have:
%
\begin{align}
&= \PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \En \leq \max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R \right\} \right]\notag\\
&=\mathbb{P}\left[ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\En \leq \Etrccclb\right]\label{eq:exp_ineq_4}\notag\\
& \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_n}\notag\\
&= 0\notag.
\end{align}
%
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
We start with the following lemma:
\label{lem:main}
Let $\gamn \geq 1$\gamn \geq 1 be a real-valued sequence in $n$n. For an arbitrary random-coding ensemble and channel and any $\Grho>0$\Grho>0, it holds that
\beq
\PP\Bigl [ \Pecn \geq \gamn^{\Grho}\Grho\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}\Grho \Bigr ]\leq \frac{1}{\gamn}.
\label{eq:4}
\eeq
Expression \eqref{eq:4} applies to arbitrary random variables. In \cite{coccoTIT2022}\footnote{Here we use a slight variation of \cite[Lemma 1]{coccoTIT2022} imposing $\gamn\geq 1$, which simplifies the proof.} it was specialized to the probability of error for pairwise independent code ensembles and generic classical channels. However, the results in \cite{coccoTIT2022} cannot be applied to \ac{CQ}CQ channels since they require the existence of a channel transition probability $\Wnvec$\Wnvec, which is not defined in the general case for CQ channels.
In turn, it is always possible to find an equivalent \ac{CQ}CQ channel for any given classical channel (see, e.g., \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} for a discussion on the subject).
This implies that the result presented in \cite{coccoTIT2022} relative to i.i.d. codes over discrete memoryless channels is a special case of what shown in this paper.
Now we proceed to bound from below $\EE[\Pecn]$\EE[\Pecn] and $\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}$\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}\Grho.
The first term is the ensemble average of the error probability. An upper bound on such quantity is \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}
\cite{renesTIT2025_tight_LB}:
\label{eq:pe_r}
\EE[\Pecn] \leq\min_{0\leq s\leq 1}0\leq s\leq 1 2(M_n-1)^s\left\{\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\frac{1}{1+s}\right)^{1+s}1+s\right]\right\}^n.
We will refer to the bound at the \ac{r.h.s.}r.h.s. in \eqref{eq:pe_r} as $\Prc$\Prc.
The term $\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}$\EE[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}]^{\Grho}\Grho is the tilted ensemble-average of the error probability. An upper bound on such quantity is provided in the following lemma:\\
\label{lemma:ex}
For general \ac{CQ}CQ channels and \ac{i.i.d.}i.i.d. codes and for $\Grho\geq 1$\Grho\geq 1 the following holds:
\label{eq:lemma_ex}
\mathbb{E}\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right] \leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}}x'\in\mathcal{X} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right)^n.
See Appendix
We will refer to the bound at the \ac{r.h.s.}r.h.s. of \eqref{eq:lemma_ex} as $\Pex$\Pex.
We now apply Lemma \ref{lem:main}, choosing $\gamma_n$\gamma_n to be a positive sequence such that $\gamn\geq 1$\gamn\geq 1 and $ \gamma_n \xrightarrow{n} \infty$ \gamma_n \xrightarrow{n} \infty. We also allow the parameter $\Grho$\Grho to depend on $n$n, indicating it as $\Grho_n$\Grho_n. Notice that Lemma \ref{lem:main} holds $\forall n\in \mathbb{N}$\forall n\in \mathbb{N}. By using Equations \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eq:lemma_ex}, we find a lower bound on the \ac{l.h.s.}l.h.s. of \eqref{eq:4}:
\PP\Bigl [& \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1\gamn^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n \Bigr ] \notag\\\label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1}
=&\PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1\left(\min\left\{\gamn\EE[\Pecn],\gamn^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n\right\}\right) \right]\\
\geq& \PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1\left(\min\left\{\gamn \Prc,\gamn^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n \Pexn\right\} \right)\right] \label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2}\\
=&\PP\left[ \Pecn \geq \min\left\{\gamn \Prc, \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1\gamn^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n \Pexn\right\} \right] \label{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3}
where \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1} is a rewriting of the optimization problem, \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2} follows from the bounds \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eq:lemma_ex} on the ensemble average of the probability of error and of the tilted probability of error, respectively, while \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3} follows from the fact that the minimum over $\Grho_n$\Grho_n only affects the second term within curled brackets in \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_2}.
Taking the negative normalized logarithm of the quantities inside the outer square brackets in \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_3} and using \eqref{eq:markov_ineq_chain_1}, we obtain the following chain of inequalities:
\label{eq:exp_ineq_0}
\PP\Bigl [& \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1\gamn^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n\EE\Bigl[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\Bigr]^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n \Bigr ]
\\\notag
\geq&\PP\left[ -\frac{1}{n}\log\Pecn \leq -\frac{1}{n}\log\left(\min\left\{\gamn \Prc, \min_{r_n\geq 1}r_n\geq 1 \gamn^{{\Grho}_n}{\Grho}\Grho_n \Pexn\right\}\right) \right] \\\notag
\geq & \PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{-\frac{1}{n}\log\gamn -\frac{1}{n} + \max_{0\leq s\leq 1}0\leq s\leq 1 - sR -\log \left(\Tr \left[\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}Q(x)\left(\sigma^x\right)^{\frac{1}{1+s}}\frac{1}{1+s}\right)^{1+s}1+s\right]\right), \right.\right.\notag\\ \label{eq:exp_ineq_end}
& \left.\left.
\max_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1 -{\Grho}\Grho_n\frac{\log\gamn}{n} + R -{\Grho}\Grho_n2R -{\Grho}\Grho_n\log\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}}x'\in\mathcal{X} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{{\Grho}_n}\right)\right\} \right] \\\label{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1}
= &\PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\right.\right.\\\notag
&\left.\left.\max_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1\ \delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn \right\} \right]
where in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end} we used the facts that $-\frac{1}{n}\log M_n(M_n-1) > -2R$-\frac{1}{n}\log M_n(M_n-1) > -2R and $-\frac{1}{n}\log (M_n-1) > -R$-\frac{1}{n}\log (M_n-1) > -R while in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} we rewrote the \ac{r.h.s.}r.h.s. of the inequality in terms of $\Er(R,Q)$\Er(R,Q) and $\Exq$\Exq, given in \eqref{eq:pe_r} and \eqref{eqn:ex}, respectively, and we defined
$\iota_n = -\frac{(1+\log \gamma_n)}{n}$\iota_n = -\frac{(1+\log \gamma_n)}{n} and $\delta_n(\Grho_n) = -{\Grho}_n\frac{\log \gamma_n}{n}$\delta_n(\Grho_n) = -{\Grho}\Grho_n\frac{\log \gamma_n}{n}.
Using \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} in \eqref{eq:4} we have:
\label{eq:exp_ineq}
\PP\left[\right.&\left.\En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) +R - \hat{\Grho}_n 2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \\\label{eq:exp_ineq_b}
\leq &\PP\Bigl [ \Pecn \geq \min_{\Grho_n\geq 1}\Grho_n\geq 1\gamn^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n\EE\Bigl[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\Bigr]^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n \Bigr ]\\\label{eq:exp_ineq_c}
\leq& \frac{1}{\gamma_n}
where in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq} we defined:
\hat{\Grho}_n = \arg\max_{\Grho_n}\Grho_n \delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn
that is, the parameter that maximizes the expression for a given $n$n. Notice that the only term that actually depends on $n$n in the second line of expression \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} is $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$\delta_n(\Grho_n).
Removing $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$\delta_n(\Grho_n) from such expression, we define the maximizing parameter as:
\hat{\Grho} = \arg\max_{\Grho}\Grho R - \Grho 2R + \Exq.
If $\gamma_n$\gamma_n in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq}-\eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} is chosen so that it diverges sub-exponentially, we have the following implications: the first is that \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} goes to $0$0 as $n\rightarrow\infty$n\rightarrow\infty. The second is that $\iota_n\xrightarrow{n}0$\iota_n\xrightarrow{n}0. The third implication is that for all rates, ensembles and codes for which $\hat{\Grho} <\infty$\hat{\Grho} <\infty we have that $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)=-\hat{\Grho}_n\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n} 0$\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)=-\hat{\Grho}_n\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n} 0, since $-\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n}0$-\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\xrightarrow{n}0, and $\hat{\Grho}_n\xrightarrow{n} \hat{\Grho}$\hat{\Grho}_n\xrightarrow{n} \hat{\Grho}. In turn, the latter implies that:
\notag
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R - \hat{\Grho}_n 2R +\Exqnh = \EexRR+R.
If $\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty we need to evaluate whether or not $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)$\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) diverges to $-\infty$-\infty.
We start by considering the case $R=0$R=0, for which $\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty$\hat{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty. A rate equal to $0$0 occurs if the number of codewords $M_n$M_n grows sub-exponentially or is constant in $n$n, which implies $R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0.
The behavior of $\delta_n(\Grho_n)$\delta_n(\Grho_n) for $R=0$R=0 is considered in the following lemma:
\label{lemma:R0}
For general \ac{CQ}CQ channel and \ac{i.i.d.}i.i.d. codes, if $\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0 the following holds:
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty \delta_n(\Grho_n) = 0.
See Appendix.
Let us now consider the cases in which $\hat{\Grho}_n\rightarrow\infty$\hat{\Grho}_n\rightarrow\infty for strictly positive rates. The second term in Eqn. \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} can be written as:
\label{eq:rect}
R (1- 2\Grho) + \Exq - \Grho\frac{\log \gamn}{n},
which, for any $r$r, is linear in $R$R with slope $(1- 2\Grho)<0$(1- 2\Grho)<0. We will now calculate the $R$R-axis intercept of \eqref{eq:rect} and then take the limit for ${\Grho}\rightarrow\infty${\Grho}\Grho\rightarrow\infty first, and for $n\rightarrow\infty$n\rightarrow\infty afterwards\footnote{Note that the order in which the limits are taken has no impact in this case, that is, the limit does not change if the order is inverted.}. This gives us the rate at which \eqref{eq:rect} has a vertical asymptote, that is, the rate below which the second term in Eqn. \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} goes to $\infty$\infty. We indicate such rate with $\Rinf$\Rinf.
Setting \eqref{eq:rect} to $0$0, solving in $R$R and taking the limit for ${\Grho}\rightarrow\infty${\Grho}\Grho\rightarrow\infty we have:
\label{eq:rect2}
\lim_{{\Grho}\rightarrow\infty}{\Grho}\Grho\rightarrow\infty &\frac{\Exq}{2{\Grho}-1} - \frac{{\Grho}}{2{\Grho}-1}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}=-\frac{1}{2}\log \PP\left[{\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}>0\right] - \frac{{1}}{2}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}.
Finally, taking the limit for $n\rightarrow\infty$n\rightarrow\infty we find:
\label{eq:rect3}
\Rinf =-\frac{1}{2}\log \PP\left[{\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}>0\right].
It can be easily shown that the derivative of $\Exq$\Exq with respect to $\Grho$\Grho is strictly positive. This, together with the fact that in \eqref{eq:rect} the rate multiplies the negative term $1-2\Grho$1-2\Grho, implies that, for any rate below $\Rinf$\Rinf, the maximum of \eqref{eq:rect} takes an infinite value, which is achieved for an asymptotically large ${\Grho}${\Grho}\Grho. The threshold rate $\Rinf$\Rinf can be equal to $0$0 or can be positive. This procedure is similar to the derivation of Gallager's $R_x^{\infty}$R_x^{\infty}\infty \cite{gallagerBook} for the expurgated exponent in classical channels. In fact, we have $\Rinf=1/2 R_x^{\infty}$\Rinf=1/2 R_x^{\infty}\infty.
This relates the threshold rate $\Rinf$\Rinf given in \eqref{eq:rect3} to the zero-error capacity of \ac{CQ}CQ channels, for which $R_x^{\infty}$R_x^{\infty}\infty is a lower bound. A thorough study of the zero-error capacity for \ac{CQ}CQ channel is out of the scope of the present paper. We remind the interested reader to, e.g., \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} and \cite{ze_cap_duan_TIT2013} for a discussion and further references on the topic.
The analysis just carried out yields the following: (i) $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)\rightarrow 0$\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)\rightarrow 0 $\forall R\geq\Rinf$\forall R\geq\Rinf for any \ac{CQ}CQ channel. (ii) $R-\Grho_n2R+\Exqn + \delta_n(\Grho_n) \rightarrow \infty$R-\Grho_n2R+\Exqn + \delta_n(\Grho_n) \rightarrow \infty for $0<R<\Rinf$0<R<\Rinf, which implies that the \ac{r.h.s.}r.h.s. of the inequality in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} is $\infty$\infty. In both cases, such term is nontrivial, i.e., nonzero.
Taking the limit for $n\rightarrow\infty$n\rightarrow\infty in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq} and \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_c} we have:
\label{eq:exp_ineq_2}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\rightarrow \infty\PP\left[ \En \leq \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R -\hat{\Grho}_n2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\rightarrow \infty\frac{1}{\gamma_n}.
In order to bring the limit inside the probability at the \ac{l.h.s.}l.h.s. of \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} we apply the Borell-Cantelli lemma \cite[Sec. 2.3]{Durett_probab_Book}. To do so, the sequence $\gamma_n$\gamma_n has to satisfy the following two conditions:
\gamma_n&\rightarrow \infty\\
\sum_{n=1}n=1^{\infty}\infty\frac{1}{\gamma_n}&<\infty.
The first one is satisfied by imposing that $\gamn$\gamn diverges. The second condition is satisfied by choosing, for instance, $\gamn=n^{a}$\gamn=n^{a}a with $a>1$a>1. This guarantees the sub-exponential growth of $\gamn$\gamn which is required for $\iota_n$\iota_n and $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)$\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) to vanish.
Using such a sequence we can bring the limit inside the probability in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} and obtain:
&\PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\rightarrow \infty \En \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\rightarrow \infty \max\left\{\iota_n+\Er(R,Q),\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) + R - \hat{\Grho}_n2R + \Exqnh \right\} \right] \notag\\
&= \PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\rightarrow \infty \En \leq \max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R \right\} \right]\label{eq:exp_ineq_3a}.
The result of $\max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R\right\}$\max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R\right\} depends on the rate. By studying the two functions involved (see expressions \eqref{eq:QEr} and \eqref{eqn:expu}) it can be shown that\footnote{We do not report the derivation here since it is lengthy and is similar in spirit to the one used in \cite[Appendix]{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}.}:
\label{eq:ranges_2}
\max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \right.\left.\EexRR + R \right\}=
\EexRR+R \ \ \text{ for } R \leq R^*\\
\Er(R,Q) \ \ \text{ for } R > R^*
where $R^*=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial E_{\rm x}(r,Q)}{\partial r}|_{r=1}$R^*=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial E_{\rm x}(r,Q)}{\partial r}|_{r=1}r=1. By combining \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_2} and \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_3a} and using \eqref{eq:ranges_2}, for general \ac{CQ}CQ channels and any rate we have:
&= \PP\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\rightarrow \infty \En \leq \max\left\{\Er(R,Q), \EexRR + R \right\} \right]\notag\\
&=\mathbb{P}\left[ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty\En \leq \Etrccclb\right]\label{eq:exp_ineq_4}\notag\\
& \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}n\rightarrow \infty\frac{1}{\gamma_n}\notag\\
&= 0\notag.
This concludes the proof.
In general $\Etrccclb\leq \Etrccc$\Etrccclb\leq \Etrccc, where $\Etrccc=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\EE[\En]$\Etrccc=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty\EE[\En] is the ensemble-average exponent of the error probability, i.e., the \ac{TRC}TRC exponent \cite{merhav_TIT2018}.
This follows from Lemma \ref{lem:main} and the fact that:
\begin{align}\notag
&\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\max_{r_n\in[1,\infty)}-\frac{1}{n}\log\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n} %\leq -\frac{1}{n}\log\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n}
\\ \notag
&\leq \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty} -\frac{1}{n}\log\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]^{\Grho} \notag\\ &=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\EE[\En].
\end{align}\begin{align}\notag
&\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\max_{r_n\in[1,\infty)}-\frac{1}{n}\log\gamn^{\Grho_n}\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n} %\leq -\frac{1}{n}\log\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n}
\\ \notag
&\leq \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty} -\frac{1}{n}\log\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]^{\Grho} \notag\\ &=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\EE[\En].
\end{align}\notag
&\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty\max_{r_n\in[1,\infty)}r_n\in[1,\infty)-\frac{1}{n}\log\gamn^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho_n}\right]^{\Grho_n}\Grho_n \\ \notag
&\leq \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}r\rightarrow\infty -\frac{1}{n}\log\EE\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]^{\Grho}\Grho \notag\\ &=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\rightarrow\infty\EE[\En].
Theorem \ref{theo:1} shows that the vast majority of codes in \ac{i.i.d.}i.i.d. ensembles over \ac{CQ}CQ channels have an exponent at least as large as $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb.
This has the following implication. The works \cite{sp_cq_dalai_2023} and \cite{renesTIT2025_tight_LB} showed that at rates close to capacity (i.e., larger than the cutoff rate, as defined in \cite[Chapter 5]{gallagerBook}) $\Er(Q)$\Er(Q) is, once optimized in the input distribution, the largest possible exponent in a random code ensemble for $\ac{CQ}$\ac{CQ}CQ channels with generic output states. Our Theorem \ref{theo:1} states that the probability of finding a code in the ensemble having an exponent smaller than such quantity goes to $0$0 asymptotically in $n$n. Combining the two results, it follows that the exponent probability distribution across the ensemble concentrates around $\Er(R)$\Er(R) in the high rate region, since no exponent larger than $\Er(R)$\Er(R) exists in the ensemble and the vast majority of codes achieve $\Er(R)$\Er(R). This also implies that, at rates close to capacity, $\Er(R)$\Er(R) coincides with the \ac{TRC}TRC exponent $\Etrccc$\Etrccc.
|
Main Result
| false
|
2507.06868
| 2
|
95,409
|
In this section we evaluate numerically the bound derived in Theorem \ref{theo:1} and its dependency on relevant channel parameters. We consider a binary \ac{CQ}CQ channel with a symmetric input distribution, that is, $Q(1)=Q(2)=1/2$Q(1)=Q(2)=1/2. Let $\Pur=\rm{Tr}\{(\sigma^x)^2\}$\Pur=\rm{Tr}Tr\{(\sigma^x)^2\} be the purity \cite{wildeBook_2021} of the output state $\sigma^x$\sigma^x, assumed to be the same for $x=1, 2$x=1, 2. For a given purity $\Pur$\Pur the output states can be expressed in the Pauli basis as:
\begin{align}
\sigma^1 = \frac{1}{2}\left( I + A\sin(\theta)P_X + A\cos(\theta)P_Z\right)\\
\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left( I + A\sin(\theta)P_X - A\cos(\theta)P_Z\right)
\end{align}\begin{align}
\sigma^1 = \frac{1}{2}\left( I + A\sin(\theta)P_X + A\cos(\theta)P_Z\right)\\
\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left( I + A\sin(\theta)P_X - A\cos(\theta)P_Z\right)
\end{align}
\sigma^1 = \frac{1}{2}\left( I + A\sin(\theta)P_X + A\cos(\theta)P_Z\right)\\
\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left( I + A\sin(\theta)P_X - A\cos(\theta)P_Z\right)
where $A=\sqrt{2\Pur - 1}$A=\sqrt{2\Pur - 1}, $\theta=\frac{\pi}{6}$\theta=\frac{\pi}{6} unless otherwise specified, $I$I is the $2\times 2$2\times 2 identity matrix while $P_X$P_X, $P_Y$P_Y (for which coefficient zero is chosen) and $P_Z$P_Z are the Pauli matrices.
In Fig. \ref{fig:purity_095} $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb is plotted versus the rate for a \ac{CQ}CQ channel with binary inputs and purity $\Pur=0.95$\Pur=0.95. The \ac{RC}RC exponent $\Er(R)$\Er(R) is also shown. It can be seen that $\Etrclb>\Er(R)$\Etrclb>\Er(R) for $R<R^*\simeq 0.044$R<R^*\simeq 0.044. Both exponents are zero for rates larger than the capacity $C\simeq 0.659$C\simeq 0.659.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center} \includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth,draft=false]{purity_095_bits.eps}
\caption{Exponent $\Etrccclb$ versus rate $R$ for a \ac{CQ} channel with binary symmetric input distribution and purity $\Pur=0.95$. The \ac{RC} exponent $\Er(R)$ is also shown for comparison. For the considered setup $C\simeq 0.659$, $R^*\simeq 0.044$.}\label{fig:purity_095}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth,draft=false]{purity_095_bits.eps}
\caption{Exponent $\Etrccclb$ versus rate $R$ for a \ac{CQ} channel with binary symmetric input distribution and purity $\Pur=0.95$. The \ac{RC} exponent $\Er(R)$ is also shown for comparison. For the considered setup $C\simeq 0.659$, $R^*\simeq 0.044$.}\label{fig:purity_095}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth,draft=false]{purity_compare_bits.eps}
\caption{Exponent $\Etrccclb$ plotted versus $R$ for a \ac{CQ} channel with symmetric binary input distribution and different values of purity $\Pur$.}\label{fig:purities}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth,draft=false]{purity_compare_bits.eps}
\caption{Exponent $\Etrccclb$ plotted versus $R$ for a \ac{CQ} channel with symmetric binary input distribution and different values of purity $\Pur$.}\label{fig:purities}
In Fig. \ref{fig:purities} $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb is plotted versus $R$R for a symmetric binary $Q(x)$Q(x) and different values of purity $\Pur$\Pur. For a given rate, the exponent $\Etrclb$\Etrclb becomes smaller as the purity decreases. Also the rate $R^*$R^* below which the exponent $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb is strictly larger than $\Er(R)$\Er(R) shows the same trend, going from $0.025$0.025 for $\Pur=0.9$\Pur=0.9 to $0.003$0.003 for $\Pur=0.7$\Pur=0.7.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth,draft=false]{purity_09_bits_compare_theta.eps}
\caption{Exponent $\Etrccclb$ plotted versus $R$ for a \ac{CQ} channel with symmetric binary input distribution and different values of the angle $\theta$.}\label{fig:theta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth,draft=false]{purity_09_bits_compare_theta.eps}
\caption{Exponent $\Etrccclb$ plotted versus $R$ for a \ac{CQ} channel with symmetric binary input distribution and different values of the angle $\theta$.}\label{fig:theta}
In Fig. \ref{fig:theta} we plot $\Etrccclb$\Etrccclb versus $R$R for a symmetric input distribution, $\mu=0.9$\mu=0.9 and different values of the angle $\theta$\theta. It can be seen how a larger angle corresponds to a smaller exponent for a given rate. This is because the probability of error for the measurements on the output states increases. In the limiting case of pure states ($A=1$A=1) with $\theta=0$\theta=0 one obtains orthogonal output states, for which the probability of error is exactly zero.
\newpage
|
Numerical Results
| false
|
2507.06868
| 3
|
95,410
|
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:ex}}
We start by bounding from above the tilted error probability:
\begin{align}\label{eq:ex_chain}
\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} &= \left(\frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\PecnmallMdet \right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\PecnmallMdet ^\frac{1}{\Grho}\label{eq:ex_chain_2}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n} \sum_{m'\neq m} \left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m}}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m'}}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\label{eq:ex_chain_3}
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:ex_chain}
\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} &= \left(\frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\PecnmallMdet \right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\PecnmallMdet ^\frac{1}{\Grho}\label{eq:ex_chain_2}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}\sum_{m=1}^{M_n} \sum_{m'\neq m} \left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m}}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m'}}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\label{eq:ex_chain_3}
\end{align}\label{eq:ex_chain}
\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} &= \left(\frac{1}{M_n}\sum_{m=1}m=1^{M_n}M_n\PecnmallMdet \right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}\sum_{m=1}m=1^{M_n}M_n\PecnmallMdet ^\frac{1}{\Grho}\label{eq:ex_chain_2}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}\sum_{m=1}m=1^{M_n}M_n \sum_{m'\neq m}m'\neq m \left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m}}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m'}}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\label{eq:ex_chain_3}
where \eqref{eq:ex_chain_2} follows because $(\sum_ia_i)^s\leq \sum_ia_i^s$(\sum_ia_i)^s\leq \sum_ia_i^s for $0<s\leq 1$0<s\leq 1 \cite[Ch. 5]{gallagerBook} while \eqref{eq:ex_chain_3} holds from Holevo's bound on $\PecnmallMdet^{\frac{1}{\Grho}}$\PecnmallMdet^{\frac{1}{\Grho}}\frac{1}{\Grho} \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}.
Taking the ensemble average of \eqref{eq:ex_chain_3} and using the fact that codewords are symbol-wise i.i.d. we have:
\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_ex}
\mathbb{E}\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right] &\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}} \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{m=1}^{M_n} \sum_{m'\neq m} \left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m}}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m'}}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]\\
=& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1) \mathbb{E}\left[\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]\\
=& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\sum_{\x\in\mathcal{X}^n}\sum_{\x'\in\mathcal{X}^n} Q^n(\x)Q^n(\x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\\\label{eq:pe_ex_last}
\leq& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right)^n
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:pe_ex}
\mathbb{E}\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right] &\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}} \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{m=1}^{M_n} \sum_{m'\neq m} \left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m}}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m'}}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]\\
=& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1) \mathbb{E}\left[\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]\\
=& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\sum_{\x\in\mathcal{X}^n}\sum_{\x'\in\mathcal{X}^n} Q^n(\x)Q^n(\x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\\\label{eq:pe_ex_last}
\leq& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right)^n
\end{align}\label{eq:pe_ex}
\mathbb{E}\left[\Pecn^\frac{1}{\Grho} \right] &\leq \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}} \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{m=1}m=1^{M_n}M_n \sum_{m'\neq m}m'\neq m \left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m}}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x_{m'}}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]\\
=& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1) \mathbb{E}\left[\left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right]\\
=& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\sum_{\x\in\mathcal{X}^n}\x\in\mathcal{X}^n\sum_{\x'\in\mathcal{X}^n}\x'\in\mathcal{X}^n Q^n(\x)Q^n(\x')\left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{\x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{\x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\\\label{eq:pe_ex_last}
\leq& \frac{1}{M_n^\frac{1}{\Grho}}M_n(M_n-1)\left(\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}x\in\mathcal{X}\sum_{x'\in\mathcal{X}}x'\in\mathcal{X} Q(x)Q(x')\left( {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right)^\frac{1}{\Grho}\right)^n
where \eqref{eq:pe_ex_last} follows from the i.i.d. assumption \cite{Q_expur_general_Holevo200}.\unskip\nobreak\hfill$\square$\square
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:R0}}
We proceed to Taylor-expand $\Exqn$\Exqn around $1/{\Grho}_n\rightarrow 0$1/{\Grho}\Grho_n\rightarrow 0. In this way we can evaluate how fast $\hat{\Grho}_n$\hat{\Grho}_n grows with respect to $\frac{\log \gamn}{n}$\frac{\log \gamn}{n}, which allows us to evaluate whether or not $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)$\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n) diverges.
Let us define $\sr=1/\Grho_n$\sr=1/\Grho_n. The Taylor expansion of $\Exqs$\Exqs is:
\begin{align}
\Exqs = \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} + O(\sr^{2})
\end{align}\begin{align}
\Exqs = \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} + O(\sr^{2})
\end{align}
\Exqs = \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)}\nu_1(Q) + O(\sr^{2}2)
where
\begin{align}
\nu_0(Q) = \left.\Exqs \right|_{\sr=0} = -\EE\left[\log {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right]
\end{align}\begin{align}
\nu_0(Q) = \left.\Exqs \right|_{\sr=0} = -\EE\left[\log {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right]
\end{align}
\nu_0(Q) = \left.\Exqs \right|_{\sr=0}\sr=0 = -\EE\left[\log {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right]
and
\begin{align}
\nu_1(Q) = \left.\frac{d\Exqs}{d\sr} \right|_{\sr=0} = \frac{1}{2}\rm{Var}\left[\log {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right]
\end{align}\begin{align}
\nu_1(Q) = \left.\frac{d\Exqs}{d\sr} \right|_{\sr=0} = \frac{1}{2}\rm{Var}\left[\log {\rm Tr}\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right]
\end{align}
\nu_1(Q) = \left.\frac{d\Exqs}{d\sr} \right|_{\sr=0}\sr=0 = \frac{1}{2}\rm{Var}Var\left[\log {\rm Tr}\rm Tr\left\{\sqrt{\sigma^{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{x'}}\right\}\right]
are constant in $n$n.
Thus, taking the second term in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1}, which we want to maximize, we have:
\begin{align}\notag
&R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \Exqs + \delta_n(\sr) \\\notag
&= R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} + O(\sr^2) -\frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\\
&= R - \frac{1}{\sr}\left(2R + {\sr}{O(\sr^2)}\right) + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} -\frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\notag\\
&\simeq R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} - \frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\label{eq:taylor3_1}
\end{align}\begin{align}\notag
&R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \Exqs + \delta_n(\sr) \\\notag
&= R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} + O(\sr^2) -\frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\\
&= R - \frac{1}{\sr}\left(2R + {\sr}{O(\sr^2)}\right) + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} -\frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\notag\\
&\simeq R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)} - \frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\label{eq:taylor3_1}
\end{align}\notag
&R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \Exqs + \delta_n(\sr) \\\notag
&= R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)}\nu_1(Q) + O(\sr^2) -\frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\\
&= R - \frac{1}{\sr}\left(2R + {\sr}\sr{O(\sr^2)}O(\sr^2)\right) + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)}\nu_1(Q) -\frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\notag\\
&\simeq R - \frac{1}{\sr}2R + \nu_0(Q) - \sr{\nu_1(Q)}\nu_1(Q) - \frac{1}{\sr}\frac{\log \gamn}{n}\label{eq:taylor3_1}
where the approximation in \eqref{eq:taylor3_1} becomes arbitrarily tight as $\sr$\sr approaches zero. Expression \eqref{eq:taylor3_1} is maximized by:
\begin{align}\label{eq:topt}
\hat{\sr} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \frac{\log M_n}{n} + \frac{\log \gamn}{n}}{\nu_1(Q) }},
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:topt}
\hat{\sr} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \frac{\log M_n}{n} + \frac{\log \gamn}{n}}{\nu_1(Q) }},
\end{align}\label{eq:topt}
\hat{\sr} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \frac{\log M_n}{n} + \frac{\log \gamn}{n}}{\nu_1(Q) }},
where we used the definition $R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}$R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}.
Substituting $\hat{\sr}=1/\hat{\Grho}_n$\hat{\sr}=1/\hat{\Grho}_n in \eqref{eq:topt}, we find the (asymptotic) maximizer of the second term in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:rn_opt}
\hat{\Grho}_n = \sqrt{\frac{\nu_1(Q)}{2 \frac{\log M_n}{n} + \frac{\log \gamn}{n} }}.
\end{align}\begin{align}\label{eq:rn_opt}
\hat{\Grho}_n = \sqrt{\frac{\nu_1(Q)}{2 \frac{\log M_n}{n} + \frac{\log \gamn}{n} }}.
\end{align}\label{eq:rn_opt}
\hat{\Grho}_n = \sqrt{\frac{\nu_1(Q)}{2 \frac{\log M_n}{n} + \frac{\log \gamn}{n} }}.
Plugging \eqref{eq:rn_opt} in the expression $\delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn$\delta_n(\Grho_n) + R - \Grho_n 2R + \Exqn in \eqref{eq:exp_ineq_end_p1} we obtain a value which converges to the maximum as $n\rightarrow\infty$n\rightarrow\infty. If $R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$R=\frac{\log M_n}{n}\rightarrow 0 and $\nu_1(Q)$\nu_1(Q) is finite, $\hat{\Grho}_n$\hat{\Grho}_n grows proportionally to $\sqrt{\frac{n}{\log\gamn + 2\log M_n}}<\sqrt{\frac{n}{\log\gamn}}$\sqrt{\frac{n}{\log\gamn + 2\log M_n}}<\sqrt{\frac{n}{\log\gamn}}, which implies that, for $R=0$R=0, $\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)\rightarrow 0$\delta_n(\hat{\Grho}_n)\rightarrow 0 as $n\rightarrow\infty$n\rightarrow\infty.\unskip\nobreak\hfill$\square$\square
\flushend
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}IEEEtran
\bibliography{IEEEabrv,Cocco_ITW2025_ArXiv}
|
Appendix
| false
|
2507.06868
| 4
|
95,411
|
Port-Hamiltonian (pH) systems have been developed as a theoretical framework for modeling, numerical simulation, and control of macroscopic multiphysics systems. PH systems are a generalization of classical Hamiltonian systems to open systems, embedding additional pairs of port variables. These are interface variables that are necessary either for control, observation, or interconnection.This extension leads to the intrinsic representation of pH systems with a geometric Dirac interconnection structure, generalizing the Poisson bracket from classical Hamiltonian systems.The Dirac interconnection structure may include dissipation, input/output (control/observation) and interconnection ports, besides the storage (energy) port. It is geometrically defined through a canonical power pairing, extending the Poisson symplectic form of Hamiltonian mechanics. It may be represented, either explicitly or implicitly in various coordinate systems. We refer to \cite{van2014port} for a general introduction, to \cite{duindam2009modeling} for a survey of applications in different fields of physics, to \cite{beattie2018linear} for the formulation of pH systems with algebraic constraints as differential-algebraic equations (DAE) or linear descriptor systems in matrix representation,
and to \cite{mehrmann2023control} for a survey of control applications of these pH-DAE systems.
For infinite-dimensional pH systems, Stokes-Dirac structures have been introduced in \cite{van2002Hamiltonian}, extending the in-domain port variables pairs with pairs of boundary port variables, which are necessary to write the usual (mass, energy, momentum, etc.) balance equations. Skew symmetry in the Hamiltonian differential operator, integration by parts, and Stokes theorem may be combined to obtain a canonical representation for these infinite-dimensional pH systems and define appropriate pairs of boundary port variables in which physically consistent boundary conditions, boundary control and observation variables may be expressed. In the linear case, the semigroup approach applied to distributed parameter linear pH systems allows a parametrization of all admissible boundary conditions (using these pairs of boundary port variables), which guarantee well-posedness of the resulting partial differential equations (PDE) (see \cite{le_gorrec_2005_siam} for the 1D case or \cite{brugnoli2023stokes} for the $n$nD case). The literature on distributed pH systems has recently grown considerably. Both theoretical developments and application-based studies are surveyed in \cite{rashad2020twenty}. Recently, pH models for distributed parameter systems (either linear or not) have been proposed and investigated in various application domains, ranging from flexible mechanics (see \cite{ponce2024systematic} for a systematic methodology for pH modeling of flexible systems) to fluid dynamics (see for instance \cite{cardoso2024port} for a literature review on pH modeling in fluid dynamics), electromagnetism \cite{farle2013port}, thermo-magneto-hydronamics (see for instance \cite{vu2016structured}, for the pH model of tokamak plasma dynamics), and phase separation \cite{vincent2020port,bendimerad2023structure}, just to cite a few examples.
In most of these applications (and previously cited papers), the boundary pH formulation relies on the assumption that the
Hamiltonian differential operator, together with a generating Hamiltonian functional, are explicitly known and only depend on the state variables and not on their spatial derivatives. However, constraints may stem from implicit energy constitutive equations, affecting the relationship between effort and energy state variables. In this case, pH systems may be defined on a Lagrangian subspace (see \cite{van2018generalized}) or submanifold (for the nonlinear case, see \cite{van2020dirac}), as recently introduced in the finite-dimensional case. The energy is then no longer defined by a function on the state space, but instead by reciprocal constitutive relations between the state and co-state variables. Stokes-Lagrange subspaces have been proposed to cope with the infinite-dimensional case (see \cite{krhac2024port} or \cite{maschke2023linear} for 1D formulation and \cite{bendimerad2025stokeslagrange} for $n$nD extension of this idea). It is then possible to represent systems where the Hamiltonian functional is constrained, implicitly defined and/or depends on spatial derivatives of the state. Examples of pH systems defined on Stokes-Lagrange subspaces include the implicit formulation of the Allen-Cahn equation \cite{yaghi2022port}, the Dzektser equation governing the seepage of underground water (see \cite{Dzektser72} for the original model or \cite{bendimerad2025stokeslagrange,jacob2022solvability} for pH formulations), or nonlocal visco-elastic models for nanorods \cite{heidari2019port,heidari2022nonlocal}. The authors have also shown how constrained pH systems defined on Stokes-Lagrange subspaces may formalize the reduction of energy constitutive equations, considering the simplification from the Reissner-Mindlin thick plate model to the Kirchhoff-Love thin plate model, and the low-frequency approximation of Maxwell’s equations, as two examples of such a reduction \cite{bendimerad2025stokeslagrange}.
At the same time as these advances in the pH representation of an increasing variety of physical systems, corresponding structure-preserving numerical methods have been proposed. Among others, preserving the structure in the discretization allows running under-resolved simulation and avoid some spurious non-physical modes in multiphysics systems interconnection. Both are of prime importance for pH systems which are fundamentally a modular modeling approach for (possibly real-time) control oriented applications. In this paper, we focus on space discretization of infinite-dimension pH systems. Time discretization for finite dimensional pH systems (a.o. those obtained by structure-preserving spatial discretization) has been investigated in many previous works. Most of the time, discrete gradient methods \cite{mclachlan1999geometric,gonzalez1996time} are used such as in \cite{aoues2017hamiltonian,celledoni2017energy}, or symplectic RK/collocation schemes, such as in \cite{kotyczka2019discrete} (for explicit pH systems) or in \cite{mehrmann2019structure,kinon2025discrete} (for pH-DAEs). Note also that complete discretization schemes, such as space-time finite element method for multisymplectic Hamiltonian systems \cite{CelledoniJCP2021} or weak space-time formulation for dissipative Hamiltonian systems \cite{egger2019structure}, have been investigated yet and could possibly be extended to open pH systems.
Regarding the structure-preserving spatial discretization of pH systems, various approaches have been proposed, including finite differences on staggered grids \cite{TrenchantJCP2018}, pseudo-spectral methods \cite{MoullaJCP2012,VU20171}, methods based on the finite discrete exterior calculus \cite{seslija2012discrete,HiemstraJCP2014} and finite element methods. Among these approaches, only finite element methods have been successfully applied to a large number of different 2D and 3D examples, either linear or not, with non-trivial geometries (in that particular sense, they may be regarded as more general). Finite elements have been introduced for the structure-preserving discretization of 1D transmission line problems in \cite{golo2004hamiltonian}. The idea was then generalized for non linear shallow water equations in \cite{pasumarthy2012port}. These methods are mixed finite element methods (MFEM) such as those analyzed in \cite{BofBreFor15}, but extended for pH systems with time-varying boundary energy flows. Different directions have been followed to generalize these early 1D MFEM results. In \cite{kotyczka2018weak}, structure-preserving is obtained by choosing different compatible finite element spaces for the effort and flow variables approximations in the weak formulation of pH systems. In \cite{BRUGNOLI_JGP_2022} (generalized from \cite{zhangmass2022}), the authors define a virtual and redundant dual field representation of the original pH system to obtain the finite dimensional without the need to discretize the Hodge metric in the constitutive equations. Finally, in \cite{Cardoso-Ribeiro2020b}, a partitioned finite element method (PFEM) is proposed, based on the integration by parts of some of the balance equations, chosen to make the boundary control appear and obtain a finite-dimensional square invertible pH matrix representation with sparse matrices. We propose in this paper an extension of the PFEM to pH systems defined on Stokes-Lagrange subspaces.
The PFEM is defined and applied to shallow water equations (in 1D and 2D), together with various extensions examples in \cite{Cardoso-Ribeiro2020b}. Since then, it has been applied to many different application examples, either in 2D or 3D, and has been proven to preserve the central Dirac interconnection structure of pH systems (hence, the power continuity). Among these examples, one can cite \cite{serhani2019anisotropic} for the anisotropic heterogeneous $n$nD heat equation, \cite{bendimerad2022structure,bendimerad2023structure} for the Cahn-Hillard and Allen-Cahn equations, \cite{haine2022structure} for the Maxwell equations, \cite{brugnoli2021mixed} for von Karman plate models, \cite{brugnoli2021port} for a linear thermo-elasticity model (through the interconnection of elasto-dynamics and heat equations), \cite{brugnoli2019portII} for Mindlin and Kirchhoff plate models, \cite{haine2021incompressible} for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation, \cite{cardoso2024rotational} for 2D shallow water equations, or \cite{cardoso2024port} for a survey on applications of the PFEM to fluid models. The optimal choice of finite elements for the PFEM has been analyzed for the 2D wave equation on different geometries and asymptotics for the error are given in \cite{haine2023numerical}. An open simulation Python package for multiphysics pH systems relying on the PFEM is available at \url{https://g-haine.github.io/scrimp/}, with various examples. This package is further discussed with the help of some mechanical and thermodynamical examples in \cite{ferraro2024simulation}. Note also that a benchmark of pH numerical models with a repository of structure-preserving discretization methods may be found at \url{https://algopaul.github.io/PortHamiltonianBenchmarkSystems.jl/}.
This paper deals with the structure-preserving discretization of $n$nD pH systems with implicitly defined energy (i.e., with differential constitutive equations for the energy). They are represented with two geometrical interconnection structures: a Stokes-Dirac structure for power continuity (balance equations) and a Stokes-Lagrange structure for the energy constitutive equations. Until now, to the best of our knowledge, the PFEM discretization of pH system with implicitly defined energy has been applied only in \cite{bendimerad2023implicit}, for a simple 1D nanorod viscoelastic example. In this work, we propose to extend these early results to more fundamental 1D and 2D examples, where the nonlocal constitutive equations play a fundamental role, to discretize these examples and analyze numerical consequences, of both the implicit pH formulation and the structure preservation, on simulation numerical results.
In section \ref{sec:sec2}, the geometric definition of pH systems with implicitly defined energy is recalled. Dirac structure and Lagrange subspace (finite dimensional case, section \ref{sec:sec2.1}) are defined and generalized to Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange structures (infinite dimensional case, section \ref{sec:sec2.2}). In section \ref{sec:continuous-models}, three examples are considered: a 1D nanorod model (section \ref{sec:nanorod}), an implicit Euler-Bernoulli model (section \ref{sec:EBbeam}) and a 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes model (section \ref{sec:incompressibleNSE}). For the nanorod example, nonlocal constitutive equations are made necessary to cope with nonlocal effects between stress and strain variables at micro/nano-scales \cite{eringen1983differential}. An equivalent implicit formulation with Robin boundary conditions and additional energy boundary port variables (see \cite{krhac2024port}) are introduced, which pop up in the power balance equation and in the Hamiltonian function. For the 1D Euler-Bernoulli beam, we consider an implicit model which arises when the (usual) simplification in the limit of low wavenumbers is not assumed \cite{ducceschi2019conservative}. This extended Euler-Bernoulli model is made necessary for high frequencies approximation \cite{BilbaoJASA2016}. Regarding the homogeneous implicit 2D (or 3D) incompressible Navier-Stokes equation \cite{boyer2012mathematical}, we derive an equivalent model in terms of vorticity and stream function. These two variables are also related through a differential constitutive equation. The 2D case is cast as a pH system with implicitly defined energy function. This formulation leads to both power and enstrophy balance equations (the vorticity generation does not appear in the power balance equation). The case of no-slip boundary conditions is carefully investigated, with enstrophy creation and kinetic energy dissipation arising in the balance equations. In section \ref{sec:PFEM}, the structure-preserving spatial discretizations of the previously defined examples are derived. This leads to the definition of discrete Dirac and Lagrange structures, corresponding to their infinite-dimensional Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange counter-parts. It is shown how the PFEM approach extends to these cases and ensures structural properties of the finite-dimensional pH matrices which guarantees power, energy (and enstrophy) conservation. In section \ref{sec:numerics}, numerical results are presented for the three examples, in each case, the evolution of the Hamiltonian during the simulation is shown along with the power balance. In the Euler-Bernoulli case, phase velocities are plotted against theoretical values. Similarly, incompressible Navier-Stokes results are compared to the benchmark~\cite{clercx2006normal} and MEEVC scheme~\cite{de2019inclusion}.
\iffalse
\begin{remark}
In this work, energy control ports are used\cite{krhac2024port}, these allows a direct control of the Hamiltonian. Hence, compared to \cite{gernandt2022equivalence}, the Lagrange structure is defined on a bigger space where energy control ports are added.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
In this work, energy control ports are used\cite{krhac2024port}, these allows a direct control of the Hamiltonian. Hence, compared to \cite{gernandt2022equivalence}, the Lagrange structure is defined on a bigger space where energy control ports are added.
\end{remark}
In this work, energy control ports are used\cite{krhac2024port}, these allows a direct control of the Hamiltonian. Hence, compared to \cite{gernandt2022equivalence}, the Lagrange structure is defined on a bigger space where energy control ports are added.
\begin{remark}
In this setting, the symmetry of $P^\top S$ is expressed with the usual inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}$. However, when discretizing continuous systems, invertible mass matrices $M$ are present in the left of \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs} and this symmetry condition is then expressed using the weighted inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}$.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
In this setting, the symmetry of $P^\top S$ is expressed with the usual inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}$. However, when discretizing continuous systems, invertible mass matrices $M$ are present in the left of \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs} and this symmetry condition is then expressed using the weighted inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}$.
\end{remark}
In this setting, the symmetry of $P^\top S$P^\top S is expressed with the usual inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}$\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}n+n_L. However, when discretizing continuous systems, invertible mass matrices $M$M are present in the left of \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs} and this symmetry condition is then expressed using the weighted inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}$\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}M^{-1}-1.
\fi
|
Introduction
| false
|
2507.06869
| 1
|
854
|
In this paper, we only consider simple and finite graphs. For a graph $G=\left( V,E\right)$G=\left( V,E\right) and a vertex $v\in V$v\in V, the degree of $v$v is denoted by $d_G\left( v\right)$d_G\left( v\right). The maximum and minimum degrees of $G$G are denoted by $\Delta(G)$\Delta(G) and $\delta(G)$\delta(G) respectively. The numbers of vertices and edges of $G$G are denoted by $v\left( G\right)$v\left( G\right) and $e\left( G\right)$e\left( G\right) respectively, which are also called the order and the size of $G$G, respectively. Let $K_r$K_r denote the complete graph on $r$r vertices. We denote by $\mathcal{N}(F,G)$\mathcal{N}(F,G) the number of $F$F-copies in $G$G, and we write $k_r(G)=\mathcal{N}(K_r,G)$k_r(G)=\mathcal{N}(K_r,G). Let $f$f and $g$g be two positive-valued functions of $t$t. We use $f = o(g)$f = o(g) to mean $\lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{f}{g} = 0$\lim_{t \to \infty}t \to \infty \frac{f}{g} = 0; we use $f = O(g)$f = O(g), $f=\Theta(g)$f=\Theta(g), and $f = \Omega(g)$f = \Omega(g) to mean that there exist real constants $C > 0,C_2\ge C_1>0$C > 0,C_2\ge C_1>0 such that $\limsup_{t \to \infty} \frac{f}{g} \leq C$\limsup_{t \to \infty}t \to \infty \frac{f}{g} \leq C, $C_1\le \liminf_{t \to \infty} \frac{f}{g}\le\limsup_{t \to \infty} \frac{f}{g} \le C_2$C_1\le \liminf_{t \to \infty}t \to \infty \frac{f}{g}\le\limsup_{t \to \infty}t \to \infty \frac{f}{g} \le C_2, and $\liminf_{t \to \infty} \frac{f}{g} \geq C$\liminf_{t \to \infty}t \to \infty \frac{f}{g} \geq C, respectively.
For a graph $H$H, the \textit{Tur\'an number} $\text{ex}(n, H)$\text{ex}(n, H) is the maximum number of edges in an $n$n-vertex graph that does not contain $H$H as a subgraph. Determining Tur\'an numbers for various graphs and hypergraphs is a central problem in extremal combinatorics and has been studied extensively. Alon and Shikhelman~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs} initiated the systematic study of a generalized version of this problem. For two graphs $F$F and $H$H, the \textit{generalized Tur\'an number} $\text{ex}(n, F, H)$\text{ex}(n, F, H) is the maximum number of $F$F-copies in an $n$n-vertex $H$H-free graph. Note that $\text{ex}(n, H)$\text{ex}(n, H) is the case where $F$F is a single edge. Moreover, Alon and Shikhelman~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs} proved that if the chromatic number $\chi(H)$\chi(H) of $H$H is greater than $r$r, then $\text{ex}(n, K_r, H) = \Theta(n^r)$\text{ex}(n, K_r, H) = \Theta(n^r). The problem of estimating generalized Tur\'an numbers has recently attracted significant attention, and many classical results have been generalized to this setting. For detailed discussions and progress, see~\cite{complete_r_partite_free, Bollobas_Intro, Chase_Intro, Gerbner_Intro, Grzesik_Intro, Hatami_Intro, Luo_Intro, Ma_Intro, Zhu_Intro, Zykov_Intro}, and a comprehensive survey by Gerbner and Palmer~\cite{Survey_Gerbner}.
A natural variation of this problem is to investigate the cases when the number of edges in the graph is given instead of the number of vertices. Let $\text{mex}(m, H, F)$\text{mex}(m, H, F) denote the maximum number of $H$H-copies in an $F$F-free graph with $m$m edges. It was first systematically proposed by Radcliffe and Uzzell in~\cite{18_Radcliff_Intro_edge}, and this article also investigated the stability and Erdős-Stone type results for $\text{mex}$\text{mex}. Additionally, the function $\text{mex}(m, H, F)$\text{mex}(m, H, F) has been determined for the cases when $H = K_t$H = K_t and $F$F is a path~\cite{4_Chakraborti_Intro_edge}, a star~\cite{3_Chakraborti_Intro_edge, 14_Kirsch_Intro_edge}, or a clique~\cite{Eckhoff_Intro_edge,9_Frohmader_Intro_edge}.
In this paper, we mainly focus on the generalized Tur\'{a}n problem $\mathrm{mex}(m,H,F)$\mathrm{mex}(m,H,F) for $H=K_r$H=K_r. We start by considering the number of triangles in a graph. For a graph $G$G with $n$n vertices, when the number of triangles reaches $\Omega(n^3)$\Omega(n^3), the graph must be dense, i.e., $e(G) = \Omega(n^2)$e(G) = \Omega(n^2). Naturally, we explore the scenario where the number of triangles reaches $\Omega(m^{3/2})$\Omega(m^{3/2}3/2) for a graph with $m$m edges. In these graphs, there might be some edges that are in very few triangles. Our goal is to find a dense subgraph that contains a large number of triangles.
Another motivation for our study comes from a classical result of Erd\H{o}s and Simonovits~\cite{Erdos_Intro}, who proved that for any $0 < \epsilon < 1$0 < \epsilon < 1 and sufficiently large $n$n, every $n$n-vertex graph with $m \geq n^{1+\epsilon}$m \geq n^{1+\epsilon}1+\epsilon edges contains a subgraph $G'$G' of order $n_0\geq n^{\epsilon\frac{1-\epsilon}{1+\epsilon}}$n_0\geq n^{\epsilon\frac{1-\epsilon}{1+\epsilon}}\epsilon\frac{1-\epsilon}{1+\epsilon} and size $e(G')\geq \frac{2}{5}n_{0}^{1+\epsilon}$e(G')\geq \frac{2}{5}n_{0}0^{1+\epsilon}1+\epsilon, and satisfies that $\Delta(G')/\delta(G') \leq c_\epsilon$\Delta(G')/\delta(G') \leq c_\epsilon, where $c_\epsilon = 10\cdot 2^{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}+1}$c_\epsilon = 10\cdot 2^{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}+1}\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}+1. This result was later improved by Jiang and Seiver~\cite{Jiang_Intro}. We consider an analogue for $r$r-clique counts with a given size. When a graph $G$G with $m$m edges contains at least $Cm^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}$Cm^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\frac{\alpha r}{2} $K_r$K_r-copies, we show that $G$G must have a subgraph with $\frac{1}{2}Cm^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}$\frac{1}{2}Cm^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\frac{\alpha r}{2} $K_r$K_r-copies while maintaining high edge density. However, we cannot guarantee bounded degree ratios as in the Erd\H{o}s-Simonovits result: Consider the complete tripartite graph with vertex parts of size $n$n, $n^{1/2}$n^{1/2}1/2, and $n^{1/3}$n^{1/3}1/3. It has $m=\Theta(n^{3/2})$m=\Theta(n^{3/2}3/2) edges and $n^{11/6} = \Theta(m^{11/9})$n^{11/6}11/6 = \Theta(m^{11/9}11/9) triangles, but any subgraph $G'$G' with $\Theta(m^{11/9})$\Theta(m^{11/9}11/9) triangles must have $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\Delta(G')}{\delta(G')} = +\infty$\lim_{n\to\infty}n\to\infty\frac{\Delta(G')}{\delta(G')} = +\infty.
Motivated by these observations, we obtain the following more general theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}
Let $C>0$, $r \geq 3$ be an integer and $\alpha \in\left(\frac{2}{r}, 1\right]$ be a real number.
Let $G$ be a graph with $m$ edges.
Suppose $k_r(G) \geq C m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}$.
Then there exists a subgraph $G_0 \subseteq G$ of order $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ such that for $i=2,\ldots,r$, $$k_i(G_0) \geq C_i n_0^{\frac{i(r-2) \alpha}{(2-\alpha) r-2}},$$ where constants $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_r$ depend only on $C, r$ and $\alpha$.
% There exist positive constants $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_r$ (each depending on $C, r$, and $\alpha$) such that the following holds: for any graph $G$ of size $m$ with $k_r(G) \geq C m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}$, there exists a subgraph $G_2 \subseteq G$ of order $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ such that for $2 \leq i \leq r$,
% $
% k_i(G_2) \geq C_i n_0^{\frac{i(r-2) \alpha}{(2-\alpha) r-2}},
% $
\end{thm}\begin{thm}\label{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}
Let $C>0$, $r \geq 3$ be an integer and $\alpha \in\left(\frac{2}{r}, 1\right]$ be a real number.
Let $G$ be a graph with $m$ edges.
Suppose $k_r(G) \geq C m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}$.
Then there exists a subgraph $G_0 \subseteq G$ of order $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ such that for $i=2,\ldots,r$, $$k_i(G_0) \geq C_i n_0^{\frac{i(r-2) \alpha}{(2-\alpha) r-2}},$$ where constants $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_r$ depend only on $C, r$ and $\alpha$.
% There exist positive constants $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_r$ (each depending on $C, r$, and $\alpha$) such that the following holds: for any graph $G$ of size $m$ with $k_r(G) \geq C m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}$, there exists a subgraph $G_2 \subseteq G$ of order $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ such that for $2 \leq i \leq r$,
% $
% k_i(G_2) \geq C_i n_0^{\frac{i(r-2) \alpha}{(2-\alpha) r-2}},
% $
\end{thm}\label{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}
Let $C>0$C>0, $r \geq 3$r \geq 3 be an integer and $\alpha \in\left(\frac{2}{r}, 1\right]$\alpha \in\left(\frac{2}{r}, 1\right] be a real number.
Let $G$G be a graph with $m$m edges.
Suppose $k_r(G) \geq C m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}$k_r(G) \geq C m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\frac{\alpha r}{2}.
Then there exists a subgraph $G_0 \subseteq G$G_0 \subseteq G of order $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\frac{\alpha}{2} such that for $i=2,\ldots,r$i=2,\ldots,r, $$k_i(G_0) \geq C_i n_0^{\frac{i(r-2) \alpha}{(2-\alpha) r-2}},$$k_i(G_0) \geq C_i n_0^{\frac{i(r-2) \alpha}{(2-\alpha) r-2}}\frac{i(r-2) \alpha}{(2-\alpha) r-2}, where constants $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_r$C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_r depend only on $C, r$C, r and $\alpha$\alpha.
It is noteworthy that if $\alpha=1$\alpha=1, Theorem~\ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr} shows that if $k_r(G) = \Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$k_r(G) = \Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2}), then the graph contains a dense subgraph $G_0$G_0 of size $n_0=\Theta(m^{\frac{1}{2}})$n_0=\Theta(m^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2}) with $k_i(G_0) = \Theta(n_0^i)$k_i(G_0) = \Theta(n_0^i) for all $2 \leq i \leq r$2 \leq i \leq r. If $\alpha<1$\alpha<1, Theorem~\ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr} yields the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)}
Let $r\geq 3$ be an integer and $F$ be a graph. If $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s)$ for some $1<s\le r$, then $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}})$.
\end{cor}\begin{cor}\label{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)}
Let $r\geq 3$ be an integer and $F$ be a graph. If $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s)$ for some $1<s\le r$, then $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}})$.
\end{cor}\label{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)}
Let $r\geq 3$r\geq 3 be an integer and $F$F be a graph. If $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s)$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s) for some $1<s\le r$1<s\le r, then $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}})$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}).
In Corollary \ref{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)}, we investigate the relationship between $\ex(n,K_r,F)$\ex(n,K_r,F) and $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F). Indeed, previous studies on generalized Turán problems (for example, \cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}) mainly use the property that the neighborhood of $v$v is $(F-v)$(F-v)-free for recursive induction. It is easy to see that for an extremal graph $G$G maximizing $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F), $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=k_r(G)\le \frac{1}{r}\sum_{v\in G}\ex(d(v),K_{r-1},F-v)$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=k_r(G)\le \frac{1}{r}\sum_{v\in G}v\in G\ex(d(v),K_{r-1}r-1,F-v). Consequently, if $\ex(n, K_{r-1}, F-v) = O(n^s)$\ex(n, K_{r-1}r-1, F-v) = O(n^s), then $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F) = O(m^s)$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F) = O(m^s). However, this upper bound is rough and not tight when $s > 1$s > 1. Therefore, we improve the upper bound by the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}
Let $F$ be a graph with at least $3$ vertices and $r\geq 2$ be an integer. If $\mathrm{ex}(n,F)\leq C_1 n^\alpha$ and $\min\limits_{v_0\in F} (\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F - v_0))\leq C_2n^\beta$ where $\alpha>1$ and $\beta >1$, then there exists a constant $C=C(C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta,F)$ such that
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\le Cm^{f(\alpha,\beta)},
$$
where $f(\alpha,\beta)=1+(\beta-1)\left(1-\frac 1 \alpha\right)$.
\end{thm}\begin{thm}\label{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}
Let $F$ be a graph with at least $3$ vertices and $r\geq 2$ be an integer. If $\mathrm{ex}(n,F)\leq C_1 n^\alpha$ and $\min\limits_{v_0\in F} (\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F - v_0))\leq C_2n^\beta$ where $\alpha>1$ and $\beta >1$, then there exists a constant $C=C(C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta,F)$ such that
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\le Cm^{f(\alpha,\beta)},
$$
where $f(\alpha,\beta)=1+(\beta-1)\left(1-\frac 1 \alpha\right)$.
\end{thm}\label{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}
Let $F$F be a graph with at least $3$3 vertices and $r\geq 2$r\geq 2 be an integer. If $\mathrm{ex}(n,F)\leq C_1 n^\alpha$\mathrm{ex}(n,F)\leq C_1 n^\alpha and $\min\limits_{v_0\in F} (\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F - v_0))\leq C_2n^\beta$\min\limits_{v_0\in F}v_0\in F (\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F - v_0))\leq C_2n^\beta where $\alpha>1$\alpha>1 and $\beta >1$\beta >1, then there exists a constant $C=C(C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta,F)$C=C(C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta,F) such that
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\le Cm^{f(\alpha,\beta)},
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1}r+1,F)\le Cm^{f(\alpha,\beta)}f(\alpha,\beta),
where $f(\alpha,\beta)=1+(\beta-1)\left(1-\frac 1 \alpha\right)$f(\alpha,\beta)=1+(\beta-1)\left(1-\frac 1 \alpha\right).
As a consequence, the upper bounds on the generalized Tur\'an number $\mathrm{ex}(n, K_r, F)$\mathrm{ex}(n, K_r, F) carry over directly to those on $\mathrm{mex}(m, K_r, F)$\mathrm{mex}(m, K_r, F). For instance, Alon and Shikhelman~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs} showed $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,K_{s,t}) = O(n^{r - \frac{r(r-1)}{2s}})$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,K_{s,t}s,t) = O(n^{r - \frac{r(r-1)}{2s}}r - \frac{r(r-1)}{2s}) for fixed $r \geq 2$r \geq 2 and $t \geq s \geq r-1$t \geq s \geq r-1.
Therefore, Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free} yields the following.
\begin{cor}\label{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge}
For any fixed $r\ge 3$ and $t\ge s\ge r$,
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
$$
In particular, for fixed $r,s\ge 2r-2$ and $t\ge(s-1)!+1$,
\begin{align}\label{mex_K_r_K_{s,t}}
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
\end{align}
When $r=3$, (\ref{mex_K_r_K_{s,t}}) also holds for $s\geq 2$ and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$.
\end{cor}\begin{cor}\label{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge}
For any fixed $r\ge 3$ and $t\ge s\ge r$,
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
$$
In particular, for fixed $r,s\ge 2r-2$ and $t\ge(s-1)!+1$,
\begin{align}\label{mex_K_r_K_{s,t}}
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
\end{align}
When $r=3$, (\ref{mex_K_r_K_{s,t}}) also holds for $s\geq 2$ and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$.
\end{cor}\label{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge}
For any fixed $r\ge 3$r\ge 3 and $t\ge s\ge r$t\ge s\ge r,
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
$$
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t}s,t)=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
In particular, for fixed $r,s\ge 2r-2$r,s\ge 2r-2 and $t\ge(s-1)!+1$t\ge(s-1)!+1,
\label{mex_K_r_K_{s,t}}
\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t}s,t)=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
When $r=3$r=3, (\ref{mex_K_r_K_{s,t}}) also holds for $s\geq 2$s\geq 2 and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$t\geq (s-1)!+1.
Let $\text{ex}_{u}(t, K_r, F)$\text{ex}_{u}u(t, K_r, F) be the maximum number of $K_r$K_r's in an $F$F-free graph $G$G containing exactly $t$t copies of $u$u-cliques. This notion was recently introduced by Kirsch in~\cite{Kirsch_25_Intro}, and has been studied in~\cite{15_Aragao_Intro_tku, 14_Kirsch_Intro_Ku, Kirsch_25_Intro, 14_Kirsch_Intro_edge}. In particular, for $u = 1$u = 1 and $u = 2$u = 2, this notation coincides with $\text{ex}(n, K_r, F)$\text{ex}(n, K_r, F) and $\text{mex}(m, K_r, F)$\text{mex}(m, K_r, F), respectively. We now derive a general lower bound for the number of $K_r$K_r's in a $F$F-free graph.
\begin{thm}\label{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}
Let $r>u\ge2$ and $F=(V(F),E(F))$ with $v(F)> 2$ and $e(F)>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)+\binom r 2-(r-1)$ and $\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}$. %Then there exists $C_{u,r}$ such that the following holds for sufficiently large $t$.
For sufficiently large $t$, we have
$$
\mathrm{ex}_u(t,K_r,F)\geq C_{u,r}k_u(G)^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2} },
$$
where $C_{u,r}$ is a constant depending on $F,u$ and $r$.
\end{thm}\begin{thm}\label{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}
Let $r>u\ge2$ and $F=(V(F),E(F))$ with $v(F)> 2$ and $e(F)>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)+\binom r 2-(r-1)$ and $\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}$. %Then there exists $C_{u,r}$ such that the following holds for sufficiently large $t$.
For sufficiently large $t$, we have
$$
\mathrm{ex}_u(t,K_r,F)\geq C_{u,r}k_u(G)^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2} },
$$
where $C_{u,r}$ is a constant depending on $F,u$ and $r$.
\end{thm}\label{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}
Let $r>u\ge2$r>u\ge2 and $F=(V(F),E(F))$F=(V(F),E(F)) with $v(F)> 2$v(F)> 2 and $e(F)>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)+\binom r 2-(r-1)$e(F)>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)+\binom r 2-(r-1) and $\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}$\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}. For sufficiently large $t$t, we have
$$
\mathrm{ex}_u(t,K_r,F)\geq C_{u,r}k_u(G)^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2} },
$$
\mathrm{ex}_u(t,K_r,F)\geq C_{u,r}u,rk_u(G)^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2} }\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2} ,
where $C_{u,r}$C_{u,r}u,r is a constant depending on $F,u$F,u and $r$r.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we show some useful lemmas. We prove Theorems~\ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}, \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free} and \ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, along with some corollaries in Section 3. In Section 4, we show the applications of these theorems to some widely studied graph classes, such as $K_{s_1,\dots,s_r}$K_{s_1,\dots,s_r}s_1,\dots,s_r-free graphs. Finally, we conclude with remarks and discussions in Section 5.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2508.00483
| 1
|
855
|
Let $G=(V,E)$G=(V,E) be a graph and $r\geq 2$r\geq 2 be an integer. Suppose that $v\in V$v\in V and $e\in E$e\in E. Let $N_G(v)$N_G(v) be the neighborhood of $v$v in $G$G. We denote by $\mathcal{N}_{v}(H,G)$\mathcal{N}_{v}v(H,G) (respectively, $\mathcal{N}_{e}(H,G)$\mathcal{N}_{e}e(H,G)) the number of $H$H-copies that contain $v$v (respectively, $e$e) in $G$G. Our first lemma, which gives an upper bound of $k_r(G)$k_r(G) by $k_u(G)$k_u(G) for $r>u\geq 1$r>u\geq 1, is a direct generalization of the fact that $m<\frac{1}{2}n^2$m<\frac{1}{2}n^2 and $k_3(G)< \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}m^{\frac{3}{2}}$k_3(G)< \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}m^{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{3}{2} for any graph $G$G of order $n$n and size $m$m.
\begin{lem}\label{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}
Let $G$ be a graph and $r>u \geq 1$.
\begin{align}\label{K_r<K_u}
k_r(G)<C(u, r)k_u(G)^{\frac{r}{u}},
\end{align}
where $C(u, r)=\frac{(u!)^\frac r u}{r!}$. Furthermore, $k_r(G)=O(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$ for any graph $G$ of size $m$.
\end{lem}\begin{lem}\label{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}
Let $G$ be a graph and $r>u \geq 1$.
\begin{align}\label{K_r<K_u}
k_r(G)<C(u, r)k_u(G)^{\frac{r}{u}},
\end{align}
where $C(u, r)=\frac{(u!)^\frac r u}{r!}$. Furthermore, $k_r(G)=O(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$ for any graph $G$ of size $m$.
\end{lem}\label{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}
Let $G$G be a graph and $r>u \geq 1$r>u \geq 1.
\label{K_r<K_u}
k_r(G)<C(u, r)k_u(G)^{\frac{r}{u}}\frac{r}{u},
where $C(u, r)=\frac{(u!)^\frac r u}{r!}$C(u, r)=\frac{(u!)^\frac r u}{r!}. Furthermore, $k_r(G)=O(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$k_r(G)=O(m^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2}) for any graph $G$G of size $m$m.
\begin{proof}
Note that for each pair of $r>u\geq 1$, $C(u,r)$ is determined by the following recursive formulas: (i) $C(1,2)=\frac{1}{2}$, (ii) $C(u,u+1)=\frac{u}{u+1}C(u-1,u)^{\frac{u-1}{u}}$ for $u\geq 2$, and (iii) $C(u,r+1)=C(r,r+1)C(u,r)^{\frac{r+1}{r}}$.
First, we prove (\ref{K_r<K_u}) for $r=u+1$ by induction. When $u=1$ and $r=2$, it is easy to see that $$k_2(G)=m<\frac{1}{2}n^2=C(1,2)n^2=C(1,2)k_1(G)^2.$$ Now suppose
(\ref{K_r<K_u}) holds for $u=u_0-1,r=u_0$ for some $u_0\geq 2$, then for any $v\in V(G)$,
\begin{align}\label{2_1_1}
\mathcal{N}_{v}(K_{u_0+1},G)=k_{u_0}(G[N_G(v)])\le C(u_0-1,u_0)\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)^{\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}}.
\end{align}
Moreover,
\begin{align}\label{2_1_2}
\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0+1},G)\le k_{u_0}(G\backslash v)\le k_{u_0}(G).
\end{align}
By (\ref{2_1_1}) and (\ref{2_1_2}), we have %{\color{red} (add one more step here) }
$$
\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}\mathcal{N}_{v}(K_{u_0+1},G)&\le
\sum_{v\in V(G)}\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)^{\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}}\right)^{1-\frac{1}{u_0}}\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}
\\&\leq\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac {1}{u_0}}\right)\\
&=C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\cdot u_0 k_{u_0}(G)\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}\\
&=(u_0+1)C(u_0,u_0+1)k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac {u_0+1} {u_0}}.
\end{aligned}
$$
Therefore, $k_{u+1}(G)<C(u,u+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+1}{u}}$. And by induction, for any fixed $u$ and $k\ge 1$, by (ii) we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
k_{u+k+1}(G)&<C(u+k,u+k+1)\left(C(u,u+k)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k}{u}}\right)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}\\&=C(u,u+k+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u}},
\end{aligned}
$$
where $C(u,u+k+1)=C(u+k,u+k+1)C(u,u+k)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}$.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
Note that for each pair of $r>u\geq 1$, $C(u,r)$ is determined by the following recursive formulas: (i) $C(1,2)=\frac{1}{2}$, (ii) $C(u,u+1)=\frac{u}{u+1}C(u-1,u)^{\frac{u-1}{u}}$ for $u\geq 2$, and (iii) $C(u,r+1)=C(r,r+1)C(u,r)^{\frac{r+1}{r}}$.
First, we prove (\ref{K_r<K_u}) for $r=u+1$ by induction. When $u=1$ and $r=2$, it is easy to see that $$k_2(G)=m<\frac{1}{2}n^2=C(1,2)n^2=C(1,2)k_1(G)^2.$$ Now suppose
(\ref{K_r<K_u}) holds for $u=u_0-1,r=u_0$ for some $u_0\geq 2$, then for any $v\in V(G)$,
\begin{align}\label{2_1_1}
\mathcal{N}_{v}(K_{u_0+1},G)=k_{u_0}(G[N_G(v)])\le C(u_0-1,u_0)\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)^{\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}}.
\end{align}
Moreover,
\begin{align}\label{2_1_2}
\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0+1},G)\le k_{u_0}(G\backslash v)\le k_{u_0}(G).
\end{align}
By (\ref{2_1_1}) and (\ref{2_1_2}), we have %{\color{red} (add one more step here) }
$$
\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}\mathcal{N}_{v}(K_{u_0+1},G)&\le
\sum_{v\in V(G)}\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)^{\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}}\right)^{1-\frac{1}{u_0}}\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}
\\&\leq\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac {1}{u_0}}\right)\\
&=C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\cdot u_0 k_{u_0}(G)\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}\\
&=(u_0+1)C(u_0,u_0+1)k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac {u_0+1} {u_0}}.
\end{aligned}
$$
Therefore, $k_{u+1}(G)<C(u,u+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+1}{u}}$. And by induction, for any fixed $u$ and $k\ge 1$, by (ii) we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
k_{u+k+1}(G)&<C(u+k,u+k+1)\left(C(u,u+k)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k}{u}}\right)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}\\&=C(u,u+k+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u}},
\end{aligned}
$$
where $C(u,u+k+1)=C(u+k,u+k+1)C(u,u+k)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}$.
\end{proof}
Note that for each pair of $r>u\geq 1$r>u\geq 1, $C(u,r)$C(u,r) is determined by the following recursive formulas: (i) $C(1,2)=\frac{1}{2}$C(1,2)=\frac{1}{2}, (ii) $C(u,u+1)=\frac{u}{u+1}C(u-1,u)^{\frac{u-1}{u}}$C(u,u+1)=\frac{u}{u+1}C(u-1,u)^{\frac{u-1}{u}}\frac{u-1}{u} for $u\geq 2$u\geq 2, and (iii) $C(u,r+1)=C(r,r+1)C(u,r)^{\frac{r+1}{r}}$C(u,r+1)=C(r,r+1)C(u,r)^{\frac{r+1}{r}}\frac{r+1}{r}.
First, we prove (\ref{K_r<K_u}) for $r=u+1$r=u+1 by induction. When $u=1$u=1 and $r=2$r=2, it is easy to see that $$k_2(G)=m<\frac{1}{2}n^2=C(1,2)n^2=C(1,2)k_1(G)^2.$$k_2(G)=m<\frac{1}{2}n^2=C(1,2)n^2=C(1,2)k_1(G)^2. Now suppose
(\ref{K_r<K_u}) holds for $u=u_0-1,r=u_0$u=u_0-1,r=u_0 for some $u_0\geq 2$u_0\geq 2, then for any $v\in V(G)$v\in V(G),
\label{2_1_1}
\mathcal{N}_{v}v(K_{u_0+1}u_0+1,G)=k_{u_0}u_0(G[N_G(v)])\le C(u_0-1,u_0)\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0}u_0,G)^{\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}}\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}.
Moreover,
\label{2_1_2}
\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0+1}u_0+1,G)\le k_{u_0}u_0(G\backslash v)\le k_{u_0}u_0(G).
By (\ref{2_1_1}) and (\ref{2_1_2}), we have $$
\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}\mathcal{N}_{v}(K_{u_0+1},G)&\le
\sum_{v\in V(G)}\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)^{\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}}\right)^{1-\frac{1}{u_0}}\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}
\\&\leq\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0},G)\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac {1}{u_0}}\right)\\
&=C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\cdot u_0 k_{u_0}(G)\cdot k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}\\
&=(u_0+1)C(u_0,u_0+1)k_{u_0}(G)^{\frac {u_0+1} {u_0}}.
\end{aligned}
$$
\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}v\in V(G)\mathcal{N}_{v}v(K_{u_0+1}u_0+1,G)&\le
\sum_{v\in V(G)}v\in V(G)\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0}u_0,G)^{\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}}\frac{u_0}{u_0-1}\right)^{1-\frac{1}{u_0}}1-\frac{1}{u_0}\cdot k_{u_0}u_0(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}\frac 1 {u_0}
\\&\leq\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}v\in V(G)\left(C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}\mathcal{N}_v(K_{u_0}u_0,G)\cdot k_{u_0}u_0(G)^{\frac {1}{u_0}}\frac {1}{u_0}\right)\\
&=C(u_0-1,u_0)^{\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}}\frac{u_0-1}{u_0}\cdot u_0 k_{u_0}u_0(G)\cdot k_{u_0}u_0(G)^{\frac 1 {u_0}}\frac 1 {u_0}\\
&=(u_0+1)C(u_0,u_0+1)k_{u_0}u_0(G)^{\frac {u_0+1} {u_0}}\frac {u_0+1} {u_0}.
Therefore, $k_{u+1}(G)<C(u,u+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+1}{u}}$k_{u+1}u+1(G)<C(u,u+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+1}{u}}\frac{u+1}{u}. And by induction, for any fixed $u$u and $k\ge 1$k\ge 1, by (ii) we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
k_{u+k+1}(G)&<C(u+k,u+k+1)\left(C(u,u+k)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k}{u}}\right)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}\\&=C(u,u+k+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u}},
\end{aligned}
$$
k_{u+k+1}u+k+1(G)&<C(u+k,u+k+1)\left(C(u,u+k)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k}{u}}\frac{u+k}{u}\right)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}\\&=C(u,u+k+1)k_u(G)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u}}\frac{u+k+1}{u},
where $C(u,u+k+1)=C(u+k,u+k+1)C(u,u+k)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}$C(u,u+k+1)=C(u+k,u+k+1)C(u,u+k)^{\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}}\frac{u+k+1}{u+k}.
We point out that $C(u, r)$C(u, r) given in Lemma~\ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr} is asymptotically tight. In fact, consider the sequence $\{K_l\}$\{K_l\} of complete graphs of size $l$l, then we have: $$C(u,r)=\frac{\left(u!\right)^{\frac{r}{u}}}{r!}=\lim_{l\to \infty}\frac{k_r(K_l)}{k_u(K_l)^{\frac{r}{u}}}.$$C(u,r)=\frac{\left(u!\right)^{\frac{r}{u}}}{r!}=\lim_{l\to \infty}l\to \infty\frac{k_r(K_l)}{k_u(K_l)^{\frac{r}{u}}}.
In particular, when $u = 1$u = 1, the conclusion of Lemma~\ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr} becomes $k_r(G) \leq C(1, r) n^r$k_r(G) \leq C(1, r) n^r. Alon and Shikhelman~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs} gave the following necessary and sufficient condition for an $F$F-free graph $G$G to contain $\Theta(n^r)$\Theta(n^r) $K_r$K_r-copies.
\begin{lem}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}\label{Alon_Kr_O(n^r)_iff_chi(F)>r}
For any graph $F$, $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_t,F)=\Theta(n^t)$ if and only if $\chi(F)>t$.
\end{lem}\begin{lem}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}\label{Alon_Kr_O(n^r)_iff_chi(F)>r}
For any graph $F$, $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_t,F)=\Theta(n^t)$ if and only if $\chi(F)>t$.
\end{lem}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}\label{Alon_Kr_O(n^r)_iff_chi(F)>r}
For any graph $F$F, $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_t,F)=\Theta(n^t)$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_t,F)=\Theta(n^t) if and only if $\chi(F)>t$\chi(F)>t.
The following two lemmas will be used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}. Let $X$X be a random variable. We denote its expectation by $E(X)$E(X) and its variance by $\operatorname{Var}(X)$\operatorname{Var}Var(X). We say that $0 < p = p(n)$0 < p = p(n) is bounded away from $1$1 if $\limsup_{n\to\infty} p(n) < 1 $\limsup_{n\to\infty}n\to\infty p(n) < 1 .
\begin{lem}[Chebyshev's Inequality]\label{Chebyshev}
Let $X$ be a random variable with finite expectation $\mu = E(X)$ and finite variance $\sigma^2 = \operatorname{Var}(X)$. For any positive real number $k > 0$, we have %the probability that $X$ deviates from its mean $\mu$ by at least $k$ standard deviations is bounded above as follows:
$$ P(|X - \mu| \geq k \sigma) \leq \frac{1}{k^2}.$$
\end{lem}\begin{lem}[Chebyshev's Inequality]\label{Chebyshev}
Let $X$ be a random variable with finite expectation $\mu = E(X)$ and finite variance $\sigma^2 = \operatorname{Var}(X)$. For any positive real number $k > 0$, we have %the probability that $X$ deviates from its mean $\mu$ by at least $k$ standard deviations is bounded above as follows:
$$ P(|X - \mu| \geq k \sigma) \leq \frac{1}{k^2}.$$
\end{lem}\label{Chebyshev}
Let $X$X be a random variable with finite expectation $\mu = E(X)$\mu = E(X) and finite variance $\sigma^2 = \operatorname{Var}(X)$\sigma^2 = \operatorname{Var}Var(X). For any positive real number $k > 0$k > 0, we have $$ P(|X - \mu| \geq k \sigma) \leq \frac{1}{k^2}.$$ P(|X - \mu| \geq k \sigma) \leq \frac{1}{k^2}.
\begin{lem}\label{Upperbound_var_H}~\cite{Janson_Random}
%(Lemma 3.5 in this book)
Let $H$ be a fixed graph with vertex set $V(H) \subseteq[n]$ and $p=p(n)$ be bounded away from 1. Let $G \sim {G}(n, p)$ and $X_H$ be the number of $H$-copies in $G(n,p)$.
$$
\frac{\operatorname{Var}(X_H)}{E(X_H)^2}=\Theta\left(\frac{1}{\Phi_H}\right),
$$
where, $\Phi_H=\min \left\{\mathbb{E}\left(X_{H_0}\right): H_0 \subseteq H, e_{H_0}>0\right\}=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq H,e_{H_0}>0}n^{v(H_0)}p^{e(H_0)}\right)$.
\end{lem}\begin{lem}\label{Upperbound_var_H}~\cite{Janson_Random}
%(Lemma 3.5 in this book)
Let $H$ be a fixed graph with vertex set $V(H) \subseteq[n]$ and $p=p(n)$ be bounded away from 1. Let $G \sim {G}(n, p)$ and $X_H$ be the number of $H$-copies in $G(n,p)$.
$$
\frac{\operatorname{Var}(X_H)}{E(X_H)^2}=\Theta\left(\frac{1}{\Phi_H}\right),
$$
where, $\Phi_H=\min \left\{\mathbb{E}\left(X_{H_0}\right): H_0 \subseteq H, e_{H_0}>0\right\}=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq H,e_{H_0}>0}n^{v(H_0)}p^{e(H_0)}\right)$.
\end{lem}\label{Upperbound_var_H}~\cite{Janson_Random}
Let $H$H be a fixed graph with vertex set $V(H) \subseteq[n]$V(H) \subseteq[n] and $p=p(n)$p=p(n) be bounded away from 1. Let $G \sim {G}(n, p)$G \sim {G}G(n, p) and $X_H$X_H be the number of $H$H-copies in $G(n,p)$G(n,p).
$$
\frac{\operatorname{Var}(X_H)}{E(X_H)^2}=\Theta\left(\frac{1}{\Phi_H}\right),
$$
\frac{\operatorname{Var}(X_H)}{E(X_H)^2}=\Theta\left(\frac{1}{\Phi_H}\right),
where, $\Phi_H=\min \left\{\mathbb{E}\left(X_{H_0}\right): H_0 \subseteq H, e_{H_0}>0\right\}=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq H,e_{H_0}>0}n^{v(H_0)}p^{e(H_0)}\right)$\Phi_H=\min \left\{\mathbb{E}\left(X_{H_0}H_0\right): H_0 \subseteq H, e_{H_0}H_0>0\right\}=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq H,e_{H_0}>0}H_0\subseteq H,e_{H_0}H_0>0n^{v(H_0)}v(H_0)p^{e(H_0)}e(H_0)\right).
For a graph $H$H, we aim to determine whether $\Phi_H = \Omega(1)$\Phi_H = \Omega(1). We define the maximum average degree of the induced graphs of $H$H to be $\underset{H_0 \subseteq H, e_{H_0} > 0}{\max} \frac{2e(H_0)}{v(H_0)}$\underset{H_0 \subseteq H, e_{H_0} > 0}H_0 \subseteq H, e_{H_0}H_0 > 0{\max}\max \frac{2e(H_0)}{v(H_0)}. Now, we prove that for any complete $r$r-partite graph $H$H, the maximum average degree is attained by $H$H itself.
\begin{lem}\label{Min_Phi_KPI_2}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 2$ and positive integers $1 \le s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$,
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}.
$$
\end{lem}\begin{lem}\label{Min_Phi_KPI_2}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 2$ and positive integers $1 \le s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$,
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}.
$$
\end{lem}\label{Min_Phi_KPI_2}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 2$r \geqslant 2 and positive integers $1 \le s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$1 \le s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r,
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}.
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}s_1,\ldots,s_r, v(F)>0{\max }\max \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}.
\begin{proof}
Note that
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \underset{x_i\in[s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}{\max}\frac{2\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{r} x_i},
$$
Let $f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=\frac{\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}$. For each $1\leq i\leq r$, we have
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}=\frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i-x_i\right)-\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\left({\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}\right)^2}\ge 0.$$
Hence, the function $f\left(x_1, \ldots, x_r\right)$ is monotonically non-decreasing with respect to each variable $x_i\ge 1$. Therefore,
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, e_{F}>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}\le \underset{x_i \in [s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}{\max}2f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=2f(s_1,\ldots,s_r)=\frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)},
$$
which proves the lemma.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
Note that
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \underset{x_i\in[s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}{\max}\frac{2\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{r} x_i},
$$
Let $f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=\frac{\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}$. For each $1\leq i\leq r$, we have
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}=\frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i-x_i\right)-\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\left({\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}\right)^2}\ge 0.$$
Hence, the function $f\left(x_1, \ldots, x_r\right)$ is monotonically non-decreasing with respect to each variable $x_i\ge 1$. Therefore,
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, e_{F}>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}\le \underset{x_i \in [s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}{\max}2f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=2f(s_1,\ldots,s_r)=\frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)},
$$
which proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
Note that
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \underset{x_i\in[s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}{\max}\frac{2\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{r} x_i},
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, v(F)>0}F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}s_1,\ldots,s_r, v(F)>0{\max }\max \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}= \underset{x_i\in[s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}x_i\in[s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]{\max}\max\frac{2\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{r} x_i},
Let $f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=\frac{\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}$f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=\frac{\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}. For each $1\leq i\leq r$1\leq i\leq r, we have
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}=\frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i-x_i\right)-\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\left({\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}\right)^2}\ge 0.$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}=\frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^r x_i-x_i\right)-\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq r} x_i x_j}{\left({\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i}\right)^2}\ge 0.
Hence, the function $f\left(x_1, \ldots, x_r\right)$f\left(x_1, \ldots, x_r\right) is monotonically non-decreasing with respect to each variable $x_i\ge 1$x_i\ge 1. Therefore,
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, e_{F}>0}{\max } \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}\le \underset{x_i \in [s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}{\max}2f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=2f(s_1,\ldots,s_r)=\frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)},
$$
\underset{F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}, e_{F}>0}F \subseteq K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}s_1,\ldots,s_r, e_{F}F>0{\max }\max \frac{2e\left(F\right)}{v\left(F\right)}\le \underset{x_i \in [s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]}x_i \in [s_i] \text{ for } i\in [r]{\max}\max2f(x_1,\ldots,x_r)=2f(s_1,\ldots,s_r)=\frac{2e\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)}{v\left(K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}\right)},
which proves the lemma.
|
Preliminaries
| false
|
2508.00483
| 2
|
856
|
In this section, we prove Theorems~\ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr},~\ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free} and~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}. In the proof Theorem~\ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}, we first simultaneously remove edges that are not contained in many $K_r$K_r-copies. Then we demonstrate that there are still sufficiently many remaining edges and remaining $K_r$K_r-copies, while the number of vertices is upper bounded. Let $G = (V, E)$G = (V, E) be a graph and $V'\subseteq V$V'\subseteq V. We denote by $G[V']$G[V'] the subgraph of $G$G induced by the vertex set $V'$V'.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}]
Let $G=(V, E)$ and define $E_1 \subseteq E$ as follows:
$$
E_1=\left\{e \in E \left\lvert\, \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right) \leq \frac{1}{2} C m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\right.\right\},
$$
Let $E_2=E \backslash E_1$,
%$V_2=\left\{x \in V: \exists y \in V\right.$ s.t. $\left.x y \in E_2\right\}$
$V_2=V(E_2)$ and $G_2$ be the subgraph of $G$ induced by the edge set $E_2$. We aim to show that $G_2$ is the desired subgraph.
First we show that $\left|E_2\right| \ge \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{2}{r}}m^{ \alpha }$, where $C(2,r)$ is defined in Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}. For otherwise, by Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
k_r(G_2)-C(2, r)\left(k_2(G_2)\right)^{\frac{r}{2}} & \geq k_r(G)-\sum_{e \in E_1} \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right)-C(2, r)\left(m-\left|E_1\right|\right)^{\frac{r}{2}} \\
& \geq m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\left(C-\frac{C}{2} \frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}-C(2, r)m^{\frac{(1-\alpha)r}{2}}\left(1-\frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}\right)^{\frac{r}{2}}\right) \\
& = m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\left(\frac{C}{2}+\frac C 2\frac{\left|E_2\right|}{m}-C(2,r)\left(\frac{|E_2|}{m^{\alpha}}\right)^\frac{r}{2}\right)\\
& >0,
\end{aligned}
$$
which contradicts to Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}.
%Hence, $|E_2|\ge \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{2}{r}}m^{\alpha}$.
Moreover, we have
$$k_r(G_2)\ge k_r(G)-\sum\limits_{e\in E_1}\mathcal{N}_e(K_r,G)>\frac{C}2m^{\frac {\alpha r} 2},$$ and $$|V_2|>\sqrt{2|E_2|}\ge \sqrt{2} \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{1}{r}}m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}.$$
Now we show an upper bound of $\left|V_2\right|$ with regard to $m$. For each $x\in V_2$, there exists an edge $e = xy \in E_2$ incident to $x$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_{e}\left(K_r,G\right)&\leq k_{r-2}\left(G[N_{G}\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}\left(y\right)]\right) \leq k_{r-2}\left(K_{\left|N_{G}\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}\left(y\right)\right|}\right)\\&\leq k_{r-2}\left(K_{d_{G}\left(x\right)}\right) =\binom{d_G\left(x\right)}{r-2}\leq \frac{d_G\left(x\right)^{r-2}}{\left(r-2\right)!},
\end{aligned}$$
which implies that $$d_G\left(x\right)\geq\left((r-2) !N_e\left(K_r, G\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2}Cm^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}.$$
%Since for any $x \in V_2$, there exists an edge $e \in E_2$ such that $V(e) \supset\{x\}$, so
%$$
%d_G(x) \geq \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_3, G\right) \geq\left((r-2) N_e\left(K_r, G\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}>\left(\frac{r-2}{2} C\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}} m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2(r-2)}},
%$$
Therefore,
$$
2m=\sum_{x \in V} d_G(x) \geq \sum_{x \in V_2} d_G(x)>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}} m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2(r-2)}}\left|V_2\right|.
$$
Hence, we have $$|V_2|\le C_0 m^\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)},$$ and $$k_r(G_2)\ge\frac {C}{2} m^\frac{\alpha r}{2}\ge C_r|V_2|^{\frac{r\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}},$$ where $C_0=2\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{-\frac{1}{r-2}}$ and $C_r=\frac{C}{2} C_0^{-\frac{\alpha r}{2}\cdot\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)}}$, both of which depend only on $C,r$ and $\alpha$ as desired.
Finally, for any $2\le i< r$, by Lemma~\ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr},
$$
k_i(G_2)>\left(\frac{k_r(G_2)}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r}=\left(\frac{C_r}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r} |V_2|^{\frac{i\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}},
$$
which proves the theorem.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}]
Let $G=(V, E)$ and define $E_1 \subseteq E$ as follows:
$$
E_1=\left\{e \in E \left\lvert\, \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right) \leq \frac{1}{2} C m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\right.\right\},
$$
Let $E_2=E \backslash E_1$,
%$V_2=\left\{x \in V: \exists y \in V\right.$ s.t. $\left.x y \in E_2\right\}$
$V_2=V(E_2)$ and $G_2$ be the subgraph of $G$ induced by the edge set $E_2$. We aim to show that $G_2$ is the desired subgraph.
First we show that $\left|E_2\right| \ge \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{2}{r}}m^{ \alpha }$, where $C(2,r)$ is defined in Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}. For otherwise, by Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
k_r(G_2)-C(2, r)\left(k_2(G_2)\right)^{\frac{r}{2}} & \geq k_r(G)-\sum_{e \in E_1} \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right)-C(2, r)\left(m-\left|E_1\right|\right)^{\frac{r}{2}} \\
& \geq m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\left(C-\frac{C}{2} \frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}-C(2, r)m^{\frac{(1-\alpha)r}{2}}\left(1-\frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}\right)^{\frac{r}{2}}\right) \\
& = m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\left(\frac{C}{2}+\frac C 2\frac{\left|E_2\right|}{m}-C(2,r)\left(\frac{|E_2|}{m^{\alpha}}\right)^\frac{r}{2}\right)\\
& >0,
\end{aligned}
$$
which contradicts to Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}.
%Hence, $|E_2|\ge \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{2}{r}}m^{\alpha}$.
Moreover, we have
$$k_r(G_2)\ge k_r(G)-\sum\limits_{e\in E_1}\mathcal{N}_e(K_r,G)>\frac{C}2m^{\frac {\alpha r} 2},$$ and $$|V_2|>\sqrt{2|E_2|}\ge \sqrt{2} \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{1}{r}}m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}.$$
Now we show an upper bound of $\left|V_2\right|$ with regard to $m$. For each $x\in V_2$, there exists an edge $e = xy \in E_2$ incident to $x$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_{e}\left(K_r,G\right)&\leq k_{r-2}\left(G[N_{G}\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}\left(y\right)]\right) \leq k_{r-2}\left(K_{\left|N_{G}\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}\left(y\right)\right|}\right)\\&\leq k_{r-2}\left(K_{d_{G}\left(x\right)}\right) =\binom{d_G\left(x\right)}{r-2}\leq \frac{d_G\left(x\right)^{r-2}}{\left(r-2\right)!},
\end{aligned}$$
which implies that $$d_G\left(x\right)\geq\left((r-2) !N_e\left(K_r, G\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2}Cm^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}.$$
%Since for any $x \in V_2$, there exists an edge $e \in E_2$ such that $V(e) \supset\{x\}$, so
%$$
%d_G(x) \geq \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_3, G\right) \geq\left((r-2) N_e\left(K_r, G\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}>\left(\frac{r-2}{2} C\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}} m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2(r-2)}},
%$$
Therefore,
$$
2m=\sum_{x \in V} d_G(x) \geq \sum_{x \in V_2} d_G(x)>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}} m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2(r-2)}}\left|V_2\right|.
$$
Hence, we have $$|V_2|\le C_0 m^\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)},$$ and $$k_r(G_2)\ge\frac {C}{2} m^\frac{\alpha r}{2}\ge C_r|V_2|^{\frac{r\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}},$$ where $C_0=2\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{-\frac{1}{r-2}}$ and $C_r=\frac{C}{2} C_0^{-\frac{\alpha r}{2}\cdot\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)}}$, both of which depend only on $C,r$ and $\alpha$ as desired.
Finally, for any $2\le i< r$, by Lemma~\ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr},
$$
k_i(G_2)>\left(\frac{k_r(G_2)}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r}=\left(\frac{C_r}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r} |V_2|^{\frac{i\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}},
$$
which proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
Let $G=(V, E)$G=(V, E) and define $E_1 \subseteq E$E_1 \subseteq E as follows:
$$
E_1=\left\{e \in E \left\lvert\, \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right) \leq \frac{1}{2} C m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\right.\right\},
$$
E_1=\left\{e \in E \left\lvert\, \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right) \leq \frac{1}{2} C m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}\right.\right\},
Let $E_2=E \backslash E_1$E_2=E \backslash E_1,
$V_2=V(E_2)$V_2=V(E_2) and $G_2$G_2 be the subgraph of $G$G induced by the edge set $E_2$E_2. We aim to show that $G_2$G_2 is the desired subgraph.
First we show that $\left|E_2\right| \ge \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{2}{r}}m^{ \alpha }$\left|E_2\right| \ge \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{2}{r}}\frac{2}{r}m^{ \alpha } \alpha , where $C(2,r)$C(2,r) is defined in Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}. For otherwise, by Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
k_r(G_2)-C(2, r)\left(k_2(G_2)\right)^{\frac{r}{2}} & \geq k_r(G)-\sum_{e \in E_1} \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right)-C(2, r)\left(m-\left|E_1\right|\right)^{\frac{r}{2}} \\
& \geq m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\left(C-\frac{C}{2} \frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}-C(2, r)m^{\frac{(1-\alpha)r}{2}}\left(1-\frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}\right)^{\frac{r}{2}}\right) \\
& = m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\left(\frac{C}{2}+\frac C 2\frac{\left|E_2\right|}{m}-C(2,r)\left(\frac{|E_2|}{m^{\alpha}}\right)^\frac{r}{2}\right)\\
& >0,
\end{aligned}
$$
k_r(G_2)-C(2, r)\left(k_2(G_2)\right)^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2} & \geq k_r(G)-\sum_{e \in E_1}e \in E_1 \mathcal{N}_e\left(K_r, G\right)-C(2, r)\left(m-\left|E_1\right|\right)^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2} \\
& \geq m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\frac{\alpha r}{2}\left(C-\frac{C}{2} \frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}-C(2, r)m^{\frac{(1-\alpha)r}{2}}\frac{(1-\alpha)r}{2}\left(1-\frac{\left|E_1\right|}{m}\right)^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2}\right) \\
& = m^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}}\frac{\alpha r}{2}\left(\frac{C}{2}+\frac C 2\frac{\left|E_2\right|}{m}-C(2,r)\left(\frac{|E_2|}{m^{\alpha}}\right)^\frac{r}{2}\right)\\
& >0,
which contradicts to Lemma \ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr}.
Moreover, we have
$$k_r(G_2)\ge k_r(G)-\sum\limits_{e\in E_1}\mathcal{N}_e(K_r,G)>\frac{C}2m^{\frac {\alpha r} 2},$$k_r(G_2)\ge k_r(G)-\sum\limits_{e\in E_1}e\in E_1\mathcal{N}_e(K_r,G)>\frac{C}2m^{\frac {\alpha r} 2}\frac {\alpha r} 2, and $$|V_2|>\sqrt{2|E_2|}\ge \sqrt{2} \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{1}{r}}m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}.$$|V_2|>\sqrt{2|E_2|}\ge \sqrt{2} \left(\frac{C}{2 C(2, r)}\right)^{\frac{1}{r}}\frac{1}{r}m^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\frac{\alpha}{2}.
Now we show an upper bound of $\left|V_2\right|$\left|V_2\right| with regard to $m$m. For each $x\in V_2$x\in V_2, there exists an edge $e = xy \in E_2$e = xy \in E_2 incident to $x$x. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_{e}\left(K_r,G\right)&\leq k_{r-2}\left(G[N_{G}\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}\left(y\right)]\right) \leq k_{r-2}\left(K_{\left|N_{G}\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}\left(y\right)\right|}\right)\\&\leq k_{r-2}\left(K_{d_{G}\left(x\right)}\right) =\binom{d_G\left(x\right)}{r-2}\leq \frac{d_G\left(x\right)^{r-2}}{\left(r-2\right)!},
\end{aligned}$$
\mathcal{N}_{e}e\left(K_r,G\right)&\leq k_{r-2}r-2\left(G[N_{G}G\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}G\left(y\right)]\right) \leq k_{r-2}r-2\left(K_{\left|N_{G}\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}\left(y\right)\right|}\left|N_{G}G\left(x\right)\cap N_{G}G\left(y\right)\right|\right)\\&\leq k_{r-2}r-2\left(K_{d_{G}\left(x\right)}d_{G}G\left(x\right)\right) =\binom{d_G\left(x\right)}d_G\left(x\right){r-2}r-2\leq \frac{d_G\left(x\right)^{r-2}}{\left(r-2\right)!},
which implies that $$d_G\left(x\right)\geq\left((r-2) !N_e\left(K_r, G\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2}Cm^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}.$$d_G\left(x\right)\geq\left((r-2) !N_e\left(K_r, G\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}\frac{1}{r-2}>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2}Cm^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}}\frac{\alpha r-2}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}\frac{1}{r-2}.
Therefore,
$$
2m=\sum_{x \in V} d_G(x) \geq \sum_{x \in V_2} d_G(x)>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}} m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2(r-2)}}\left|V_2\right|.
$$
2m=\sum_{x \in V}x \in V d_G(x) \geq \sum_{x \in V_2}x \in V_2 d_G(x)>\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{\frac{1}{r-2}}\frac{1}{r-2} m^{\frac{\alpha r-2}{2(r-2)}}\frac{\alpha r-2}{2(r-2)}\left|V_2\right|.
Hence, we have $$|V_2|\le C_0 m^\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)},$$|V_2|\le C_0 m^\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)}, and $$k_r(G_2)\ge\frac {C}{2} m^\frac{\alpha r}{2}\ge C_r|V_2|^{\frac{r\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}},$$k_r(G_2)\ge\frac {C}{2} m^\frac{\alpha r}{2}\ge C_r|V_2|^{\frac{r\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}}\frac{r\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}, where $C_0=2\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{-\frac{1}{r-2}}$C_0=2\left(\frac{\left(r-2\right)!}{2} C\right)^{-\frac{1}{r-2}}-\frac{1}{r-2} and $C_r=\frac{C}{2} C_0^{-\frac{\alpha r}{2}\cdot\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)}}$C_r=\frac{C}{2} C_0^{-\frac{\alpha r}{2}\cdot\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)}}-\frac{\alpha r}{2}\cdot\frac{(2-\alpha)r-2}{2(r-2)}, both of which depend only on $C,r$C,r and $\alpha$\alpha as desired.
Finally, for any $2\le i< r$2\le i< r, by Lemma~\ref{Max_Ku_in_G_by_Kr},
$$
k_i(G_2)>\left(\frac{k_r(G_2)}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r}=\left(\frac{C_r}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r} |V_2|^{\frac{i\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}},
$$
k_i(G_2)>\left(\frac{k_r(G_2)}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r}=\left(\frac{C_r}{C(i,r)}\right)^\frac{i}{r} |V_2|^{\frac{i\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2}}\frac{i\left(r-2\right)\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)r-2},
which proves the theorem.
By applying Theorem~\ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}, we can directly derive Corollary \ref{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)}]
To prove $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}})$, suppose, for contradiction, that there exists an constant $C$ that for any $M$, there exists an $F$-free graph $G$ of size $m\ge M$ that $k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}$. By Theorem \ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}, since $k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}$ and $\frac{2\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}\in(\frac{2}{r},1]$, $G$ contains a subgraph $H$ of order $n_0\ge C_1(C,r,s) m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}}$ with $k_r(H)\ge C_2(C,r,s) n_0^s$, which contradicts to $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s)$.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)}]
To prove $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}})$, suppose, for contradiction, that there exists an constant $C$ that for any $M$, there exists an $F$-free graph $G$ of size $m\ge M$ that $k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}$. By Theorem \ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}, since $k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}$ and $\frac{2\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}\in(\frac{2}{r},1]$, $G$ contains a subgraph $H$ of order $n_0\ge C_1(C,r,s) m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}}$ with $k_r(H)\ge C_2(C,r,s) n_0^s$, which contradicts to $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s)$.
\end{proof}
To prove $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}})$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)=o(m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}), suppose, for contradiction, that there exists an constant $C$C that for any $M$M, there exists an $F$F-free graph $G$G of size $m\ge M$m\ge M that $k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}$k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}. By Theorem \ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}, since $k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}$k_r(G)\ge Cm^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2}}\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r+s-2} and $\frac{2\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}\in(\frac{2}{r},1]$\frac{2\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}\in(\frac{2}{r},1], $G$G contains a subgraph $H$H of order $n_0\ge C_1(C,r,s) m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}}$n_0\ge C_1(C,r,s) m^{\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)}}\frac{\left(r-1\right)s}{r(r+s-2)} with $k_r(H)\ge C_2(C,r,s) n_0^s$k_r(H)\ge C_2(C,r,s) n_0^s, which contradicts to $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s)$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_r,F)=o(n^s).
In particular, when $\alpha=1$\alpha=1, we can derive the following corollary from the upper bound of $|V_2|$|V_2| obtained in the proof of Theorem~\ref{Many_Kr_indicates_subgraph_with_many_Kr}.
\begin{cor}\label{Many_Kr_Indicates_Dense_m_Subgraph}
For any fixed $C>0$ and integer $r\ge3$, there exists constants $C_1=C_1(C,r)$ and $C_2=C_2(C,r)$ such that for any graph $G$ of size $m$ with $k_r(G)\geq Cm^{\frac{r}{2}}$ has a subgraph $H$ of order $n_0$ and size $m_0$, where $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $m_0\geq C_2n_0^2$ and $k_r(H)> \frac C 2m^{\frac{r}{2}}$.
\end{cor}\begin{cor}\label{Many_Kr_Indicates_Dense_m_Subgraph}
For any fixed $C>0$ and integer $r\ge3$, there exists constants $C_1=C_1(C,r)$ and $C_2=C_2(C,r)$ such that for any graph $G$ of size $m$ with $k_r(G)\geq Cm^{\frac{r}{2}}$ has a subgraph $H$ of order $n_0$ and size $m_0$, where $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $m_0\geq C_2n_0^2$ and $k_r(H)> \frac C 2m^{\frac{r}{2}}$.
\end{cor}\label{Many_Kr_Indicates_Dense_m_Subgraph}
For any fixed $C>0$C>0 and integer $r\ge3$r\ge3, there exists constants $C_1=C_1(C,r)$C_1=C_1(C,r) and $C_2=C_2(C,r)$C_2=C_2(C,r) such that for any graph $G$G of size $m$m with $k_r(G)\geq Cm^{\frac{r}{2}}$k_r(G)\geq Cm^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2} has a subgraph $H$H of order $n_0$n_0 and size $m_0$m_0, where $n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{1}{2}}$n_0\geq C_1m^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2}, $m_0\geq C_2n_0^2$m_0\geq C_2n_0^2 and $k_r(H)> \frac C 2m^{\frac{r}{2}}$k_r(H)> \frac C 2m^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2}.
Combining Corollary~\ref{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)} and Lemma~\ref{Alon_Kr_O(n^r)_iff_chi(F)>r} obtained by Alon and Shikhelman in~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}, we can derive a similar corollary given the number of edges $m$m.
\begin{cor} \label{When_number_Kt_reach_m^{t/2}}
For any graph $F$, $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_t,F)=\Omega(m^{\frac{t}{2}})$ if and only if $\chi(F)>t$.
\end{cor}\begin{cor} \label{When_number_Kt_reach_m^{t/2}}
For any graph $F$, $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_t,F)=\Omega(m^{\frac{t}{2}})$ if and only if $\chi(F)>t$.
\end{cor} \label{When_number_Kt_reach_m^{t/2}}
For any graph $F$F, $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_t,F)=\Omega(m^{\frac{t}{2}})$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_t,F)=\Omega(m^{\frac{t}{2}}\frac{t}{2}) if and only if $\chi(F)>t$\chi(F)>t.
Now we sketch the proof of Theorem~\ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}. First, assume for contradiction that a minimal counterexample exists. Then we show that every vertex in this counterexample has large degree, which leads to a contradiction to the bound on $\text{ex}(n, F)$\text{ex}(n, F).
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}]
Define $$C'=\max\left\{\frac{\mathcal{N}\left(K_{r+1},G\right)}{e(G)^f}:G\text{ is a non-empty graph with }v(G)\leq v(F)-1\right\},$$
where $f=f(\alpha,\beta)$. % and choose {\color{red} $C=\max(C',C_1^{\frac{\beta - 1}{\alpha}}C_2)+1$}
Let $C$ be a constant satisfying $C>\max(C',C_1^{\frac{\beta - 1}{\alpha}}C_2)$ which depends only on $C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta$ and $F$. Now we prove $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\leq Cm^f$ by contradiction. Suppose that $n$ is the minimum positive integer such that there exists a $F$-free graph $G_0$ of order $n$ satisfying $\mathcal{N}(K_{r+1},G_0)>Cm^f$ where $m = e(G_0)$. By the definition of $C$, we have $n\geq v(F)$.
% The constant $C$ we choose should ensure that $\mathrm{ex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\leq Cm^f$ with $f=f(\alpha,\beta)$ holds for any $m\le \binom{r+1}{2}$ and $C>{C_1}^{\frac{1}{\alpha-1}} {C_2}$. Assume that $m$ is the minimal integer satisfying $\mathrm{ex}(m,K_{r+1},F)>Cm^{f}$. By assumption, we can get an extremal graph $F$-free graph $G_0$ with $|V(G_0)|=n,|E(G_0)|=m\le C_1 n^\alpha$ and $k_{r+1}(G_0)=mex(m,K_{r+1},F)$.
Note that for any $v \in V(G_0)$, the number of $K_{r+1}$'s that contains $v$ in $G_0$ is equal to the number of $K_{r}$'s in $G_0[N_v]$.
Let $v_0 \in V(F)$ be a vertex that attains the minimum of $\min_{v_0 \in F} \ex(n,K_r,F-v_0)$.
Since $G_0$ is $F$-free, $G_0[N_v]$ is $(F-v_0)$-free, which implies $\mathcal{N}_v(K_{r+1},G_0)\le C_2d_{G_0}(v)^\beta$. Therefore, we have
\begin{align}
C(m-d_{G_0}(v))^f\ge k_{r+1}(G_0-v) = k_{r+1}(G_0)-k_{r}(G_0[N_{G_0}(v)]) > Cm^f-C_2d_{G_0}(v)^\beta.
\end{align}
Hence,
\begin{align}
C_2d_{G_0}(v)^\beta\ge Cm^f\left(1-\left(1-\frac{d_{G_0}(v)}{m}\right)^f\right)\ge Cm^{f-1}d_{G_0}(v).
\end{align}
Since $\beta>1$, we obtain for each $v\in V(G),$ $d_{G_0}(v)\geq\left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1}\right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1}$. Thus, $$2m=\sum_{v\in V\left(G_0\right)}d_{G_0}\left(v\right)\geq n\cdot \left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1} \right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1},$$ which implies that $$n\leq 2\left(\frac{C_2}{C}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta - 1}}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}<C_1^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}.$$ This contradicts to the fact that $m\le C_1n^\alpha$ since $G_0$ is $F$-free.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}]
Define $$C'=\max\left\{\frac{\mathcal{N}\left(K_{r+1},G\right)}{e(G)^f}:G\text{ is a non-empty graph with }v(G)\leq v(F)-1\right\},$$
where $f=f(\alpha,\beta)$. % and choose {\color{red} $C=\max(C',C_1^{\frac{\beta - 1}{\alpha}}C_2)+1$}
Let $C$ be a constant satisfying $C>\max(C',C_1^{\frac{\beta - 1}{\alpha}}C_2)$ which depends only on $C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta$ and $F$. Now we prove $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\leq Cm^f$ by contradiction. Suppose that $n$ is the minimum positive integer such that there exists a $F$-free graph $G_0$ of order $n$ satisfying $\mathcal{N}(K_{r+1},G_0)>Cm^f$ where $m = e(G_0)$. By the definition of $C$, we have $n\geq v(F)$.
% The constant $C$ we choose should ensure that $\mathrm{ex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\leq Cm^f$ with $f=f(\alpha,\beta)$ holds for any $m\le \binom{r+1}{2}$ and $C>{C_1}^{\frac{1}{\alpha-1}} {C_2}$. Assume that $m$ is the minimal integer satisfying $\mathrm{ex}(m,K_{r+1},F)>Cm^{f}$. By assumption, we can get an extremal graph $F$-free graph $G_0$ with $|V(G_0)|=n,|E(G_0)|=m\le C_1 n^\alpha$ and $k_{r+1}(G_0)=mex(m,K_{r+1},F)$.
Note that for any $v \in V(G_0)$, the number of $K_{r+1}$'s that contains $v$ in $G_0$ is equal to the number of $K_{r}$'s in $G_0[N_v]$.
Let $v_0 \in V(F)$ be a vertex that attains the minimum of $\min_{v_0 \in F} \ex(n,K_r,F-v_0)$.
Since $G_0$ is $F$-free, $G_0[N_v]$ is $(F-v_0)$-free, which implies $\mathcal{N}_v(K_{r+1},G_0)\le C_2d_{G_0}(v)^\beta$. Therefore, we have
\begin{align}
C(m-d_{G_0}(v))^f\ge k_{r+1}(G_0-v) = k_{r+1}(G_0)-k_{r}(G_0[N_{G_0}(v)]) > Cm^f-C_2d_{G_0}(v)^\beta.
\end{align}
Hence,
\begin{align}
C_2d_{G_0}(v)^\beta\ge Cm^f\left(1-\left(1-\frac{d_{G_0}(v)}{m}\right)^f\right)\ge Cm^{f-1}d_{G_0}(v).
\end{align}
Since $\beta>1$, we obtain for each $v\in V(G),$ $d_{G_0}(v)\geq\left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1}\right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1}$. Thus, $$2m=\sum_{v\in V\left(G_0\right)}d_{G_0}\left(v\right)\geq n\cdot \left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1} \right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1},$$ which implies that $$n\leq 2\left(\frac{C_2}{C}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta - 1}}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}<C_1^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}.$$ This contradicts to the fact that $m\le C_1n^\alpha$ since $G_0$ is $F$-free.
\end{proof}
Define $$C'=\max\left\{\frac{\mathcal{N}\left(K_{r+1},G\right)}{e(G)^f}:G\text{ is a non-empty graph with }v(G)\leq v(F)-1\right\},$$C'=\max\left\{\frac{\mathcal{N}\left(K_{r+1},G\right)}{e(G)^f}:G\text{ is a non-empty graph with }v(G)\leq v(F)-1\right\},
where $f=f(\alpha,\beta)$f=f(\alpha,\beta). Let $C$C be a constant satisfying $C>\max(C',C_1^{\frac{\beta - 1}{\alpha}}C_2)$C>\max(C',C_1^{\frac{\beta - 1}{\alpha}}\frac{\beta - 1}{\alpha}C_2) which depends only on $C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta$C_1,C_2,\alpha,\beta and $F$F. Now we prove $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1},F)\leq Cm^f$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{r+1}r+1,F)\leq Cm^f by contradiction. Suppose that $n$n is the minimum positive integer such that there exists a $F$F-free graph $G_0$G_0 of order $n$n satisfying $\mathcal{N}(K_{r+1},G_0)>Cm^f$\mathcal{N}(K_{r+1}r+1,G_0)>Cm^f where $m = e(G_0)$m = e(G_0). By the definition of $C$C, we have $n\geq v(F)$n\geq v(F).
Note that for any $v \in V(G_0)$v \in V(G_0), the number of $K_{r+1}$K_{r+1}r+1's that contains $v$v in $G_0$G_0 is equal to the number of $K_{r}$K_{r}r's in $G_0[N_v]$G_0[N_v].
Let $v_0 \in V(F)$v_0 \in V(F) be a vertex that attains the minimum of $\min_{v_0 \in F} \ex(n,K_r,F-v_0)$\min_{v_0 \in F}v_0 \in F \ex(n,K_r,F-v_0).
Since $G_0$G_0 is $F$F-free, $G_0[N_v]$G_0[N_v] is $(F-v_0)$(F-v_0)-free, which implies $\mathcal{N}_v(K_{r+1},G_0)\le C_2d_{G_0}(v)^\beta$\mathcal{N}_v(K_{r+1}r+1,G_0)\le C_2d_{G_0}G_0(v)^\beta. Therefore, we have
C(m-d_{G_0}G_0(v))^f\ge k_{r+1}r+1(G_0-v) = k_{r+1}r+1(G_0)-k_{r}r(G_0[N_{G_0}G_0(v)]) > Cm^f-C_2d_{G_0}G_0(v)^\beta.
Hence,
C_2d_{G_0}G_0(v)^\beta\ge Cm^f\left(1-\left(1-\frac{d_{G_0}(v)}{m}\right)^f\right)\ge Cm^{f-1}f-1d_{G_0}G_0(v).
Since $\beta>1$\beta>1, we obtain for each $v\in V(G),$v\in V(G), $d_{G_0}(v)\geq\left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1}\right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1}$d_{G_0}G_0(v)\geq\left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1}f-1\right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1}. Thus, $$2m=\sum_{v\in V\left(G_0\right)}d_{G_0}\left(v\right)\geq n\cdot \left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1} \right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1},$$2m=\sum_{v\in V\left(G_0\right)}v\in V\left(G_0\right)d_{G_0}G_0\left(v\right)\geq n\cdot \left(\frac{C}{C_2}m^{f-1}f-1 \right)^\frac{1}{\beta-1}, which implies that $$n\leq 2\left(\frac{C_2}{C}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta - 1}}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}<C_1^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}.$$n\leq 2\left(\frac{C_2}{C}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta - 1}}\frac{1}{\beta - 1}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}\frac 1 \alpha<C_1^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}-\frac{1}{\alpha}m^{\frac 1 \alpha}\frac 1 \alpha. This contradicts to the fact that $m\le C_1n^\alpha$m\le C_1n^\alpha since $G_0$G_0 is $F$F-free.
We are ready to prove a lower bound of $ex_u(t,K_r,F)$ex_u(t,K_r,F) by the probabilistic method.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}]
It is clear that there exists a positive constant $C'$ such that $\frac{(C')^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C'\right)^{e(F)}>0$. Let $C_0=2\frac{(2C')^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}$, $C_u=\frac{C'}{C_0}$, and $n$ be an integer that $$C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}<t\le 2 C_0n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}.$$
Let $G$ be the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph $G(n,p)$ with
$$
p=C_u\frac {t} {{n}^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}=\Theta\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right).
$$
Hence, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
E(k_u(G))&=\binom n u \left(\frac {C_ut} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\\
&<\frac{n^u}{u!}C_u^{\binom{u}{2}}\left(\frac{2C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}}{n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\\
&=\frac{(2C_0C_u)^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}\\&\le\frac t 2.
\end{aligned}
$$
By Chebyshev inequality, $$P(k_u(G)\le t)\ge P\left(|k_u(G)-E(k_u(G))|\le E(k_u(G))\right)\ge1-\frac{\operatorname{Var}(k_u(G))}{E(k_u(G))^2}=1-O\left(\frac 1 {\Phi(K_u)}\right),$$ where
$$
\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{K_u}&=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq K_u,e_{H_0}>0}n^{v(H_0)}p^{e(H_0)}\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le u< r}n^{v(H_0)}\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\ \right)^{\binom{v(H_0)}{2}}\right)\\
&\ge\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}\left(n^{v(H_0)}\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{V(H_0)-1}2(v(F)-2)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right)\ge
\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}\left(n^{v(H_0)}\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{r-1}2v(F)-(r-1)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right).
\end{aligned}
$$
Since $e(F)-\binom r 2>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)-(r-1)$, as $n\rightarrow \infty$ (with $t\rightarrow \infty$), the inequality $k_u(G)<t$ holds with high probability. Similarly, $E(k_r(G))=\binom n r \left(\frac {C_u t} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{r}{2}}$
and $ P\left(|k_r(G)-E(k_r(G))|> {E(k_r(G))}/{2}\right)\le O(\frac{1}{\Phi(K_r)})=o(1)$.
Let $X$ denote the number of $F$-copies in $G$. Then our choice of $p$ ensures that
\begin{align}\label{E_X}
E(X)\leq p^{e(F)}n^{v(F)}
\le \left(2C_0C_un^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right)^{e(F)}n^{v(F)}
\le \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}n^{\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}}
\end{align}
By Chebyshev inequality and Lemma \ref{Upperbound_var_H},
$$
\begin{aligned}
P\left(|X-E(X)|>\frac {E(X)}{2}\right)\le4\frac {\operatorname{Var}(X)}{E(X^2)}=O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right),
\end{aligned}
$$
where $\Phi_{F}=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}n^{v(F_0)}p^{e(F_0)}\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}n^{e(F_0)\left(\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}\right)}\right)$. Therefore, since $\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}$, that is $\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}>\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}$, $O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right)=o(1)$, the inequality $X<\frac{3E(X)}{2}$ holds with high probability as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
On the other hand, deleting an edge destroys at most $\binom {n-2} {r-2}$ $K_r$'s. Note that
\begin{align}\label{E_K_r}
E(k_r(G))=\binom n r \left(\frac {C_ut} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{r}{2}}>\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{r!}
n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2},
\end{align}
and $P(k_r(G)>E(k_r(G))/2)=1-o(1)$.
Hence by (\ref{E_X}) and (\ref{E_K_r})
$$
\begin{aligned}
&P\left(k_r(G)-\binom {n-2} {r-2}X>\left(\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}\right)n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2} \right)\\
\ge&P\left(\left(k_r(G)>\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}\right)\bigcap \left(X<\frac 3 2 \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}n^{\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}} \right)\right)
\\
\ge&P\left(k_r(G)>\frac{E(k_r(G))}{2}\right)+P\left(X<\frac 3 2E(X)\right)-1
\\
=&1-o(1).
\end{aligned}
$$
So with high probability, there exists a $F$-free graph $G'$ with $$k_r(G')>\varepsilon n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}=\Theta(t^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}),$$ and $$k_u(G')<k_u(G)<2E(k_u(G))=t.$$ Therefore, for $F$-free graph $G$ with $k_u(G)=t$, $$k_r(G)= \Omega\left(t^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2}}\right)$$ holds with high probability, which proves the theorem.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}]
It is clear that there exists a positive constant $C'$ such that $\frac{(C')^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C'\right)^{e(F)}>0$. Let $C_0=2\frac{(2C')^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}$, $C_u=\frac{C'}{C_0}$, and $n$ be an integer that $$C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}<t\le 2 C_0n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}.$$
Let $G$ be the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph $G(n,p)$ with
$$
p=C_u\frac {t} {{n}^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}=\Theta\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right).
$$
Hence, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
E(k_u(G))&=\binom n u \left(\frac {C_ut} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\\
&<\frac{n^u}{u!}C_u^{\binom{u}{2}}\left(\frac{2C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}}{n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\\
&=\frac{(2C_0C_u)^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}\\&\le\frac t 2.
\end{aligned}
$$
By Chebyshev inequality, $$P(k_u(G)\le t)\ge P\left(|k_u(G)-E(k_u(G))|\le E(k_u(G))\right)\ge1-\frac{\operatorname{Var}(k_u(G))}{E(k_u(G))^2}=1-O\left(\frac 1 {\Phi(K_u)}\right),$$ where
$$
\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{K_u}&=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq K_u,e_{H_0}>0}n^{v(H_0)}p^{e(H_0)}\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le u< r}n^{v(H_0)}\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\ \right)^{\binom{v(H_0)}{2}}\right)\\
&\ge\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}\left(n^{v(H_0)}\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{V(H_0)-1}2(v(F)-2)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right)\ge
\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}\left(n^{v(H_0)}\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{r-1}2v(F)-(r-1)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right).
\end{aligned}
$$
Since $e(F)-\binom r 2>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)-(r-1)$, as $n\rightarrow \infty$ (with $t\rightarrow \infty$), the inequality $k_u(G)<t$ holds with high probability. Similarly, $E(k_r(G))=\binom n r \left(\frac {C_u t} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{r}{2}}$
and $ P\left(|k_r(G)-E(k_r(G))|> {E(k_r(G))}/{2}\right)\le O(\frac{1}{\Phi(K_r)})=o(1)$.
Let $X$ denote the number of $F$-copies in $G$. Then our choice of $p$ ensures that
\begin{align}\label{E_X}
E(X)\leq p^{e(F)}n^{v(F)}
\le \left(2C_0C_un^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right)^{e(F)}n^{v(F)}
\le \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}n^{\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}}
\end{align}
By Chebyshev inequality and Lemma \ref{Upperbound_var_H},
$$
\begin{aligned}
P\left(|X-E(X)|>\frac {E(X)}{2}\right)\le4\frac {\operatorname{Var}(X)}{E(X^2)}=O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right),
\end{aligned}
$$
where $\Phi_{F}=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}n^{v(F_0)}p^{e(F_0)}\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}n^{e(F_0)\left(\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}\right)}\right)$. Therefore, since $\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}$, that is $\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}>\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}$, $O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right)=o(1)$, the inequality $X<\frac{3E(X)}{2}$ holds with high probability as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
On the other hand, deleting an edge destroys at most $\binom {n-2} {r-2}$ $K_r$'s. Note that
\begin{align}\label{E_K_r}
E(k_r(G))=\binom n r \left(\frac {C_ut} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{r}{2}}>\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{r!}
n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2},
\end{align}
and $P(k_r(G)>E(k_r(G))/2)=1-o(1)$.
Hence by (\ref{E_X}) and (\ref{E_K_r})
$$
\begin{aligned}
&P\left(k_r(G)-\binom {n-2} {r-2}X>\left(\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}\right)n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2} \right)\\
\ge&P\left(\left(k_r(G)>\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}\right)\bigcap \left(X<\frac 3 2 \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}n^{\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}} \right)\right)
\\
\ge&P\left(k_r(G)>\frac{E(k_r(G))}{2}\right)+P\left(X<\frac 3 2E(X)\right)-1
\\
=&1-o(1).
\end{aligned}
$$
So with high probability, there exists a $F$-free graph $G'$ with $$k_r(G')>\varepsilon n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}=\Theta(t^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}),$$ and $$k_u(G')<k_u(G)<2E(k_u(G))=t.$$ Therefore, for $F$-free graph $G$ with $k_u(G)=t$, $$k_r(G)= \Omega\left(t^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2}}\right)$$ holds with high probability, which proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
It is clear that there exists a positive constant $C'$C' such that $\frac{(C')^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C'\right)^{e(F)}>0$\frac{(C')^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C'\right)^{e(F)}e(F)>0. Let $C_0=2\frac{(2C')^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}$C_0=2\frac{(2C')^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}, $C_u=\frac{C'}{C_0}$C_u=\frac{C'}{C_0}, and $n$n be an integer that $$C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}<t\le 2 C_0n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}.$$C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u}u {2}2<t\le 2 C_0n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u} {2}}u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom {r} {2}}\binom {u}u {2}2.
Let $G$G be the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph $G(n,p)$G(n,p) with
$$
p=C_u\frac {t} {{n}^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}=\Theta\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right).
$$
p=C_u\frac {t} {{n}^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}=\Theta\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}\right).
Hence, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
E(k_u(G))&=\binom n u \left(\frac {C_ut} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\\
&<\frac{n^u}{u!}C_u^{\binom{u}{2}}\left(\frac{2C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}}{n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\\
&=\frac{(2C_0C_u)^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}\\&\le\frac t 2.
\end{aligned}
$$
E(k_u(G))&=\binom n u \left(\frac {C_ut} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\binom{u}u{2}2\\
&<\frac{n^u}{u!}C_u^{\binom{u}{2}}\binom{u}u{2}2\left(\frac{2C_0 n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}}{n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{u}{2}}\binom{u}u{2}2\\
&=\frac{(2C_0C_u)^{\binom{u}{2}}}{u!}n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2\\&\le\frac t 2.
By Chebyshev inequality, $$P(k_u(G)\le t)\ge P\left(|k_u(G)-E(k_u(G))|\le E(k_u(G))\right)\ge1-\frac{\operatorname{Var}(k_u(G))}{E(k_u(G))^2}=1-O\left(\frac 1 {\Phi(K_u)}\right),$$P(k_u(G)\le t)\ge P\left(|k_u(G)-E(k_u(G))|\le E(k_u(G))\right)\ge1-\frac{\operatorname{Var}(k_u(G))}{E(k_u(G))^2}=1-O\left(\frac 1 {\Phi(K_u)}\right), where
$$
\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{K_u}&=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq K_u,e_{H_0}>0}n^{v(H_0)}p^{e(H_0)}\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le u< r}n^{v(H_0)}\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\ \right)^{\binom{v(H_0)}{2}}\right)\\
&\ge\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}\left(n^{v(H_0)}\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{V(H_0)-1}2(v(F)-2)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right)\ge
\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}\left(n^{v(H_0)}\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{r-1}2v(F)-(r-1)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}\right).
\end{aligned}
$$
\Phi_{K_u}K_u&=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{H_0\subseteq K_u,e_{H_0}>0}H_0\subseteq K_u,e_{H_0}H_0>0n^{v(H_0)}v(H_0)p^{e(H_0)}e(H_0)\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le u< r}v(H_0)\le u< rn^{v(H_0)}v(H_0)\left(n^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}\ \right)^{\binom{v(H_0)}{2}}\binom{v(H_0)}v(H_0){2}2\right)\\
&\ge\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}v(H_0)\le r\left(n^{v(H_0)}v(H_0)\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{V(H_0)-1}2(v(F)-2)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}1- \frac {\frac{V(H_0)-1}2(v(F)-2)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}\right)\ge
\Theta\left(\min\limits_{v(H_0)\le r}v(H_0)\le r\left(n^{v(H_0)}v(H_0)\right)^{1- \frac {\frac{r-1}2v(F)-(r-1)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}1- \frac {\frac{r-1}2v(F)-(r-1)} {e(F)-\binom r 2}\right).
Since $e(F)-\binom r 2>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)-(r-1)$e(F)-\binom r 2>\frac{r-1}{2}v(F)-(r-1), as $n\rightarrow \infty$n\rightarrow \infty (with $t\rightarrow \infty$t\rightarrow \infty), the inequality $k_u(G)<t$k_u(G)<t holds with high probability. Similarly, $E(k_r(G))=\binom n r \left(\frac {C_u t} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{r}{2}}$E(k_r(G))=\binom n r \left(\frac {C_u t} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{r}{2}}\binom{r}r{2}2
and $ P\left(|k_r(G)-E(k_r(G))|> {E(k_r(G))}/{2}\right)\le O(\frac{1}{\Phi(K_r)})=o(1)$ P\left(|k_r(G)-E(k_r(G))|> {E(k_r(G))}E(k_r(G))/{2}2\right)\le O(\frac{1}{\Phi(K_r)})=o(1).
Let $X$X denote the number of $F$F-copies in $G$G. Then our choice of $p$p ensures that
\label{E_X}
E(X)\leq p^{e(F)}e(F)n^{v(F)}v(F)
\le \left(2C_0C_un^{-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}}-\frac {v(F)-2} {e(F)-\binom r 2}\right)^{e(F)}e(F)n^{v(F)}v(F)
\le \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}e(F)n^{\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}}\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}
By Chebyshev inequality and Lemma \ref{Upperbound_var_H},
$$
\begin{aligned}
P\left(|X-E(X)|>\frac {E(X)}{2}\right)\le4\frac {\operatorname{Var}(X)}{E(X^2)}=O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right),
\end{aligned}
$$
P\left(|X-E(X)|>\frac {E(X)}{2}\right)\le4\frac {\operatorname{Var}(X)}{E(X^2)}=O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right),
where $\Phi_{F}=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}n^{v(F_0)}p^{e(F_0)}\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}n^{e(F_0)\left(\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}\right)}\right)$\Phi_{F}F=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}F_0>0n^{v(F_0)}v(F_0)p^{e(F_0)}e(F_0)\right)=\Theta\left(\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}F_0>0n^{e(F_0)\left(\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}\right)}e(F_0)\left(\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}\right)\right). Therefore, since $\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}$\max\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0}F_0\subseteq F,e(F_0)>0\frac{2e(F_0)}{v(F_0)}<\frac{2e(F)-r(r-1)}{v(F)-2}, that is $\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}>\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}$\min\limits_{F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}>0}F_0\subseteq F,e_{F_0}F_0>0\frac{v(F_0)}{e(F_0)}>\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom{r}{2}}, $O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right)=o(1)$O\left(\frac 1{\Phi_{F}}\right)=o(1), the inequality $X<\frac{3E(X)}{2}$X<\frac{3E(X)}{2} holds with high probability as $n\rightarrow \infty$n\rightarrow \infty.
On the other hand, deleting an edge destroys at most $\binom {n-2} {r-2}$\binom {n-2}n-2 {r-2}r-2 $K_r$K_r's. Note that
\label{E_K_r}
E(k_r(G))=\binom n r \left(\frac {C_ut} {n^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\left(\binom u 2-1\right)}}\right)^{\binom{r}{2}}\binom{r}r{2}2>\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{r!}
n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2,
and $P(k_r(G)>E(k_r(G))/2)=1-o(1)$P(k_r(G)>E(k_r(G))/2)=1-o(1).
Hence by (\ref{E_X}) and (\ref{E_K_r})
$$
\begin{aligned}
&P\left(k_r(G)-\binom {n-2} {r-2}X>\left(\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}\right)n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2} \right)\\
\ge&P\left(\left(k_r(G)>\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}\right)\bigcap \left(X<\frac 3 2 \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}n^{\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}} \right)\right)
\\
\ge&P\left(k_r(G)>\frac{E(k_r(G))}{2}\right)+P\left(X<\frac 3 2E(X)\right)-1
\\
=&1-o(1).
\end{aligned}
$$
&P\left(k_r(G)-\binom {n-2}n-2 {r-2}r-2X>\left(\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}-\frac 3 2(r-2)! \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}e(F)\right)n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2 \right)\\
\ge&P\left(\left(k_r(G)>\frac{(C_0C_u)^{\binom{r}{2}}}{2r!}n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2\right)\bigcap \left(X<\frac 3 2 \left(2C_0C_u\right)^{e(F)}e(F)n^{\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2}}\frac{2e(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)}{e(F)-\binom r 2} \right)\right)
\\
\ge&P\left(k_r(G)>\frac{E(k_r(G))}{2}\right)+P\left(X<\frac 3 2E(X)\right)-1
\\
=&1-o(1).
So with high probability, there exists a $F$F-free graph $G'$G' with $$k_r(G')>\varepsilon n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}=\Theta(t^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}),$$k_r(G')>\varepsilon n^{r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2}r-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom r 2=\Theta(t^{u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2}u-\frac{v(F)-2}{e(F)-\binom r 2}\binom u 2), and $$k_u(G')<k_u(G)<2E(k_u(G))=t.$$k_u(G')<k_u(G)<2E(k_u(G))=t. Therefore, for $F$F-free graph $G$G with $k_u(G)=t$k_u(G)=t, $$k_r(G)= \Omega\left(t^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2}}\right)$$k_r(G)= \Omega\left(t^{\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2}}\frac{re(F)-\binom r 2 v(F)-r\binom r 2+2\binom r 2}{ue(F)-\binom u 2 v(F)-u\binom r 2+2\binom u 2}\right) holds with high probability, which proves the theorem.
|
Proof of the main theorems
| false
|
2508.00483
| 3
|
76,427
|
\paragraph{SAEs.}SAEs.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.10cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/histogram_gemma-2-2b_layer_20.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$, as referenced in Eq.~\ref{eq:ablation}, where a larger $\nu$ indicates stronger monolingualism, are reported for the top-4 features and a random feature across various languages in layer 20 of Gemma 2 2B. The values of $\nu$ for the top-4 features are greater than those of a random feature. In most languages, the top-1 feature possesses a significantly larger $\nu$. Additional results for other layers and LLMs are in Appendix~\ref{Appendix:nu}, exhibiting similar patterns. The value of the random feature (feature 2000) is too small to be visible.
}
\label{fig:histogram_gemma-2-2b_layer_20}
\end{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.10cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/histogram_gemma-2-2b_layer_20.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$, as referenced in Eq.~\ref{eq:ablation}, where a larger $\nu$ indicates stronger monolingualism, are reported for the top-4 features and a random feature across various languages in layer 20 of Gemma 2 2B. The values of $\nu$ for the top-4 features are greater than those of a random feature. In most languages, the top-1 feature possesses a significantly larger $\nu$. Additional results for other layers and LLMs are in Appendix~\ref{Appendix:nu}, exhibiting similar patterns. The value of the random feature (feature 2000) is too small to be visible.
}
\label{fig:histogram_gemma-2-2b_layer_20}
SAEs are a specialized form of autoencoders~\citep{autoencoder1} designed to decompose language model activations into a sparse linear combination of learned feature directions. Given a language model activation $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^N$\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^N in certain layer\footnote{We use the residual stream at each layer as $\mathbf{x}$ because it is more interpretable~\citep{ferrando2024iknowentityknowledge,chanin2024absorption}.}, the SAE computes a feature activation $\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^M$\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^M, where $M \gg N$M \gg N, and reconstructs the input as $ \hat{\mathbf{x}} $ \hat{\mathbf{x}} . The typical reconstruction process is described by the equations:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{f(x)} &:= \text{ReLU}(\mathbf{W_{\text{enc}}}\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b_{\text{enc}}}), \label{eq:relu}\\
\hat{\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{f}) &:= \mathbf{W_{\text{dec}}}\mathbf{f} + \mathbf{b_{\text{dec}}}. \label{eq:reconstruct}
\end{align}\begin{align}
\mathbf{f(x)} &:= \text{ReLU}(\mathbf{W_{\text{enc}}}\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b_{\text{enc}}}), \label{eq:relu}\\
\hat{\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{f}) &:= \mathbf{W_{\text{dec}}}\mathbf{f} + \mathbf{b_{\text{dec}}}. \label{eq:reconstruct}
\end{align}
\mathbf{f(x)} &:= \text{ReLU}(\mathbf{W_{\text{enc}}}\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b_{\text{enc}}}), \label{eq:relu}\\
\hat{\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{f}) &:= \mathbf{W_{\text{dec}}}\mathbf{f} + \mathbf{b_{\text{dec}}}. \label{eq:reconstruct}
To ensure that $\mathbf{f}$\mathbf{f} remains sparse,~\citet{bricken2023monosemanticity,cunningham2023sparse} incorporate an L1 penalty on $\mathbf{f}$\mathbf{f} into the training loss function. Another approach by~\citet{gao2024scaling} employs Top-K SAEs, which enforce sparsity by selecting only the K most active dimensions of $\mathbf{f}$\mathbf{f}, setting all the others to zero. Following the notation of \citet{rajamanoharan2024jumpingaheadimprovingreconstruction}, we denote the columns of $\mathbf{W_{\text{dec}}}$\mathbf{W_{\text{dec}}} as $\mathbf{d}_i$\mathbf{d}_i for $i=1, \ldots, M$i=1, \ldots, M. These columns represent the feature directions into which the SAE decomposes the vector $\mathbf{x}$\mathbf{x}. For simplicity, we will refer to each column as a ``feature'' throughout this paper.
\paragraph{Datasets.}Datasets.
Flores-200~\citep{flores1,flores2} is a parallel corpus that contains translations of English sentences into 200 different languages.
Due to the semantic similarity of the translated sentences, this dataset is particularly useful for comparing linguistic features across languages.
We extract a subset called Flores-10, which includes 10 languages\footnote{English (en), Spanish (es), French (fr), Japanese (ja), Korean (ko), Portuguese (pt), Thai (th), Vietnamese (vi), Chinese (zh), and Arabic (ar).}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.05cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/activation_per_lan.pdf}
\caption{The mean activation of feature 13788 across different languages in layer 10 of Gemma 2 2B. The high mean activation in Chinese suggests that feature 13788 might be related to Chinese.}
\label{fig:activation_per_lan}
\end{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.05cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/activation_per_lan.pdf}
\caption{The mean activation of feature 13788 across different languages in layer 10 of Gemma 2 2B. The high mean activation in Chinese suggests that feature 13788 might be related to Chinese.}
\label{fig:activation_per_lan}
\paragraph{Models.}Models.
To ensure the robustness of our findings, we include a diverse set of LLMs and their corresponding SAEs. We use SAEs from Gemma Scope~\citep{lieberum2024gemmas} for Gemma 2 2B and Gemma 2 9B~\citep{team2024gemma}, and SAEs from Llama Scope~\citep{he2024llamas} for Llama-3.1-8B.
|
Preliminary
| false
|
2505.05111
| 2
|
76,428
|
\label{sec:lan_specific_feature}
\subsection{Finding Language-Specific Features}
To find language-specific features, we conduct a preliminary experiment by prompting Flores-10 into the LLMs and analyzing the residual stream using SAEs. We find that the mean activation of some features is particularly high for a certain language, while remaining very low for other languages, as illustrated by the example in Figure~\ref{fig:activation_per_lan}. Inspired by this, we propose a metric to measure the monolinguality of a feature. Specifically, given a set $\mathcal{D} = \{\mathcal{D}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{D}_K\}$\mathcal{D} = \{\mathcal{D}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{D}_K\}, which contains the residual stream set for a certain layer with $K$K different languages, we calculate the mean activation difference of feature $s$s for a specific language $L$L compared to the other languages as follows:
\begin{align}
\mu^L_s &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_L|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_L}\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x}),\notag\\
\gamma^L_s &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}\setminus\{\mathcal{D}_L\}|}\sum_{\mathcal{D}_I\in \mathcal{D}\setminus\{\mathcal{D}_L\}}\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_I|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_I}\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x}),\notag\\
\nu^L_s &= \mu^L_s-\gamma^L_s,\label{eq:AD}
\end{align}\begin{align}
\mu^L_s &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_L|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_L}\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x}),\notag\\
\gamma^L_s &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}\setminus\{\mathcal{D}_L\}|}\sum_{\mathcal{D}_I\in \mathcal{D}\setminus\{\mathcal{D}_L\}}\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_I|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_I}\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x}),\notag\\
\nu^L_s &= \mu^L_s-\gamma^L_s,\label{eq:AD}
\end{align}
\mu^L_s &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_L|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_L}\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_L\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x}),\notag\\
\gamma^L_s &= \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}\setminus\{\mathcal{D}_L\}|}\sum_{\mathcal{D}_I\in \mathcal{D}\setminus\{\mathcal{D}_L\}}\mathcal{D}_I\in \mathcal{D}\setminus\{\mathcal{D}_L\}\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_I|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_I}\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}_I\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x}),\notag\\
\nu^L_s &= \mu^L_s-\gamma^L_s,\label{eq:AD}
where $\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x})$\mathbf{f}_s(\mathbf{x}) is the activation of feature $s$s. We calculate $\nu$\nu for all languages and features and rank them from high to low for each language. The top-ranked features are considered language-specific features.
\subsection{Monolinguality Analysis}
We use the first 100 data points in Flores-10 to calculate $\nu$\nu for each language. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:histogram_gemma-2-2b_layer_20}. From this figure, we make the following observations.
(1) The mean activation of the top-4 features is significantly higher than that of a random feature, which remains close to zero.
(2) For most languages, the mean activation of the top features decreases rapidly among the first few, and the mean activation of the rank \#1 feature is considerably higher than the others.
(3) In some languages, the rank \#2 feature also shows a substantially large mean activation compared to other features.
These results suggest that top-ranked features possess strong monolingual characteristics, and in most scenarios, the top-1 feature suffices in capturing these characteristics.\footnote{English is the primary language for most LLMs, and it often exhibits different characteristics compared to other languages~\citep{qin2024multilinguallargelanguagemodel}, so we only focus on non-English results in the subsequent sections.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.05cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/codeswitch1.pdf}
\caption{The mean activation values for the Spanish feature with various noun and prefix combinations. Adding a Spanish prefix enhances the Spanish feature activation for non-Spanish nouns, enabling the LLM to process them as if they were ``Spanish tokens.''}
\label{fig:codeswitch}
\end{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.05cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/codeswitch1.pdf}
\caption{The mean activation values for the Spanish feature with various noun and prefix combinations. Adding a Spanish prefix enhances the Spanish feature activation for non-Spanish nouns, enabling the LLM to process them as if they were ``Spanish tokens.''}
\label{fig:codeswitch}
\begin{figure}[t]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.05cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/codeswitch2.pdf}
\caption{The mean activation values for the French and Korean features with various noun and prefix combinations. Introducing a different language prefix decreases the original language feature activation of nouns.}
\label{fig:codeswitch2}
\end{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.05cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/codeswitch2.pdf}
\caption{The mean activation values for the French and Korean features with various noun and prefix combinations. Introducing a different language prefix decreases the original language feature activation of nouns.}
\label{fig:codeswitch2}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.10cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/CE_loss.pdf}
\caption{The changes in CE loss on texts in the target language and texts in other languages after ablating language-specific features. Ablating language-specific features has a much larger impact on the CE loss of texts in the target language compared to texts in other languages. We provide results for Gemma 2 2B here, additional results can be found in Appendix~\ref{Appendix:Directional_Ablation}.}
\label{fig:celoss}
\end{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.10cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/CE_loss.pdf}
\caption{The changes in CE loss on texts in the target language and texts in other languages after ablating language-specific features. Ablating language-specific features has a much larger impact on the CE loss of texts in the target language compared to texts in other languages. We provide results for Gemma 2 2B here, additional results can be found in Appendix~\ref{Appendix:Directional_Ablation}.}
\label{fig:celoss}
|
Language-Specific Features
| false
|
2505.05111
| 3
|
76,429
|
In earlier sections, we only evaluate language-specific features on monolingual texts. This raises a natural question: are these language-specific features solely related to language-specific tokens? To explore this, we focus on a phenomenon called ``code-switching.''\footnote{Code-switching refers to the practice of alternating between two or more languages within a single text~\citep{kuwanto2024linguistics,winata-etal-2023-decades}.} Our findings indicate that language-specific features are also related to language-specific linguistic context.
\subsection{Experimental Settings}
\paragraph{Code-Switching Dataset.}Code-Switching Dataset. We use GPT-4o to generate sentences in various languages, each ending with a noun. We then replace the noun with its equivalent in other languages. For each language, we generate 5 simple sentences, and each sentence has 8 variants where the noun is substituted with its equivalent in different languages. Example data are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cs_data}. We only report results of Gemma 2 2B for Spanish prefix, additional results with the same patterns are in Appendix~\ref{sec:cs_appendix}.
\paragraph{Metric}Metric
To analyze the impact of different language prefixes on ending nouns, we calculate the mean activation of language-specific features for the ending nouns both with and without a prefix.
\subsection{Results}
\paragraph{Spanish Prefix Enhances Spanish Features in Non-Spanish Nouns.}Spanish Prefix Enhances Spanish Features in Non-Spanish Nouns.
We analyze the mean activation values of the Spanish features for Spanish, French, and Korean nouns, comparing scenarios with and without Spanish prefixes, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:codeswitch}. Our observations are as follows:
(1) Introduction of a Spanish prefix to a French or Korean noun results in higher Spanish feature activation values compared to when the French or Korean nouns stand alone. However, the value is still lower than that of the combination of Spanish prefixes and Spanish nouns.
(2) The activation value for Spanish features of stand-alone French and Korean nouns remains relatively low across all layers.
(3) Both French and Korean nouns with a Spanish prefix show greater increases in Spanish feature activations at deeper layers than at shallower ones.
(4) Adding a Spanish prefix results in a larger increase in the Spanish feature for French nouns compared to Korean nouns.
These findings suggest that adding a Spanish prefix enhances the Spanish feature activation for non-Spanish nouns, enabling the LLM to process them as if they were ``Spanish tokens.'' Consequently, this allows the LLM to use these non-Spanish tokens within a consistent language context.
\paragraph{Spanish Prefix Decreases Non-Spanish Features in Non-Spanish Nouns.}Spanish Prefix Decreases Non-Spanish Features in Non-Spanish Nouns.
We also analyze the mean activation values of the French and Korean features for corresponding nouns, comparing scenarios with and without Spanish prefixes, as presented in the provided Figure~\ref{fig:codeswitch2}. Our observations are as follows:
(1) For French and Korean nouns, the original language feature activation is significantly higher when the nouns are standalone than when preceded by a Spanish prefix.
(2) Both French and Korean nouns show greater decreases in their original language feature activations at deeper layers than at shallower ones.
(3) Adding a Spanish prefix results in a larger decrease in the corresponding feature for French nouns compared to Korean nouns.
These findings reveal that introducing a different language prefix decreases the original language feature activation of nouns, making them less like nouns from their original language.
\vspace{-2pt}
\paragraph{Language-Specific Features Extend Beyond Language-Specific Tokens.}Language-Specific Features Extend Beyond Language-Specific Tokens.
The results in Figures~\ref{fig:codeswitch} and \ref{fig:codeswitch2} suggest that language-specific features are not solely tied to specific language tokens but are also closely associated with the language-specific linguistic context. This suggests that the linguistic characteristics recognized by the model extend beyond individual words to encompass the contextual environment in which these words appear. Notably, the influence of a Spanish prefix is more pronounced on French nouns than on Korean nouns, potentially due to the linguistic similarities between Spanish and French. This highlights the model's ability to dynamically adapt its feature activations based on the surrounding linguistic context, effectively reinterpreting non-Spanish tokens within a Spanish framework while diminishing their original language attributes.
|
Language-Specific Features Extend Beyond Language-Specific Tokens
| false
|
2505.05111
| 4
|
76,430
|
\label{sec:ablate}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.10cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.50cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/line_chart_ce_loss_gemma-2-2b_all_main.pdf}
\caption{The change in CE loss for three languages after ablating French Features. Simultaneously ablating multiple French features exhibits a synergistic effect in French, while showing no synergistic effect on other languages. We provide results for Gemma 2 2B here, and additional results
can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:multi_fea}.}
\label{fig:2_top_features}
\end{figure*}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.10cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.50cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/line_chart_ce_loss_gemma-2-2b_all_main.pdf}
\caption{The change in CE loss for three languages after ablating French Features. Simultaneously ablating multiple French features exhibits a synergistic effect in French, while showing no synergistic effect on other languages. We provide results for Gemma 2 2B here, and additional results
can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:multi_fea}.}
\label{fig:2_top_features}
In the previous section, we identified language-specific features that are closely related to monolingual texts. In this section, we examine how these language-specific features affect the language-specific capabilities of LLMs. Specifically, inspired by ~\citet{NEURIPS2024_f5454485,ferrando2024iknowentityknowledge}, we use \textit{directional ablation} to ``zero out'' language-specific features and observe the changes in the cross-entropy (CE) loss of texts in different languages within LLMs.
\subsection{Model Interventions}
\paragraph{Directional Ablation.}Directional Ablation.
To analyze the impact of a feature $\mathbf{d}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$\mathbf{d}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}N on the inference process of LLMs, \citet{NEURIPS2024_f5454485,ferrando2024iknowentityknowledge} introduce \textit{directional ablation} to ``zero out'' a feature in the residual stream activation $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^N$\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^N. This is done by subtracting the projection of $\mathbf{x}$\mathbf{x} onto $\mathbf{d}$\mathbf{d} from $\mathbf{x}$\mathbf{x}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}'\leftarrow\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{d}}\hat{\mathbf{d}}^\intercal\mathbf{x},\label{eq:ablation}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}'\leftarrow\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{d}}\hat{\mathbf{d}}^\intercal\mathbf{x},\label{eq:ablation}
\end{equation}
\mathbf{x}'\leftarrow\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{d}}\hat{\mathbf{d}}^\intercal\mathbf{x},\label{eq:ablation}
where $\hat{\mathbf{d}}$\hat{\mathbf{d}} is the unit vector of $\mathbf{d}$\mathbf{d}. After obtaining the ablated residual stream, replace $\mathbf{x}$\mathbf{x} with $\mathbf{x}'$\mathbf{x}' and continue the forward pass of the LLMs.
\subsection{Ablation of Language-Specific Features}
For each target language, layer, and LLM, we intervene in the inference process of LLMs using Eq.~\ref{eq:ablation} on the top-2 language-specific features of the target language. We then measure the changes in CE loss for both texts in the target language and texts in other languages after ablating language-specific features. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:celoss}. We observe that:
(1) Ablating language-specific features has a much larger impact on the CE loss of texts in the target language compared to texts in other languages.
(2) For different layers, the changes in CE loss of target language texts vary significantly.
These findings suggest that language-specific features play a crucial role in controlling the generation process for the target language. Ablating these features from the generation process of LLMs can lead to a loss of only specific language capabilities.
\subsection{Synergistic Language Features}
\label{sec:why_2_features}
We compare the CE loss for French, Spanish, and Japanese when using different numbers of French features for directional ablation. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:2_top_features}. From this, we make the following observations:
(1) In some layers, simultaneously ablating the top 2 French features for French significantly impacts the CE loss more than ablating these features individually.
(2) In all layers, simultaneously ablating the top 2 French features for Spanish and Japanese results in a CE loss impact approximately equal to the sum of the effects when these features are ablated individually.
(3) The changes in CE loss for French are larger than those for Spanish and Japanese. The changes for Spanish are large in some layers, while for Japanese, they are nearly zero across all layers.
Based on these observations, we can conclude that for any target language, there exists a synergistic relationship among its features. Ablating multiple features simultaneously impacts significantly more than the sum of the effects when each feature is ablated individually. This synergistic effect is observed only when ablating language-specific features within its language.
Interestingly, in layers 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, the rank \#2 French feature is also among the top-2 Spanish features, explaining the significant changes in Spanish in some layers.
|
Ablating Language-Specific Features Leads to Language-Specific Changes
| false
|
2505.05111
| 5
|
95,416
|
In this work, we have proposed a structure-preserving spatial discretization method for pH systems with implicit constitutive relations, formulated through Stokes-Lagrange structures. Building upon the Partitioned Finite Element Method (PFEM), which has been successfully employed for classical pH systems, we have extended this framework to accommodate systems including differential and nonlocal constitutive relations. This extension ensures that the essential geometric properties of the continuous system are faithfully retained in the finite-dimensional approximation.
The methodology has been applied to three representative cases: a 1D nanorod model capturing nonlocal effects, an implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam formulation relevant for high-frequency dynamics, and the 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations expressed in vorticity--stream function variables. For each of these examples, we have demonstrated that the proposed discretization not only preserves the power balances at the discrete level but also captures additional physical invariants such as enstrophy in the fluid flow case. The numerical results obtained confirm the consistency, robustness, and accuracy of the structure-preserving discretization strategy, highlighting its potential for reliable long-term simulations.
The work presented here opens several perspectives for future research. One important direction concerns the mathematical analysis of the proposed schemes, particularly regarding their convergence properties and stability guarantees when applied to systems with complex boundary conditions. Another natural extension lies in the treatment of other nonlinear port-Hamiltonian systems, especially those arising in multiphysics contexts where strong couplings and nonlinear constitutive relations are prevalent. The method could also be adapted to large-scale 3D applications, offering a powerful structure-preserving tool for the simulation of coupled thermo-mechanical, electromagnetic, or fluid-structure interaction problems.
Additionally, the discretization choices made in this work could be further refined by investigating optimal finite element spaces that enhance numerical accuracy while reducing computational complexity, without compromising the preservation of the underlying structure. Finally, extending the approach to space-time discretizations that preserve geometric properties simultaneously in space and time, as done in this work for the fluid case, would provide a unified framework capable of addressing both the spatial and temporal aspects of structure preservation.
Altogether, this study contributes to the ongoing development of structure-preserving numerical methods for distributed pH systems and lays the groundwork for future advances in the reliable and physically consistent simulation of complex dynamical systems.
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06869
| 6
|
95,417
|
This work was supported by the IMPACTS project funded by the French National Research Agency (project ANR-21-CE48-0018), \url{https://impacts.ens2m.fr/}.
|
Acknowledgements
| false
|
2507.06869
| 7
|
95,419
|
\label{apx:vector-identities}
\begin{lemma}
Given $\bm{\phi} \in H^\curl(\Omega)$ and $\psi \in H^1(\Omega)$, we have:
\begin{equation} \label{ipp:gradperp-curl}
\int_\Omega \bm{\phi} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x = \int_\Omega \curldeuxD(\bm{\phi}) \, \psi \, \d x + \int_{\partial \Omega} \psi \, \, \bm{\phi} \cdot \bm{t} \,\d s.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
Given $\bm{\phi} \in H^\curl(\Omega)$ and $\psi \in H^1(\Omega)$, we have:
\begin{equation} \label{ipp:gradperp-curl}
\int_\Omega \bm{\phi} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x = \int_\Omega \curldeuxD(\bm{\phi}) \, \psi \, \d x + \int_{\partial \Omega} \psi \, \, \bm{\phi} \cdot \bm{t} \,\d s.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Given $\bm{\phi} \in H^\curl(\Omega)$\bm{\phi}\phi \in H^\curl(\Omega) and $\psi \in H^1(\Omega)$\psi \in H^1(\Omega), we have:
\label{ipp:gradperp-curl}
\int_\Omega \bm{\phi}\phi \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x = \int_\Omega \curldeuxD(\bm{\phi}\phi) \, \psi \, \d x + \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \psi \, \, \bm{\phi}\phi \cdot \bm{t}t \,\d s.
\begin{lemma}
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gradperpcurldeuxd-laplacian}
\curldeuxD \,\grad^\perp = - \Delta.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gradperpcurldeuxd-laplacian}
\curldeuxD \,\grad^\perp = - \Delta.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\label{eqn:gradperpcurldeuxd-laplacian}
\curldeuxD \,\grad^\perp = - \Delta.
\begin{proof}
$\curldeuxD \,\grad^\perp = \begin{bmatrix}
- \partial_y & \partial_x
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\partial_y \\ -\partial_x
\end{bmatrix} = - \partial_{y^2}^2 - \partial_{x^2}^2 = - \Delta.$
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
$\curldeuxD \,\grad^\perp = \begin{bmatrix}
- \partial_y & \partial_x
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\partial_y \\ -\partial_x
\end{bmatrix} = - \partial_{y^2}^2 - \partial_{x^2}^2 = - \Delta.$
\end{proof}
$\curldeuxD \,\grad^\perp = \begin{bmatrix}
- \partial_y & \partial_x
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
\partial_y \\ -\partial_x
\end{bmatrix} = - \partial_{y^2}^2 - \partial_{x^2}^2 = - \Delta.$\curldeuxD \,\grad^\perp =
- \partial_y & \partial_x
\partial_y \\ -\partial_x
= - \partial_{y^2}y^2^2 - \partial_{x^2}x^2^2 = - \Delta.
|
Useful identities
| false
|
2507.06869
| 9
|
95,412
|
\label{sec:sec2}
The geometric definition of pH systems introduces two structures: the Dirac structure that describes the energy routing of the system, and the Lagrange structure that describes the Hamiltonian of the system. In the linear time-invariant finite-dimensional case, these structures correspond to algebraic restrictions on the matrices defining the dynamics, and ensure that the system satisfies certain properties such as passivity and Maxwell's reciprocity conditions.
In this article, we define the Dirac and Lagrange structures following \cite{gernandt2022equivalence}.
\subsection{Finite-dimensional case}
\label{sec:sec2.1}
Let us denote by $(\alpha,e) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}$(\alpha,e) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}2n the state and costate of our system, resp., $(f_R,e_R) \in \mathbb{R}^{2r}$(f_R,e_R) \in \mathbb{R}^{2r}2r the resistive port, $(u_D,y_D) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n_D}$(u_D,y_D) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n_D}2n_D the power control port, and $(u_L,y_L) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n_L}$(u_L,y_L) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n_L}2n_L the energy control port. We dropped the time dependency to improve readability, as our primary focus is on linear time-invariant systems.
\begin{definition} \label{def:linear-ph-state-repr}Given a matrix $J\in \mathcal{M}_{n+r+n_D}(\mathbb{R})$, such that $J = - J^\top$, two matrices $P,S \in \mathcal{M}_{n+n_L}(\mathbb{R})$, such that $P^\top S = S^\top P$ and $\text{\rm rank}\begin{bmatrix}
P \\ S
\end{bmatrix} = n + n_L$, and a matrix $R \in \mathcal{M}_{r}(\mathbb{R})$, such that $R = R^\top \geq 0$; the associated linear pH system reads:
\begin{subequations}\label{eqn:discr-linear-phs}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \alpha \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix} & \text{with }J=-J^\top, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:DIRAC}\\
P^\top \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix}&= S^\top\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix} & \text{with } \left\{\begin{aligned}
P^\top S &= S^\top P, \\
\text{\rm rank}\begin{bmatrix}
P \\ S
\end{bmatrix} &= n + n_L,
\end{aligned}\right. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R & \text{with } R= R^\top \geq0. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:RESISTIVE}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
$J$ is called the Dirac structure matrix, $P$ and $S$ are the Lagrange structure matrices, and $R$ is the resistive structure matrix.
Moreover, \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:DIRAC} corresponds to the dynamics (Dirac structure), \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE} corresponds to the \emph{constitutive relations} (Lagrange structure), and \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:RESISTIVE} is the relation (resistive structure) between the dissipative flow and effort variables $f_R$ and $e_R$.
\end{definition}\begin{definition} \label{def:linear-ph-state-repr}Given a matrix $J\in \mathcal{M}_{n+r+n_D}(\mathbb{R})$, such that $J = - J^\top$, two matrices $P,S \in \mathcal{M}_{n+n_L}(\mathbb{R})$, such that $P^\top S = S^\top P$ and $\text{\rm rank}\begin{bmatrix}
P \\ S
\end{bmatrix} = n + n_L$, and a matrix $R \in \mathcal{M}_{r}(\mathbb{R})$, such that $R = R^\top \geq 0$; the associated linear pH system reads:
\begin{subequations}\label{eqn:discr-linear-phs}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \alpha \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix} & \text{with }J=-J^\top, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:DIRAC}\\
P^\top \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix}&= S^\top\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix} & \text{with } \left\{\begin{aligned}
P^\top S &= S^\top P, \\
\text{\rm rank}\begin{bmatrix}
P \\ S
\end{bmatrix} &= n + n_L,
\end{aligned}\right. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R & \text{with } R= R^\top \geq0. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:RESISTIVE}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
$J$ is called the Dirac structure matrix, $P$ and $S$ are the Lagrange structure matrices, and $R$ is the resistive structure matrix.
Moreover, \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:DIRAC} corresponds to the dynamics (Dirac structure), \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE} corresponds to the \emph{constitutive relations} (Lagrange structure), and \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:RESISTIVE} is the relation (resistive structure) between the dissipative flow and effort variables $f_R$ and $e_R$.
\end{definition} \label{def:linear-ph-state-repr}Given a matrix $J\in \mathcal{M}_{n+r+n_D}(\mathbb{R})$J\in \mathcal{M}_{n+r+n_D}n+r+n_D(\mathbb{R}), such that $J = - J^\top$J = - J^\top, two matrices $P,S \in \mathcal{M}_{n+n_L}(\mathbb{R})$P,S \in \mathcal{M}_{n+n_L}n+n_L(\mathbb{R}), such that $P^\top S = S^\top P$P^\top S = S^\top P and $\text{\rm rank}\begin{bmatrix}
P \\ S
\end{bmatrix} = n + n_L$\text{\rm rank}
P \\ S
= n + n_L, and a matrix $R \in \mathcal{M}_{r}(\mathbb{R})$R \in \mathcal{M}_{r}r(\mathbb{R}), such that $R = R^\top \geq 0$R = R^\top \geq 0; the associated linear pH system reads:
\label{eqn:discr-linear-phs}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \alpha \\ f_R \\ -y_D
&= J
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
& \text{with }J=-J^\top, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:DIRAC}\\
P^\top
e \\ y_L
&= S^\top
\alpha \\ u_L
& \text{with } \left\{
P^\top S &= S^\top P, \\
\text{\rm rank}
P \\ S
&= n + n_L,
\right. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R & \text{with } R= R^\top \geq0. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs:RESISTIVE}
$J$J is called the Dirac structure matrix, $P$P and $S$S are the Lagrange structure matrices, and $R$R is the resistive structure matrix.
Moreover, \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:DIRAC} corresponds to the dynamics (Dirac structure), \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE} corresponds to the \emph{constitutive relations} (Lagrange structure), and \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:RESISTIVE} is the relation (resistive structure) between the dissipative flow and effort variables $f_R$f_R and $e_R$e_R.
\begin{remark}
Usually, constitutive relations are explicit, i.e., $P=\Id$, and the energy control port is absent, i.e., $n_L=0$. In such a case, defining $Q:=S$, the typical linear pH system of the following form is retrieved:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-explicit-no-energy-control}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \alpha \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix} & \text{with }J=-J^\top, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:DIRAC}\\
e &= Q\alpha & \text{with } Q=Q^\top > 0, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R & \text{with }R= R^\top \geq0. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:RESISTIVE}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
Usually, constitutive relations are explicit, i.e., $P=\Id$, and the energy control port is absent, i.e., $n_L=0$. In such a case, defining $Q:=S$, the typical linear pH system of the following form is retrieved:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-explicit-no-energy-control}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \alpha \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix} & \text{with }J=-J^\top, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:DIRAC}\\
e &= Q\alpha & \text{with } Q=Q^\top > 0, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R & \text{with }R= R^\top \geq0. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:RESISTIVE}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{remark}
Usually, constitutive relations are explicit, i.e., $P=\Id$P=\Id, and the energy control port is absent, i.e., $n_L=0$n_L=0. In such a case, defining $Q:=S$Q:=S, the typical linear pH system of the following form is retrieved:
\label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-explicit-no-energy-control}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \alpha \\ f_R \\ -y_D
&= J
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
& \text{with }J=-J^\top, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:DIRAC}\\
e &= Q\alpha & \text{with } Q=Q^\top > 0, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R & \text{with }R= R^\top \geq0. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-no-energy-control:RESISTIVE}
In the general case, however, $P \neq \Id$P \neq \Id, and the constitutive relations are subsequently specified as \emph{implicit}. Nevertheless, thanks to the symmetry of $P^\top S$P^\top S and the rank condition of $\begin{bmatrix}
P \\ S
\end{bmatrix}$
P \\ S
, the following holds:
\begin{lemma}\label{def:latent-state-ph}
Let $P$ and $S$ as in Definition \ref{def:linear-ph-state-repr}. Let $\alpha,e \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $y_L,u_L\in \mathbb{R}^n_L$, satisfying \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE}. Then, there exists a unique pair $(\lambda, \tilde u_L ) \in \mathbb{R}^{n + n_L}$ such that:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:latent-state-control-def}
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix} = P \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix}, \quad \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix} = S \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
These variables are called \emph{latent state} and \emph{latent control}, respectively.
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}\label{def:latent-state-ph}
Let $P$ and $S$ as in Definition \ref{def:linear-ph-state-repr}. Let $\alpha,e \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $y_L,u_L\in \mathbb{R}^n_L$, satisfying \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE}. Then, there exists a unique pair $(\lambda, \tilde u_L ) \in \mathbb{R}^{n + n_L}$ such that:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:latent-state-control-def}
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix} = P \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix}, \quad \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix} = S \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
These variables are called \emph{latent state} and \emph{latent control}, respectively.
\end{lemma}\label{def:latent-state-ph}
Let $P$P and $S$S as in Definition \ref{def:linear-ph-state-repr}. Let $\alpha,e \in \mathbb{R}^n$\alpha,e \in \mathbb{R}^n and $y_L,u_L\in \mathbb{R}^n_L$y_L,u_L\in \mathbb{R}^n_L, satisfying \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs:LAGRANGE}. Then, there exists a unique pair $(\lambda, \tilde u_L ) \in \mathbb{R}^{n + n_L}$(\lambda, \tilde u_L ) \in \mathbb{R}^{n + n_L}n + n_L such that:
\label{eqn:latent-state-control-def}
\alpha \\ u_L
= P
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
, \quad
e \\ y_L
= S
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
.
These variables are called \emph{latent state} and \emph{latent control}, respectively.
\begin{proof}
Proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:latent-state-ph}.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
Proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:latent-state-ph}.
\end{proof}
Proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:latent-state-ph}.
As it is shown in the next lemma, expressing \eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs} in latent variables allows the definition of a Hamiltonian that satisfies a power balance.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:latent-state-hamiltonian-definition}
Let $J$, $P$, $S$ and $R$ as in Definition~\ref{def:linear-ph-state-repr}. Decomposing $P = \begin{bmatrix}
P_{1,1} & P_{1,2} \\ P_{2,1} & P_{2,2}
\end{bmatrix}$ into blocks of appropriate sizes, the associated linear pH system~\eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs} written in latent variables reads:
\begin{subequations}\label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t}(P_{1,1} \, \lambda + P_{1,2} \, \tilde u_L) \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:DIRAC}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
e \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix}&= S \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix} , \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:RESISTIVE}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
%
The corresponding Hamiltonian is defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:linear-phs-power-balance}
H(\lambda,\tilde u_L) := \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix}^\top P^\top S \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and satisfies the power balance:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:latent-state-ph-power-balance}
\frac{\d}{\d t }H(\lambda, \tilde u) = e^\top \dot \alpha + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L = \underbrace{- f_R^\top R \, f_R}_{\leq0} + y_D^\top u_D + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L \leq y_D^\top u_D + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L .
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:latent-state-hamiltonian-definition}
Let $J$, $P$, $S$ and $R$ as in Definition~\ref{def:linear-ph-state-repr}. Decomposing $P = \begin{bmatrix}
P_{1,1} & P_{1,2} \\ P_{2,1} & P_{2,2}
\end{bmatrix}$ into blocks of appropriate sizes, the associated linear pH system~\eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs} written in latent variables reads:
\begin{subequations}\label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t}(P_{1,1} \, \lambda + P_{1,2} \, \tilde u_L) \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:DIRAC}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
e \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix}&= S \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix} , \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:RESISTIVE}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
%
The corresponding Hamiltonian is defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:linear-phs-power-balance}
H(\lambda,\tilde u_L) := \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix}^\top P^\top S \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and satisfies the power balance:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:latent-state-ph-power-balance}
\frac{\d}{\d t }H(\lambda, \tilde u) = e^\top \dot \alpha + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L = \underbrace{- f_R^\top R \, f_R}_{\leq0} + y_D^\top u_D + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L \leq y_D^\top u_D + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L .
\end{equation}
\end{lemma} \label{lemma:latent-state-hamiltonian-definition}
Let $J$J, $P$P, $S$S and $R$R as in Definition~\ref{def:linear-ph-state-repr}. Decomposing $P = \begin{bmatrix}
P_{1,1} & P_{1,2} \\ P_{2,1} & P_{2,2}
\end{bmatrix}$P =
P_{1,1}1,1 & P_{1,2}1,2 \\ P_{2,1}2,1 & P_{2,2}2,2
into blocks of appropriate sizes, the associated linear pH system~\eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs} written in latent variables reads:
\label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent}
\frac{\d}{\d t}(P_{1,1}1,1 \, \lambda + P_{1,2}1,2 \, \tilde u_L) \\ f_R \\ -y_D
&= J
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:DIRAC}\\
e \\ y_L
&= S
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
, \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:LAGRANGE}\\
e_R &= R \, f_R. \label{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:RESISTIVE}
The corresponding Hamiltonian is defined as:
\label{eqn:linear-phs-power-balance}
H(\lambda,\tilde u_L) := \frac{1}{2}
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
^\top P^\top S
\lambda \\ \tilde u_L
,
and satisfies the power balance:
\label{eqn:latent-state-ph-power-balance}
\frac{\d}{\d t }H(\lambda, \tilde u) = e^\top \dot \alpha + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L = \underbrace{- f_R^\top R \, f_R}_{\leq0}\leq0 + y_D^\top u_D + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L \leq y_D^\top u_D + y_L^\top \dot { u}_L .
\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:latent-state-hamiltonian-definition}.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:latent-state-hamiltonian-definition}.
\end{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:latent-state-hamiltonian-definition}.
\begin{remark}
Assuming that the energy control port is absent, i.e., that $n_L = 0$, one retrieves the port-Hamiltonian descriptor representation found in, e.g., \cite{beattie2018linear}. \iffalse
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:linear-descriptor-phs}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t}P\lambda \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
e &= S \lambda , \quad
e_R &= R \, f_R.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\fi
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
Assuming that the energy control port is absent, i.e., that $n_L = 0$, one retrieves the port-Hamiltonian descriptor representation found in, e.g., \cite{beattie2018linear}. \iffalse
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:linear-descriptor-phs}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t}P\lambda \\ f_R \\ -y_D
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
e &= S \lambda , \quad
e_R &= R \, f_R.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\fi
\end{remark}
Assuming that the energy control port is absent, i.e., that $n_L = 0$n_L = 0, one retrieves the port-Hamiltonian descriptor representation found in, e.g., \cite{beattie2018linear}. \iffalse
\label{eqn:linear-descriptor-phs}
\frac{\d}{\d t}P\lambda \\ f_R \\ -y_D
&= J
e \\ e_R \\ u_D
, \quad
e &= S \lambda , \quad
e_R &= R \, f_R.
\fi
\begin{remark}
The Dirac structure matrix may depend on the state $\alpha$, it is then called a \emph{modulated} Dirac structure. In particular, the derivation of the power balance is identical. In Section~\ref{sec:continuous-models}, the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation is cast in such a form.
Additionally, Lagrange structure~\cite{van2020dirac} can describe \emph{nonlinear} constitutive relations. The structure enforces the Maxwell's reciprocity conditions; a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a Hamiltonian~\cite{gangi2000constitutive}.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
The Dirac structure matrix may depend on the state $\alpha$, it is then called a \emph{modulated} Dirac structure. In particular, the derivation of the power balance is identical. In Section~\ref{sec:continuous-models}, the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation is cast in such a form.
Additionally, Lagrange structure~\cite{van2020dirac} can describe \emph{nonlinear} constitutive relations. The structure enforces the Maxwell's reciprocity conditions; a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a Hamiltonian~\cite{gangi2000constitutive}.
\end{remark}
The Dirac structure matrix may depend on the state $\alpha$\alpha, it is then called a \emph{modulated} Dirac structure. In particular, the derivation of the power balance is identical. In Section~\ref{sec:continuous-models}, the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation is cast in such a form.
Additionally, Lagrange structure~\cite{van2020dirac} can describe \emph{nonlinear} constitutive relations. The structure enforces the Maxwell's reciprocity conditions; a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a Hamiltonian~\cite{gangi2000constitutive}.
\begin{remark}
In this setting, the symmetry of $P^* S$ is expressed with the usual Euclidean inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}$, hence $P^* = P^\top$, and checking the symmetry of the operator $P^*S$ amounts to checking the symmetry of the matrix $P^\top S$. However, when applying the Finite Element Method, an invertible mass matrix $M$ appears on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:LAGRANGE}. The symmetry condition is then expressed using the weighted inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}$, and checking the symmetry of $P^*S$ is then achieved by checking the symmetry of the matrix $P^\top M^{-1} S$.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
In this setting, the symmetry of $P^* S$ is expressed with the usual Euclidean inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}$, hence $P^* = P^\top$, and checking the symmetry of the operator $P^*S$ amounts to checking the symmetry of the matrix $P^\top S$. However, when applying the Finite Element Method, an invertible mass matrix $M$ appears on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:LAGRANGE}. The symmetry condition is then expressed using the weighted inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}$, and checking the symmetry of $P^*S$ is then achieved by checking the symmetry of the matrix $P^\top M^{-1} S$.
\end{remark}
In this setting, the symmetry of $P^* S$P^* S is expressed with the usual Euclidean inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}$\mathbb{R}^{n+n_L}n+n_L, hence $P^* = P^\top$P^* = P^\top, and checking the symmetry of the operator $P^*S$P^*S amounts to checking the symmetry of the matrix $P^\top S$P^\top S. However, when applying the Finite Element Method, an invertible mass matrix $M$M appears on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent:LAGRANGE}. The symmetry condition is then expressed using the weighted inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}$\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_{M^{-1}}M^{-1}-1, and checking the symmetry of $P^*S$P^*S is then achieved by checking the symmetry of the matrix $P^\top M^{-1} S$P^\top M^{-1}-1 S.
\subsection{Infinite-dimensional case}
\label{sec:sec2.2}
Difficulties arise when extending the pH framework to distributed pH systems. In particular, boundary terms and operator domains have to be taken into account. In this section, only a brief overview of the matter is given, the reader may refer to~\cite{jacob2012linear} for an extensive study along with well-posedness results. In particular, Stokes-Dirac structures~\cite{kurula2010dirac} have been studied extensively as a special case of Dirac structures, where integration by parts (Stokes' theorem) is encoded in the subspace, this allows the corresponding boundary terms to be expressed as boundary control port~\cite{brugnoli2023stokes}.
Recently, Stokes-Lagrange structures have been defined on $1$1D domains~\cite{maschke2023linear} and $n$nD domains~\cite{bendimerad2025stokeslagrange} in order to adapt the Lagrange structure approach to infinite dimensional systems. Stokes-Lagrange structures are similar to Stokes-Dirac structures as they take into account the integration by parts. Moreover, they allow for the treatment of implicit constitutive relations in the distributed pH framework.
In this work, we will use the definition presented in~\cite{bendimerad2025stokeslagrange}. Let us consider a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n and define a storage port, a power control port, a resistive port~\cite{van2014port} and an energy control port~\cite{krhac2024port}. To define the storage port, let us consider a state space $\mathcal{X} = L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha})$\mathcal{X} = L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}n_\alpha), a flow space $\mathcal{F}_s:=\mathcal{X}$\mathcal{F}_s:=\mathcal{X}, an effort space $\mathcal{E}_s=\mathcal{X}' \simeq L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha})$\mathcal{E}_s=\mathcal{X}' \simeq L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}n_\alpha), and a latent state space $\mathcal{Z} = L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha})$\mathcal{Z} = L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}n_\alpha).
Then, regarding the power control port, let us define the observation space as a Hilbert space $\mathcal{F}_u$\mathcal{F}_u and the control space as its dual\footnote{Duality is meant topologically.} $\mathcal{F}_u := \mathcal{E}_u'$\mathcal{F}_u := \mathcal{E}_u'.
Moreover, let us define the spaces of the resistive port as a Hilbert space $\mathcal{F}_R$\mathcal{F}_R for the flows and its dual $\mathcal{E}_R:= \mathcal{F}_R'$\mathcal{E}_R:= \mathcal{F}_R' for the corresponding efforts.
Finally, to define the energy control port, let us consider the control space as a Hilbert space $\mathcal{U}$\mathcal{U} and the observation space as its dual $\mathcal{Y}=\mathcal{U}'.$\mathcal{Y}=\mathcal{U}'.
Now, in order to define the Stokes-Dirac structure, we will consider three operators: $J:D(J)\subset \mathcal{E}_s \times \mathcal{E}_R \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_s \times \mathcal{E}_R$J:D(J)\subset \mathcal{E}_s \times \mathcal{E}_R \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_s \times \mathcal{E}_R, along with observation/control operators $K:D(J) \rightarrow \mathcal{F}_u$K:D(J) \rightarrow \mathcal{F}_u and $G: D(J) \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_u$G: D(J) \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_u as defined in~\cite{bendimerad2025stokeslagrange}. The property extensively used in the following and which should be emphasized here is the \emph{skew-symmetry}:
\begin{equation} \label{assumption:stokes-dirac-skew-symmetry}
\forall z \in D(J), \quad \langle Jz,z\rangle_{\mathcal{E}_s} = \langle Gz,Kz \rangle_{\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{assumption:stokes-dirac-skew-symmetry}
\forall z \in D(J), \quad \langle Jz,z\rangle_{\mathcal{E}_s} = \langle Gz,Kz \rangle_{\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u}.
\end{equation} \label{assumption:stokes-dirac-skew-symmetry}
\forall z \in D(J), \quad \langle Jz,z\rangle_{\mathcal{E}_s}\mathcal{E}_s = \langle Gz,Kz \rangle_{\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u}\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u.
Similarly for the Stokes-Lagrange structure, let us consider four linear operators: a possibly unbounded, closed, and densely defined operator $\, P:D(P)\subset \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$\, P:D(P)\subset \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}, together with a bounded operator $\, S: \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_s$\, S: \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_s, and two control and observation operators $\beta: D(P) \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$\beta: D(P) \rightarrow \mathcal{U} and $\gamma: D(P) \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}.$\gamma: D(P) \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}. The property that will be used in the following is the \emph{symmetry}:
\begin{equation} \label{assumption:stokes-lagrange-symmetry}
\forall z_1,z_2 \in D(P), \quad \langle \gamma z_1, \beta z_2 \rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}} + \langle Pz_1,Sz_2\rangle_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s} = \langle Pz_2, Sz_1\rangle_{\mathcal{X,\mathcal{E}_s}} + \langle \gamma z_2, \beta z_1 \rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{assumption:stokes-lagrange-symmetry}
\forall z_1,z_2 \in D(P), \quad \langle \gamma z_1, \beta z_2 \rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}} + \langle Pz_1,Sz_2\rangle_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s} = \langle Pz_2, Sz_1\rangle_{\mathcal{X,\mathcal{E}_s}} + \langle \gamma z_2, \beta z_1 \rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}.
\end{equation} \label{assumption:stokes-lagrange-symmetry}
\forall z_1,z_2 \in D(P), \quad \langle \gamma z_1, \beta z_2 \rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U} + \langle Pz_1,Sz_2\rangle_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s}\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s = \langle Pz_2, Sz_1\rangle_{\mathcal{X,\mathcal{E}_s}}\mathcal{X,\mathcal{E}_s} + \langle \gamma z_2, \beta z_1 \rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}.
Similarly to the finite dimensional case, the operators $P$P and $S$S must satisfy some maximality condition which, given a suitable subspace $\mathcal{Z}_0 \subset D(P)$\mathcal{Z}_0 \subset D(P), reads similar to~\eqref{eqn:ker-ran-equality-discrete}:
\begin{equation}
\ker \begin{bmatrix}
S_{|\mathcal{Z}_0}^* & -P_{|\mathcal{Z}_0}^*
\end{bmatrix} \subset \textup{Ran} \begin{bmatrix}
P \\S
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\ker \begin{bmatrix}
S_{|\mathcal{Z}_0}^* & -P_{|\mathcal{Z}_0}^*
\end{bmatrix} \subset \textup{Ran} \begin{bmatrix}
P \\S
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\ker
S_{|\mathcal{Z}_0}|\mathcal{Z}_0^* & -P_{|\mathcal{Z}_0}|\mathcal{Z}_0^*
\subset \textup{Ran}
P \\S
.
The reader may refer to~\cite{gernandt2025extension} for a study of the existence of such a subspace.
\begin{remark}
In this work, we assume that $S$ is a bounded operator and allow $P$ being unbounded, as it will always be the case for the examples presented in Section~\ref{sec:continuous-models}. One may refer to~\cite{bendimerad2024implicit} for 1D distributed examples where $S$ is unbounded, and to~\cite{brugnoli2024discrete} for a discussion on the discrete equivalence of such representations.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
In this work, we assume that $S$ is a bounded operator and allow $P$ being unbounded, as it will always be the case for the examples presented in Section~\ref{sec:continuous-models}. One may refer to~\cite{bendimerad2024implicit} for 1D distributed examples where $S$ is unbounded, and to~\cite{brugnoli2024discrete} for a discussion on the discrete equivalence of such representations.
\end{remark}
In this work, we assume that $S$S is a bounded operator and allow $P$P being unbounded, as it will always be the case for the examples presented in Section~\ref{sec:continuous-models}. One may refer to~\cite{bendimerad2024implicit} for 1D distributed examples where $S$S is unbounded, and to~\cite{brugnoli2024discrete} for a discussion on the discrete equivalence of such representations.
We can now state the definition of a distributed pH system:
\begin{definition}
Given Stokes-Dirac structure operators $J, K$, and $G$, Stokes-Lagrange operators $P, S, \gamma$, and $\beta$, as defined previously, let us define the latent state $z:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}$, co-state $e:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}$ and resistive flow and effort $f_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}, e_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}$; the corresponding linear distributed pH system reads:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:continuous-linear-phs}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
P \, \partial_t z \\ f_R
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\e_R
\end{pmatrix}, \\
e &= S z, \\
e_R &= R \, f_R, \\
\begin{pmatrix}
Ge \\ Ke
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
u_D \\ y_D
\end{pmatrix},& \quad \begin{pmatrix}
\gamma \,z\\ \beta \,z
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
u_L \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $(u_D, y_D)$ the external power port variables, and $(u_L ,y_L)$ the external energy port variables.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
Given Stokes-Dirac structure operators $J, K$, and $G$, Stokes-Lagrange operators $P, S, \gamma$, and $\beta$, as defined previously, let us define the latent state $z:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}$, co-state $e:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}$ and resistive flow and effort $f_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}, e_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}$; the corresponding linear distributed pH system reads:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:continuous-linear-phs}
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
P \, \partial_t z \\ f_R
\end{pmatrix} &= J \begin{pmatrix}
e \\e_R
\end{pmatrix}, \\
e &= S z, \\
e_R &= R \, f_R, \\
\begin{pmatrix}
Ge \\ Ke
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
u_D \\ y_D
\end{pmatrix},& \quad \begin{pmatrix}
\gamma \,z\\ \beta \,z
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
u_L \\ y_L
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $(u_D, y_D)$ the external power port variables, and $(u_L ,y_L)$ the external energy port variables.
\end{definition}
Given Stokes-Dirac structure operators $J, K$J, K, and $G$G, Stokes-Lagrange operators $P, S, \gamma$P, S, \gamma, and $\beta$\beta, as defined previously, let us define the latent state $z:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}$z:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}n_\alpha, co-state $e:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}$e:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_\alpha}n_\alpha and resistive flow and effort $f_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}, e_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}$f_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}n_R, e_R:\mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_R}n_R; the corresponding linear distributed pH system reads:
\label{eqn:continuous-linear-phs}
P \, \partial_t z \\ f_R
&= J
e \\e_R
, \\
e &= S z, \\
e_R &= R \, f_R, \\
Ge \\ Ke
=
u_D \\ y_D
,& \quad
\gamma \,z\\ \beta \,z
=
u_L \\ y_L
,
with $(u_D, y_D)$(u_D, y_D) the external power port variables, and $(u_L ,y_L)$(u_L ,y_L) the external energy port variables.
\begin{remark}
In previous work \cite{maschke2023linear}, the energy port variables are denoted by $(\chi_\partial,\varepsilon_\partial)$, here the choice is made to denote them by $(u_L,y_L)$ in order to emphasize on the control and interconnection purposes of these variables, related to the Lagrange structure.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
In previous work \cite{maschke2023linear}, the energy port variables are denoted by $(\chi_\partial,\varepsilon_\partial)$, here the choice is made to denote them by $(u_L,y_L)$ in order to emphasize on the control and interconnection purposes of these variables, related to the Lagrange structure.
\end{remark}
In previous work \cite{maschke2023linear}, the energy port variables are denoted by $(\chi_\partial,\varepsilon_\partial)$(\chi_\partial,\varepsilon_\partial), here the choice is made to denote them by $(u_L,y_L)$(u_L,y_L) in order to emphasize on the control and interconnection purposes of these variables, related to the Lagrange structure.
The following lemma gives us the Hamiltonian and power balance:
\begin{lemma}
The following functional is a Hamiltonian of the system \eqref{eqn:continuous-linear-phs}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:lin-phs-continuous-hamiltonian}
H(z) := \frac{1}{2} \langle Pz, Sz\rangle_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s} + \frac{1}{2} \langle \gamma z, \beta z\rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}.
\end{equation}
%
The associated power balance reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d}{\d t}H = \langle u_D,y_D\rangle_{\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u} + \langle \partial_t u_L, y_L\rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}} - \langle f_R, Rf_R\rangle_{\mathcal{F}_R,\mathcal{E}_R}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
The following functional is a Hamiltonian of the system \eqref{eqn:continuous-linear-phs}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:lin-phs-continuous-hamiltonian}
H(z) := \frac{1}{2} \langle Pz, Sz\rangle_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s} + \frac{1}{2} \langle \gamma z, \beta z\rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}.
\end{equation}
%
The associated power balance reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d}{\d t}H = \langle u_D,y_D\rangle_{\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u} + \langle \partial_t u_L, y_L\rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}} - \langle f_R, Rf_R\rangle_{\mathcal{F}_R,\mathcal{E}_R}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The following functional is a Hamiltonian of the system \eqref{eqn:continuous-linear-phs}:
\label{eqn:lin-phs-continuous-hamiltonian}
H(z) := \frac{1}{2} \langle Pz, Sz\rangle_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s}\mathcal{X},\mathcal{E}_s + \frac{1}{2} \langle \gamma z, \beta z\rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}.
The associated power balance reads:
\frac{\d}{\d t}H = \langle u_D,y_D\rangle_{\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u}\mathcal{E}_u,\mathcal{F}_u + \langle \partial_t u_L, y_L\rangle_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U}}\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{U} - \langle f_R, Rf_R\rangle_{\mathcal{F}_R,\mathcal{E}_R}\mathcal{F}_R,\mathcal{E}_R.
\begin{proof}
The proof can be found in~\cite[Subsection 2.5]{bendimerad2023implicit}.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
The proof can be found in~\cite[Subsection 2.5]{bendimerad2023implicit}.
\end{proof}
The proof can be found in~\cite[Subsection 2.5]{bendimerad2023implicit}.
The goal of this work is to model physical continuous examples, the Lagrange structure of which contains a non-trivial $P$P operator (e.g., \emph{implicit} constitutive relations) and apply a \emph{structure-preserving} Finite Element method in order to discretize an infinite-dimensional pH system~\eqref{eqn:continuous-linear-phs} into a finite-dimensional pH system of the form~\eqref{eqn:discr-linear-phs-latent}. In other words, we aim at discretizing implicit distributed pH systems, while preserving both Dirac and Lagrange structures.
|
Dirac and Lagrange structures
| false
|
2507.06869
| 2
|
95,420
|
\subsection{Condition number} \label{apx:nanorod-condition-number}
Figure \ref{fig:nanorod-condition-number} presents the condition number of $\bm{M} + \ell^2 \, \bm{K} + \ell \, \bm{B}\bm{B}^\top$\bm{M}M + \ell^2 \, \bm{K}K + \ell \, \bm{B}B\bm{B}B^\top as a function of the parameter $\ell$\ell, in particular for the number of discretization $N=100$N=100, the condition number worsens for $\ell$\ell bigger than $10^{-2}$10^{-2}-2.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{Figures/inse/nanorod_condition_number.png}
\caption{Condition number of matrix $\bm{M} + \ell^2 \, \bm{K} + \ell \, \bm{B}\bm{B}^\top$ for number of discretization points $N=$100, 500 and 1000.}
\label{fig:nanorod-condition-number}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{Figures/inse/nanorod_condition_number.png}
\caption{Condition number of matrix $\bm{M} + \ell^2 \, \bm{K} + \ell \, \bm{B}\bm{B}^\top$ for number of discretization points $N=$100, 500 and 1000.}
\label{fig:nanorod-condition-number}
|
Nanorod equation
| false
|
2507.06869
| 10
|
95,421
|
\subsection{Time discretization}
Similarly to \cite{de2019inclusion}, we will consider a staggered approach where $\overline{\psi}$\overline{\psi}, $u_D^3$u_D^3 and $\tilde u_D$\tilde u_D are evaluated at half time steps $t_{k+1/2}$t_{k+1/2}k+1/2 and where $\overline{\omega}$\overline{\omega} and $u_D^5$u_D^5 are evaluated at whole timesteps $t_k$t_k. The modulated Dirac structure is then evaluated for each variable at time $t$t using the value of the other variable at the previous time $t - \d t /2.$t - \d t /2.
Then, the implicit midpoint rule is used on the state variable of the linearized equation, and constraints are imposed at the end of the timestep interval. Finally, initialization is carried out by integrating $\overline{\psi}(t_0)$\overline{\psi}(t_0) to the first half time step $t_{1/2}$t_{1/2}1/2. Denoting by $\alpha_{t_{k}}$\alpha_{t_{k}}t_{k}k the variable $\alpha(t)$\alpha(t) discretized at time $t_k$t_k, we have:
\begin{lemma} The discrete power balance and enstrophy balance read:
$$\mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}}) - \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}}) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}^1 \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2},$$
$$ \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}}) - \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}^2 \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2} + \d t \, u_{D t_{k+1}}^\top\bm{B}^{5\top} \frac{\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}}{2}. $$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} The discrete power balance and enstrophy balance read:
$$\mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}}) - \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}}) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}^1 \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2},$$
$$ \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}}) - \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}^2 \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2} + \d t \, u_{D t_{k+1}}^\top\bm{B}^{5\top} \frac{\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}}{2}. $$
\end{lemma} The discrete power balance and enstrophy balance read:
$$\mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}}) - \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}}) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}^1 \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2},$$\mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}}t_{k+1/2}k+1/2) - \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}}t_{k-1/2}k-1/2) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}R^1 \frac{(\overline{\psi}_{t_{k+1/2}} + \overline{\psi}_{t_{k-1/2}})}{2},
$$ \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}}) - \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}^2 \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2} + \d t \, u_{D t_{k+1}}^\top\bm{B}^{5\top} \frac{\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}}{2}. $$ \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}}t_{k+1}k+1) - \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}t_{k}k) = - \d t \, \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2}^\top \bm{R}R^2 \frac{(\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k-1}})}{2} + \d t \, u_{D t_{k+1}}D t_{k+1}k+1^\top\bm{B}B^{5\top}5\top \frac{\overline{\omega}_{t_{k+1}} + \overline{\omega}_{t_{k}}}{2}.
\subsection{Mesh}
Figure \ref{fig:dipole-collision-mesh} presents the mesh used for the simulation of the normal dipole collision experiment. The mesh is finer along the right and left boundary and along the path of the dipole, this allows for faster computation compared to a homogeneous mesh. It is composed of 4448 nodes.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/inse/rectangle_dipole_collision.png}
\caption{Mesh used for the dipole collision experiment}
\label{fig:dipole-collision-mesh}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{Figures/inse/rectangle_dipole_collision.png}
\caption{Mesh used for the dipole collision experiment}
\label{fig:dipole-collision-mesh}
\iffalse
\red{Voici la liste des réfs importantes à rajouter :\\
* autre papier Bilbao \cite{BilbaoJASA2016}, \\
* un book FEM, ou mieux M-FEM, \cite{BofBreFor15},\cite{GirRav11},\\
* Trang VU ??? \cite{VU20171} : Laurent, est-ce celui que tu veux citer ?\\
* le IMA J MCI Flavio, Laurent et moi sur PFEM \cite{Cardoso-Ribeiro2020b},\\
$*$
* tous les JCP qui ont un lien avec les pHs, j'en vois potentiellement 8 de plus (YES) que les 4 qui sont déjà présents !\\
- Moulla Lefèvre Maschke 2012, \cite{MoullaJCP2012},\\
- Hiemstra 2014 \cite{HiemstraJCP2014},\\
- Cotter 2014 \cite{CotterJCP2015}, \\ % todo
- Hirani 2016 \cite{HiraniJCP2016},\\
- Kotyczka, Lefèvre Maschke, \cite{kotyczka2018weak} \\
- Celledoni Jackman, \cite{CelledoniJCP2021}\\
- Trenchant et al, \cite{TrenchantJCP2018}\\
- Brugnoli et al, DUAL FIELDS \cite{BRUGNOLI_JGP_2022}: ce papier est HYPER IMPORTANT, il faut le citer dans l'intro et se situer par rapport à lui.\\
* oui il reste une 10aine de BUGS dans la biblio actuelle, donc à corriger directement dans le .bib apparemment !
}Voici la liste des réfs importantes à rajouter :\\
* autre papier Bilbao \cite{BilbaoJASA2016}, \\
* un book FEM, ou mieux M-FEM, \cite{BofBreFor15},\cite{GirRav11},\\
* Trang VU ??? \cite{VU20171} : Laurent, est-ce celui que tu veux citer ?\\
* le IMA J MCI Flavio, Laurent et moi sur PFEM \cite{Cardoso-Ribeiro2020b},\\
$*$*
* tous les JCP qui ont un lien avec les pHs, j'en vois potentiellement 8 de plus (YES) que les 4 qui sont déjà présents !\\
- Moulla Lefèvre Maschke 2012, \cite{MoullaJCP2012},\\
- Hiemstra 2014 \cite{HiemstraJCP2014},\\
- Cotter 2014 \cite{CotterJCP2015}, \\ - Hirani 2016 \cite{HiraniJCP2016},\\
- Kotyczka, Lefèvre Maschke, \cite{kotyczka2018weak} \\
- Celledoni Jackman, \cite{CelledoniJCP2021}\\
- Trenchant et al, \cite{TrenchantJCP2018}\\
- Brugnoli et al, DUAL FIELDS \cite{BRUGNOLI_JGP_2022}: ce papier est HYPER IMPORTANT, il faut le citer dans l'intro et se situer par rapport à lui.\\
* oui il reste une 10aine de BUGS dans la biblio actuelle, donc à corriger directement dans le .bib apparemment !
\fi
\bibliographystyle{plain}plain
\bibliography{biblio.bib}
|
Incompressible Navier-Stokes equation
| false
|
2507.06869
| 11
|
95,413
|
\label{sec:continuous-models}
\subsection{Nanorod equation}
\label{sec:nanorod}
Given a domain $\Omega = (a,b)$\Omega = (a,b), let us consider the following 1D equation that describes the longitudinal motion of a nanorod \cite{maschke2023linear}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-no-const}
\partial_t\begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\
p
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-no-const}
\partial_t\begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\
p
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-no-const}
\partial_t
\varepsilon \\
p
=
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\sigma \\ v
,
with $\varepsilon$\varepsilon the strain, $p$p the linear momentum, $\sigma$\sigma the stress, and $v$v the velocity. Now, we must define the constitutive relations that connect the state $(\varepsilon,p)$(\varepsilon,p) and co-state $(\sigma,v)$(\sigma,v) variables. In the linear local case, these are usually given by $v = p/\rho$v = p/\rho and Hooke's law $\sigma = E\varepsilon$\sigma = E\varepsilon,
where $E$E is the Young's modulus and $\rho$\rho the mass density. Then, Eq.~\eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-no-const} becomes the classical wave equation. However, due to the scale of the studied system, these constitutive relations do not describe accurately the dynamics. To solve this issue, nonlocal effects between stress and strain variables have to be taken into account~\cite{eringen1983differential} in the constitutive relations.
\subsubsection{Nonlocal constitutive relations}
The general formulation of a linear nonlocal constitutive relations reads:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nonlocal-constitutive-general}
\sigma(x) = \int_a^b G(x,x') \, \varepsilon(x') \, \d x',
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nonlocal-constitutive-general}
\sigma(x) = \int_a^b G(x,x') \, \varepsilon(x') \, \d x',
\end{equation} \label{eqn:nonlocal-constitutive-general}
\sigma(x) = \int_a^b G(x,x') \, \varepsilon(x') \, \d x',
with, for all $x,x'\in\mathbb{R}, \quad G(x,x') = G(x',x), \, G(x,x)\geq0$x,x'\in\mathbb{R}, \quad G(x,x') = G(x',x), \, G(x,x)\geq0 the kernel operator. Different operators $G$G have been proposed to model this nonlocality, see in particular~\cite{eringen1983differential}.
\begin{remark}
Such a relation could be used in a finite element software, however, as observed in data assimilation~\cite{mirouze2010representation}, such an explicit operator yields \emph{dense} stiffness matrices, which largely impedes numerical computations. Choosing a specific kernel that is the Green function of a differential operator allows for an implicit formulation that greatly reduces the computational burden~\cite{guillet2019modelling}; thanks to the sparsity of the corresponding matrices, and despite of the additional linear problem to solve at each time step.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
Such a relation could be used in a finite element software, however, as observed in data assimilation~\cite{mirouze2010representation}, such an explicit operator yields \emph{dense} stiffness matrices, which largely impedes numerical computations. Choosing a specific kernel that is the Green function of a differential operator allows for an implicit formulation that greatly reduces the computational burden~\cite{guillet2019modelling}; thanks to the sparsity of the corresponding matrices, and despite of the additional linear problem to solve at each time step.
\end{remark}
Such a relation could be used in a finite element software, however, as observed in data assimilation~\cite{mirouze2010representation}, such an explicit operator yields \emph{dense} stiffness matrices, which largely impedes numerical computations. Choosing a specific kernel that is the Green function of a differential operator allows for an implicit formulation that greatly reduces the computational burden~\cite{guillet2019modelling}; thanks to the sparsity of the corresponding matrices, and despite of the additional linear problem to solve at each time step.
In the current 1D case, we consider the relation:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:non-local-explicit}
\sigma(x) = \int_a^b \frac{1}{2\ell}\exp\left({-\frac{|x - x'|}{\ell}}\right) E \varepsilon(x') \, \d x' = (h*E\varepsilon)(x),
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{eqn:non-local-explicit}
\sigma(x) = \int_a^b \frac{1}{2\ell}\exp\left({-\frac{|x - x'|}{\ell}}\right) E \varepsilon(x') \, \d x' = (h*E\varepsilon)(x),
\end{equation} \label{eqn:non-local-explicit}
\sigma(x) = \int_a^b \frac{1}{2\ell}\exp\left({-\frac{|x - x'|}{\ell}}-\frac{|x - x'|}{\ell}\right) E \varepsilon(x') \, \d x' = (h*E\varepsilon)(x),
with $\ell$\ell the characteristic length of the nonlocality, and $G(x,x') := h(x-x') := \frac{1}{2\ell} \exp\left({-\frac{|x-x'|}{\ell }}\right)$G(x,x') := h(x-x') := \frac{1}{2\ell} \exp\left({-\frac{|x-x'|}{\ell }}-\frac{|x-x'|}{\ell }\right). Then, $h$h is the Green function of~\cite{naylor1982linear}
$ \Id - \ell^2\partial^2_{x^2}$ \Id - \ell^2\partial^2_{x^2}x^2. More precisely, following~\cite{romano2017nonlocal}, it holds:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:nonlocal-explicit-to-implicit}
For all $\varepsilon \in L^2(\Omega)$ and $ \ell,E \in \mathbb{R}$, such that $\ell>,E >0$, there exists a unique $\sigma \in H^2(\Omega)$ such that:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:non-local-implicit}
(\Id- \ell^2 \, \partial^2_{x^2}) \sigma = E \varepsilon,
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma(a) - \ell \, \partial_x \sigma(a) = 0, \\
\sigma(b) + \ell \, \partial_x \sigma(b) = 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the solution $\sigma$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:non-local-explicit}.
\end{theorem}\begin{theorem} \label{thm:nonlocal-explicit-to-implicit}
For all $\varepsilon \in L^2(\Omega)$ and $ \ell,E \in \mathbb{R}$, such that $\ell>,E >0$, there exists a unique $\sigma \in H^2(\Omega)$ such that:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:non-local-implicit}
(\Id- \ell^2 \, \partial^2_{x^2}) \sigma = E \varepsilon,
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma(a) - \ell \, \partial_x \sigma(a) = 0, \\
\sigma(b) + \ell \, \partial_x \sigma(b) = 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the solution $\sigma$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:non-local-explicit}.
\end{theorem} \label{thm:nonlocal-explicit-to-implicit}
For all $\varepsilon \in L^2(\Omega)$\varepsilon \in L^2(\Omega) and $ \ell,E \in \mathbb{R}$ \ell,E \in \mathbb{R}, such that $\ell>,E >0$\ell>,E >0, there exists a unique $\sigma \in H^2(\Omega)$\sigma \in H^2(\Omega) such that:
\label{eqn:non-local-implicit}
(\Id- \ell^2 \, \partial^2_{x^2}x^2) \sigma = E \varepsilon,
and,
\label{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}
\sigma(a) - \ell \, \partial_x \sigma(a) = 0, \\
\sigma(b) + \ell \, \partial_x \sigma(b) = 0.
Moreover, the solution $\sigma$\sigma satisfies \eqref{eqn:non-local-explicit}.
\begin{remark}
As observed in \cite{romano2017nonlocal}, the Robin boundary conditions \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} are prescribed by the integral constitutive relations \eqref{eqn:non-local-explicit}. Hence, in addition to its computational efficiency, \eqref{eqn:non-local-implicit} also allows for assigning different boundary conditions.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
As observed in \cite{romano2017nonlocal}, the Robin boundary conditions \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} are prescribed by the integral constitutive relations \eqref{eqn:non-local-explicit}. Hence, in addition to its computational efficiency, \eqref{eqn:non-local-implicit} also allows for assigning different boundary conditions.
\end{remark}
As observed in \cite{romano2017nonlocal}, the Robin boundary conditions \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} are prescribed by the integral constitutive relations \eqref{eqn:non-local-explicit}. Hence, in addition to its computational efficiency, \eqref{eqn:non-local-implicit} also allows for assigning different boundary conditions.
\subsubsection{Implicit nanorod equation}
Gathering the previous results leads to the following nanorod equation:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit}
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
&\partial_t\begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\
p
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-dirac}\\
&\begin{bmatrix}
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\
v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\ p
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-lagrange}\\
&\text{with the Robin boundary conditions: \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}.} \notag
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations}\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit}
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
&\partial_t\begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\
p
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-dirac}\\
&\begin{bmatrix}
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\
v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\ p
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-lagrange}\\
&\text{with the Robin boundary conditions: \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}.} \notag
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit}
[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}align
&\partial_t
\varepsilon \\
p
=
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\sigma \\ v
, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-dirac}\\
&
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}x^2^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
\sigma \\
v
=
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
\varepsilon \\ p
, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-lagrange}\\
&\text{with the Robin boundary conditions: \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}.} \notag
Notably, \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-dirac} defines the Stokes-Dirac structure and \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-lagrange} defines the Stokes-Lagrange structure of the system, see, e.g.,~\cite{maschke2023linear}. Moreover, denoting the Lagrange structure operators by $P := \begin{bmatrix}
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
\end{bmatrix} $P :=
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}x^2^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
and $ S := \begin{bmatrix}
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
\end{bmatrix},$ S :=
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
, we have formally on $C^\infty_0([a,b],\mathbb{R})$C^\infty_0([a,b],\mathbb{R}), $P^*S=S^*P.$P^*S=S^*P.
Let us now follow~\cite{maschke2023linear} in order to find a Hamiltonian for~\eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit}.
Let us define the latent state variable as $ \lambda := \frac{1}{E}\sigma$ \lambda := \frac{1}{E}\sigma, one can rewrite \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit} as:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent}
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
&\partial_t\begin{bmatrix}
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\
p
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent:DIRAC}\\
&\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\
v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ p
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent:LAGRANGE} \\
&\text{with the Robin boundary conditions: \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}.}
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations}\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent}
\begin{empheq}[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}
&\partial_t\begin{bmatrix}
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\
p
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent:DIRAC}\\
&\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\
v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda \\ p
\end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent:LAGRANGE} \\
&\text{with the Robin boundary conditions: \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}.}
\end{empheq}
\end{subequations} \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent}
[left=\empheqlbrace]{align}align
&\partial_t
(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}x^2^2) & 0\\
0 & \Id
\lambda \\
p
=
0 & \partial_x \\
\partial_x & 0
\sigma \\ v
, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent:DIRAC}\\
&
\sigma \\
v
=
E & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\rho}
\lambda \\ p
, \label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent:LAGRANGE} \\
&\text{with the Robin boundary conditions: \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}.}
Both \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit} and \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} are a representation of the nonlocal nanorod equation. Nevertheless, the latter enables the computation of an explicit Hamiltonian that can be evaluated at each timestep, as shown in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-hamiltonian-definition}
A possible Hamiltonian for the nonlocal nanorod equation \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} which satisfies a power balance, given arbitrary boundary conditions for $\sigma$, reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:hamiltonian-nonlocal-nanorod}
H(\lambda,p) := \frac{1}{2}\int_a^b E\, (\lambda^2 + \ell^2 \, (\partial_x \lambda)^2) + \frac{1}{\rho}p^2 \, \, \d x .
\end{equation}
The power balance of~\eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} then reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\lambda, p) = [ \sigma \, v ]_a^b + [ \partial_t \lambda \, \, E \ell^2 \, \partial_x \lambda ]_a^b\,,
\end{equation}
and with the Robin boundary conditions it becomes:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nanorod-power-balance-with-robin-boundary-conditions}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\lambda, p) = -\ell \left[ \frac{1}{\rho} \left(\partial_t p(a)\, p(a) + \partial_t p(b) \, p(b) \right) + E\, \left( \partial_t \lambda(a)\lambda(a) + \partial_t \lambda(b) \lambda(b)\right) \right].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-hamiltonian-definition}
A possible Hamiltonian for the nonlocal nanorod equation \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} which satisfies a power balance, given arbitrary boundary conditions for $\sigma$, reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:hamiltonian-nonlocal-nanorod}
H(\lambda,p) := \frac{1}{2}\int_a^b E\, (\lambda^2 + \ell^2 \, (\partial_x \lambda)^2) + \frac{1}{\rho}p^2 \, \, \d x .
\end{equation}
The power balance of~\eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} then reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\lambda, p) = [ \sigma \, v ]_a^b + [ \partial_t \lambda \, \, E \ell^2 \, \partial_x \lambda ]_a^b\,,
\end{equation}
and with the Robin boundary conditions it becomes:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nanorod-power-balance-with-robin-boundary-conditions}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\lambda, p) = -\ell \left[ \frac{1}{\rho} \left(\partial_t p(a)\, p(a) + \partial_t p(b) \, p(b) \right) + E\, \left( \partial_t \lambda(a)\lambda(a) + \partial_t \lambda(b) \lambda(b)\right) \right].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-hamiltonian-definition}
A possible Hamiltonian for the nonlocal nanorod equation \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} which satisfies a power balance, given arbitrary boundary conditions for $\sigma$\sigma, reads:
\label{eqn:hamiltonian-nonlocal-nanorod}
H(\lambda,p) := \frac{1}{2}\int_a^b E\, (\lambda^2 + \ell^2 \, (\partial_x \lambda)^2) + \frac{1}{\rho}p^2 \, \, \d x .
The power balance of~\eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} then reads:
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\lambda, p) = [ \sigma \, v ]_a^b + [ \partial_t \lambda \, \, E \ell^2 \, \partial_x \lambda ]_a^b\,,
and with the Robin boundary conditions it becomes:
\label{eqn:nanorod-power-balance-with-robin-boundary-conditions}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\lambda, p) = -\ell \left[ \frac{1}{\rho} \left(\partial_t p(a)\, p(a) + \partial_t p(b) \, p(b) \right) + E\, \left( \partial_t \lambda(a)\lambda(a) + \partial_t \lambda(b) \lambda(b)\right) \right].
\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-hamiltonian-definition}
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-hamiltonian-definition}
\end{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-hamiltonian-definition}
In particular, the system may be considered {\em conservative}\em conservative if one defines the appropriate Hamiltonian:
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-hamiltonian-robin-definition}
The conservative Hamiltonian of the nonlocal nanorod equation reads:
$$ H_{\text{Rob}}(\lambda,p) := H(\lambda,p) + \frac{\ell}{2} \left( \frac{1}{\rho} (p(b)^2 + p(a)^2) + E(\lambda(b)^2 + \lambda(a)^2) \right).$$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-hamiltonian-robin-definition}
The conservative Hamiltonian of the nonlocal nanorod equation reads:
$$ H_{\text{Rob}}(\lambda,p) := H(\lambda,p) + \frac{\ell}{2} \left( \frac{1}{\rho} (p(b)^2 + p(a)^2) + E(\lambda(b)^2 + \lambda(a)^2) \right).$$
\end{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-hamiltonian-robin-definition}
The conservative Hamiltonian of the nonlocal nanorod equation reads:
$$ H_{\text{Rob}}(\lambda,p) := H(\lambda,p) + \frac{\ell}{2} \left( \frac{1}{\rho} (p(b)^2 + p(a)^2) + E(\lambda(b)^2 + \lambda(a)^2) \right).$$ H_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob}(\lambda,p) := H(\lambda,p) + \frac{\ell}{2} \left( \frac{1}{\rho} (p(b)^2 + p(a)^2) + E(\lambda(b)^2 + \lambda(a)^2) \right).
\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-hamiltonian-robin-definition}.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-hamiltonian-robin-definition}.
\end{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-hamiltonian-robin-definition}.
\begin{remark}
At first glance, one could think that the boundary condition~\eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} is only taken into account in the constitutive relation. However, this result shows that it also affects the power control port of the Dirac structure.
Moreover, one could have predicted the Hamiltonian $H$ to be modified into $H_{\text{Rob}}$ by adding an additional term that depends on $\lambda$ only, here a somewhat unexpected term that depends on $p$ is proven to be present. Such results highlight the fact that~\eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} affects both $\lambda$ and $p$ variables and ``adds'' energy at the boundary.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
At first glance, one could think that the boundary condition~\eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} is only taken into account in the constitutive relation. However, this result shows that it also affects the power control port of the Dirac structure.
Moreover, one could have predicted the Hamiltonian $H$ to be modified into $H_{\text{Rob}}$ by adding an additional term that depends on $\lambda$ only, here a somewhat unexpected term that depends on $p$ is proven to be present. Such results highlight the fact that~\eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} affects both $\lambda$ and $p$ variables and ``adds'' energy at the boundary.
\end{remark}
At first glance, one could think that the boundary condition~\eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} is only taken into account in the constitutive relation. However, this result shows that it also affects the power control port of the Dirac structure.
Moreover, one could have predicted the Hamiltonian $H$H to be modified into $H_{\text{Rob}}$H_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob} by adding an additional term that depends on $\lambda$\lambda only, here a somewhat unexpected term that depends on $p$p is proven to be present. Such results highlight the fact that~\eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} affects both $\lambda$\lambda and $p$p variables and ``adds'' energy at the boundary.
Lastly, one can write the \emph{co-state formulation} of \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-latent} in order to remove the algebraic constraint due to the constitutive relations. Replacing $\lambda$\lambda and $p$p by $\sigma$\sigma and $v$v yields:
\begin{empheq}[]{align}
\label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-coenergy}
&\partial_t\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{E}(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}^2) & 0\\
0 & \rho
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\
v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x\\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix},
\end{empheq}\begin{empheq}[]{align}
\label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-coenergy}
&\partial_t\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{E}(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}^2) & 0\\
0 & \rho
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\
v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_x\\
\partial_x & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix},
\end{empheq}[]{align}align
\label{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-coenergy}
&\partial_t
\frac{1}{E}(\Id - \ell^2 \, \partial_{x^2}x^2^2) & 0\\
0 & \rho
\sigma \\
v
=
0 & \partial_x\\
\partial_x & 0
\sigma \\ v
,
with the boundary conditions \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions}. Such a formulation reduces the number of variables required at the discrete level, accelerating the numerical simulations while lowering the memory usage of the system.
\subsection{Implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam}
\label{sec:EBbeam}
We focus now on the vibrations of a thin beam. However, it is well-known that the Euler-Bernoulli equation for this model is neither nonlocal nor implicit, see e.g.~\cite{ducceschi2019conservative,brugnoli2019portII}. Nevertheless, we recall that this is a matter of simplification in the limit of low wavenumbers, and that the \emph{shear} model obtained by neglecting the inertia of cross section in the Timoshenko model is indeed implicit, as mentioned in~\cite[Eq.~(13)]{ducceschi2019conservative}. It can also be derived in a more direct manner, as done now.
\subsubsection{Modelling}
Let us restart from the beginning, following~\cite[Chapter~2]{lagnese1989boundary} to derive the model. Assume that the strain is proportional to the displacement, and that the linear filaments of the beam initially perpendicular to the middle line remain straight and perpendicular to the deformed middle line and undeformable: neither contraction nor extension (transverse shear effects are neglected).
Remark that the second assumption imposes a nonlinear relationship between the displacement $U(x,z,t)$U(x,z,t), the displacement at a time $t$t of the particle which, when the beam is at equilibrium, occupies the position $(x,z)$(x,z), and $u(x,t)$u(x,t), the displacement at a time $t$t occupying the position $(x,0)$(x,0) at equilibrium. If this relation is linearized, we obtain:
$
U = u - z \partial_x u_z.
$
U = u - z \partial_x u_z.
Denoting $w:=u_z$w:=u_z, the \emph{strain energy} $\mathcal{P}$\mathcal{P} of the beam is defined by:
$$
\mathcal{P}(w):=\frac{D}{2} \int_a^b \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}w \right)^2,
$$
\mathcal{P}(w):=\frac{D}{2} \int_a^b \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}w \right)^2,
where $L:=b-a$L:=b-a is the length of the beam and $D := E \frac{h^3}{12(1-\nu^2)}$D := E \frac{h^3}{12(1-\nu^2)} is the modulus of flexural rigidity, with $E$E the Young's modulus, $\nu$\nu the Poisson's ratio ($0<\nu<\frac{1}{2}$0<\nu<\frac{1}{2} in physical situations), and $h$h the cross-sectional area ($h:=\pi r^2$h:=\pi r^2 for cylindric beam of radius $r$r). To include a tension $T_0$T_0 as done in~\cite[Eq.~(10)]{bendimerad2024implicit}, and model pre-stressed beams, it requires adding more potential energy terms, following~\cite[Eq.~(2)]{ducceschi2019conservative}. As this is not the purpose of this work, we restrict ourselves to the simpler models without tension.
The kinetic energy reads:
$$ \mathcal{K}(w) = \frac{1}{2} \rho h\int_a^b \underbrace{\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} w \right)^2}_{\text{streching part}} + \underbrace{\frac{h^2}{12} \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left (\frac{\partial}{\partial x}w \right ) \right )^2}_{\text{bending part}} \, \d x. $$ \mathcal{K}(w) = \frac{1}{2} \rho h\int_a^b \underbrace{\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} w \right)^2}_{\text{streching part}}\text{streching part} + \underbrace{\frac{h^2}{12} \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left (\frac{\partial}{\partial x}w \right ) \right )^2}_{\text{bending part}}\text{bending part} \, \d x.
\paragraph{Principle of virtual work}Principle of virtual work The equations of motion for $w = u_z$w = u_z are obtained by setting to zero the first variation of the Lagrangian:
$$ \mathcal{L} = \int_0^T \mathcal{K} + \mathcal{W} - \mathcal{P} \, \d t, $$ \mathcal{L} = \int_0^T \mathcal{K} + \mathcal{W} - \mathcal{P} \, \d t,
where $\mathcal{W}$\mathcal{W} is the work done on the beam by external forces that contributes to the bending.
\begin{lemma}
Under the previously listed assumption, the equation of motion for the Euler-Bernoulli beam reads:
$$ \rho h \left(1- \frac{h^2}{12} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\right) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} w + D \frac{\partial^4}{\partial x^4} w = 0. $$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
Under the previously listed assumption, the equation of motion for the Euler-Bernoulli beam reads:
$$ \rho h \left(1- \frac{h^2}{12} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\right) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} w + D \frac{\partial^4}{\partial x^4} w = 0. $$
\end{lemma}
Under the previously listed assumption, the equation of motion for the Euler-Bernoulli beam reads:
$$ \rho h \left(1- \frac{h^2}{12} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\right) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} w + D \frac{\partial^4}{\partial x^4} w = 0. $$ \rho h \left(1- \frac{h^2}{12} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\right) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} w + D \frac{\partial^4}{\partial x^4} w = 0.
\subsubsection{Port-Hamiltonian representation}
Let us now recast the implicit Euler-Bernoulli model as a pH system.
\begin{lemma}
Denoting by $\varepsilon = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}w$, the second spatial derivative of the displacement, $ p = \rho h (1- \frac{h^2}{12}) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} w$, the linear momentum, $v = \partial_t w$ the velocity, and $\sigma = D \varepsilon$ the stress, the implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam model written as a pH system reads:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\p
\end{pmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_{x^2}^2 \\ - \partial_{x^2}^2 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\v
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\Id & 0 \\
0 & \rho h (1-\frac{h^2}{12}\partial_{x^2}^2)
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}& = \begin{bmatrix}
D & 0 \\
0 & \Id
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\ p
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Moreover, the co-energy formulation is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beam-co-energy}
\begin{bmatrix}
D^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & \rho h (1 - \frac{h^2}{12} \partial_{x^2}^2)
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \sigma \\ \partial_t v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_{x^2}^2 \\
- \partial_{x^2}^2 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
Denoting by $\varepsilon = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}w$, the second spatial derivative of the displacement, $ p = \rho h (1- \frac{h^2}{12}) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} w$, the linear momentum, $v = \partial_t w$ the velocity, and $\sigma = D \varepsilon$ the stress, the implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam model written as a pH system reads:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\p
\end{pmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_{x^2}^2 \\ - \partial_{x^2}^2 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\v
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\Id & 0 \\
0 & \rho h (1-\frac{h^2}{12}\partial_{x^2}^2)
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}& = \begin{bmatrix}
D & 0 \\
0 & \Id
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon \\ p
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Moreover, the co-energy formulation is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beam-co-energy}
\begin{bmatrix}
D^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & \rho h (1 - \frac{h^2}{12} \partial_{x^2}^2)
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \sigma \\ \partial_t v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \partial_{x^2}^2 \\
- \partial_{x^2}^2 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma \\ v
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Denoting by $\varepsilon = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}w$\varepsilon = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}w, the second spatial derivative of the displacement, $ p = \rho h (1- \frac{h^2}{12}) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} w$ p = \rho h (1- \frac{h^2}{12}) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} w, the linear momentum, $v = \partial_t w$v = \partial_t w the velocity, and $\sigma = D \varepsilon$\sigma = D \varepsilon the stress, the implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam model written as a pH system reads:
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\varepsilon \\p
&=
0 & \partial_{x^2}x^2^2 \\ - \partial_{x^2}x^2^2 & 0
\sigma \\v
,\\
\Id & 0 \\
0 & \rho h (1-\frac{h^2}{12}\partial_{x^2}x^2^2)
\sigma \\ v
& =
D & 0 \\
0 & \Id
\varepsilon \\ p
.
Moreover, the co-energy formulation is:
\label{eq:beam-co-energy}
D^{-1}-1 & 0 \\
0 & \rho h (1 - \frac{h^2}{12} \partial_{x^2}x^2^2)
\partial_t \sigma \\ \partial_t v
=
0 & \partial_{x^2}x^2^2 \\
- \partial_{x^2}x^2^2 & 0
\sigma \\ v
.
Finally, let us write the Hamiltonian along with the power balance and boundary ports:
\begin{lemma}
A Hamiltonian for the Euler-Bernoulli beam is made of the sum of the kinetic and potential energy $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{P}$ written as functional of the state variables:\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beam-Hamiltonian-def}
H(\sigma,v) = \frac{1}{2}\int_a^b \rho h\left( v^2 + \frac{h^2}{12}\left( \frac{\partial}{ \partial x } v\right)^2 \right) + D^{-1} \, \sigma^2 \, \d x,
\end{equation}
moreover, the power balance of the system is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beam-Hamiltonian}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\sigma,v) = \left[ \rho h \, v \, \, \frac{h^2}{12} \, \partial_t \partial_x v \right]_a^b\, + [\sigma \, \partial_x v]_a^b - [v \, \partial_x \sigma]_a^b.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
A Hamiltonian for the Euler-Bernoulli beam is made of the sum of the kinetic and potential energy $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{P}$ written as functional of the state variables:\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beam-Hamiltonian-def}
H(\sigma,v) = \frac{1}{2}\int_a^b \rho h\left( v^2 + \frac{h^2}{12}\left( \frac{\partial}{ \partial x } v\right)^2 \right) + D^{-1} \, \sigma^2 \, \d x,
\end{equation}
moreover, the power balance of the system is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beam-Hamiltonian}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\sigma,v) = \left[ \rho h \, v \, \, \frac{h^2}{12} \, \partial_t \partial_x v \right]_a^b\, + [\sigma \, \partial_x v]_a^b - [v \, \partial_x \sigma]_a^b.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
A Hamiltonian for the Euler-Bernoulli beam is made of the sum of the kinetic and potential energy $\mathcal{K}$\mathcal{K} and $\mathcal{P}$\mathcal{P} written as functional of the state variables:
\label{eq:beam-Hamiltonian-def}
H(\sigma,v) = \frac{1}{2}\int_a^b \rho h\left( v^2 + \frac{h^2}{12}\left( \frac{\partial}{ \partial x } v\right)^2 \right) + D^{-1}-1 \, \sigma^2 \, \d x,
moreover, the power balance of the system is:
\label{eq:beam-Hamiltonian}
\frac{\d}{\d t} H(\sigma,v) = \left[ \rho h \, v \, \, \frac{h^2}{12} \, \partial_t \partial_x v \right]_a^b\, + [\sigma \, \partial_x v]_a^b - [v \, \partial_x \sigma]_a^b.
From this lemma, one can identify power and energy ports, e.g., as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beam-observation}
\begin{array}{c}
(u_L,y_L) = \left( \begin{pmatrix}
v(a) \\ v(b)
\end{pmatrix},
\frac{\rho h^3}{12} \, \begin{pmatrix}
- \partial_x v(a) \\ \partial_x v(b)
\end{pmatrix}
\right)
, \\
(u^1_D,y^1_D) := \left(\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma(a) \\ \sigma(b)
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
- \partial_x v(a) \\ \partial_x v(b)
\end{pmatrix} \right).
(u^2_D,y^2_D) := \left(\begin{pmatrix}
v(a) \\ v(b)
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_x \sigma(a) \\ - \partial_x \sigma(b)
\end{pmatrix} \right).
\end{array}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eq:beam-observation}
\begin{array}{c}
(u_L,y_L) = \left( \begin{pmatrix}
v(a) \\ v(b)
\end{pmatrix},
\frac{\rho h^3}{12} \, \begin{pmatrix}
- \partial_x v(a) \\ \partial_x v(b)
\end{pmatrix}
\right)
, \\
(u^1_D,y^1_D) := \left(\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma(a) \\ \sigma(b)
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
- \partial_x v(a) \\ \partial_x v(b)
\end{pmatrix} \right).
(u^2_D,y^2_D) := \left(\begin{pmatrix}
v(a) \\ v(b)
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_x \sigma(a) \\ - \partial_x \sigma(b)
\end{pmatrix} \right).
\end{array}
\end{equation}\label{eq:beam-observation}
(u_L,y_L) = \left(
v(a) \\ v(b)
,
\frac{\rho h^3}{12} \,
- \partial_x v(a) \\ \partial_x v(b)
\right)
, \\
(u^1_D,y^1_D) := \left(
\sigma(a) \\ \sigma(b)
,
- \partial_x v(a) \\ \partial_x v(b)
\right).
(u^2_D,y^2_D) := \left(
v(a) \\ v(b)
,
\partial_x \sigma(a) \\ - \partial_x \sigma(b)
\right).
which correspond to the classical simply supported boundary conditions (when controls are set to zero). Other types of boundary conditions could be considered, leading to some kind of Robin boundary conditions, as for the nanorod case, see~\cite[Table~II]{BilbaoJASA2016}.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:phase-velocity}
This model was studied previously in, e.g.,~ \cite{BilbaoJASA2016,ducceschi2019conservative} (with a tension $T_0 \neq 0$). It was demonstrated that the behavior of the phase velocity and group velocity is closer to the Timoshenko beam than the classical Euler-Bernoulli beam model. Additionally, due to the non-trivial P operator, and considering a solution given as a monochromatic wave, $e^{i(kx-\omega t)}$, the phase velocity $\frac{\omega}{k} = {k \sqrt{D}}/\sqrt{\rho h(1 + (h^2/12) \,k^2)} $ remains bounded at high frequency, which is not the case for the classical Euler-Bernoulli beam model. These properties advocate for the use of this model, especially for medium-sized beams.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}\label{rem:phase-velocity}
This model was studied previously in, e.g.,~ \cite{BilbaoJASA2016,ducceschi2019conservative} (with a tension $T_0 \neq 0$). It was demonstrated that the behavior of the phase velocity and group velocity is closer to the Timoshenko beam than the classical Euler-Bernoulli beam model. Additionally, due to the non-trivial P operator, and considering a solution given as a monochromatic wave, $e^{i(kx-\omega t)}$, the phase velocity $\frac{\omega}{k} = {k \sqrt{D}}/\sqrt{\rho h(1 + (h^2/12) \,k^2)} $ remains bounded at high frequency, which is not the case for the classical Euler-Bernoulli beam model. These properties advocate for the use of this model, especially for medium-sized beams.
\end{remark}\label{rem:phase-velocity}
This model was studied previously in, e.g.,~ \cite{BilbaoJASA2016,ducceschi2019conservative} (with a tension $T_0 \neq 0$T_0 \neq 0). It was demonstrated that the behavior of the phase velocity and group velocity is closer to the Timoshenko beam than the classical Euler-Bernoulli beam model. Additionally, due to the non-trivial P operator, and considering a solution given as a monochromatic wave, $e^{i(kx-\omega t)}$e^{i(kx-\omega t)}i(kx-\omega t), the phase velocity $\frac{\omega}{k} = {k \sqrt{D}}/\sqrt{\rho h(1 + (h^2/12) \,k^2)} $\frac{\omega}{k} = {k \sqrt{D}}k \sqrt{D}/\sqrt{\rho h(1 + (h^2/12) \,k^2)} remains bounded at high frequency, which is not the case for the classical Euler-Bernoulli beam model. These properties advocate for the use of this model, especially for medium-sized beams.
\subsection{Incompressible Navier-Stokes equation}
\label{sec:incompressibleNSE}
\subsubsection{Port-Hamiltonian representation}
Let us now study a nonlinear model: the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations written in port-Hamiltonian formulation with vorticity and stream function as state variables. Let us consider a 2D or 3D domain $\Omega$\Omega and recall the homogeneous incompressible Navier-Stokes equations \cite[Chap.~1]{boyer2012mathematical}:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes} \left\{
\begin{aligned}
\rho_0(\partial_t + \bm{u}\cdot \grad)\bm{u} & = - \grad(p) + \mu\bm{\Delta u}, \\
\diver(u) &= 0
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes} \left\{
\begin{aligned}
\rho_0(\partial_t + \bm{u}\cdot \grad)\bm{u} & = - \grad(p) + \mu\bm{\Delta u}, \\
\diver(u) &= 0
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes} \left\{
\rho_0(\partial_t + \bm{u}u\cdot \grad)\bm{u}u & = - \grad(p) + \mu\bm{\Delta u}\Delta u, \\
\diver(u) &= 0
\right.
With $\bm{u}$\bm{u}u the fluid velocity, $\rho$\rho the fluid density, $p$p the pressure, and $\mu$\mu the viscosity.
\iffalse
Following \cite{haine2021incompressible}, a Hamiltonian of \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes} is the total energy:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes-ham}
H = \int_{\Omega} \frac{\rho}{2} |\bm{u}|^2 + \rho e(\rho) \, \d x,
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes-ham}
H = \int_{\Omega} \frac{\rho}{2} |\bm{u}|^2 + \rho e(\rho) \, \d x,
\end{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes-ham}
H = \int_{\Omega}\Omega \frac{\rho}{2} |\bm{u}u|^2 + \rho e(\rho) \, \d x,
with $e$e the internal energy density. Now choosing the state variables as $( \bm{u}, \rho)$( \bm{u}u, \rho) let us compute the co-state variables. As in \cite{haine2021incompressible}, the computation of $\bm{u}$\bm{u}u is carried out using the weighted space $L^2_\rho$L^2_\rho. One gets: $\delta_{\bm{u}}^\rho H = \bm{u}$\delta_{\bm{u}}\bm{u}u^\rho H = \bm{u}u and $\delta_\rho H = |\bm{u}|^2 + \frac{P}{\rho}$\delta_\rho H = |\bm{u}u|^2 + \frac{P}{\rho}; allowing us to write the port-Hamiltonian formulation of the Navier-Stokes equations as:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes-port-hamiltonian}
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \rho\\
\rho \, \partial_t \bm{u} \\
\bm{f}_c \\
f_d
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & - \diver(\rho \cdot) & 0 &0\\
- \rho \grad & -G(\bm{\omega}) & - \curl &\grad \\
0 & \curl & 0 & 0\\
0 & \diver & 0& 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
e_\rho \\
\bm{e_{u}} \\
\bm{e}_c \\
e_d
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes-port-hamiltonian}
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \rho\\
\rho \, \partial_t \bm{u} \\
\bm{f}_c \\
f_d
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & - \diver(\rho \cdot) & 0 &0\\
- \rho \grad & -G(\bm{\omega}) & - \curl &\grad \\
0 & \curl & 0 & 0\\
0 & \diver & 0& 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
e_\rho \\
\bm{e_{u}} \\
\bm{e}_c \\
e_d
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}\label{eqn:navier-stokes-port-hamiltonian}
\partial_t \rho\\
\rho \, \partial_t \bm{u}u \\
\bm{f}f_c \\
f_d
=
0 & - \diver(\rho \cdot) & 0 &0\\
- \rho \grad & -G(\bm{\omega}\omega) & - \curl &\grad \\
0 & \curl & 0 & 0\\
0 & \diver & 0& 0
e_\rho \\
\bm{e_{u}}e_{u}u \\
\bm{e}e_c \\
e_d
,
with $\omega = \curl(\bm{u})$\omega = \curl(\bm{u}u) and $G(\bm{\omega}) = \omega \wedge\cdot $G(\bm{\omega}\omega) = \omega \wedge\cdot .
\begin{remark}
The first pH formulation of the Navier-Stokes equation presented in \cite{haine2021incompressible} uses $\rho^{-1}$ which is not ideal for numerical reasons. This issue is solved by working in the weighted $L^2_\rho$ space, which removes the $\rho^{-1}$ terms and makes a $\rho$ appear in front of $\bm{u}$ on the second line of \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-port-hamiltonian}.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
The first pH formulation of the Navier-Stokes equation presented in \cite{haine2021incompressible} uses $\rho^{-1}$ which is not ideal for numerical reasons. This issue is solved by working in the weighted $L^2_\rho$ space, which removes the $\rho^{-1}$ terms and makes a $\rho$ appear in front of $\bm{u}$ on the second line of \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-port-hamiltonian}.
\end{remark}
The first pH formulation of the Navier-Stokes equation presented in \cite{haine2021incompressible} uses $\rho^{-1}$\rho^{-1}-1 which is not ideal for numerical reasons. This issue is solved by working in the weighted $L^2_\rho$L^2_\rho space, which removes the $\rho^{-1}$\rho^{-1}-1 terms and makes a $\rho$\rho appear in front of $\bm{u}$\bm{u}u on the second line of \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-port-hamiltonian}.
Now let us add the incompressibility hypothesis, namely \cite{boyer2012mathematical}:
\begin{equation}
\diver(\bm{u}) = 0.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\diver(\bm{u}) = 0.
\end{equation}
\diver(\bm{u}u) = 0.
\fi
Using classical vector calculus identities, this can be recast as:
\begin{equation*}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \bm u = - \grad( p + \frac{\rho_0}{2}|\bm u|^2) - \rho_0 \,\curl(\bm u) \times \bm u + \mu \Delta \bm u.
\end{equation*}\begin{equation*}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \bm u = - \grad( p + \frac{\rho_0}{2}|\bm u|^2) - \rho_0 \,\curl(\bm u) \times \bm u + \mu \Delta \bm u.
\end{equation*}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \bm u = - \grad( p + \frac{\rho_0}{2}|\bm u|^2) - \rho_0 \,\curl(\bm u) \times \bm u + \mu \Delta \bm u.
Now, taking the $\curl$\curl of the previous equation and defining the vorticity $\bm \omega := \curl(\bm u)$\bm \omega := \curl(\bm u) yields the equation of vorticity:
$
\rho_0 \, \partial_t \bm \omega = - \rho_0 \,\curl( \bm\omega \times \bm u) + \mu \Delta \bm \omega.
$
\rho_0 \, \partial_t \bm \omega = - \rho_0 \,\curl( \bm\omega \times \bm u) + \mu \Delta \bm \omega.
Let us now restrict ourselves to a simply connected 2D domain, with $\bm u = \begin{pmatrix}
\bm u_x & \bm u_y
\end{pmatrix}^\top$\bm u =
\bm u_x & \bm u_y
^\top and $\omega = \bm \omega_z $\omega = \bm \omega_z and define the reduced~\cite[Chap. 9]{assous2018mathematical} operators $\grad^\perp = \begin{bmatrix}
\partial_y \\ -\partial_x
\end{bmatrix}$\grad^\perp =
\partial_y \\ -\partial_x
and $\curldeuxD = \begin{bmatrix}
- \partial_y & \partial_x
\end{bmatrix}$\curldeuxD =
- \partial_y & \partial_x
.
\begin{remark} \label{rmk:reduced-complex}
In 3D, the operators $\grad$, $\curl$ and $\diver$ define a de Rham complex over $k$-forms as detailed in \cite{arnold2018finite}. In 2D, this leads us to a reduced complex, see Figure \ref{fig:reduced-complex}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (A) at (-4,0) {$\Lambda^0(\Omega)$};
\node (B) at (0,0) {$\Lambda^1(\Omega)$};
\node (C) at (4,0) {$\Lambda^2(\Omega)$};
\draw[,->] (-3,0.2) -- (-1,0.2);
\draw[,<-] (-3,-0.2) -- (-1,-0.2);
\draw[,->] (1,0.2) -- (3,0.2);
\draw[,<-] (1,-0.2) -- (3,-0.2);
\draw (-2,0.2) node[above] {$\grad$};
\draw (2,0.2) node[above] {$\curldeuxD$};
\draw (-2,-0.2) node[below] {$-\diver$};
\draw (2,-0.2) node[below] {$\grad^\perp$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Reduced complex of the Navier-Stokes equation on a 2D domain, with $\Lambda^k(\Omega)$ denoting the space of $k$-forms over $\Omega$. } \label{fig:reduced-complex}
\end{figure}
In particular, $\curldeuxD \grad = 0$, $\diver \grad^\perp = 0$, moreover, $-\diver$ is the formal adjoint of $\grad$ and $\grad^\perp$ is the formal adjoint of $\curldeuxD$.
\end{remark}\begin{remark} \label{rmk:reduced-complex}
In 3D, the operators $\grad$, $\curl$ and $\diver$ define a de Rham complex over $k$-forms as detailed in \cite{arnold2018finite}. In 2D, this leads us to a reduced complex, see Figure \ref{fig:reduced-complex}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (A) at (-4,0) {$\Lambda^0(\Omega)$};
\node (B) at (0,0) {$\Lambda^1(\Omega)$};
\node (C) at (4,0) {$\Lambda^2(\Omega)$};
\draw[,->] (-3,0.2) -- (-1,0.2);
\draw[,<-] (-3,-0.2) -- (-1,-0.2);
\draw[,->] (1,0.2) -- (3,0.2);
\draw[,<-] (1,-0.2) -- (3,-0.2);
\draw (-2,0.2) node[above] {$\grad$};
\draw (2,0.2) node[above] {$\curldeuxD$};
\draw (-2,-0.2) node[below] {$-\diver$};
\draw (2,-0.2) node[below] {$\grad^\perp$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Reduced complex of the Navier-Stokes equation on a 2D domain, with $\Lambda^k(\Omega)$ denoting the space of $k$-forms over $\Omega$. } \label{fig:reduced-complex}
\end{figure}
In particular, $\curldeuxD \grad = 0$, $\diver \grad^\perp = 0$, moreover, $-\diver$ is the formal adjoint of $\grad$ and $\grad^\perp$ is the formal adjoint of $\curldeuxD$.
\end{remark} \label{rmk:reduced-complex}
In 3D, the operators $\grad$\grad, $\curl$\curl and $\diver$\diver define a de Rham complex over $k$k-forms as detailed in \cite{arnold2018finite}. In 2D, this leads us to a reduced complex, see Figure \ref{fig:reduced-complex}.
\centering
\node (A) at (-4,0) {$\Lambda^0(\Omega)$}$\Lambda^0(\Omega)$\Lambda^0(\Omega);
\node (B) at (0,0) {$\Lambda^1(\Omega)$}$\Lambda^1(\Omega)$\Lambda^1(\Omega);
\node (C) at (4,0) {$\Lambda^2(\Omega)$}$\Lambda^2(\Omega)$\Lambda^2(\Omega);
\draw[,->] (-3,0.2) -- (-1,0.2);
\draw[,<-] (-3,-0.2) -- (-1,-0.2);
\draw[,->] (1,0.2) -- (3,0.2);
\draw[,<-] (1,-0.2) -- (3,-0.2);
\draw (-2,0.2) node[above] {$\grad$}$\grad$\grad;
\draw (2,0.2) node[above] {$\curldeuxD$}$\curldeuxD$\curldeuxD;
\draw (-2,-0.2) node[below] {$-\diver$}$-\diver$-\diver;
\draw (2,-0.2) node[below] {$\grad^\perp$}$\grad^\perp$\grad^\perp;
\caption{Reduced complex of the Navier-Stokes equation on a 2D domain, with $\Lambda^k(\Omega)$ denoting the space of $k$-forms over $\Omega$. } \label{fig:reduced-complex}
In particular, $\curldeuxD \grad = 0$\curldeuxD \grad = 0, $\diver \grad^\perp = 0$\diver \grad^\perp = 0, moreover, $-\diver$-\diver is the formal adjoint of $\grad$\grad and $\grad^\perp$\grad^\perp is the formal adjoint of $\curldeuxD$\curldeuxD.
Remark \ref{rmk:reduced-complex} along with the incompressibility assumption imply that there exists a \emph{stream function} $\psi$\psi such that $\bm{u} = \grad^\perp \psi$\bm{u}u = \grad^\perp \psi. Moreover, let us define the vorticity as: $\omega := \curldeuxD(\bm{u}).$\omega := \curldeuxD(\bm{u}u). In particular, the constitutive relations linking $\psi$\psi and $\omega$\omega reads:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:constitutive-relation-psi-omega}
- \Delta \psi = \omega,
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{eqn:constitutive-relation-psi-omega}
- \Delta \psi = \omega,
\end{equation} \label{eqn:constitutive-relation-psi-omega}
- \Delta \psi = \omega,
the proof is to be found in~\ref{apx:vector-identities}. The equation for the vorticity becomes:
\begin{equation*}
\rho_0 \, \partial_t \omega = - \rho_0 \,\curldeuxD( G(\omega) \, \grad^\perp \psi) + \mu \Delta \omega,
\end{equation*}\begin{equation*}
\rho_0 \, \partial_t \omega = - \rho_0 \,\curldeuxD( G(\omega) \, \grad^\perp \psi) + \mu \Delta \omega,
\end{equation*}
\rho_0 \, \partial_t \omega = - \rho_0 \,\curldeuxD( G(\omega) \, \grad^\perp \psi) + \mu \Delta \omega,
with $G(w) = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & - \omega \\ \omega & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$G(w) =
0 & - \omega \\ \omega & 0
.
As explained in e.g~\cite{de2019inclusion,palha2017mass,zhangmass2022,zhangmeevc2024}, in addition to the kinetic energy, the \emph{enstrophy} is also a quantity of interest in the 2D setting. Using $\psi$\psi and $\omega$\omega as state variables, they are defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(\psi) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega || \grad^\perp \psi||^2 \, \d x, \quad \mathcal{E}(\omega) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega \omega^2 \, \d x.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(\psi) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega || \grad^\perp \psi||^2 \, \d x, \quad \mathcal{E}(\omega) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega \omega^2 \, \d x.
\end{equation}
\mathcal{K}(\psi) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega || \grad^\perp \psi||^2 \, \d x, \quad \mathcal{E}(\omega) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega \omega^2 \, \d x.
Following \cite{haine2021incompressible}, let us define $J_\omega := \curl_{2D}( G(\omega) \grad^\perp(\cdot)) = \diver( \, \omega \,\grad^\perp(\cdot))$J_\omega := \curl_{2D}2D( G(\omega) \grad^\perp(\cdot)) = \diver( \, \omega \,\grad^\perp(\cdot)), and choose the stream function $\psi$\psi and vorticity $\omega$\omega as new state variables. Using the kinetic energy as the (implicit) Hamiltonian, the dynamics of $\omega$\omega yields:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \omega = - \rho_0\,\diver(\omega \, \grad^\perp( e_\mathcal{K})) + \mu \Delta \omega, \quad \text{with } \quad -\Delta e_\mathcal{K} = \omega,
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \omega = - \rho_0\,\diver(\omega \, \grad^\perp( e_\mathcal{K})) + \mu \Delta \omega, \quad \text{with } \quad -\Delta e_\mathcal{K} = \omega,
\end{equation} \label{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \omega = - \rho_0\,\diver(\omega \, \grad^\perp( e_\mathcal{K})) + \mu \Delta \omega, \quad \text{with } \quad -\Delta e_\mathcal{K} = \omega,
whereas using the enstrophy as the (explicit) Hamiltonian, the dynamics of $\omega$\omega reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \omega = - \rho_0\,\diver( e_\mathcal{E} \, \grad^\perp( \psi)) + \mu \Delta \omega, \quad \text{with }\quad e_\mathcal{E} = \omega.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \omega = - \rho_0\,\diver( e_\mathcal{E} \, \grad^\perp( \psi)) + \mu \Delta \omega, \quad \text{with }\quad e_\mathcal{E} = \omega.
\end{equation}\label{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian}
\rho_0\,\partial_t \omega = - \rho_0\,\diver( e_\mathcal{E} \, \grad^\perp( \psi)) + \mu \Delta \omega, \quad \text{with }\quad e_\mathcal{E} = \omega.
In \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian}, $\omega$\omega is the modulating variable and $\psi$\psi is the effort variable. In \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian}, $\psi$\psi is the modulating variable and $\omega$\omega is the effort variable.
Writing the dynamics of the stream function $\psi$\psi using the co-energy formulation of \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian}, and writing the dynamics of $\omega$\omega using \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian} gives us the following coupled port-Hamiltonian system:
\begin{lemma}
The incompressible Navier--Stokes equations on a 2D domain written as a pH system in vorticity~--~stream function formulation reads:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
- \rho_0\Delta & 0\\
0 & \rho_0
\end{bmatrix}}_{P} \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \psi \\
\partial_t \omega
\end{pmatrix} = \left[\underbrace{\rho_0 \, \begin{bmatrix}
-J_\omega & 0 \\
0 & -\diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \, \cdot )
\end{bmatrix}}_{=:J(\psi,\omega)} - \underbrace{\mu \begin{bmatrix}
\Delta^2 & 0 \\ 0 & - \Delta
\end{bmatrix}}_{R} \right] \begin{pmatrix}
\psi \\ \omega
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{equation}
with the Hamiltonian as the sum of the kinetic energy and enstrophy $\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega) = \mathcal{K}(\psi) + \mathcal{E}(\omega).$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
The incompressible Navier--Stokes equations on a 2D domain written as a pH system in vorticity~--~stream function formulation reads:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
- \rho_0\Delta & 0\\
0 & \rho_0
\end{bmatrix}}_{P} \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \psi \\
\partial_t \omega
\end{pmatrix} = \left[\underbrace{\rho_0 \, \begin{bmatrix}
-J_\omega & 0 \\
0 & -\diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \, \cdot )
\end{bmatrix}}_{=:J(\psi,\omega)} - \underbrace{\mu \begin{bmatrix}
\Delta^2 & 0 \\ 0 & - \Delta
\end{bmatrix}}_{R} \right] \begin{pmatrix}
\psi \\ \omega
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{equation}
with the Hamiltonian as the sum of the kinetic energy and enstrophy $\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega) = \mathcal{K}(\psi) + \mathcal{E}(\omega).$
\end{lemma}
The incompressible Navier--Stokes equations on a 2D domain written as a pH system in vorticity~--~stream function formulation reads:
\label{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
- \rho_0\Delta & 0\\
0 & \rho_0
\end{bmatrix}}_{P}P
\partial_t \psi \\
\partial_t \omega
= \left[\underbrace{\rho_0 \, \begin{bmatrix}
-J_\omega & 0 \\
0 & -\diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \, \cdot )
\end{bmatrix}}_{=:J(\psi,\omega)}=:J(\psi,\omega) - \underbrace{\mu \begin{bmatrix}
\Delta^2 & 0 \\ 0 & - \Delta
\end{bmatrix}}_{R}R \right]
\psi \\ \omega
\,,
with the Hamiltonian as the sum of the kinetic energy and enstrophy $\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega) = \mathcal{K}(\psi) + \mathcal{E}(\omega).$\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega) = \mathcal{K}(\psi) + \mathcal{E}(\omega).
\begin{remark}
Note that both \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian} and \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian} are equivalent. However, choosing different Hamiltonian allows for different Dirac structure matrices to be obtained, and will allow us to prove the conservative properties of the discretized system in the following sections.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
Note that both \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian} and \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian} are equivalent. However, choosing different Hamiltonian allows for different Dirac structure matrices to be obtained, and will allow us to prove the conservative properties of the discretized system in the following sections.
\end{remark}
Note that both \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-kinetic-hamiltonian} and \eqref{eqn:vorticity-dynamics-enstrophy-hamiltonian} are equivalent. However, choosing different Hamiltonian allows for different Dirac structure matrices to be obtained, and will allow us to prove the conservative properties of the discretized system in the following sections.
\begin{remark}
The Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega)$ is separable, and $J(\psi,\omega)$ is block diagonal. Hence, the coupling only occurs through the modulation of $J$ by each state variable, which is a quite original feature.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
The Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega)$ is separable, and $J(\psi,\omega)$ is block diagonal. Hence, the coupling only occurs through the modulation of $J$ by each state variable, which is a quite original feature.
\end{remark}
The Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega)$\mathcal{H}(\psi,\omega) is separable, and $J(\psi,\omega)$J(\psi,\omega) is block diagonal. Hence, the coupling only occurs through the modulation of $J$J by each state variable, which is a quite original feature.
Let us show that such a system is indeed port-Hamiltonian. Defining $S = I_2$S = I_2, we have that \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} reads: $ P \partial_t \begin{pmatrix}
\psi \\ \omega
\end{pmatrix} = (J(\psi,\omega) - R) \, \, S \begin{pmatrix}
\psi \\ \omega
\end{pmatrix}.$ P \partial_t
\psi \\ \omega
= (J(\psi,\omega) - R) \, \, S
\psi \\ \omega
.
From the fact that $\Delta$\Delta is formally symmetric, we deduce that $P^*S$P^*S is formally symmetric. Let us now state that $J$J is formally skew symmetric.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:navier-stokes-skew-symmetry}Let $\omega \in H^1$.
Let $\psi,\phi_1, \phi_2 \in H^2,$ then:
$$\int_\Omega \phi_1 J_\omega \phi_2 \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 J_\omega \phi_1 \, \d x + \int_{\partial\Omega} \phi \, \omega \, \bm{n}\cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s + \int_{\partial \Omega} \psi \, \omega \,\bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s .$$
$$ \int_\Omega \phi_1 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_2) \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_1) \, \d x. + \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \phi_2 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s $$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:navier-stokes-skew-symmetry}Let $\omega \in H^1$.
Let $\psi,\phi_1, \phi_2 \in H^2,$ then:
$$\int_\Omega \phi_1 J_\omega \phi_2 \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 J_\omega \phi_1 \, \d x + \int_{\partial\Omega} \phi \, \omega \, \bm{n}\cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s + \int_{\partial \Omega} \psi \, \omega \,\bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s .$$
$$ \int_\Omega \phi_1 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_2) \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_1) \, \d x. + \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \phi_2 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s $$
\end{lemma} \label{lemma:navier-stokes-skew-symmetry}Let $\omega \in H^1$\omega \in H^1.
Let $\psi,\phi_1, \phi_2 \in H^2,$\psi,\phi_1, \phi_2 \in H^2, then:
$$\int_\Omega \phi_1 J_\omega \phi_2 \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 J_\omega \phi_1 \, \d x + \int_{\partial\Omega} \phi \, \omega \, \bm{n}\cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s + \int_{\partial \Omega} \psi \, \omega \,\bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s .$$\int_\Omega \phi_1 J_\omega \phi_2 \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 J_\omega \phi_1 \, \d x + \int_{\partial\Omega}\partial\Omega \phi \, \omega \, \bm{n}n\cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s + \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \psi \, \omega \,\bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s .
$$ \int_\Omega \phi_1 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_2) \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_1) \, \d x. + \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \phi_2 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s $$ \int_\Omega \phi_1 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_2) \, \d x = - \int_\Omega \phi_2 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \phi_1) \, \d x. + \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_1 \, \phi_2 \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s
\begin{proof}
Proof is to be found in \ref{proof:navier-stokes-skew-symmetry}
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
Proof is to be found in \ref{proof:navier-stokes-skew-symmetry}
\end{proof}
Proof is to be found in \ref{proof:navier-stokes-skew-symmetry}
The Stokes-Dirac structure of this model is modulated by the state variables $\omega,\psi$\omega,\psi, hence the nonlinearity lies in the Dirac structure, but not in the Lagrange structure. Such a property proves useful as it allows for energy-preserving time integration methods with linear steps, more precisely, fixing $J(\omega,\psi)$J(\omega,\psi) between two time steps makes the system linear while keeping the operator skew-symmetric \cite{palha2017mass,roze2024passive}. The power balance reads:
\begin{theorem}
Given two state variables $\omega(t,x),\psi(t,x)$, the power balance along a trajectory of~\eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} reads:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = & - \mu \int_\Omega (\Delta \psi)^2 \, \d x - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\rho_0\,\omega \, \psi}_{=:y_D^1} \, \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)}_{=:u_D^1} \, \d s \, - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{ \psi}_{=:y_D^2} \, \underbrace{ \mu \,\grad(\Delta\psi) \cdot \bm{n}}_{=:u_D^2} \, \d s \\
& + \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)}_{=:y_D^3}\,\underbrace{\mu \, \Delta \psi}_{=:u_D^3} \, \d s
+ \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\rho_0\,\psi}_{=:y_L} \, \partial_t \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)}_{=:u_L} \, \d s,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{ \d}{ \d t} \mathcal{E}(\omega) = - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\rho_0\,\omega \, \psi }_{=:y_D^4} \, \underbrace{ \bm{t} \cdot \grad(\omega)}_{=:u_D^4} \, \d s \, - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\omega}_{=:y_D^5} \, \underbrace{\mu \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\omega)}_{:=u_D^5}\, \d s.
\end{equation}
In particular, with zero boundary conditions, and using the fact that $-\Delta \psi = \omega$, one gets:
$$\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = - 2 \, \mu\, \mathcal{E}(\omega), \qquad \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{
E
}(\omega)= - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x.$$
\end{theorem}\begin{theorem}
Given two state variables $\omega(t,x),\psi(t,x)$, the power balance along a trajectory of~\eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} reads:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = & - \mu \int_\Omega (\Delta \psi)^2 \, \d x - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\rho_0\,\omega \, \psi}_{=:y_D^1} \, \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)}_{=:u_D^1} \, \d s \, - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{ \psi}_{=:y_D^2} \, \underbrace{ \mu \,\grad(\Delta\psi) \cdot \bm{n}}_{=:u_D^2} \, \d s \\
& + \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)}_{=:y_D^3}\,\underbrace{\mu \, \Delta \psi}_{=:u_D^3} \, \d s
+ \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\rho_0\,\psi}_{=:y_L} \, \partial_t \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)}_{=:u_L} \, \d s,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{ \d}{ \d t} \mathcal{E}(\omega) = - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\rho_0\,\omega \, \psi }_{=:y_D^4} \, \underbrace{ \bm{t} \cdot \grad(\omega)}_{=:u_D^4} \, \d s \, - \int_{\partial \Omega} \underbrace{\omega}_{=:y_D^5} \, \underbrace{\mu \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\omega)}_{:=u_D^5}\, \d s.
\end{equation}
In particular, with zero boundary conditions, and using the fact that $-\Delta \psi = \omega$, one gets:
$$\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = - 2 \, \mu\, \mathcal{E}(\omega), \qquad \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{
E
}(\omega)= - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x.$$
\end{theorem}
Given two state variables $\omega(t,x),\psi(t,x)$\omega(t,x),\psi(t,x), the power balance along a trajectory of~\eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} reads:
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = & - \mu \int_\Omega (\Delta \psi)^2 \, \d x - \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \underbrace{\rho_0\,\omega \, \psi}_{=:y_D^1}=:y_D^1 \, \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)}_{=:u_D^1}=:u_D^1 \, \d s \, - \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \underbrace{ \psi}_{=:y_D^2}=:y_D^2 \, \underbrace{ \mu \,\grad(\Delta\psi) \cdot \bm{n}}_{=:u_D^2}=:u_D^2 \, \d s \\
& + \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)}_{=:y_D^3}=:y_D^3\,\underbrace{\mu \, \Delta \psi}_{=:u_D^3}=:u_D^3 \, \d s
+ \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \underbrace{\rho_0\,\psi}_{=:y_L}=:y_L \, \partial_t \underbrace{ \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)}_{=:u_L}=:u_L \, \d s,
\frac{ \d}{ \d t} \mathcal{E}(\omega) = - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x - \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \underbrace{\rho_0\,\omega \, \psi }_{=:y_D^4}=:y_D^4 \, \underbrace{ \bm{t} \cdot \grad(\omega)}_{=:u_D^4}=:u_D^4 \, \d s \, - \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \underbrace{\omega}_{=:y_D^5}=:y_D^5 \, \underbrace{\mu \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\omega)}_{:=u_D^5}:=u_D^5\, \d s.
In particular, with zero boundary conditions, and using the fact that $-\Delta \psi = \omega$-\Delta \psi = \omega, one gets:
$$\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = - 2 \, \mu\, \mathcal{E}(\omega), \qquad \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{
E
}(\omega)= - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x.$$\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = - 2 \, \mu\, \mathcal{E}(\omega), \qquad \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{
E
}(\omega)= - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x.
Notably, the observation $y_D^2$y_D^2 is the Dirichlet trace of $\psi$\psi and $y^3_D$y^3_D is the Neumann trace of~$\psi$\psi.
\subsubsection{Boundary conditions}
Boundary conditions for the vorticity are notoriously difficult to treat, as they do not appear naturally in the equation~\cite{lequeurre_vorticity_2020,Rempfer2006boundary} and adding such condition usually leads to nonlocal boundary conditions that require an additional system to be solved at each time step~\cite{weinan1996vorticity}. Alternative approaches have been discussed in~\cite{de2019inclusion}, where numerical results are presented to exhibit the properties of the various conditions discussed.
In this work, the impermeable no-slip boundary condition is considered on the whole boundary of the domain. As a consequence, it is required that:
$\bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp( \psi) _{|\partial\Omega} = 0, \quad \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)_{|\partial \Omega} = 0.$\bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp( \psi) _{|\partial\Omega}|\partial\Omega = 0, \quad \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\psi)_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega = 0.
Using the previously defined control and observations, this gives us:
$$ u_D^1=0, \quad u_D^4 = 0, \quad y_D^3 = 0. $$ u_D^1=0, \quad u_D^4 = 0, \quad y_D^3 = 0.
Contrarily to previous approaches, i.e., \cite{weinan1996vorticity,de2019inclusion}, here the no-slip condition $0 = \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)_{|\partial \Omega} =y_D^3$0 = \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\psi)_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega =y_D^3 is kept as an algebraic constraint. Usually, one can differentiate this boundary condition with respect to time and replace it by the vorticity; yielding a nonlocal boundary condition on the vorticity. Here, the constraint is kept, and the system becomes a differential algebraic equation where $\omega_{|\partial \Omega}$\omega_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega plays the role of a Lagrange multiplier. This offers two advantages; firstly, additional costly steps are avoided, such as computing the pressure on the whole domain. Secondly, boundary ports are available in order to compute the enstrophy balance at each timestep: showing where and when enstrophy is generated and allowing for the computation of the enstrophy balance error.
Using $-\Delta \psi = \omega,$-\Delta \psi = \omega, additional constraints are derived:
$ u_D^3 = - \mu\,y_D^5,\quad u_D^5 = - u_D^2. $ u_D^3 = - \mu\,y_D^5,\quad u_D^5 = - u_D^2.
Finally, gathering these conditions yields:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:no-slip-boundary-condition}
Imposing the impermeable no-slip boundary condition to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} yields the following set of constraints:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:no-slip-boundary-condition}
\begin{bmatrix}
0& 0 & 1 & 0 &0& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0 & 0 & \mu &0& 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 &0& 1 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
y_D^1 \\ y_D^2 \\ y_D^3 \\ y_D^5 \\ u_D^1 \\u_D^2 \\ u_D^3 \\ u_D^5
\end{bmatrix} = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:no-slip-boundary-condition}
Imposing the impermeable no-slip boundary condition to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} yields the following set of constraints:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:no-slip-boundary-condition}
\begin{bmatrix}
0& 0 & 1 & 0 &0& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0 & 0 & \mu &0& 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 &0& 1 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
y_D^1 \\ y_D^2 \\ y_D^3 \\ y_D^5 \\ u_D^1 \\u_D^2 \\ u_D^3 \\ u_D^5
\end{bmatrix} = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\label{lemma:no-slip-boundary-condition}
Imposing the impermeable no-slip boundary condition to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} yields the following set of constraints:
\label{eqn:no-slip-boundary-condition}
0& 0 & 1 & 0 &0& 0 & 0 & 0\\
0& 0 & 0 & \mu &0& 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 &0& 1 & 0 & 1 \\
y_D^1 \\ y_D^2 \\ y_D^3 \\ y_D^5 \\ u_D^1 \\u_D^2 \\ u_D^3 \\ u_D^5
= 0.
This set of equations shows that in order to impose the no-slip condition, $y_D^3=0$y_D^3=0 the corresponding control $u_D^3$u_D^3 becomes a Lagrange multiplier. Moreover, from $ u_D^3 = - \mu \,y_D^5 = - \mu \,\omega_{|\partial \Omega},$ u_D^3 = - \mu \,y_D^5 = - \mu \,\omega_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega, we deduce that vorticity has to be nonzero at the boundary. In particular, we get that $\omega_{|\partial \Omega} = \frac{1}{\mu}u_D^3,$\omega_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega = \frac{1}{\mu}u_D^3, hence the lower the viscosity $\mu$\mu (i.e., the higher the Reynolds number) the more vorticity is being generated at the boundary.
Note that $u_D^5= \mu \, \bm n \cdot \grad(\omega)_{|\partial \Omega}$u_D^5= \mu \, \bm n \cdot \grad(\omega)_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega is a Lagrange multiplier as well, and corresponds to the vorticity generated at the boundary. Finally, given that $u_D^5 = - u_D^3,$u_D^5 = - u_D^3, this generation of vorticity is also affecting the dynamics of the stream function, however since the collocated observation $y_D^3$y_D^3 is set to zero, this vorticity generation does not appear in the power balance of the kinetic energy.
\subsubsection{Enstrophy creation and kinetic energy dissipation}
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:no-slip-boundary-condition}, we get the enstrophy balance and power balance:
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:continuous-enstrophy-creation}
The enstrophy balance with the no-slip boundary conditions reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{ \d}{ \d t} \mathcal{E}(\omega) = - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x - \frac{1}{\mu}\int_{\partial \Omega} u_D^5 u_D^3 \, \d s.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the kinetic energy balance reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = - 2 \, \mu \, \mathcal{E}(\omega).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:continuous-enstrophy-creation}
The enstrophy balance with the no-slip boundary conditions reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{ \d}{ \d t} \mathcal{E}(\omega) = - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x - \frac{1}{\mu}\int_{\partial \Omega} u_D^5 u_D^3 \, \d s.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the kinetic energy balance reads:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = - 2 \, \mu \, \mathcal{E}(\omega).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma} \label{lemma:continuous-enstrophy-creation}
The enstrophy balance with the no-slip boundary conditions reads:
\frac{ \d}{ \d t} \mathcal{E}(\omega) = - \mu \int_\Omega ||\grad (\omega)||^2 \, \d x - \frac{1}{\mu}\int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega u_D^5 u_D^3 \, \d s.
Moreover, the kinetic energy balance reads:
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}(\psi) = - 2 \, \mu \, \mathcal{E}(\omega).
Lemma~\ref{lemma:continuous-enstrophy-creation} proves that enstrophy is dissipated in the domain and is generated solely at the boundaries of the domain. Moreover, for some fixed Lagrange multipliers $u_D^3 ,u_D^5,$u_D^3 ,u_D^5, the generation of enstrophy at the boundary increases as $\mu$\mu decreases.
|
Continuous models
| false
|
2507.06869
| 3
|
95,414
|
\label{sec:PFEM}
This section aims at presenting structure-preserving spatial discretizations of the three previous models. In particular, this procedure yields discrete Dirac and Lagrange structures \cite{gernandt2022equivalence}, corresponding to their infinite-dimensional Stokes-Dirac and Stokes-Lagrange counterparts.
Keeping structures intact ensures that the discrete system satisfies a power balance that mimics its continuous counterpart; hence ensuring properties such as passivity and energy preservation. In particular, neglecting these structures can lead to nonphysical behaviour and even make dissipative systems unstable, see \cite{egger2019structure} for an example.
\subsection{Nanorod equation}
The structure-preserving spatial discretization of the wave equation as a pH system is already well known (see e.g., \cite{haine2023numerical}). Here the additional difficulty is the implicit constitutive relation. In order to properly discretize \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-coenergy} into a finite-dimensional pH system, we will take care of preserving the symmetry and skew-symmetry of the Lagrange structure and Dirac structure matrices, respectively. Moreover, one should be particularly cautious of the Robin boundary condition \eqref{eqn:compatible-boundary-conditions} as it will be of importance both in the Dirac and Lagrange structure discretizations. In particular, we will first write the weak formulation without these boundary conditions in order to identify the control ports at the discrete level, then apply these conditions.
\subsubsection{Weak formulation}
Let us consider a test function $\phi \in H^1([a,b])$\phi \in H^1([a,b]), then let us multiply both lines of \eqref{eqn:nanorod-equation-implicit-coenergy} by $\phi$\phi and integrate over the domain:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \frac{1}{E}(1 - \ell ^2 \partial_{x^2}^2) \, \sigma \, \d x = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, v \, \d x = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x \sigma \, \d x.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \frac{1}{E}(1 - \ell ^2 \partial_{x^2}^2) \, \sigma \, \d x = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, v \, \d x = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x \sigma \, \d x.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \frac{1}{E}(1 - \ell ^2 \partial_{x^2}x^2^2) \, \sigma \, \d x = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, v \, \d x = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x \sigma \, \d x.
The left-hand side of both equations corresponds to the Lagrange structure operator $P$P, while the right-hand side corresponds to the Dirac structure operator $J$J.
\paragraph{Symmetry of $P$}Symmetry of $P$P To exhibit the symmetry of $P$P, we will apply an integration by parts on the left-hand side of the first line, additionally revealing the energy control port.
\paragraph{Skew-symmetry of $J$}Skew-symmetry of $J$J To show that $J$J is skew-symmetric, we have to choose on which line the integration by parts is carried \cite{haine2023numerical}. Here, let us choose the boundary force as a control and integrate by parts on the second line.
Carrying both integrations by parts yields:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nonlocal-nanorod-weak-formulation}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t\int_a^b \, \frac{1}{E}( \, \phi \, \sigma + \ell^2 \, \partial_x\phi \, \partial_{x}\sigma )\, \d x \, \underbrace{ - [\phi \frac{\ell^2}{E} \, \partial_x \partial_t \sigma ]_a^b}_{\text{Energy control port}}= \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, \partial_tv \, \d x = - \int_a^b \partial_x\phi \, \sigma \, \d x \, \underbrace{+ \, [\phi \sigma]_a^b}_{\text{Power control port}}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\begin{equation} \label{eqn:nonlocal-nanorod-weak-formulation}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t\int_a^b \, \frac{1}{E}( \, \phi \, \sigma + \ell^2 \, \partial_x\phi \, \partial_{x}\sigma )\, \d x \, \underbrace{ - [\phi \frac{\ell^2}{E} \, \partial_x \partial_t \sigma ]_a^b}_{\text{Energy control port}}= \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, \partial_tv \, \d x = - \int_a^b \partial_x\phi \, \sigma \, \d x \, \underbrace{+ \, [\phi \sigma]_a^b}_{\text{Power control port}}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation} \label{eqn:nonlocal-nanorod-weak-formulation}
\partial_t\int_a^b \, \frac{1}{E}( \, \phi \, \sigma + \ell^2 \, \partial_x\phi \, \partial_{x}x\sigma )\, \d x \, \underbrace{ - [\phi \frac{\ell^2}{E} \, \partial_x \partial_t \sigma ]_a^b}_{\text{Energy control port}}\text{Energy control port}= \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, \partial_tv \, \d x = - \int_a^b \partial_x\phi \, \sigma \, \d x \, \underbrace{+ \, [\phi \sigma]_a^b}_{\text{Power control port}}\text{Power control port}.
\paragraph{Robin boundary conditions:}Robin boundary conditions:
Before discretizing the system, let us finally apply the Robin boundary conditions. Denoting by $n_a = -1, \, n_b=1$n_a = -1, \, n_b=1 the outer normals, we get on the first and second lines:
$$ \forall s \in \{a,b\}, \quad \left\{ \begin{aligned}
&\frac{\ell}{E} \partial_t\sigma(t,s) + \frac{\ell^2}{E} (\partial_x \partial_t\sigma(t,s)) n_s = 0, \\
& \sigma(t,s)= - \ell ( \partial_x \sigma(t,s)) n_s = - \ell ( \rho \, \partial_t v(t,s) ) n_s,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ \forall s \in \{a,b\}, \quad \left\{
&\frac{\ell}{E} \partial_t\sigma(t,s) + \frac{\ell^2}{E} (\partial_x \partial_t\sigma(t,s)) n_s = 0, \\
& \sigma(t,s)= - \ell ( \partial_x \sigma(t,s)) n_s = - \ell ( \rho \, \partial_t v(t,s) ) n_s,
\right.
where the last equality is due to the equality $ \rho \partial_t v = \partial_x \sigma$ \rho \partial_t v = \partial_x \sigma.
Using these two results gives us:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t\int_a^b \, \frac{1}{E}( \, \phi \, \sigma + \ell^2 \, \partial_x\phi \, \partial_{x}\sigma )\, \d x \, + \phi(a) \frac{\ell}{E} \, \partial_t \sigma(t,a) + \phi(b) \frac{\ell}{E} \, \partial_t \sigma(t,b) = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, \partial_tv \, \d x + \phi(a) \, \ell \rho \partial_t v(t,a) + \phi(b) \, \ell \rho \partial_tv(t,b) = - \int_a^b \partial_x\phi \, \sigma \, \d x.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t\int_a^b \, \frac{1}{E}( \, \phi \, \sigma + \ell^2 \, \partial_x\phi \, \partial_{x}\sigma )\, \d x \, + \phi(a) \frac{\ell}{E} \, \partial_t \sigma(t,a) + \phi(b) \frac{\ell}{E} \, \partial_t \sigma(t,b) = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, \partial_tv \, \d x + \phi(a) \, \ell \rho \partial_t v(t,a) + \phi(b) \, \ell \rho \partial_tv(t,b) = - \int_a^b \partial_x\phi \, \sigma \, \d x.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\partial_t\int_a^b \, \frac{1}{E}( \, \phi \, \sigma + \ell^2 \, \partial_x\phi \, \partial_{x}x\sigma )\, \d x \, + \phi(a) \frac{\ell}{E} \, \partial_t \sigma(t,a) + \phi(b) \frac{\ell}{E} \, \partial_t \sigma(t,b) = \int_a^b \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x, \\
\partial_t\int_a^b \phi \, \rho \, \partial_tv \, \d x + \phi(a) \, \ell \rho \partial_t v(t,a) + \phi(b) \, \ell \rho \partial_tv(t,b) = - \int_a^b \partial_x\phi \, \sigma \, \d x.
Note that since the conditions are homogeneous, the controls do not appear in the equations anymore. For the sake of completeness and clarity, we will now carry the discretization without the Robin boundary conditions, then in a second stage, apply said conditions.
\subsubsection{Finite Element approximation}
Let us now discretize \eqref{eqn:nonlocal-nanorod-weak-formulation}. This system is composed of two state variables $\sigma$\sigma and $v$v. Due to the choice of causality, the spatial derivative of $v$v is evaluated strongly, hence has to be discretized in $H^1$H^1. Moreover, due to operator in front of $\sigma$\sigma, it has to be discretized in $H^1$H^1 as well.
Let us choose $(\phi_i)_{i \in [1,N] }$(\phi_i)_{i \in [1,N] }i \in [1,N] the set of $P^1$P^1 Finite Element family over the points $ a=x_1 < x_2 < ... < x_N = b$ a=x_1 < x_2 < ... < x_N = b satisfying $\forall i,j \in [1,N], \, \phi_i(x_j) = \delta_{i}(j)$\forall i,j \in [1,N], \, \phi_i(x_j) = \delta_{i}i(j) and write the discretized versions of $\sigma$\sigma and $v$v as follows:
$$ \sigma^d(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^N \phi_i(x) \overline{\sigma}_i(t), \quad v^d(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^N \phi_i(x) \overline{v}_i(t).$$ \sigma^d(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}i=1^N \phi_i(x) \overline{\sigma}_i(t), \quad v^d(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}i=1^N \phi_i(x) \overline{v}_i(t).
Moreover, we will denote the value of $\partial_x \sigma \cdot n$\partial_x \sigma \cdot n at both boundaries by $u_L(t) \in \mathbb{R}^2$u_L(t) \in \mathbb{R}^2 and the value of $\sigma \cdot n$\sigma \cdot n at both boundaries by $u_D(t) \in \mathbb{R}^2.$u_D(t) \in \mathbb{R}^2. Then, for all $i \in [1,N]$i \in [1,N], \eqref{eqn:nonlocal-nanorod-weak-formulation} reads:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{E} \left[\int_a^b \phi_i\phi_j \, \d x + \ell^2 \, \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x \right] \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{\sigma}_j = & \sum_{j=1}^N \int_a^b \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x \, \overline{v}_j \\
& + \delta_{1}(i) \frac{\ell^2}{E} \frac{\d}{\d t} (u_L)_1 + \delta_{N}(i) \frac{\ell^2}{E} \frac{\d}{\d t} (u_L)_2, \\
\sum_{j=1}^N \int_a^b \phi_i\, \rho \, \phi_j \, \d x \, \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{v}_j =& - \sum_{j=1}^N \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \phi_j \, \d x \, \overline{\sigma}_j \\ & + \delta_1(i) \, (u_D)_1 + \delta_N(i) \, (u_D)_2 .
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation*}\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{E} \left[\int_a^b \phi_i\phi_j \, \d x + \ell^2 \, \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x \right] \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{\sigma}_j = & \sum_{j=1}^N \int_a^b \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x \, \overline{v}_j \\
& + \delta_{1}(i) \frac{\ell^2}{E} \frac{\d}{\d t} (u_L)_1 + \delta_{N}(i) \frac{\ell^2}{E} \frac{\d}{\d t} (u_L)_2, \\
\sum_{j=1}^N \int_a^b \phi_i\, \rho \, \phi_j \, \d x \, \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{v}_j =& - \sum_{j=1}^N \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \phi_j \, \d x \, \overline{\sigma}_j \\ & + \delta_1(i) \, (u_D)_1 + \delta_N(i) \, (u_D)_2 .
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation*}
\left\{
\sum_{j=1}j=1^N \frac{1}{E} \left[\int_a^b \phi_i\phi_j \, \d x + \ell^2 \, \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x \right] \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{\sigma}_j = & \sum_{j=1}j=1^N \int_a^b \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x \, \overline{v}_j \\
& + \delta_{1}1(i) \frac{\ell^2}{E} \frac{\d}{\d t} (u_L)_1 + \delta_{N}N(i) \frac{\ell^2}{E} \frac{\d}{\d t} (u_L)_2, \\
\sum_{j=1}j=1^N \int_a^b \phi_i\, \rho \, \phi_j \, \d x \, \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{v}_j =& - \sum_{j=1}j=1^N \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \phi_j \, \d x \, \overline{\sigma}_j \\ & + \delta_1(i) \, (u_D)_1 + \delta_N(i) \, (u_D)_2 .
\right.
\paragraph{Matrices definition}Matrices definition Let us now define the matrices:
$$ \bm{M}_{ij} = \int_a^b \phi_i \phi_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{M}^\rho_{ij} = \int_a^b \rho \, \phi_i \phi_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{K}_{ij} = \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x, $$ \bm{M}M_{ij}ij = \int_a^b \phi_i \phi_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{M}M^\rho_{ij}ij = \int_a^b \rho \, \phi_i \phi_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{K}K_{ij}ij = \int_a^b \partial_x \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x,
$$ \bm{D}_{ij} = \int_a^b \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{B} = \begin{bmatrix}
\phi_1(a) & \phi_1(b)\\
\phi_2(a) & \phi_2(b)\\
\vdots & \vdots\\
\phi_N(a) & \phi_N(b)\\
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \vdots\\
\vdots & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}, \quad \bm{M}^\partial = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}. $$ \bm{D}D_{ij}ij = \int_a^b \phi_i \, \partial_x \phi_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{B}B =
\phi_1(a) & \phi_1(b)\\
\phi_2(a) & \phi_2(b)\\
\vdots & \vdots\\
\phi_N(a) & \phi_N(b)\\
=
1 & 0 \\
0 & \vdots\\
\vdots & 0\\
0 & 1
, \quad \bm{M}M^\partial =
1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1
.
This allows us to write the discrete system as:
$$\left \{\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{E} (\bm{M} + \ell^2 \, \bm{K}) \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{\sigma} &= \bm{D} \, \overline{v} + \frac{\ell^2}{E} \bm{B} \, \frac{\d}{\d t} u_L, \\
\bm{M}^\rho \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{v} &= - \bm{D}^\top \overline{\sigma} + \bm{B} \, u_D.
\end{aligned} \right.$$\left \{
\frac{1}{E} (\bm{M}M + \ell^2 \, \bm{K}K) \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{\sigma} &= \bm{D}D \, \overline{v} + \frac{\ell^2}{E} \bm{B}B \, \frac{\d}{\d t} u_L, \\
\bm{M}M^\rho \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{v} &= - \bm{D}D^\top \overline{\sigma} + \bm{B}B \, u_D.
\right.
\paragraph{Lagrange and Dirac structures}Lagrange and Dirac structures Let us now define two matrices that will allow us to bring to light the pH structure.
\begin{definition}
The discrete Lagrange and Dirac structure operators read:
$$ \bm{P} := \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{E}(\bm{M}+\ell^2\bm{K}) & 0 & - \frac{\ell^2}{E} \bm{B}\\
0 & \bm{M}^\rho & 0 \\
- \frac{\ell^2}{E}\bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},\; \bm{S} = \mathbb{M}: = \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{M} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \bm{M} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \bm{M}^\partial
\end{bmatrix},\; \bm{J} := \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \bm{D} & \bm{B} \\ -\bm{D}^\top & 0 & 0\\
- \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
The discrete Lagrange and Dirac structure operators read:
$$ \bm{P} := \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{E}(\bm{M}+\ell^2\bm{K}) & 0 & - \frac{\ell^2}{E} \bm{B}\\
0 & \bm{M}^\rho & 0 \\
- \frac{\ell^2}{E}\bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},\; \bm{S} = \mathbb{M}: = \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{M} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \bm{M} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \bm{M}^\partial
\end{bmatrix},\; \bm{J} := \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \bm{D} & \bm{B} \\ -\bm{D}^\top & 0 & 0\\
- \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
\end{definition}
The discrete Lagrange and Dirac structure operators read:
$$ \bm{P} := \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{E}(\bm{M}+\ell^2\bm{K}) & 0 & - \frac{\ell^2}{E} \bm{B}\\
0 & \bm{M}^\rho & 0 \\
- \frac{\ell^2}{E}\bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},\; \bm{S} = \mathbb{M}: = \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{M} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \bm{M} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \bm{M}^\partial
\end{bmatrix},\; \bm{J} := \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \bm{D} & \bm{B} \\ -\bm{D}^\top & 0 & 0\\
- \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ \bm{P}P :=
\frac{1}{E}(\bm{M}M+\ell^2\bm{K}K) & 0 & - \frac{\ell^2}{E} \bm{B}B\\
0 & \bm{M}M^\rho & 0 \\
- \frac{\ell^2}{E}\bm{B}B^\top & 0 & 0
,\; \bm{S}S = \mathbb{M}: =
\bm{M}M & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \bm{M}M & 0\\
0 & 0 & \bm{M}M^\partial
,\; \bm{J}J :=
0 & \bm{D}D & \bm{B}B \\ -\bm{D}D^\top & 0 & 0\\
- \bm{B}B^\top & 0 & 0
.
The energy control port is linked to an energy observation port defined as: $\bm{M}^\partial y_L = - \frac{l^2}{E}\bm{B}^\top \overline{\sigma}$\bm{M}M^\partial y_L = - \frac{l^2}{E}\bm{B}B^\top \overline{\sigma}, and the power control port to a power observation port as: $\bm{M}^\partial y_D = - \bm{B}^\top \overline{v}.$\bm{M}M^\partial y_D = - \bm{B}B^\top \overline{v}. Moreover we get the following lemma immediately:
\begin{lemma} The discrete Lagrange and Dirac structure operators satisfy the following symmetry and skew-symmetry properties:
$$\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}, \qquad \bm{J} = -\bm{J}^\top.$$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} The discrete Lagrange and Dirac structure operators satisfy the following symmetry and skew-symmetry properties:
$$\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}, \qquad \bm{J} = -\bm{J}^\top.$$
\end{lemma} The discrete Lagrange and Dirac structure operators satisfy the following symmetry and skew-symmetry properties:
$$\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}, \qquad \bm{J} = -\bm{J}^\top.$$\bm{P}P^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1}-1 \bm{S}S = \bm{S}S^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1}-1 \bm{P}P, \qquad \bm{J}J = -\bm{J}J^\top.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:P-S}
The choice of representation made for this system yields a trivial operator $\bm{S} = \mathbb{M},$ hence the symmetry condition $\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}$ can be replaced by $\bm{P}^\top = \bm{P}$ similarly to the Dirac structure operator for which $\bm{J}^\top = - \bm{J}$.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}\label{rem:P-S}
The choice of representation made for this system yields a trivial operator $\bm{S} = \mathbb{M},$ hence the symmetry condition $\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}$ can be replaced by $\bm{P}^\top = \bm{P}$ similarly to the Dirac structure operator for which $\bm{J}^\top = - \bm{J}$.
\end{remark}\label{rem:P-S}
The choice of representation made for this system yields a trivial operator $\bm{S} = \mathbb{M},$\bm{S}S = \mathbb{M}, hence the symmetry condition $\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}$\bm{P}P^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1}-1 \bm{S}S = \bm{S}S^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1}-1 \bm{P}P can be replaced by $\bm{P}^\top = \bm{P}$\bm{P}P^\top = \bm{P}P similarly to the Dirac structure operator for which $\bm{J}^\top = - \bm{J}$\bm{J}J^\top = - \bm{J}J.
Let us now define the Hamiltonian
\begin{definition}
The Hamiltonian of the discretized nonlocal nanorod equation reads:
$$ H^d = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix}^\top \bm{P} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix}. $$
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
The Hamiltonian of the discretized nonlocal nanorod equation reads:
$$ H^d = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix}^\top \bm{P} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix}. $$
\end{definition}
The Hamiltonian of the discretized nonlocal nanorod equation reads:
$$ H^d = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix}^\top \bm{P} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
\end{pmatrix}. $$ H^d = \frac{1}{2}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
^\top \bm{P}P
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v} \\ u_L
.
\paragraph{Robin boundary conditions}Robin boundary conditions Finally, let us add the Robin boundary conditions.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-discrete-robin}
At the discrete level, the Robin boundary conditions read for the energy control port:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:discr-robin-boundary-conditions-lagrange}
\bm{B}^\top \overline{\sigma} + \ell \, \bm{M}^\partial u_L = 0,
\end{equation}
and for the power control port:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:discr-robin-boundary-conditions-dirac}
\bm{M}^\partial u_D + \ell \, \underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\rho(a) & 0 \\ 0& \rho(b)
\end{bmatrix}}_{=:\bm{M}^\partial_\rho} \bm{B}^\top \frac{\d}{\d t}\overline{v} = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-discrete-robin}
At the discrete level, the Robin boundary conditions read for the energy control port:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:discr-robin-boundary-conditions-lagrange}
\bm{B}^\top \overline{\sigma} + \ell \, \bm{M}^\partial u_L = 0,
\end{equation}
and for the power control port:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:discr-robin-boundary-conditions-dirac}
\bm{M}^\partial u_D + \ell \, \underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\rho(a) & 0 \\ 0& \rho(b)
\end{bmatrix}}_{=:\bm{M}^\partial_\rho} \bm{B}^\top \frac{\d}{\d t}\overline{v} = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma} \label{lemma:nanorod-discrete-robin}
At the discrete level, the Robin boundary conditions read for the energy control port:
\label{eqn:discr-robin-boundary-conditions-lagrange}
\bm{B}B^\top \overline{\sigma} + \ell \, \bm{M}M^\partial u_L = 0,
and for the power control port:
\label{eqn:discr-robin-boundary-conditions-dirac}
\bm{M}M^\partial u_D + \ell \, \underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\rho(a) & 0 \\ 0& \rho(b)
\end{bmatrix}}_{=:\bm{M}^\partial_\rho}=:\bm{M}M^\partial_\rho \bm{B}B^\top \frac{\d}{\d t}\overline{v} = 0.
\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-discrete-robin}
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-discrete-robin}
\end{proof}
The proof is to be found in~\ref{proof:nanorod-discrete-robin}
The discrete system endowed with Robin boundary conditions now reads:
$$\left \{\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{E} (\bm{M} + \ell^2 \, \bm{K} + \ell \, \bm{B B}^\top) \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{\sigma} &= D \, \overline{v}, \\
(\bm{M}^\rho + \ell \, \bm{B} \bm{M}^\partial_\rho \bm{B}^\top) \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{v} &= - D^\top \overline{\sigma}.
\end{aligned} \right.$$\left \{
\frac{1}{E} (\bm{M}M + \ell^2 \, \bm{K}K + \ell \, \bm{B B}B B^\top) \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{\sigma} &= D \, \overline{v}, \\
(\bm{M}M^\rho + \ell \, \bm{B}B \bm{M}M^\partial_\rho \bm{B}B^\top) \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline{v} &= - D^\top \overline{\sigma}.
\right.
Finally, one can define the Lagrange structure matrix with the Robin boundary conditions as:
$$\bm{P}_{\text{Rob}}:= \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{E} (\bm{M} + \ell^2 \, \bm{K} + \ell \, \bm{B B}^\top) & 0 \\
0 & (\bm{I}_N + \ell \, \bm{B} \bm{M}^\partial_\rho \bm{B}^\top)
\end{bmatrix}.$$\bm{P}P_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob}:=
\frac{1}{E} (\bm{M}M + \ell^2 \, \bm{K}K + \ell \, \bm{B B}B B^\top) & 0 \\
0 & (\bm{I}I_N + \ell \, \bm{B}B \bm{M}M^\partial_\rho \bm{B}B^\top)
.
Which satisfies the symmetry assumption: $\bm{P}_{\text{Rob}} = \bm{P}_{\text{Rob}}^\top.$\bm{P}P_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob} = \bm{P}P_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob}^\top.
\begin{definition}
The Hamiltonian of the discretized nonlocal nanorod equation with Robin boundary conditions reads:
$$ H^d_{\text{Rob}} = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix}^\top \bm{P}_{\text{Rob}} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix}. $$
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
The Hamiltonian of the discretized nonlocal nanorod equation with Robin boundary conditions reads:
$$ H^d_{\text{Rob}} = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix}^\top \bm{P}_{\text{Rob}} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix}. $$
\end{definition}
The Hamiltonian of the discretized nonlocal nanorod equation with Robin boundary conditions reads:
$$ H^d_{\text{Rob}} = \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix}^\top \bm{P}_{\text{Rob}} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix}. $$ H^d_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob} = \frac{1}{2}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
^\top \bm{P}P_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
.
\subsection{Implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam}
The philosophy remains identical for the implicit and explicit Euler-Bernoulli beam models. We first write down the variational formulations and perform integrations-by-parts where appropriate, i.e., on each occurrence of $\partial^2_{x^2}$\partial^2_{x^2}x^2 in~\eqref{eq:beam-co-energy}--\eqref{eq:beam-observation}. Let $\phi \in H^1(a,b)$\phi \in H^1(a,b), the variational formulations read:
$$
\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dsp D^{-1} \, \partial_t \int_a^b \phi \, \sigma \, \d x &=& \dsp - \int_a^b \partial_x \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x + \left[ \phi \, \partial_x v \right]_a^b, \\
\dsp \rho h \, \partial_t \int_a^b \phi \, v \, \d x + \rho \frac{h^3}{12} \partial_t \int_a^b \partial_x \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x &=& \dsp \int_a^b \partial_x \phi \, \partial_x \sigma \, \d x - \left[ \phi \, \partial_x \sigma \right]_a^b + \rho \frac{h^3}{12} \, \partial_t \left[ \phi \, \partial_x v \right]_a^b.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\left\lbrace
\dsp D^{-1}-1 \, \partial_t \int_a^b \phi \, \sigma \, \d x &=& \dsp - \int_a^b \partial_x \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x + \left[ \phi \, \partial_x v \right]_a^b, \\
\dsp \rho h \, \partial_t \int_a^b \phi \, v \, \d x + \rho \frac{h^3}{12} \partial_t \int_a^b \partial_x \phi \, \partial_x v \, \d x &=& \dsp \int_a^b \partial_x \phi \, \partial_x \sigma \, \d x - \left[ \phi \, \partial_x \sigma \right]_a^b + \rho \frac{h^3}{12} \, \partial_t \left[ \phi \, \partial_x v \right]_a^b.
\right.
Using the same discretization and notations as for the nanorod, the above formulations allow to obtain the space discretization of~\eqref{eq:beam-co-energy}--\eqref{eq:beam-observation} as:
\begin{multline}\label{eq:beam-PFEM}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
D^{-1} \bm{M} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \rho h \bm{M} + \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{K} & - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{B} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\bm{P}}
\frac{\d}{\d t}
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\
\overline{v} \\
y_L \\
y^1_D \\
y^2_D
\end{pmatrix} \\
=
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -\bm{K} & 0 & 0 & \bm{B} \\
\bm{K} & 0 & 0 & -\bm{B} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-\bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\bm{J}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\
\overline{v} \\
y_L \\
y^1_D \\
y^2_D
\end{pmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\bm{M}^\partial & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{M}^\partial & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \bm{M}^\partial \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} u_L \\
u^1_D \\
u^2_D
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{multline}\begin{multline}\label{eq:beam-PFEM}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
D^{-1} \bm{M} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \rho h \bm{M} + \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{K} & - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{B} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\bm{P}}
\frac{\d}{\d t}
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\
\overline{v} \\
y_L \\
y^1_D \\
y^2_D
\end{pmatrix} \\
=
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -\bm{K} & 0 & 0 & \bm{B} \\
\bm{K} & 0 & 0 & -\bm{B} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-\bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\bm{J}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\
\overline{v} \\
y_L \\
y^1_D \\
y^2_D
\end{pmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\bm{M}^\partial & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{M}^\partial & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \bm{M}^\partial \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} u_L \\
u^1_D \\
u^2_D
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{multline}\label{eq:beam-PFEM}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
D^{-1} \bm{M} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \rho h \bm{M} + \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{K} & - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{B} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\bm{P}}\bm{P}P
\frac{\d}{\d t}
\overline{\sigma} \\
\overline{v} \\
y_L \\
y^1_D \\
y^2_D
\\
=
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -\bm{K} & 0 & 0 & \bm{B} \\
\bm{K} & 0 & 0 & -\bm{B} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-\bm{B}^\top & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
}_{\bm{J}}\bm{J}J
\overline{\sigma} \\
\overline{v} \\
y_L \\
y^1_D \\
y^2_D
+
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\bm{M}M^\partial & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{M}M^\partial & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \bm{M}M^\partial \\
\frac{\d}{\d t} u_L \\
u^1_D \\
u^2_D
.
\iffalse
\red{Il faudrait ici définir les structures de Lagrange et de Dirac, mais avec les contraintes algébriques pour définir les "bons" contrôles, je m'emmêle sans arrêt les pinceaux pour fitter le cadre défini plus haut... il faudrait qu'on fasse ça crayon en main à deux si tu es d'accord Antoine ?!}Il faudrait ici définir les structures de Lagrange et de Dirac, mais avec les contraintes algébriques pour définir les "bons" contrôles, je m'emmêle sans arrêt les pinceaux pour fitter le cadre défini plus haut... il faudrait qu'on fasse ça crayon en main à deux si tu es d'accord Antoine ?!
\blue{Sans les contraintes, j'obtiens quelque chose de la forme suivante:}Sans les contraintes, j'obtiens quelque chose de la forme suivante:
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
D^{-1} \bm{M} & 0 \\
0 & \rho h \bm{M} + \rho h^3 \bm{K}
\end{bmatrix} \frac{ \d}{\d t} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & - \bm{K} \\ \bm{K}^\top & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
\end{pmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{B} & 0\\
0 & \bm{B}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
u_D^1 \\ u_D^2
\end{pmatrix} + \rho \frac{h^3}{12} \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ \bm{B}
\end{bmatrix} \frac{\d}{\d t}u_L.$$
D^{-1}-1 \bm{M}M & 0 \\
0 & \rho h \bm{M}M + \rho h^3 \bm{K}K
\frac{ \d}{\d t}
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
=
0 & - \bm{K}K \\ \bm{K}K^\top & 0
\overline{\sigma} \\ \overline{v}
+
\bm{B}B & 0\\
0 & \bm{B}B
u_D^1 \\ u_D^2
+ \rho \frac{h^3}{12}
0 \\ \bm{B}B
\frac{\d}{\d t}u_L.
With the observations defined as:
$$ \bm{M}^\partial y_L = \rho \frac{h^3}{12} \bm{B}^\top \overline{v}, \quad \bm{M}^\partial y_D^1 = \bm{B}^\top \overline{\sigma}, \quad \bm{M}^\partial y_D^2 = \bm{B}^\top \overline{v}. $$ \bm{M}M^\partial y_L = \rho \frac{h^3}{12} \bm{B}B^\top \overline{v}, \quad \bm{M}M^\partial y_D^1 = \bm{B}B^\top \overline{\sigma}, \quad \bm{M}M^\partial y_D^2 = \bm{B}B^\top \overline{v}.
\blue{(par contre j'ai du inverser les $y_D^i$et $u_D^i$ pour avoir la causalité naturelle une fois l'IPP appliquée). Ensuite je pense qu'on peut dire qu'on assigne une valeur aux observations $y_D^i$ et que les contrôles $u_D^i$ deviennent des multiplicateurs de Lagrange ?}(par contre j'ai du inverser les $y_D^i$y_D^iet $u_D^i$u_D^i pour avoir la causalité naturelle une fois l'IPP appliquée). Ensuite je pense qu'on peut dire qu'on assigne une valeur aux observations $y_D^i$y_D^i et que les contrôles $u_D^i$u_D^i deviennent des multiplicateurs de Lagrange ?
\red{Oui tu es dans l'autre causalité avec ces équations. Malheureusement, elles sont naturelles pour PFEM mais ne correspondent à rien de classique... j'ai choisi le "simply supported" afin d'avoir la même expression pour l'explicite et l'implicite, ce qui implique que PFEM fait apparaître toutes les observations. Du coup, j'ai l'impression que le $\bm{P}$ devrait contenir la ligne en $\frac{\d}{\d t}y_L$ non ?}Oui tu es dans l'autre causalité avec ces équations. Malheureusement, elles sont naturelles pour PFEM mais ne correspondent à rien de classique... j'ai choisi le "simply supported" afin d'avoir la même expression pour l'explicite et l'implicite, ce qui implique que PFEM fait apparaître toutes les observations. Du coup, j'ai l'impression que le $\bm{P}$\bm{P}P devrait contenir la ligne en $\frac{\d}{\d t}y_L$\frac{\d}{\d t}y_L non ?
\fi
\begin{lemma}
Following~\eqref{eqn:linear-phs-power-balance}, an appropriate discrete Hamiltonian is given by:
$$
H^d_1 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K} \overline{v} \right) - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} y_L^\top \bm{B}^\top \overline{v}.
$$
The power balance then reads:
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_1 = -y_D^{1\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^2 + y_L^{\top} \bm{M}^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t}u_L.
$$
Another possibility is to discretize the continuous Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:beam-Hamiltonian-def} directly, yielding:
$$
H^d_2 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K} \overline{v} \right).
$$
The power balance then reads as the continuous one~\eqref{eq:beam-Hamiltonian}:
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_2 = -y_D^{1\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^2 + \frac{\d}{\d t}y_L^{\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_L.
$$
Furthermore, the Lagrange structure matrices are $\bm{P}$ defined on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM} and $\bm{S} := \mathbb{M} := {\rm Diag}(\bm{M}, \bm{M}, \bm{M}^\partial, \bm{M}^\partial, \bm{M}^\partial)$, satisfying $\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}$. The Dirac structure matrix is given by $\bm{J}$ (on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM}), and satisfies: $\bm{J}^\top = - \bm{J}$.
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
Following~\eqref{eqn:linear-phs-power-balance}, an appropriate discrete Hamiltonian is given by:
$$
H^d_1 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K} \overline{v} \right) - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} y_L^\top \bm{B}^\top \overline{v}.
$$
The power balance then reads:
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_1 = -y_D^{1\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^2 + y_L^{\top} \bm{M}^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t}u_L.
$$
Another possibility is to discretize the continuous Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:beam-Hamiltonian-def} directly, yielding:
$$
H^d_2 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K} \overline{v} \right).
$$
The power balance then reads as the continuous one~\eqref{eq:beam-Hamiltonian}:
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_2 = -y_D^{1\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^2 + \frac{\d}{\d t}y_L^{\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_L.
$$
Furthermore, the Lagrange structure matrices are $\bm{P}$ defined on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM} and $\bm{S} := \mathbb{M} := {\rm Diag}(\bm{M}, \bm{M}, \bm{M}^\partial, \bm{M}^\partial, \bm{M}^\partial)$, satisfying $\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}$. The Dirac structure matrix is given by $\bm{J}$ (on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM}), and satisfies: $\bm{J}^\top = - \bm{J}$.
\end{lemma}
Following~\eqref{eqn:linear-phs-power-balance}, an appropriate discrete Hamiltonian is given by:
$$
H^d_1 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K} \overline{v} \right) - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} y_L^\top \bm{B}^\top \overline{v}.
$$
H^d_1 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}M\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}M\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K}K \overline{v} \right) - \frac{\rho h^3}{12} y_L^\top \bm{B}B^\top \overline{v}.
The power balance then reads:
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_1 = -y_D^{1\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^2 + y_L^{\top} \bm{M}^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t}u_L.
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_1 = -y_D^{1\top}1\top \bm{M}M^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top}2\top \bm{M}M^\partial u_D^2 + y_L^{\top}\top \bm{M}M^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t}u_L.
Another possibility is to discretize the continuous Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq:beam-Hamiltonian-def} directly, yielding:
$$
H^d_2 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K} \overline{v} \right).
$$
H^d_2 := \frac{D^{-1} }{2} \overline{\sigma}^\top \bm{M}M\overline{\sigma} + \frac{\rho h}{2} \left( \overline{v}^\top \bm{M}M\overline{v} + \frac{h^2}{12} \overline{v}^\top \bm{K}K \overline{v} \right).
The power balance then reads as the continuous one~\eqref{eq:beam-Hamiltonian}:
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_2 = -y_D^{1\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_D^2 + \frac{\d}{\d t}y_L^{\top} \bm{M}^\partial u_L.
$$
\frac{\d}{\d t}H^d_2 = -y_D^{1\top}1\top \bm{M}M^\partial u_D^1 + y_D^{2\top}2\top \bm{M}M^\partial u_D^2 + \frac{\d}{\d t}y_L^{\top}\top \bm{M}M^\partial u_L.
Furthermore, the Lagrange structure matrices are $\bm{P}$\bm{P}P defined on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM} and $\bm{S} := \mathbb{M} := {\rm Diag}(\bm{M}, \bm{M}, \bm{M}^\partial, \bm{M}^\partial, \bm{M}^\partial)$\bm{S}S := \mathbb{M} := {\rm Diag}\rm Diag(\bm{M}M, \bm{M}M, \bm{M}M^\partial, \bm{M}M^\partial, \bm{M}M^\partial), satisfying $\bm{P}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{S} = \bm{S}^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1} \bm{P}$\bm{P}P^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1}-1 \bm{S}S = \bm{S}S^\top \mathbb{M}^{-1}-1 \bm{P}P. The Dirac structure matrix is given by $\bm{J}$\bm{J}J (on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM}), and satisfies: $\bm{J}^\top = - \bm{J}$\bm{J}J^\top = - \bm{J}J.
Note that Remark~\ref{rem:P-S} also holds in this example.
\subsection{Incompressible Navier--Stokes equations}
In \cite{zhangmass2022}, a staggered time-scheme is presented, allowing for both the enstrophy and kinetic energy to be preserved. More precisely, for a given time step $t_k$t_k, the fluid velocity $\bm{u}$\bm{u}u is computed from $t_k$t_k to $t_{k+1}$t_{k+1}k+1 using the vorticity $\omega$\omega at the time $t_{k+1/2}$t_{k+1/2}k+1/2; likewise, the vorticity is then computed between $t_{k+1/2}$t_{k+1/2}k+1/2 and $t_{k+3/2}$t_{k+3/2}k+3/2 with the value of $\bm{u}$\bm{u}u at $t_{k+1}$t_{k+1}k+1. Such an approach has two advantages: firstly, it allows for linearizing the evaluation of the Lamb vector $\omega_k \times \bm{u}_k \approx \omega_{k+1/2} \times \bm{u}_k$\omega_k \times \bm{u}u_k \approx \omega_{k+1/2}k+1/2 \times \bm{u}u_k between each timestep, and secondly, this scheme preserves both the kinetic energy and enstrophy up to machine precision.
Writing the INSE as two coupled modulated pH systems~\eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant} allows us to directly conclude on the conservative properties of the staggered scheme presented in \cite{zhangmass2022}. Indeed, fixing $J(\psi,\omega)$J(\psi,\omega) at timestep $t_k$t_k in order to compute timestep $t_{k+1}$t_{k+1}k+1 keeps the structure matrix $J(\psi,\omega)$J(\psi,\omega) skew-symmetric; ensuring the preservation of the Hamiltonian as proven in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $ \begin{pmatrix}
\omega_0&\psi_0
\end{pmatrix}^\top \in H^1 \times H^1$, a fixed state. Let $\begin{bmatrix}
\omega(t,x)&\psi(t,x)
\end{bmatrix}^\top$ the state satisfying the dynamics of the fixed Dirac system defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
-\rho_0 \Delta & 0\\
0 & \rho_0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \psi \\ \partial_t \omega
\end{pmatrix} = \left[\rho_0\,\begin{bmatrix}
-J_{\omega_0} & 0 \\
0 & -\diver (\grad^\perp(\psi_0) \, \cdot \,)
\end{bmatrix} - \mu \begin{bmatrix}
\Delta^2 & 0 \\
0 & -\Delta
\end{bmatrix}\right] \begin{pmatrix}
\psi \\ \omega
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Then, such state satisfies the following power balance:
$$ \begin{aligned}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \left(\rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \partial_t ( \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)) \,\, + \, \, \rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \omega_0 \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \right) \, \d s\\
+ \mu\int_{\partial \Omega}\left(- \,\psi \, \bm{n}\cdot \grad(\Delta\psi) + \Delta \psi \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)\right)\, \d s - \mu \int_\Omega |\Delta\psi|^2 \, \d x.
\end{aligned} $$
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \left( \rho_0 \, \frac{1}{2}\, \omega^2 \,\bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi_0) - \mu\, \omega \, \bm{n} \cdot\grad^\perp(\omega)\right)\, \d s - \mu\int_\Omega |\grad^\perp(\omega)|^2\, \d x. $$
In particular, with zero boundary conditions, this system is dissipative.
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
Let $ \begin{pmatrix}
\omega_0&\psi_0
\end{pmatrix}^\top \in H^1 \times H^1$, a fixed state. Let $\begin{bmatrix}
\omega(t,x)&\psi(t,x)
\end{bmatrix}^\top$ the state satisfying the dynamics of the fixed Dirac system defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
-\rho_0 \Delta & 0\\
0 & \rho_0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_t \psi \\ \partial_t \omega
\end{pmatrix} = \left[\rho_0\,\begin{bmatrix}
-J_{\omega_0} & 0 \\
0 & -\diver (\grad^\perp(\psi_0) \, \cdot \,)
\end{bmatrix} - \mu \begin{bmatrix}
\Delta^2 & 0 \\
0 & -\Delta
\end{bmatrix}\right] \begin{pmatrix}
\psi \\ \omega
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Then, such state satisfies the following power balance:
$$ \begin{aligned}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \left(\rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \partial_t ( \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)) \,\, + \, \, \rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \omega_0 \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \right) \, \d s\\
+ \mu\int_{\partial \Omega}\left(- \,\psi \, \bm{n}\cdot \grad(\Delta\psi) + \Delta \psi \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)\right)\, \d s - \mu \int_\Omega |\Delta\psi|^2 \, \d x.
\end{aligned} $$
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \left( \rho_0 \, \frac{1}{2}\, \omega^2 \,\bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi_0) - \mu\, \omega \, \bm{n} \cdot\grad^\perp(\omega)\right)\, \d s - \mu\int_\Omega |\grad^\perp(\omega)|^2\, \d x. $$
In particular, with zero boundary conditions, this system is dissipative.
\end{lemma}
Let $ \begin{pmatrix}
\omega_0&\psi_0
\end{pmatrix}^\top \in H^1 \times H^1$
\omega_0&\psi_0
^\top \in H^1 \times H^1, a fixed state. Let $\begin{bmatrix}
\omega(t,x)&\psi(t,x)
\end{bmatrix}^\top$
\omega(t,x)&\psi(t,x)
^\top the state satisfying the dynamics of the fixed Dirac system defined as:
-\rho_0 \Delta & 0\\
0 & \rho_0
\partial_t \psi \\ \partial_t \omega
= \left[\rho_0\,
-J_{\omega_0}\omega_0 & 0 \\
0 & -\diver (\grad^\perp(\psi_0) \, \cdot \,)
- \mu
\Delta^2 & 0 \\
0 & -\Delta
\right]
\psi \\ \omega
.
Then, such state satisfies the following power balance:
$$ \begin{aligned}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \left(\rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \partial_t ( \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)) \,\, + \, \, \rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \omega_0 \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \right) \, \d s\\
+ \mu\int_{\partial \Omega}\left(- \,\psi \, \bm{n}\cdot \grad(\Delta\psi) + \Delta \psi \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi)\right)\, \d s - \mu \int_\Omega |\Delta\psi|^2 \, \d x.
\end{aligned} $$
\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K} = \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \left(\rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \partial_t ( \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\psi)) \,\, + \, \, \rho_0 \, \psi \, \, \omega_0 \bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \right) \, \d s\\
+ \mu\int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega\left(- \,\psi \, \bm{n}n\cdot \grad(\Delta\psi) + \Delta \psi \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\psi)\right)\, \d s - \mu \int_\Omega |\Delta\psi|^2 \, \d x.
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \left( \rho_0 \, \frac{1}{2}\, \omega^2 \,\bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi_0) - \mu\, \omega \, \bm{n} \cdot\grad^\perp(\omega)\right)\, \d s - \mu\int_\Omega |\grad^\perp(\omega)|^2\, \d x. $$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E} = \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \left( \rho_0 \, \frac{1}{2}\, \omega^2 \,\bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi_0) - \mu\, \omega \, \bm{n}n \cdot\grad^\perp(\omega)\right)\, \d s - \mu\int_\Omega |\grad^\perp(\omega)|^2\, \d x.
In particular, with zero boundary conditions, this system is dissipative.
\subsubsection{Weak formulation}
Let $\phi_1,\phi_2\in H^1$\phi_1,\phi_2\in H^1, two test functions and write the weak formulation of the INSE written in vorticity--stream function formulation \eqref{eqn:navier-stokes-vorticite-courant}:
\begin{equation}
\left\lbrace \begin{aligned}
- \rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_1 \Delta \partial_t \psi \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \diver(\omega \, \, \grad^\perp(\psi)) \, \d x - \mu \int_\Omega \phi_1 \, \Delta^2 \psi \, \d x, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_2 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \, \, \omega ) \, \d x + \mu \int_\Omega \phi_2 \, \Delta\omega \, \d x.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\left\lbrace \begin{aligned}
- \rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_1 \Delta \partial_t \psi \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \diver(\omega \, \, \grad^\perp(\psi)) \, \d x - \mu \int_\Omega \phi_1 \, \Delta^2 \psi \, \d x, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_2 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \, \, \omega ) \, \d x + \mu \int_\Omega \phi_2 \, \Delta\omega \, \d x.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
\left\lbrace
- \rho_0 \int_{\Omega}\Omega \phi_1 \Delta \partial_t \psi \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega}\Omega \rho_0\,\phi_1 \diver(\omega \, \, \grad^\perp(\psi)) \, \d x - \mu \int_\Omega \phi_1 \, \Delta^2 \psi \, \d x, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega}\Omega \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega}\Omega \rho_0\,\phi_2 \diver(\grad^\perp(\psi) \, \, \omega ) \, \d x + \mu \int_\Omega \phi_2 \, \Delta\omega \, \d x.
\right.
Let us now perform multiple integration by parts to reveal the boundary controls of the system:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-weak-form}
\left\lbrace \begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \partial_t \grad(\psi) \, \d x& = \red{ \int_{\partial \Omega}\rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \partial_t \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi) \, \d s } + \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\,\omega \, \, \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s} - \mu \int_\Omega \Delta\phi_1 \, \Delta\psi\, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\Delta \psi) \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial\Omega} \Delta \psi \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s}, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\, \grad^\perp(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \, \psi \, \d x {\color{blue} \, - \int_{\partial \Omega}\rho_0\, \phi_2 \, \psi \, \bm{t} \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s }\\
& \quad - \mu \int_\Omega \grad(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d x {\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_2 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s }.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-weak-form}
\left\lbrace \begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \partial_t \grad(\psi) \, \d x& = \red{ \int_{\partial \Omega}\rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \partial_t \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi) \, \d s } + \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\,\omega \, \, \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s} - \mu \int_\Omega \Delta\phi_1 \, \Delta\psi\, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\Delta \psi) \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial\Omega} \Delta \psi \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s}, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\, \grad^\perp(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \, \psi \, \d x {\color{blue} \, - \int_{\partial \Omega}\rho_0\, \phi_2 \, \psi \, \bm{t} \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s }\\
& \quad - \mu \int_\Omega \grad(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d x {\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_2 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s }.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-weak-form}
\left\lbrace
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega}\Omega \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \partial_t \grad(\psi) \, \d x& = \red{ \int_{\partial \Omega}\rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \partial_t \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi) \, \d s } \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega\rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \partial_t \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\psi) \, \d s + \int_{\Omega}\Omega \rho_0\,\omega \, \, \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s}\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d s - \mu \int_\Omega \Delta\phi_1 \, \Delta\psi\, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\Delta \psi) \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial\Omega} \Delta \psi \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s}\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_1 \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\Delta \psi) \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial\Omega}\partial\Omega \Delta \psi \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega}\Omega \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega}\Omega \rho_0\, \grad^\perp(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \, \psi \, \d x {\color{blue} \, - \int_{\partial \Omega}\rho_0\, \phi_2 \, \psi \, \bm{t} \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s }\color{blue} \, - \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega\rho_0\, \phi_2 \, \psi \, \bm{t}t \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s \\
& \quad - \mu \int_\Omega \grad(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d x {\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_2 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s }\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_2 \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d s .
\right.
Note that the integration by parts applied on the integral $ \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi \, \diver(\omega \, \grad^\perp(\psi))\, \d x$ \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi \, \diver(\omega \, \grad^\perp(\psi))\, \d x is carried out differently between the first and second equations, as in the first (resp. second) equation $\omega$\omega (resp. $\psi$\psi) is considered the modulating variable while $\psi$\psi (resp. $\omega$\omega) is the effort variable. Doing this distinction will allow us to prove the skew-symmetry of the corresponding matrices.
The blue boundary terms in the first and second equations correspond to power ports of the Stokes-Dirac structure, and the violet boundary terms to power ports of the resistive structure (friction at the boundary). Lastly, the red boundary term in the first equation corresponds to the energy port of the underlying Stokes-Lagrange structure. Notably, the $5$5 boundary controls are: $u_L = \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi) |_{\partial \Omega} $u_L = \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\psi) |_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega , $u_D^1 = \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) |_{\partial \Omega} $u_D^1 = \bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) |_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega , $u_D^2 = \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\Delta \psi) |_{\partial \Omega} $u_D^2 = \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\Delta \psi) |_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega , $u_D^3 = \Delta \psi |_{\partial \Omega} $u_D^3 = \Delta \psi |_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega , $u_D^4 = \bm{t}\cdot \grad(\omega)_{|\partial \Omega}$u_D^4 = \bm{t}t\cdot \grad(\omega)_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega, and $u_D^5 = \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\omega)$u_D^5 = \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\omega). Using the fact that $ \bm{t} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) = - \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\psi) $ \bm{t}t \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) = - \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\psi) allows us to rewrite \eqref{eqn:inse-coupled-weak-form} as:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-weak-form-with-controls}
\left\lbrace \begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \partial_t \grad(\psi) \, \d x& = \red{ \rho_0 \, \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \partial_t \, u_L \, \d s } + \int_{\Omega}\rho_0\, \omega \, \, \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x \\
& \quad + {\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, u_D^1 \, \d s} - \mu \int_\Omega \Delta\phi_1 \, \Delta\psi\, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, u_D^2 \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} u_D^3 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s}, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\, \grad^\perp(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \, \psi \, \d x {\color{blue} + \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_2 \, \psi \, u_D^4 \d s } \\
& \quad - \mu \int_\Omega \grad(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d x {\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_2 \, u_D^5 \, \d s }.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-weak-form-with-controls}
\left\lbrace \begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \partial_t \grad(\psi) \, \d x& = \red{ \rho_0 \, \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \partial_t \, u_L \, \d s } + \int_{\Omega}\rho_0\, \omega \, \, \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x \\
& \quad + {\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, u_D^1 \, \d s} - \mu \int_\Omega \Delta\phi_1 \, \Delta\psi\, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, u_D^2 \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} u_D^3 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s}, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega} \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega} \rho_0\, \grad^\perp(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \, \psi \, \d x {\color{blue} + \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_2 \, \psi \, u_D^4 \d s } \\
& \quad - \mu \int_\Omega \grad(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d x {\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_2 \, u_D^5 \, \d s }.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-weak-form-with-controls}
\left\lbrace
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega}\Omega \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \partial_t \grad(\psi) \, \d x& = \red{ \rho_0 \, \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, \partial_t \, u_L \, \d s } \rho_0 \, \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_1 \, \partial_t \, u_L \, \d s + \int_{\Omega}\Omega\rho_0\, \omega \, \, \grad(\phi_1) \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) \, \d x \\
& \quad + {\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, u_D^1 \, \d s}\color{blue}- \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \rho_0\,\phi_1 \, \, \omega \, u_D^1 \, \d s - \mu \int_\Omega \Delta\phi_1 \, \Delta\psi\, \d x \\
& \quad {\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_1 \, u_D^2 \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} u_D^3 \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s}\color{violet} - \mu \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_1 \, u_D^2 \, \d s + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega u_D^3 \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\phi_1) \, \d s, \\
\rho_0 \int_{\Omega}\Omega \phi_2 \partial_t \omega \, \d x &= - \int_{\Omega}\Omega \rho_0\, \grad^\perp(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \, \psi \, \d x {\color{blue} + \int_{\partial \Omega} \rho_0\,\phi_2 \, \psi \, u_D^4 \d s }\color{blue} + \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \rho_0\,\phi_2 \, \psi \, u_D^4 \d s \\
& \quad - \mu \int_\Omega \grad(\phi_2) \cdot \grad(\omega) \, \d x {\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_2 \, u_D^5 \, \d s }\color{violet} + \mu \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_2 \, u_D^5 \, \d s .
\right.
\begin{remark}
Note that $\psi$ (resp. $\omega$) corresponds to a control in the first (resp. second) equation and modulates the control operator on the second (resp. first) equation.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
Note that $\psi$ (resp. $\omega$) corresponds to a control in the first (resp. second) equation and modulates the control operator on the second (resp. first) equation.
\end{remark}
Note that $\psi$\psi (resp. $\omega$\omega) corresponds to a control in the first (resp. second) equation and modulates the control operator on the second (resp. first) equation.
\begin{remark}
Reminding ourselves of the definition of the stream function $\bm{u} = \grad^\perp(\psi)$, we have that, $ \bm{t} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)$ corresponds to the tangential part of the velocity at the boundary and $ \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)$ to the normal part of the velocity at the boundary.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
Reminding ourselves of the definition of the stream function $\bm{u} = \grad^\perp(\psi)$, we have that, $ \bm{t} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)$ corresponds to the tangential part of the velocity at the boundary and $ \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)$ to the normal part of the velocity at the boundary.
\end{remark}
Reminding ourselves of the definition of the stream function $\bm{u} = \grad^\perp(\psi)$\bm{u}u = \grad^\perp(\psi), we have that, $ \bm{t} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)$ \bm{t}t \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) corresponds to the tangential part of the velocity at the boundary and $ \bm{n} \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi)$ \bm{n}n \cdot \grad^\perp(\psi) to the normal part of the velocity at the boundary.
\subsubsection{Finite Element approximation}
Due to the dissipation term $\int_\Omega \Delta \psi \Delta \phi_1 \, \d x$\int_\Omega \Delta \psi \Delta \phi_1 \, \d x, $\psi$\psi has to be in $H^2$H^2, hence let us choose an Argyris finite element family $(\phi^1_i)_{i \in [1,N_\psi]}$(\phi^1_i)_{i \in [1,N_\psi]}i \in [1,N_\psi]. Given that Argyris elements are polynomials of degree 5 and the relation $-\Delta \psi = \omega$-\Delta \psi = \omega, let us choose $H^1$H^1 conforming $P^3$P^3 Lagrange finite element family $(\phi^2_i)_{i \in [1,N_\omega]}$(\phi^2_i)_{i \in [1,N_\omega]}i \in [1,N_\omega] over $\Omega$\Omega. The discretized state variables are denoted by $ \hat\omega, \hat\psi$ \hat\omega, \hat\psi and are defined as: $\hat\psi(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{N_\psi} \phi_i^1(x) \overline{\psi}_i(t)$\hat\psi(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{N_\psi}N_\psi \phi_i^1(x) \overline{\psi}_i(t), $\hat \omega(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{N_\omega} \phi^2_i(x) \overline{\omega}_i(t)$\hat \omega(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}i=1^{N_\omega}N_\omega \phi^2_i(x) \overline{\omega}_i(t).
Moreover, let us consider a $P^1$P^1 finite element family $(\nu_i)_{i \in [1,M]}$(\nu_i)_{i \in [1,M]}i \in [1,M] defined on the boundary of our domain $\partial \Omega$\partial \Omega and write for all $k\in \{1,2,3,4,5\}$k\in \{1,2,3,4,5\} the discretized controls and observations $\hat u_D^k,\hat y_D^k$\hat u_D^k,\hat y_D^k as:
$$\hat u_D^{k}(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}^{M} \nu_i(x) (\overline{u}_D^k)_i(t), \qquad \hat y_D^k(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}^{M} \nu_i(x) (\overline{y}_D^k)_i(t),$$\hat u_D^{k}k(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}i=1^{M}M \nu_i(x) (\overline{u}_D^k)_i(t), \qquad \hat y_D^k(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}i=1^{M}M \nu_i(x) (\overline{y}_D^k)_i(t),
$$\hat u_L(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}^{M} \nu_i(x) (\overline{u}_L)_i(t), \qquad \hat y_L(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}^{M} \nu_i(x) (\overline{y}_L)_i(t).$$\hat u_L(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}i=1^{M}M \nu_i(x) (\overline{u}_L)_i(t), \qquad \hat y_L(t,x) := \sum_{i=1}i=1^{M}M \nu_i(x) (\overline{y}_L)_i(t).
Let us now define the finite element matrices as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{M}_{ij} = \int_\Omega \phi^1_i \, \phi^1_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{M}^\partial_{ij} =& \int_{\partial \Omega} \nu_i \, \nu_j \, \d s, \quad \bm{K}_{ij} = \int_\Omega \grad(\phi^1_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^1_j) \, \d x \\
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})_{ij} = \int_\Omega \omega^d \, \grad(\phi^1_i) \cdot \grad^\perp(\phi^1_j) \, \d x&, \quad \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})_{ij} = \int_\Omega \psi^d \, \grad^\perp(\phi^2_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^2_j) \, \d x,\\
\bm{R}^1_{ij} = \int_\Omega \Delta\phi^1_i \, \Delta\phi^1_j \, \d x,& \quad \bm{R}^2_{ij} = \int_\Omega \grad(\phi^2_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^2_j) \, \d x, \\
\bm{B}^1_{ij} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi^1_i \, \nu_j \, \d s, \quad \bm{B}^2_{ij}(\overline{\omega}) = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_i^1 \, \omega^d \, \nu_j \, \d s,& \quad \bm{B}^3_{ij} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \nu_j \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi^1_i) \, \d s, \quad \\
\bm{B}^4_{ij}(\overline{\psi}) = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_i^2 \, \psi^d \, \nu_j \, \d s &, \quad \bm{B}^5_{ij} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi^2_i \, \nu_j \, \d s.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{M}_{ij} = \int_\Omega \phi^1_i \, \phi^1_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{M}^\partial_{ij} =& \int_{\partial \Omega} \nu_i \, \nu_j \, \d s, \quad \bm{K}_{ij} = \int_\Omega \grad(\phi^1_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^1_j) \, \d x \\
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})_{ij} = \int_\Omega \omega^d \, \grad(\phi^1_i) \cdot \grad^\perp(\phi^1_j) \, \d x&, \quad \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})_{ij} = \int_\Omega \psi^d \, \grad^\perp(\phi^2_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^2_j) \, \d x,\\
\bm{R}^1_{ij} = \int_\Omega \Delta\phi^1_i \, \Delta\phi^1_j \, \d x,& \quad \bm{R}^2_{ij} = \int_\Omega \grad(\phi^2_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^2_j) \, \d x, \\
\bm{B}^1_{ij} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi^1_i \, \nu_j \, \d s, \quad \bm{B}^2_{ij}(\overline{\omega}) = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_i^1 \, \omega^d \, \nu_j \, \d s,& \quad \bm{B}^3_{ij} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \nu_j \, \bm{n} \cdot \grad(\phi^1_i) \, \d s, \quad \\
\bm{B}^4_{ij}(\overline{\psi}) = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi_i^2 \, \psi^d \, \nu_j \, \d s &, \quad \bm{B}^5_{ij} = \int_{\partial \Omega} \phi^2_i \, \nu_j \, \d s.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\bm{M}M_{ij}ij = \int_\Omega \phi^1_i \, \phi^1_j \, \d x, \quad \bm{M}M^\partial_{ij}ij =& \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \nu_i \, \nu_j \, \d s, \quad \bm{K}K_{ij}ij = \int_\Omega \grad(\phi^1_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^1_j) \, \d x \\
\bm{D}D^1(\overline{\omega})_{ij}ij = \int_\Omega \omega^d \, \grad(\phi^1_i) \cdot \grad^\perp(\phi^1_j) \, \d x&, \quad \bm{D}D^2(\overline{\psi})_{ij}ij = \int_\Omega \psi^d \, \grad^\perp(\phi^2_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^2_j) \, \d x,\\
\bm{R}R^1_{ij}ij = \int_\Omega \Delta\phi^1_i \, \Delta\phi^1_j \, \d x,& \quad \bm{R}R^2_{ij}ij = \int_\Omega \grad(\phi^2_i) \cdot \grad(\phi^2_j) \, \d x, \\
\bm{B}B^1_{ij}ij = \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi^1_i \, \nu_j \, \d s, \quad \bm{B}B^2_{ij}ij(\overline{\omega}) = \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_i^1 \, \omega^d \, \nu_j \, \d s,& \quad \bm{B}B^3_{ij}ij = \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \nu_j \, \bm{n}n \cdot \grad(\phi^1_i) \, \d s, \quad \\
\bm{B}B^4_{ij}ij(\overline{\psi}) = \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi_i^2 \, \psi^d \, \nu_j \, \d s &, \quad \bm{B}B^5_{ij}ij = \int_{\partial \Omega}\partial \Omega \phi^2_i \, \nu_j \, \d s.
Denoting by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{B}^1(\omega)& = \begin{bmatrix}
- \rho_0\, \bm{B}^2(\overline{\omega}) & - \mu \bm{B}^1 & \mu \bm{B}^3
\end{bmatrix}, \quad \mathbb{M}_\partial^1 = \rm{Diag} \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{M}^\partial & \bm{M}^\partial & \bm{M}^\partial
\end{bmatrix}, \\
\mathbb{B}^2(\psi) &= \begin{bmatrix}
\rho_0\,\bm{B}^4(\overline{\psi})& \mu \bm{B}^5
\end{bmatrix}, \quad \mathbb{M}_\partial^2 = \rm{Diag} \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{M}^\partial & \bm{M}^\partial
\end{bmatrix},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{B}^1(\omega)& = \begin{bmatrix}
- \rho_0\, \bm{B}^2(\overline{\omega}) & - \mu \bm{B}^1 & \mu \bm{B}^3
\end{bmatrix}, \quad \mathbb{M}_\partial^1 = \rm{Diag} \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{M}^\partial & \bm{M}^\partial & \bm{M}^\partial
\end{bmatrix}, \\
\mathbb{B}^2(\psi) &= \begin{bmatrix}
\rho_0\,\bm{B}^4(\overline{\psi})& \mu \bm{B}^5
\end{bmatrix}, \quad \mathbb{M}_\partial^2 = \rm{Diag} \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{M}^\partial & \bm{M}^\partial
\end{bmatrix},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\mathbb{B}^1(\omega)& =
- \rho_0\, \bm{B}B^2(\overline{\omega}) & - \mu \bm{B}B^1 & \mu \bm{B}B^3
, \quad \mathbb{M}_\partial^1 = \rm{Diag}Diag
\bm{M}M^\partial & \bm{M}M^\partial & \bm{M}M^\partial
, \\
\mathbb{B}^2(\psi) &=
\rho_0\,\bm{B}B^4(\overline{\psi})& \mu \bm{B}B^5
, \quad \mathbb{M}_\partial^2 = \rm{Diag}Diag
\bm{M}M^\partial & \bm{M}M^\partial
,
the blocks defining total power control port matrices and mass matrices. Additionally, let us denote by $U_D^1 = \begin{pmatrix}
(\overline{u}_D^1)^\top & (\overline{u}_D^2)^\top & (\overline{u}_D^3)^\top
\end{pmatrix}^\top$U_D^1 =
(\overline{u}_D^1)^\top & (\overline{u}_D^2)^\top & (\overline{u}_D^3)^\top
^\top, and $ U_D^2 = \begin{pmatrix}
(\overline{u}_D^4)^\top & (\overline{u}_D^5)^\top
\end{pmatrix}^\top $ U_D^2 =
(\overline{u}_D^4)^\top & (\overline{u}_D^5)^\top
^\top , the total power control port vectors. Finally, let us define the observation of the system as: $\mathbb{M}_\partial^1Y^1_D = \mathbb{B}^1(\omega)^\top U_D^1, \mathbb{M}_\partial^2Y^2_D = \mathbb{B}^2(\psi)^\top U_D^2$\mathbb{M}_\partial^1Y^1_D = \mathbb{B}^1(\omega)^\top U_D^1, \mathbb{M}_\partial^2Y^2_D = \mathbb{B}^2(\psi)^\top U_D^2, and $\bm{M}^\partial \overline{y}_L = \rho_0 \bm{B}^{1\top} \overline{u}_L$\bm{M}M^\partial \overline{y}_L = \rho_0 \bm{B}B^{1\top}1\top \overline{u}_L.
Then, the discretized INSE reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-controls}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \, \frac{\d}{ \d t} \, \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{K} & 0 \\0 & \bm{M}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} = &\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega}) & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})
\end{bmatrix} - \mu \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{R}^1 & 0 \\0 & \bm{R}^2
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} \\ & + \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb{B}^1(\omega) & 0 \\0 & \mathbb{B}^2(\psi)
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
U_D^1 \\ U_D^2
\end{pmatrix}+ \begin{bmatrix}
\rho_0\, \bm{B}^1 & 0 \\0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \overline u_L \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-controls}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \, \frac{\d}{ \d t} \, \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{K} & 0 \\0 & \bm{M}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} = &\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega}) & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})
\end{bmatrix} - \mu \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{R}^1 & 0 \\0 & \bm{R}^2
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} \\ & + \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb{B}^1(\omega) & 0 \\0 & \mathbb{B}^2(\psi)
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
U_D^1 \\ U_D^2
\end{pmatrix}+ \begin{bmatrix}
\rho_0\, \bm{B}^1 & 0 \\0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\d}{\d t} \overline u_L \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-controls}
\rho_0 \, \frac{\d}{ \d t} \,
\bm{K}K & 0 \\0 & \bm{M}M
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
= &
\bm{D}D^1(\overline{\omega}) & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{D}D^2(\overline{\psi})
- \mu
\bm{R}R^1 & 0 \\0 & \bm{R}R^2
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\\ & +
\mathbb{B}^1(\omega) & 0 \\0 & \mathbb{B}^2(\psi)
U_D^1 \\ U_D^2
+
\rho_0\, \bm{B}B^1 & 0 \\0 & 0
\frac{\d}{\d t} \overline u_L \\ 0
.
\iffalse
M^\partial \overline{y}_L = \rho_0\,B^{1\top}1\top \overline{\psi},\quad M^\partial \overline{y}_D^1 = B^{2\top}2\top(\omega) \overline{\psi}, &\quad
M^\partial \overline{y}_D^2 = - \mu B^{1\top}1\top \overline{\psi}, \quad
M^\partial \overline{y}_D^3 = \mu B^{3\top}3\top \overline{\psi},\\
M^\partial \overline{y}_D^4 = B^{4\top}4\top(\overline{\psi}) \overline{\omega},& \quad M^\partial \overline{y}_D^5 = - \mu B^5 \overline{u}_D^5 .
\fi
Regarding the structure of the system, we get the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:discrete-navier-stokes-algebraic-properties} For all $\overline{\psi} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\psi},\overline{\omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\omega},$
the Dirac structure matrices satisfy the skew-symmetry property:
$
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega}) = - \bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})^\top \quad \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi}) = - \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})^\top.$
The Lagrange structure matrices satisfy the symmetry property:
$ \bm{K} = \bm{K}^\top, \quad \bm{M} = \bm{M}^\top, $
and the resistive structure matrices satisfy the symmetry property:
$\bm{R}^1=\bm{R}^{1\top}, \quad \bm{R}^2=\bm{R}^{2\top}.$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:discrete-navier-stokes-algebraic-properties} For all $\overline{\psi} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\psi},\overline{\omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\omega},$
the Dirac structure matrices satisfy the skew-symmetry property:
$
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega}) = - \bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})^\top \quad \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi}) = - \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})^\top.$
The Lagrange structure matrices satisfy the symmetry property:
$ \bm{K} = \bm{K}^\top, \quad \bm{M} = \bm{M}^\top, $
and the resistive structure matrices satisfy the symmetry property:
$\bm{R}^1=\bm{R}^{1\top}, \quad \bm{R}^2=\bm{R}^{2\top}.$
\end{lemma}\label{lemma:discrete-navier-stokes-algebraic-properties} For all $\overline{\psi} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\psi},\overline{\omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\omega},$\overline{\psi} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\psi}N_\psi,\overline{\omega} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\omega}N_\omega,
the Dirac structure matrices satisfy the skew-symmetry property:
$
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega}) = - \bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})^\top \quad \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi}) = - \bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})^\top.$
\bm{D}D^1(\overline{\omega}) = - \bm{D}D^1(\overline{\omega})^\top \quad \bm{D}D^2(\overline{\psi}) = - \bm{D}D^2(\overline{\psi})^\top.
The Lagrange structure matrices satisfy the symmetry property:
$ \bm{K} = \bm{K}^\top, \quad \bm{M} = \bm{M}^\top, $ \bm{K}K = \bm{K}K^\top, \quad \bm{M}M = \bm{M}M^\top,
and the resistive structure matrices satisfy the symmetry property:
$\bm{R}^1=\bm{R}^{1\top}, \quad \bm{R}^2=\bm{R}^{2\top}.$\bm{R}R^1=\bm{R}R^{1\top}1\top, \quad \bm{R}R^2=\bm{R}R^{2\top}2\top.
Let us now define the discrete Hamiltonian, enstrophy and kinetic energy:
\begin{definition} The discrete kinetic energy, enstrophy and Hamiltonian are defined as:
$$ \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\mathcal{\psi}}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega \grad(\hat\psi) \cdot \grad(\hat\psi) \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \, \, \overline{\psi}^\top \, \bm{K} \,\overline{\psi}, \qquad \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega (\hat \omega)^2 \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \overline{\omega}^\top \, \bm{M} \, \overline{\omega},$$
$$ \mathcal{H}^d(\overline{\psi},\overline{\omega}) = \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) +\mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}).$$
\end{definition}\begin{definition} The discrete kinetic energy, enstrophy and Hamiltonian are defined as:
$$ \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\mathcal{\psi}}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega \grad(\hat\psi) \cdot \grad(\hat\psi) \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \, \, \overline{\psi}^\top \, \bm{K} \,\overline{\psi}, \qquad \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega (\hat \omega)^2 \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \overline{\omega}^\top \, \bm{M} \, \overline{\omega},$$
$$ \mathcal{H}^d(\overline{\psi},\overline{\omega}) = \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) +\mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}).$$
\end{definition} The discrete kinetic energy, enstrophy and Hamiltonian are defined as:
$$ \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\mathcal{\psi}}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega \grad(\hat\psi) \cdot \grad(\hat\psi) \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \, \, \overline{\psi}^\top \, \bm{K} \,\overline{\psi}, \qquad \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega (\hat \omega)^2 \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \overline{\omega}^\top \, \bm{M} \, \overline{\omega},$$ \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\mathcal{\psi}}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega \grad(\hat\psi) \cdot \grad(\hat\psi) \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \, \, \overline{\psi}^\top \, \bm{K}K \,\overline{\psi}, \qquad \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) := \frac{\rho_0}{2} \int_\Omega (\hat \omega)^2 \, \d x = \frac{\rho_0}{2} \overline{\omega}^\top \, \bm{M}M \, \overline{\omega},
$$ \mathcal{H}^d(\overline{\psi},\overline{\omega}) = \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) +\mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}).$$ \mathcal{H}^d(\overline{\psi},\overline{\omega}) = \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) +\mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}).
Computing the power balance yields:
\begin{lemma} The power balance of the discretized INSE~\eqref{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-controls} reads:
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) = - \mu \, \overline{\psi}^\top \bm{R}^1 \, \overline{\psi} + (Y_D^1)^\top \mathbb{M}^2_\partial \, U_D^1 + \overline{y}_L^\top \bm{M}^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline u_L, $$
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) = - \mu \, \overline{\omega}^\top \bm{R}^2 \, \overline{\omega} + (Y_D^2)^\top \mathbb{M}_\partial^2 \, U_D^2.$$
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma} The power balance of the discretized INSE~\eqref{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-controls} reads:
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) = - \mu \, \overline{\psi}^\top \bm{R}^1 \, \overline{\psi} + (Y_D^1)^\top \mathbb{M}^2_\partial \, U_D^1 + \overline{y}_L^\top \bm{M}^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline u_L, $$
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) = - \mu \, \overline{\omega}^\top \bm{R}^2 \, \overline{\omega} + (Y_D^2)^\top \mathbb{M}_\partial^2 \, U_D^2.$$
\end{lemma} The power balance of the discretized INSE~\eqref{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-controls} reads:
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) = - \mu \, \overline{\psi}^\top \bm{R}^1 \, \overline{\psi} + (Y_D^1)^\top \mathbb{M}^2_\partial \, U_D^1 + \overline{y}_L^\top \bm{M}^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline u_L, $$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\psi}) = - \mu \, \overline{\psi}^\top \bm{R}R^1 \, \overline{\psi} + (Y_D^1)^\top \mathbb{M}^2_\partial \, U_D^1 + \overline{y}_L^\top \bm{M}M^\partial \frac{\d}{\d t} \overline u_L,
$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) = - \mu \, \overline{\omega}^\top \bm{R}^2 \, \overline{\omega} + (Y_D^2)^\top \mathbb{M}_\partial^2 \, U_D^2.$$ \frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\omega}) = - \mu \, \overline{\omega}^\top \bm{R}R^2 \, \overline{\omega} + (Y_D^2)^\top \mathbb{M}_\partial^2 \, U_D^2.
\begin{proof}
Computing $\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\omega})$ and $\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\psi})$, then using the properties of $\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})$ and $\bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})$ given in Lemma~\ref{lemma:discrete-navier-stokes-algebraic-properties}, yield the result.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
Computing $\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\omega})$ and $\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\psi})$, then using the properties of $\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})$ and $\bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})$ given in Lemma~\ref{lemma:discrete-navier-stokes-algebraic-properties}, yield the result.
\end{proof}
Computing $\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\omega})$\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{K}^d(\overline{\omega}) and $\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\psi})$\frac{\d}{\d t} \mathcal{E}^d(\overline{\psi}), then using the properties of $\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega})$\bm{D}D^1(\overline{\omega}) and $\bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})$\bm{D}D^2(\overline{\psi}) given in Lemma~\ref{lemma:discrete-navier-stokes-algebraic-properties}, yield the result.
Finally, let us add the no-slip impermeable boundary conditions:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-noslip}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \, \frac{\d}{ \d t} \, \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{K} & 0 \\0 & \bm{M}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} = &\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega}) & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})
\end{bmatrix} - \mu \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{R}^1 & 0 \\0 & \bm{R}^2
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} \\ & + \begin{bmatrix}
\mu\,\bm{B}^1 &
\mu\,\bm{B}^3 & \bm{B}^3 \\ 0&0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
u_D^1 \\ u_D^5 \\ \tilde u_D
\end{pmatrix} + \mu \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\\bm{B}^5
\end{bmatrix} u_D^5, \\
0 =& - \bm{B}^{1\top} \overline{\psi}, \qquad \text{(No slip B.C.)}\\
0 =& - \bm{B}^{3\top} \overline{\psi}, \qquad \text{(Impermeable B.C.)} \\
\bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 =& \bm{B}^{5\top}\overline{\omega}, \qquad \text{(Vorticity generation)}
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-noslip}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\rho_0 \, \frac{\d}{ \d t} \, \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{K} & 0 \\0 & \bm{M}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} = &\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{D}^1(\overline{\omega}) & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{D}^2(\overline{\psi})
\end{bmatrix} - \mu \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{R}^1 & 0 \\0 & \bm{R}^2
\end{bmatrix}
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\end{pmatrix} \\ & + \begin{bmatrix}
\mu\,\bm{B}^1 &
\mu\,\bm{B}^3 & \bm{B}^3 \\ 0&0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
u_D^1 \\ u_D^5 \\ \tilde u_D
\end{pmatrix} + \mu \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\\bm{B}^5
\end{bmatrix} u_D^5, \\
0 =& - \bm{B}^{1\top} \overline{\psi}, \qquad \text{(No slip B.C.)}\\
0 =& - \bm{B}^{3\top} \overline{\psi}, \qquad \text{(Impermeable B.C.)} \\
\bm{M}^\partial u_D^1 =& \bm{B}^{5\top}\overline{\omega}, \qquad \text{(Vorticity generation)}
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}\label{eqn:inse-coupled-discr-with-noslip}\left\{
\rho_0 \, \frac{\d}{ \d t} \,
\bm{K}K & 0 \\0 & \bm{M}M
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
= &
\bm{D}D^1(\overline{\omega}) & 0 \\
0 & -\bm{D}D^2(\overline{\psi})
- \mu
\bm{R}R^1 & 0 \\0 & \bm{R}R^2
\overline{\psi} \\ \overline{\omega}
\\ & +
\mu\,\bm{B}B^1 &
\mu\,\bm{B}B^3 & \bm{B}B^3 \\ 0&0 & 0
u_D^1 \\ u_D^5 \\ \tilde u_D
+ \mu
0 \\\bm{B}B^5
u_D^5, \\
0 =& - \bm{B}B^{1\top}1\top \overline{\psi}, \qquad \text{(No slip B.C.)}\\
0 =& - \bm{B}B^{3\top}3\top \overline{\psi}, \qquad \text{(Impermeable B.C.)} \\
\bm{M}M^\partial u_D^1 =& \bm{B}B^{5\top}5\top\overline{\omega}, \qquad \text{(Vorticity generation)}
\right.
where $\tilde u_D$\tilde u_D is the Lagrange multiplier enforcing the Dirichlet boundary condition. Note that the boundary vorticity value $\bm{B}^{5\top}\overline{\omega}$\bm{B}B^{5\top}5\top\overline{\omega} is driven by the Lagrange multiplier $u_D^1$u_D^1, and its corresponding vorticity flux (Lagrange multiplier $u_D^5$u_D^5) is present in the vorticity and stream function dynamics.
|
Spatial Discretization
| false
|
2507.06869
| 4
|
95,415
|
\label{sec:numerics}
Hereafter, numerical results were obtained using the Python interface of the finite element library GetFEM \cite{renard2020getfem} and \href{https://gmsh.info/}https://gmsh.info/{Gmsh}Gmsh for mesh generation. Visualization was carried out using \href{https://www.paraview.org/}https://www.paraview.org/{ParaView}ParaView and \href{https://matplotlib.org/}https://matplotlib.org/{Matplotlib}Matplotlib.
\subsection{Nanorod equation}
Let us now study the numerical solution of the nanorod equation obtained after discretization. We will consider the domain $\Omega = [0,1]$\Omega = [0,1], the Young's modulus $E = 1$E = 1, the mass density $\rho=10$\rho=10, and as initial conditions, we choose $v_0(x) = \exp(- 80(x-0.3)^2)$v_0(x) = \exp(- 80(x-0.3)^2) and $\sigma_0(x)=0$\sigma_0(x)=0. We will then study the effect of the parameter $\ell$\ell over $ 0$ 0, $0.01$0.01, and $0.05$0.05. Finally, the implicit midpoint rule is chosen as the time scheme.
The simulation parameters are: final time $T_f = 10$T_f = 10, time step $\d t = 0.1$\d t = 0.1 and number of discretization points $N = 100.$N = 100.
Figure~\ref{fig:nanorod-hamiltonian-power-balance} shows of the evolution of the Hamiltonian for the different values of $\ell$\ell, along with respective relative energy errors $|H_{\text{Rob}}^d(t) - H_{\text{Rob}}^d(0)|/H_{\text{Rob}}^d(0)$|H_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob}^d(t) - H_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob}^d(0)|/H_{\text{Rob}}\text{Rob}^d(0).
In each setting, the model is conservative hence the total mechanical energy should remain constant, however, it is clear that increasing the parameter $\ell$\ell decreases the accuracy of the method. Such behaviour might be caused by the degradation of the condition number of the matrix $\bm{M} + \ell^2 \bm{K} + \ell \bm{BB}^\top$\bm{M}M + \ell^2 \bm{K}K + \ell \bm{BB}BB^\top as $\ell$\ell is increased (see~\ref{apx:nanorod-condition-number}). Additionaly, on the top row, the green and red lines isolate the energy contribution of the velocity energy port $\ell \, \overline{v}\bm{BB}^\top \overline{v}$\ell \, \overline{v}\bm{BB}BB^\top \overline{v} and stress energy port $\frac{\ell}{2E} \, \overline{\sigma}\bm{BB}^\top \overline{\sigma}$\frac{\ell}{2E} \, \overline{\sigma}\bm{BB}BB^\top \overline{\sigma} respectively. These show that the amount of energy stored at the boundaries becomes significant as $\ell$\ell increases and should not be omitted when considering Robin boundary conditions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/nanorod/power_balance_nanorod.png}
\caption{Plots of the nanorod Hamiltonian and relative energy error for $\ell = 0,0.01,0.05$.}
\label{fig:nanorod-hamiltonian-power-balance}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/nanorod/power_balance_nanorod.png}
\caption{Plots of the nanorod Hamiltonian and relative energy error for $\ell = 0,0.01,0.05$.}
\label{fig:nanorod-hamiltonian-power-balance}
\subsection{Implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam}
In order to illustrate the efficiency of the approach, we simulate a simply supported steel beam of 1 meter length, for two different radii $r$r: 5~cm, and 2.5~cm. The constant physical parameters of steel can be found in many references, we use the values given in~\cite{BilbaoJASA2016}. More precisely:
the mass density is $\rho = 7.86\times10^3$\rho = 7.86\times10^3 kg/m\textsuperscript{3}3, the Young's modulus is $E = 2.02\times10^{11}$E = 2.02\times10^{11}11 Pa, and the Poisson's ratio is $\nu = 0.3$\nu = 0.3. These values give as cross-section areas:
$$
h = \pi r^2 \in \{ 7.85\times10^{-3}, 1.9625\times10^{-3} \} ~ \text{m}^2,
$$
h = \pi r^2 \in \{ 7.85\times10^{-3}-3, 1.9625\times10^{-3}-3 \} ~ \text{m}^2,
and as modulus of flexural rigidity:
$$
D = E \frac{h^3}{12(1-\nu^2)} \in \{ 8.95\times10^{+3}, 1.40\times10^{+2} \} ~ \text{Nm}.
$$
D = E \frac{h^3}{12(1-\nu^2)} \in \{ 8.95\times10^{+3}+3, 1.40\times10^{+2}+2 \} ~ \text{Nm}.
The finite element model of Section~\ref{sec:PFEM}, and especially the matrices of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM}, are validated using the modal analysis mentioned in Remark~\ref{rem:phase-velocity}. The phase velocity is computed for the different configurations and two mesh size parameters in Figure~\ref{fig:phase-velocity}. One may appreciate a relative error spanning between $\sim10^{-3}$\sim10^{-3}-3 (at low frequencies) and $\sim10^{-1}$\sim10^{-1}-1 (at high frequencies). These errors obviously strongly depend on the mesh size.
\begin{figure}
\centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase10-2.png}
%\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase10-4.png}
%\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase5-2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase5-4.png}
%\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase2.5-2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase2.5-4.png}
\caption{Phase velocity for $r=5~$cm (left) and $r=2.5~$cm (right), and a mesh size parameter $\d x = 5.0\times10^{-4}$ (implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam).}
\label{fig:phase-velocity}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase5-4.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/phase2.5-4.png}
\caption{Phase velocity for $r=5~$cm (left) and $r=2.5~$cm (right), and a mesh size parameter $\d x = 5.0\times10^{-4}$ (implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam).}
\label{fig:phase-velocity}
Once validated, system~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM} may be used to simulate the evolution of a beam. Let us compare the evolution of the implicit Euler-Bernoulli model against the usual (explicit) Euler-Bernoulli model, always with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions for $v$v and $\sigma$\sigma, i.e., a simply supported beam. The chosen time scheme is a Crank-Nicolson scheme with adaptative time step $\d t$\d t. The final time is 10~ms, which is sufficient to observe several oscillations. The initial velocity is taken null, while the initial value for $\sigma$\sigma is taken such that the initial position is an exponential bump centered at $x=0.5$x=0.5. Figure~\ref{fig:evolution-beam} shows the evolution of a beam of radius $r=5$r=5~cm, i.e., with $(h, D) = ( 7.85\times10^{-3}, 8.95\times10^{+3} )$(h, D) = ( 7.85\times10^{-3}-3, 8.95\times10^{+3}+3 ), and a mesh size parameter $\d x = 5.0\times10^{-4}$\d x = 5.0\times10^{-4}-4.
\begin{figure}
\centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/time_05ms.png}
%\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/explicit/time_05ms.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/time_10ms.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/explicit/time_10ms.png}
\caption{Snapshot of the implicit (left) and explicit (right) Euler-Bernoulli beam of radius $r=5$~cm with simply supported boundary conditions, at time $t=10$~ms. Parameters: $(h, D) = ( 7.85\times10^{-3}, 8.95\times10^{+3} )$, mesh size $\d x = 5.0\times10^{-4}$.}
\label{fig:evolution-beam}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/time_10ms.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/explicit/time_10ms.png}
\caption{Snapshot of the implicit (left) and explicit (right) Euler-Bernoulli beam of radius $r=5$~cm with simply supported boundary conditions, at time $t=10$~ms. Parameters: $(h, D) = ( 7.85\times10^{-3}, 8.95\times10^{+3} )$, mesh size $\d x = 5.0\times10^{-4}$.}
\label{fig:evolution-beam}
While the difference between both models is not visually blatant in Figure~\ref{fig:evolution-beam}, it becomes clear in Figure~\ref{fig:difference}, where the $L^2$L^2-norm of the difference between the position fields $w$w over time is represented.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/Difference.png}
\caption{$L^2$ difference between the beam position computed with the explicit and implicit model over time.}
\label{fig:difference}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/Difference.png}
\caption{$L^2$ difference between the beam position computed with the explicit and implicit model over time.}
\label{fig:difference}
In Figure~\ref{fig:Hamiltonian}, the preservation of the underlying Dirac and Lagrange structures are enlightened: the variations of Hamiltonian are close to machine precision. One may furthermore appreciate that the implicit parameter, while improving the quality of the simulation for high frequencies, the requirement of CPU time is not significantly different. This latter is mainly due to the better condition number of the matrix $\rho h \bm{M} + \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{K}$\rho h \bm{M}M + \frac{\rho h^3}{12} \bm{K}K on the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:beam-PFEM}, when $h$h belongs to an appropriate range, because this results in a larger timestep, which counterbalances the time spent for the resolution of the linear system involving $\bm{K}$\bm{K}K. Indeed, it has already been explained in~\cite{ducceschi2019conservative} that the implicit Euler-Bernoulli beam (the \emph{shear} model), is well-suited for medium-sized beams, while Timoshenko's model is better suited for thick beams and (explicit) Euler-Bernoulli's for thin beams.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/Hamiltonian-4.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/explicit/Hamiltonian-4.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/Hamiltonian_variation-4.png }
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/explicit/Hamiltonian_variation-4.png}
\caption{Evolution of the Hamiltonian and its components (first line) for the implicit (left) and explicit (right) Euler-Bernoulli beam. The second line presents the relative variations of the Hamiltonian in both cases (left: implicit, right: explicit).}
\label{fig:Hamiltonian}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/Hamiltonian-4.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/explicit/Hamiltonian-4.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/implicit/Hamiltonian_variation-4.png }
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{Figures/Beam/explicit/Hamiltonian_variation-4.png}
\caption{Evolution of the Hamiltonian and its components (first line) for the implicit (left) and explicit (right) Euler-Bernoulli beam. The second line presents the relative variations of the Hamiltonian in both cases (left: implicit, right: explicit).}
\label{fig:Hamiltonian}
\subsection{Incompressible Navier-Stokes equation}
\subsubsection{Dipole collision} Let us focus on the normal dipole collision with no-slip boundary conditions problem. Such a setting has been considered as a benchmark test case to study the properties of incompressible Navier-Stokes solvers~\cite{clercx2006normal}. The 2D domain is defined as $\Omega = [-1,1]^2$\Omega = [-1,1]^2 and initial conditions for the vorticity as two monopoles~\cite{clercx2006normal}:
$$ \omega_0(x) = \omega_e \left( (1 - (r_1/r_0)^2 \exp( -(r_1/r_0)^2) - (1 - (r_2/r_0)^2 \exp( -(r_2/r_0)^2) \right), $$ \omega_0(x) = \omega_e \left( (1 - (r_1/r_0)^2 \exp( -(r_1/r_0)^2) - (1 - (r_2/r_0)^2 \exp( -(r_2/r_0)^2) \right),
with $r_1 = \left | x - c_1 \right |,r_1 = \left | x - c_2 \right |$r_1 = \left | x - c_1 \right |,r_1 = \left | x - c_2 \right | the distances between $x$x and the center of each monopole $c_1,c_2 \in \Omega$c_1,c_2 \in \Omega, $r_0$r_0 the radius of the monopoles and $\omega_e$\omega_e the extremum vorticity value.
Moreover, boundary conditions are chosen as no-slip and impermeable. As a consequence, the initial condition $\psi_0$\psi_0 is chosen to be the solution of the Poisson equation $-\Delta \psi_0 = \omega_0$-\Delta \psi_0 = \omega_0 with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions to enforce the impermeability. As highlighted in \cite{clercx2006normal}, with such initial conditions, the tangential velocity corresponding to $\omega_0$\omega_0 at the boundaries is very small, hence $\psi_0$\psi_0 satisfies the no-slip boundary condition as well.
\paragraph{Normal dipole collision}Normal dipole collision Let us choose the initial condition parameters as $c_1 = (
0 \quad 0.1
)^\top, c_2 = (
0 \quad - 0.1 )^\top, r_0 = 0.1$c_1 = (
0 \quad 0.1
)^\top, c_2 = (
0 \quad - 0.1 )^\top, r_0 = 0.1 and the extremum vorticity value is chosen $\omega_e = 300$\omega_e = 300 such that the initial kinetic energy is equal to two: $\mathcal{K}(\psi) = 2$\mathcal{K}(\psi) = 2. Such a value is slightly lower than the estimated $w_e=320$w_e=320 value in~\cite{clercx2006normal} as in our case it fits the initial condition on the kinetic energy better.
The model parameters are $\rho_0=1$\rho_0=1 and $\mu = 1/625$\mu = 1/625, the final time is chosen to be $T_f=2.5$T_f=2.5s, timestep is $\d t= 1/600$\d t= 1/600~s and the total number of dofs of the model is 78 607.
Figure~\ref{fig:inse-screenshots} shows snapshots of the vorticity at times 0.4 s, 0.6 s and 1 s.
Table~\ref{tab:normal-collision-table} lists the value of the enstrophy and kinetic energy at times 0.25 s, 0.5 s and 0.75 s.
Figure~\ref{fig:inse-kinetic-energy-power-balance} presents the time evolution of the power balance and kinetic energy. Figure~\ref{fig:inse-enstrophy} presents the time evolution of enstrophy along with the enstrophy balance.
Figure~\ref{fig:inse-boundary-profile} presents the vorticity profile at the right boundary over the times 0.4~s, 0.6~s and 1.0~s. This shows how vorticity is being generated by the Lagrange multiplier $u_D^3 = \omega_{|\partial \Omega}$u_D^3 = \omega_{|\partial \Omega}|\partial \Omega to enforce the no-slip boundary condition.
Moreover, figure~\ref{fig:inse-boundary-profile} presents a contour plot of the vorticty on the subdomain $[0.4,1]\times[0,0.6]$[0.4,1]\times[0,0.6] at time $t=1$t=1s showing how the upper part of the dipole interacts with the boundary after initial collision.
These results are compared to both \cite{clercx2006normal} and \cite{de2019inclusion}. Firstly, it is clear that the error on the enstrophy balance between each time step is close to machine precision whereas the power balance error is greater. However, in both cases, these functionals fit both references.
Additionally, both the contour plot and vorticity plot at the boundary are very close to reference plots as well.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
Time (s)& Kinetic energy (J)& Enstrophy \\
\hline
\hline
0.25 & 1.50552 & 472.1750 \\
0.5 & 1.01554 & 379.7911 \\
0.75 & 0.76913 & 250.8609
\end{tabular}
\caption{Kinetic energy and enstrophy over times $0.25$s, $0.5$s and $0.75$s.}
\label{tab:normal-collision-table}
\end{table}
\centering
Time (s)& Kinetic energy (J)& Enstrophy \\
\hline
\hline
0.25 & 1.50552 & 472.1750 \\
0.5 & 1.01554 & 379.7911 \\
0.75 & 0.76913 & 250.8609
\caption{Kinetic energy and enstrophy over times $0.25$s, $0.5$s and $0.75$s.}
\label{tab:normal-collision-table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/inse/screenshots/screen_t_04.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/inse/screenshots/screen_t_06.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/inse/screenshots/screen_t_10.png}
\caption{Vorticity at times 0.4 s, 0.6 s and 1.0 s.}
\label{fig:inse-screenshots}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/inse/screenshots/screen_t_04.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/inse/screenshots/screen_t_06.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figures/inse/screenshots/screen_t_10.png}
\caption{Vorticity at times 0.4 s, 0.6 s and 1.0 s.}
\label{fig:inse-screenshots}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_kinetic_energy.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_power_balance.png}
\caption{Time evolution of kinetic energy and power balance over time}
\label{fig:inse-kinetic-energy-power-balance}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_kinetic_energy.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_power_balance.png}
\caption{Time evolution of kinetic energy and power balance over time}
\label{fig:inse-kinetic-energy-power-balance}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_enstrophy.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_enstrophy_balance.png}
\caption{Time evolution of enstrophy and enstrophy balance over time}
\label{fig:inse-enstrophy}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_enstrophy.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Figures/inse/inse_enstrophy_balance.png}
\caption{Time evolution of enstrophy and enstrophy balance over time}
\label{fig:inse-enstrophy}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Figures/inse/boundary_values_vorticity_625_normal_dipole.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.375\linewidth]{Figures/inse/vorticity_contour_plots_t_1.png}
\caption{Vorticity profile at the right boundary $x=1$ and along $y\in[-0.6,0]$ for the times $0.4$s, $0.6$s and $1.0$s (\emph{left}). Vorticity contour plot at $t=1$s in the subdomain $[0.4,1]\times[0,0.6]$ (\emph{right}).}
\label{fig:inse-boundary-profile}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Figures/inse/boundary_values_vorticity_625_normal_dipole.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.375\linewidth]{Figures/inse/vorticity_contour_plots_t_1.png}
\caption{Vorticity profile at the right boundary $x=1$ and along $y\in[-0.6,0]$ for the times $0.4$s, $0.6$s and $1.0$s (\emph{left}). Vorticity contour plot at $t=1$s in the subdomain $[0.4,1]\times[0,0.6]$ (\emph{right}).}
\label{fig:inse-boundary-profile}
|
Numerical results
| false
|
2507.06869
| 5
|
95,422
|
\label{sec:intro}
Personalized recommender systems aim to suggest potentially attractive items based on users' profiles and behavior histories, playing a crucial role in alleviating information overload and enhancing user experience. As platforms such as Amazon and Taobao expand, the number of recommendation domains has grown dramatically, now encompassing hundreds, from homepage and category-level recommendations to specialized marketing pages\cite{chang2023pepnet}. To effectively manage these domains, \textit{Multi-domain recommendation (MDR)} has been developed to capture domain-general knowledge and improve recommendation across various domains. Methods like STAR\cite{sheng2021star} and HiNet\cite{zhou2023hinet} adopt parameter-sharing strategies, explicitly separating domain-specific and domain-general knowledge to mitigate negative transfer\cite{zhuang2020survey}. Others, such as DTRN\cite{liu2023dtrn} and PEPNet\cite{chang2023pepnet}, use hypernetwork-inspired structures\cite{ha2016hypernetworks} to dynamically adapt network parameters based on discriminative domain features.
However, most existing MDR methods are designed for fewer than ten domains\cite{wang2022causalint, zhang2022sass, chang2023pepnet, jia2024d3}, and face substantial computational and memory burdens when scaled to dozens or hundreds of domains. Furthermore, these methods fundamentally assume domains are highly similar, asserting that joint domain training is more beneficial than training domains independently in terms of knowledge transfer. This assumption, however, often fails in industrial settings. For example, transferring knowledge between weakly related domains like electronics and cosmetics is challenging and can induce severe negative transfer. Joint training of these loosely related domains tends to degrade recommendation performance, a problem that substantially worsens as the number of domains increases.
To reduce computational complexity and enhance overall recommendation performance, domain clustering, which involves grouping a vast number of domains into several clusters, has emerged as a necessary and effective step before deploying MDR\cite{li2023adl}. Using the generated grouping strategy, developers can treat multiple domains within the same cluster as a single domain, thereby significantly reducing training resource overhead. Furthermore, it allows developers to train models independently within each group, without the distraction of irrelevant knowledge from other groups, thus enhancing both training efficiency and recommendation accuracy. Figure \ref{fig:domain_clustering} illustrates this process. Nevertheless, domain clustering for MDR encounters the following three primary challenges:
Challenge 1: \textbf{How to measure transfer relationships between domains?} Manually grouping domains for MDR often overlooks the inherent characteristics of data distributions. Although data distribution correlation~\cite{li2023adl, swayamdipta2020dataset, sherif2024stg} and gradient differences~\cite{bai2022saliency} are frequently used as an indicator of inter-domain relationships, they fail to adequately reflect the efficacy of knowledge transfer after clustering~\cite{standley2020tasks}. For example, a domain encompassing a wide variety of items may have a distribution that significantly differs from its more specialized sub-categories. However, joint training often provides these sub-category domains with valuable general knowledge from the broader domain, thereby improving recommendation performance. This observation underscores a critical discrepancy: data distributions are static reflections of domain characteristics, whereas the true effectiveness of domain knowledge transfer emerges only \textit{after training}. This often-overlooked gap arises from the predictive mapping capabilities of recommendation models. It leads to a misalignment between domain relevancy derived from data distributions or gradient similarities, and the true inter-domain relationships essential for optimal clustering. Therefore, it is essential to develop a more precise measure of one-to-one inter-domain transfer relationships that genuinely reflects the post-clustering performance.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{-8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,trim=0 12 0 20 ,clip]{pic/domain_clustering.pdf} %l b r t
\vspace{-18pt}
\caption{Compared with existing MDR and domain grouping methods, CDC optimizes training source domain sets to maximize target cluster performance.}
\vspace{-16pt}
\label{fig:domain_clustering}
\end{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,trim=0 12 0 20 ,clip]{pic/domain_clustering.pdf} \vspace{-18pt}
\caption{Compared with existing MDR and domain grouping methods, CDC optimizes training source domain sets to maximize target cluster performance.}
\vspace{-16pt}
\label{fig:domain_clustering}
Challenge 2: \textbf{How to evaluate transfer relationships considering domain interactions?} Measuring transfer relationships is further complicated by potential synergies or interferences among domains during higher-order joint training, collectively termed \textit{domain interaction}. For instance, a generalized apparel scenario might suffer negative transfer if trained only with men’s or women’s fashion due to distinct user characteristics. Training with both domains, however, could approximate the global distribution and foster synergistic interactions between the domains, yielding better results. It's crucial to consider the impact of domain synergy and interference in MDR; however, conventional one-to-one transfer metrics do not capture these interactions, or merely approximate them by combinations of lower-order relationships \cite{fifty2021efficiently}.
Challenge 3: \textbf{How to determine the optimal clustering and the best training data for each cluster?} Ideal clustering aims to maximize performance by jointly training domains within each cluster. However, given domain interaction and data scale impacts, it is nearly impossible to predict the final recommendation performance before completing the clustering, even with known one-to-one transfer effects between domains. Furthermore, due to the directional nature of domain transfers, the best training domain set for a cluster might exclude some of its own domains. Therefore, an effective domain clustering algorithm for MDR must not only identify the optimal target domain clustering but also select the corresponding source domains for training.
To address these challenges, we propose a novel \textbf{Causal Domain Clustering (CDC)} method for multi-domain recommendation. Specifically, by using one-step-forward (i.e., \textit{lookahead}) updates~\cite{fifty2021efficiently} with dynamic training domain sets, we explicitly model two domain transfer effect matrices. These matrices, based on loss function variations, bridge the traditional gap between optimization objectives and measurements based solely on data distribution (Challenge 1). To elaborate, the Isolated Domain Affinity Matrix captures transfer effects between domains under non-interaction conditions, while the Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix considers the domain synergy or interference during joint training. To integrate these two transfer effects, we introduce causal discovery \cite{pearl2009causality} to calculate a cluster cohesion-based interaction coefficient, adaptively adjusting the two matrices' contribution to the final transfer effect (Challenge 2). Finally, our Co-Optimized Dynamic Clustering (CODC) algorithm heuristically solves optimal clusterings and corresponding source domain sets, providing a practical solution to an otherwise intractable problem (Challenge 3). In our experiments, CDC outperforms baselines on two public datasets and shows effectiveness in both offline and online settings on industrial platforms. The contributions of this work are summarized as follows:
(1) We propose a novel Causal Domain Clustering (CDC) framework, to the best of our knowledge, the first to incorporate causal discovery for domain clustering in multi-domain recommendation.
(2) We model the transfer effects between domains in a dual-dynamic manner. First, we dynamically adjust the training domains for updating the transfer matrices. Second, we propose a cohesion-based coefficient based on causal discovery, to dynamically evaluate the degree of domain synergy within the training domain set.
(3) We introduce the Co-Optimized Dynamic Clustering (CODC) algorithm, which simultaneously optimizes both the target domain clustering and the optimal source training domain set, enabling the best recommendation performance in the target domain.
(4) We achieve significant improvements on evaluations on two public and two industrial datasets. CDC is model-agnostic and easy to deploy. Over 14 days of A/B testing online across 64 domains, it resulted in a 4.9\% improvement in eCPM.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2507.06877
| 1
|
95,423
|
\subsection{Multi-Domain Recommendation}
Multi-domain recommendation (MDR) uses domain knowledge transfer to enhance performance across all included domains. Inspired by multi-task learning \cite{ma2018mmoe, tang2020ple}, many methods, such as STAR \cite{sheng2021star}, AESM\textsuperscript{2}2 \cite{zou2022AESM2}, and HiNet \cite{zhou2023hinet}, explicitly partition shared and specific parameters to disentangle domain-specific and domain-general knowledge. Other approaches, including SAR-Net \cite{shen2021sarnet}, PEPNet \cite{chang2023pepnet}, and D3 \cite{jia2024d3}, focus on learning domain-discriminative feature representations with mechanisms like hyper-networks or attention. However, these studies typically require manually selecting domains in advance under the assumption that they are strongly relevant, an assumption that may not hold in real-world settings. In this paper, CDC addresses the challenge of clustering dozens or hundreds of domains, iteratively searching for optimal domain groups suitable for joint training.
After clustering, any existing MDR method can be employed within each optimized cluster.
\subsection{Domain Clustering}
Domain clustering, or domain grouping, addresses the problem of determining which domains should be trained together in MDR. This issue has a significant impact on both the final performance and computational cost, yet remains relatively underexplored. A closely related research problem is task grouping in multi-task learning, where tasks are organized into groups to mitigate negative transfer. Many multi-task learning approaches adjust task loss weights to balance the multiple tasks~\cite{liu2019loss, raychaudhuri2022controllable, liu2022autolambda, liu2023multitask} and benefit from easy deployment. However, even with low task weights, training unrelated tasks together often leads to a seesaw effect~\cite{tang2020ple} and prevents achieving global optimality. Highly relevant are two-stage task grouping methods~\cite{standley2020tasks, fifty2021efficiently, wang2024principled}, which first learn task \textit{affinities} (i.e., task transfer relationships) during training and then employ search techniques like branch-and-bound~\cite{fifty2021efficiently} to find optimal groupings. In these studies, gains of higher-order task combinations are approximated based on pairwise relationships. In contrast, Song et al.~\cite{song2022efficient} utilized meta-learning to estimate task grouping gains. Our work extends Fifty et al.~\cite{fifty2021efficiently} by capturing domain affinities in both isolated and interaction settings, which addresses the challenge of evaluating high-order gains. We further introduce causal discovery to integrate these affinities. Beyond standard domain clustering, our method seeks to identify optimal training source domains that, though different from those within the target clusters, enhance the overall prediction performance of the grouped domains.
|
Related Work
| false
|
2507.06877
| 2
|
95,424
|
\subsection{Problem Definition}
We focus on the domain clustering phase in MDR, a critical step before model training. Given \(D\)D domains \(\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_D\}\)\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_D\}, we aim to partition them into \(K\)K clusters. Unlike conventional domain clustering methods, we allow distinct target/inference domains and training domains. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:domain_clustering}, our model optimizes two key variables: the \textbf{\emph{target domain cluster}} \(\mathcal{T}_k\)\mathcal{T}_k (with \(\sum_{k=1}^{K} \mathcal{T}_k = \mathcal{D}\)\sum_{k=1}k=1^{K}K \mathcal{T}_k = \mathcal{D}), which denotes the domains targeted for enhancement within \(K\)K separate MDR models; and the \textbf{\emph{training source domain set}} \(\mathcal{S}_k\)\mathcal{S}_k, which represents the domains used for training each model. In our paradigm, \(\mathcal{S}_k \neq \mathcal{T}_k\)\mathcal{S}_k \neq \mathcal{T}_k, and \(\mathcal{S}_k\)\mathcal{S}_k is specifically optimized to maximize performance of its corresponding target domain cluster \(\mathcal{T}_k\)\mathcal{T}_k.
Let $\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}$\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}\mathcal{S}_k denote the parameters of the separate model trained on $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}=\underset{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}{\arg \min } \sum_{d \in \mathcal{T}_k} \mathcal{L}(f(x, d), y(x, d)),
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}=\underset{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}{\arg \min } \sum_{d \in \mathcal{T}_k} \mathcal{L}(f(x, d), y(x, d)),
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}\mathcal{S}_k=\underset{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}\mathcal{S}_k{\arg \min }\arg \min \sum_{d \in \mathcal{T}_k}d \in \mathcal{T}_k \mathcal{L}(f(x, d), y(x, d)),
where $\mathcal{L}$\mathcal{L} is the loss function, $f$f the recommender model for input features $x$x and domain indicator $d$d, and $y(x, d)$y(x, d) the binary label. Our goal is to find $\{\mathcal{T}_k,\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}^K$\{\mathcal{T}_k,\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}k=1^K that minimizes
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{total}} = \sum_{k = 1}^{K}{
\sum_{d \in \mathcal{T}_k}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}(x, d), y(x, d))}
},
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{total}} = \sum_{k = 1}^{K}{
\sum_{d \in \mathcal{T}_k}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}(x, d), y(x, d))}
},
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{total}}\text{total} = \sum_{k = 1}k = 1^{K}K{
\sum_{d \in \mathcal{T}_k}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}(x, d), y(x, d))}
}
\sum_{d \in \mathcal{T}_k}d \in \mathcal{T}_k{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}(x, d), y(x, d))}\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}\mathcal{S}_k(x, d), y(x, d))
,
where $f_{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}$f_{\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}}\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}\mathcal{S}_k represents the model parameterized by $\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}$\Theta_{\mathcal{S}_k}\mathcal{S}_k.
\subsection{Causal Discovery}
\label{sec:kernel}
Causal discovery, a key technique in causality research~\cite{pearl2009causality}, aims to learn causal structures and discover causal relationships from data under specific assumptions~\cite{luo2024ci4rs}. For example, given gene expression levels across different time points, causal discovery can investigate causal relationships among genes, determining how one gene may influence the expression of others~\cite{iyer1999transcriptional, dhillon2003diametrical, dhillon2004kernel, markham2022distance}. These genes, however, may not belong to a single unified causal structure, but rather multiple ones, each with unique relationship patterns, referred to as \textit{causal structural heterogeneity}. To address this, current studies use causal clustering to group samples (genes here) based on causal distance, identifying structurally homogeneous subsets, and then focus causal learning within each cluster~\cite{liu2015reverse, markham2022distance}. In this study, we use the \textit{dependence contribution kernel} \(\kappa\)\kappa proposed by Markham et al.\footnote{Open source implementation: \href{https://causal.dev/code/dep_con_kernel.py}{https://causal.dev/code/dep\_con\_kernel.py}} \cite{markham2022distance} to compute the causal distances between domains in MDR.
|
Preliminary
| false
|
2507.06877
| 3
|
857
|
Applying the theorems in the previous section, we can obtain upper and lower bounds of $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F)$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,F) for various families of graphs.
\subsection{$K_{s,t}$-free graphs}
In this subsection, we prove Corollary \ref{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge}. The following lemma establishes an upper bound on the maximum number of $K_r$K_r's in a $K_{s,t}$K_{s,t}s,t-free graph with $n$n vertices.
\begin{lem}\label{Upper_n_Kr}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
For any fixed $r \geq 2$ and $t \geq s \geq r-1$,
$$
\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, K_{s, t}\right) \leq\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right)(t-1)^{\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}} n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}.
$$
\end{lem}\begin{lem}\label{Upper_n_Kr}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
For any fixed $r \geq 2$ and $t \geq s \geq r-1$,
$$
\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, K_{s, t}\right) \leq\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right)(t-1)^{\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}} n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}.
$$
\end{lem}\label{Upper_n_Kr}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
For any fixed $r \geq 2$r \geq 2 and $t \geq s \geq r-1$t \geq s \geq r-1,
$$
\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, K_{s, t}\right) \leq\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right)(t-1)^{\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}} n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}.
$$
\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, K_{s, t}s, t\right) \leq\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right)(t-1)^{\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s} n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}.
The projective norm-graphs $H(q, s)$H(q, s) constructed in~\cite{Alon_Norm_graph} are known to be $K_{s,(s-1)!+1}$K_{s,(s-1)!+1}s,(s-1)!+1-free, making them a natural candidate for studying the behavior of $K_r$K_r's in graphs that avoid certain complete bipartite subgraphs. The next lemma shows that the number of $K_r$K_r's in $H(q, s)$H(q, s) matches the upper bound established in Lemma \ref{Upper_n_Kr} up to a constant factor, demonstrating that the upper bound is asymptotically tight for $s\geq 2r-2$s\geq 2r-2 and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$t\geq (s-1)!+1.
\begin{lem}\label{Lower_n_Kr}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
For any fixed $r, s \geq 2 r-2$ and $t \geq(s-1)!+1$, let $H=H(q,s)$ be a projective norm-graph and let $n=v(H)$,
$$
\mathcal{N} (K_r, H(q,s)) =\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right) n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}.%=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
$$
In particular, for any fixed $s \geq 2$ and $t \geq(s-1)!+1$, $$\mathcal{N}\left(K_3, H(q,s)\right)=\Theta\left(n^{3-3 / s}\right).%=\Theta\left(m^\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}\right).
$$
\end{lem}\begin{lem}\label{Lower_n_Kr}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
For any fixed $r, s \geq 2 r-2$ and $t \geq(s-1)!+1$, let $H=H(q,s)$ be a projective norm-graph and let $n=v(H)$,
$$
\mathcal{N} (K_r, H(q,s)) =\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right) n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}.%=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
$$
In particular, for any fixed $s \geq 2$ and $t \geq(s-1)!+1$, $$\mathcal{N}\left(K_3, H(q,s)\right)=\Theta\left(n^{3-3 / s}\right).%=\Theta\left(m^\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}\right).
$$
\end{lem}\label{Lower_n_Kr}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
For any fixed $r, s \geq 2 r-2$r, s \geq 2 r-2 and $t \geq(s-1)!+1$t \geq(s-1)!+1, let $H=H(q,s)$H=H(q,s) be a projective norm-graph and let $n=v(H)$n=v(H),
$$
\mathcal{N} (K_r, H(q,s)) =\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right) n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}.%=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
$$
\mathcal{N} (K_r, H(q,s)) =\left(\frac{1}{r!}+o(1)\right) n^{r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}}r-\frac{r(r-1)}{2 s}.
In particular, for any fixed $s \geq 2$s \geq 2 and $t \geq(s-1)!+1$t \geq(s-1)!+1, $$\mathcal{N}\left(K_3, H(q,s)\right)=\Theta\left(n^{3-3 / s}\right).%=\Theta\left(m^\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}\right).
$$\mathcal{N}\left(K_3, H(q,s)\right)=\Theta\left(n^{3-3 / s}3-3 / s\right).
Now, we can apply Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free} to get $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t}s,t).
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge}]
By the classical K\"{o}vari-S\'{o}s-Tur\'{a}n Theorem, we have $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{s,t})=O(n^{2-1/s})$.
By Lemma \ref{Upper_n_Kr}, for $r\geq 3$ and $t\geq s\geq r$, $$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r-1},K_{s-1,t})=O\left(n^{r-1-\frac{(r-1)(r-2)}{2(s-1)}}\right).$$ Hence, by Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, $$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).$$ In particular, when $r\geq 4$, $s\geq 2r-2$ and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$, or $r=3$ and $t\geq (s-1)!+1\geq 2$, the existence of the projective norm-graphs shows that
$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right)$.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge}]
By the classical K\"{o}vari-S\'{o}s-Tur\'{a}n Theorem, we have $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{s,t})=O(n^{2-1/s})$.
By Lemma \ref{Upper_n_Kr}, for $r\geq 3$ and $t\geq s\geq r$, $$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r-1},K_{s-1,t})=O\left(n^{r-1-\frac{(r-1)(r-2)}{2(s-1)}}\right).$$ Hence, by Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, $$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).$$ In particular, when $r\geq 4$, $s\geq 2r-2$ and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$, or $r=3$ and $t\geq (s-1)!+1\geq 2$, the existence of the projective norm-graphs shows that
$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right)$.
\end{proof}
By the classical K\"{o}vari-S\'{o}s-Tur\'{a}n Theorem, we have $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{s,t})=O(n^{2-1/s})$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{s,t}s,t)=O(n^{2-1/s}2-1/s).
By Lemma \ref{Upper_n_Kr}, for $r\geq 3$r\geq 3 and $t\geq s\geq r$t\geq s\geq r, $$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r-1},K_{s-1,t})=O\left(n^{r-1-\frac{(r-1)(r-2)}{2(s-1)}}\right).$$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r-1}r-1,K_{s-1,t}s-1,t)=O\left(n^{r-1-\frac{(r-1)(r-2)}{2(s-1)}}r-1-\frac{(r-1)(r-2)}{2(s-1)}\right). Hence, by Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, $$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).$$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t}s,t)=O\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right). In particular, when $r\geq 4$r\geq 4, $s\geq 2r-2$s\geq 2r-2 and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$t\geq (s-1)!+1, or $r=3$r=3 and $t\geq (s-1)!+1\geq 2$t\geq (s-1)!+1\geq 2, the existence of the projective norm-graphs shows that
$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t})=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right)$ \mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s,t}s,t)=\Theta\left(m^\frac{rs-\binom{r}{2}}{2s-1}\right).
Note that when $r=3$r=3, we obtain that $\text{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,t})=\Theta(m^{\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}})$\text{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,t}s,t)=\Theta(m^{\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}}\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}) for $s\geq 2$s\geq 2 and $t\geq (s-1)!+1$t\geq (s-1)!+1, and this conclusion can be derived by Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free} and K\"{o}vari-S\'{o}s-Tur\'{a}n Theorem (without applying Lemma~\ref{Upper_n_Kr}).
Moreover, for the general case, we can get a lower bound by Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}.
\begin{thm}\label{Lower_K_r_in_K_{s,t}-free}
Let $r>u\ge2$ and $t\ge s\ge \max\left(\binom{r}{2},2r-2\right)$. Then there exists $C_{u,r}$ such that
$$
ex_u(p,K_r,K_{s,t})\ge C_{u,r}p^{\frac{2rst-r(r-1)(s+t)-r(r-1)(r-2)}{2ust-u(u-1)(s+t)-ur(r-1)+2u(u-1)}}.
$$
holds for sufficiently large $p$.
\end{thm}\begin{thm}\label{Lower_K_r_in_K_{s,t}-free}
Let $r>u\ge2$ and $t\ge s\ge \max\left(\binom{r}{2},2r-2\right)$. Then there exists $C_{u,r}$ such that
$$
ex_u(p,K_r,K_{s,t})\ge C_{u,r}p^{\frac{2rst-r(r-1)(s+t)-r(r-1)(r-2)}{2ust-u(u-1)(s+t)-ur(r-1)+2u(u-1)}}.
$$
holds for sufficiently large $p$.
\end{thm}\label{Lower_K_r_in_K_{s,t}-free}
Let $r>u\ge2$r>u\ge2 and $t\ge s\ge \max\left(\binom{r}{2},2r-2\right)$t\ge s\ge \max\left(\binom{r}r{2}2,2r-2\right). Then there exists $C_{u,r}$C_{u,r}u,r such that
$$
ex_u(p,K_r,K_{s,t})\ge C_{u,r}p^{\frac{2rst-r(r-1)(s+t)-r(r-1)(r-2)}{2ust-u(u-1)(s+t)-ur(r-1)+2u(u-1)}}.
$$
ex_u(p,K_r,K_{s,t}s,t)\ge C_{u,r}u,rp^{\frac{2rst-r(r-1)(s+t)-r(r-1)(r-2)}{2ust-u(u-1)(s+t)-ur(r-1)+2u(u-1)}}\frac{2rst-r(r-1)(s+t)-r(r-1)(r-2)}{2ust-u(u-1)(s+t)-ur(r-1)+2u(u-1)}.
holds for sufficiently large $p$p.
\begin{proof}
%We only need to verify $\min\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s,t},e_{K_{s,t}}>0}\frac{v(F)}{e(F)}>\frac{v(K_{s,t})-2}{e(K_{s,t})-\binom{r}{2}}$ and $e(K_{s,t})>\frac{r-1}{2}v(K_{s,t})+\binom r 2-(r-1)$.
Notice that when $t\geq s\ge2(r-2)$ and $r\geq 3$,
$$
\begin{aligned}
e(K_{s,t})-\frac{r-1}{2}v(K_{s,t})-\binom r 2+(r-1)&\geq
\left(s-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)\left(t-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)-\frac{(r-1)(3r-5)}{4}\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(6r^2-10r-4)>0,
\end{aligned}
$$
and since $\frac{2st}{s+t}\ge \min(s,t)\ge \binom{r}{2}$,
$$
\max\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s,t},e_{K_{s,t}}>0}\frac{2e(F)}{v(F)}\le\max_{s_0\le s,t_0\le t}\frac{2s_0t_0}{s_0+t_0}\le \frac{2st}{s+t}<\frac{2st-r(r-1)}{s+t-2}.
$$
Thus, the theorem follows by Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
%We only need to verify $\min\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s,t},e_{K_{s,t}}>0}\frac{v(F)}{e(F)}>\frac{v(K_{s,t})-2}{e(K_{s,t})-\binom{r}{2}}$ and $e(K_{s,t})>\frac{r-1}{2}v(K_{s,t})+\binom r 2-(r-1)$.
Notice that when $t\geq s\ge2(r-2)$ and $r\geq 3$,
$$
\begin{aligned}
e(K_{s,t})-\frac{r-1}{2}v(K_{s,t})-\binom r 2+(r-1)&\geq
\left(s-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)\left(t-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)-\frac{(r-1)(3r-5)}{4}\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(6r^2-10r-4)>0,
\end{aligned}
$$
and since $\frac{2st}{s+t}\ge \min(s,t)\ge \binom{r}{2}$,
$$
\max\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s,t},e_{K_{s,t}}>0}\frac{2e(F)}{v(F)}\le\max_{s_0\le s,t_0\le t}\frac{2s_0t_0}{s_0+t_0}\le \frac{2st}{s+t}<\frac{2st-r(r-1)}{s+t-2}.
$$
Thus, the theorem follows by Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}.
\end{proof}
Notice that when $t\geq s\ge2(r-2)$t\geq s\ge2(r-2) and $r\geq 3$r\geq 3,
$$
\begin{aligned}
e(K_{s,t})-\frac{r-1}{2}v(K_{s,t})-\binom r 2+(r-1)&\geq
\left(s-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)\left(t-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)-\frac{(r-1)(3r-5)}{4}\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(6r^2-10r-4)>0,
\end{aligned}
$$
e(K_{s,t}s,t)-\frac{r-1}{2}v(K_{s,t}s,t)-\binom r 2+(r-1)&\geq
\left(s-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)\left(t-\frac{r-1}{2}\right)-\frac{(r-1)(3r-5)}{4}\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(6r^2-10r-4)>0,
and since $\frac{2st}{s+t}\ge \min(s,t)\ge \binom{r}{2}$\frac{2st}{s+t}\ge \min(s,t)\ge \binom{r}r{2}2,
$$
\max\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s,t},e_{K_{s,t}}>0}\frac{2e(F)}{v(F)}\le\max_{s_0\le s,t_0\le t}\frac{2s_0t_0}{s_0+t_0}\le \frac{2st}{s+t}<\frac{2st-r(r-1)}{s+t-2}.
$$
\max\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s,t},e_{K_{s,t}}>0}F\subseteq K_{s,t}s,t,e_{K_{s,t}}K_{s,t}s,t>0\frac{2e(F)}{v(F)}\le\max_{s_0\le s,t_0\le t}s_0\le s,t_0\le t\frac{2s_0t_0}{s_0+t_0}\le \frac{2st}{s+t}<\frac{2st-r(r-1)}{s+t-2}.
Thus, the theorem follows by Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}.
Set $p=2$p=2 and $s=t\geq 4$s=t\geq 4, we have the following corollary by Theorems~\ref{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge} and \ref{Lower_K_r_in_K_{s,t}-free} directly.
\begin{cor}\label{Cor_mex(m,K3,Kst)}
Let $s\geq 4$ be an integer. Then $$\text{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s}) = \Omega(m^{\frac{3s-6}{2s-2}}) \text{ and mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s})=O(m^{\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}}).$$
\end{cor}\begin{cor}\label{Cor_mex(m,K3,Kst)}
Let $s\geq 4$ be an integer. Then $$\text{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s}) = \Omega(m^{\frac{3s-6}{2s-2}}) \text{ and mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s})=O(m^{\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}}).$$
\end{cor}\label{Cor_mex(m,K3,Kst)}
Let $s\geq 4$s\geq 4 be an integer. Then $$\text{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s}) = \Omega(m^{\frac{3s-6}{2s-2}}) \text{ and mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s})=O(m^{\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}}).$$\text{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s}s,s) = \Omega(m^{\frac{3s-6}{2s-2}}\frac{3s-6}{2s-2}) \text{ and mex}(m,K_3,K_{s,s}s,s)=O(m^{\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}}\frac{3s-3}{2s-1}).
\subsection{$K_{s_1,\ldots,s_r}$-free graph}
Recently, Balogh, Jiang and Luo~\cite{complete_r_partite_free} derived an upper bound of $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r},K_{s_1,\cdots,s_r})$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r}r,K_{s_1,\cdots,s_r}s_1,\cdots,s_r) for $r\geq 3$r\geq 3.
\begin{lem}~\cite{complete_r_partite_free}\label{complete_r_partite_free}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 3$ and positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$, $ex\left(n, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}\right)=o\left(n^{r-1 / \prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}\right)$.
\end{lem}\begin{lem}~\cite{complete_r_partite_free}\label{complete_r_partite_free}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 3$ and positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$, $ex\left(n, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}\right)=o\left(n^{r-1 / \prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}\right)$.
\end{lem}~\cite{complete_r_partite_free}\label{complete_r_partite_free}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 3$r \geqslant 3 and positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r, $ex\left(n, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}\right)=o\left(n^{r-1 / \prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}\right)$ex\left(n, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r\right)=o\left(n^{r-1 / \prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}r-1 / \prod_{i=1}i=1^{r-1}r-1 s_i\right).
By Corollary~\ref{ex(n,kr,F)_indicates_mex(m,Kr,F)} and Lemma~\ref{complete_r_partite_free}, we obtain an upper bound for $mex\left(m, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}\right)$mex\left(m, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r\right).
\begin{thm}\label{m_complete_r_partite_free}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 3$ and positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$, $mex\left(m, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}\right)=o\left(m^{\frac{(r-1)s}{r+s-2}}\right)$, where $s=r-\frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}$.
\end{thm}\begin{thm}\label{m_complete_r_partite_free}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 3$ and positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$, $mex\left(m, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}\right)=o\left(m^{\frac{(r-1)s}{r+s-2}}\right)$, where $s=r-\frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}$.
\end{thm}\label{m_complete_r_partite_free}
For every positive integer $r \geqslant 3$r \geqslant 3 and positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r$s_1 \leqslant s_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant s_r, $mex\left(m, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}\right)=o\left(m^{\frac{(r-1)s}{r+s-2}}\right)$mex\left(m, K_r, K_{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r}s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_r\right)=o\left(m^{\frac{(r-1)s}{r+s-2}}\frac{(r-1)s}{r+s-2}\right), where $s=r-\frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}$s=r-\frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-1} s_i}.
For the case when $r=3$r=3, we have the following.
\begin{cor}
For positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2\leqslant s_3$, $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=o(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{8s_1s_2-2}})$.
When $\frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}$, then $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}})$.
\end{cor}\begin{cor}
For positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2\leqslant s_3$, $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=o(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{8s_1s_2-2}})$.
When $\frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}$, then $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}})$.
\end{cor}
For positive integers $s_1 \leqslant s_2\leqslant s_3$s_1 \leqslant s_2\leqslant s_3, $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=o(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{8s_1s_2-2}})$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}s_1,s_2,s_3)=o(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{8s_1s_2-2}}\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{8s_1s_2-2}).
When $\frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}$\frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}, then $\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}})$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}s_1,s_2,s_3)=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}}\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}).
\begin{proof}
The upper bound can be obtained by Theorem \ref{m_complete_r_partite_free} directly. The proof of the lower bound requires Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, so we first verify the conditions are satisfied: $e(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1>\frac 3 2(s_1+s_2+s_3)>v(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})+1$;
\begin{align*}
\max\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s_1,s_2,s_3},e_{K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}}>0}\frac{2e(F)}{v(F)}
&\ge \frac{2(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)}{s_1+s_2+s_3} %\label{4-cor-eq1}
\\
&>\frac{2(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-6}{s_1+s_2+s_3-2}, %\label{4-cor-eq2}
\end{align*}
where the first inequality holds because of Lemma~\ref{Min_Phi_KPI_2} and the second inequality holds as $ \frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}$. Hence, by Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, we have $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}}).$$
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
The upper bound can be obtained by Theorem \ref{m_complete_r_partite_free} directly. The proof of the lower bound requires Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, so we first verify the conditions are satisfied: $e(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1>\frac 3 2(s_1+s_2+s_3)>v(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})+1$;
\begin{align*}
\max\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s_1,s_2,s_3},e_{K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}}>0}\frac{2e(F)}{v(F)}
&\ge \frac{2(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)}{s_1+s_2+s_3} %\label{4-cor-eq1}
\\
&>\frac{2(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-6}{s_1+s_2+s_3-2}, %\label{4-cor-eq2}
\end{align*}
where the first inequality holds because of Lemma~\ref{Min_Phi_KPI_2} and the second inequality holds as $ \frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}$. Hence, by Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, we have $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}}).$$
\end{proof}
The upper bound can be obtained by Theorem \ref{m_complete_r_partite_free} directly. The proof of the lower bound requires Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, so we first verify the conditions are satisfied: $e(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1>\frac 3 2(s_1+s_2+s_3)>v(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})+1$e(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}s_1,s_2,s_3)=s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1>\frac 3 2(s_1+s_2+s_3)>v(K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}s_1,s_2,s_3)+1;
\max\limits_{F\subseteq K_{s_1,s_2,s_3},e_{K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}}>0}F\subseteq K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}s_1,s_2,s_3,e_{K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}}K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}s_1,s_2,s_3>0\frac{2e(F)}{v(F)}
&\ge \frac{2(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)}{s_1+s_2+s_3} \\
&>\frac{2(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-6}{s_1+s_2+s_3-2},
where the first inequality holds because of Lemma~\ref{Min_Phi_KPI_2} and the second inequality holds as $ \frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}$ \frac{s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1}{s_1+s_2+s_3}>\frac{3}{2}. Hence, by Theorem~\ref{Lowerbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, we have $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3})=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}}).$$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_3,K_{s_1,s_2,s_3}s_1,s_2,s_3)=\Omega(m^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}}\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3(s_1+s_2+s_3)-6}{4(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)-2(s_1+s_2+s_3)-8}).
For two given graphs $G$G and $H$H, we denote by $G \vee H$G \vee H the graph with vertex set $V(G) \cup V(H)$V(G) \cup V(H) and edge set $E(G) \cup E(H) \cup \{xy : x \in V(G), y \in V(H)\}$E(G) \cup E(H) \cup \{xy : x \in V(G), y \in V(H)\}. In Theorem \ref{m_complete_r_partite_free}, when $s_1=1$s_1=1, we can get a better upper bound by Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}. Since $K_{1,s_2,\ldots s_r}=K_1\vee K_{s_2,\ldots,s_r}$K_{1,s_2,\ldots s_r}1,s_2,\ldots s_r=K_1\vee K_{s_2,\ldots,s_r}s_2,\ldots,s_r, there exists $c_2$c_2 that $\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r-1},K_{s_2\ldots,s_r})\le c_2 n^{r-1-1/\prod_{i=2}^{r-1}}$\mathrm{ex}(n,K_{r-1}r-1,K_{s_2\ldots,s_r}s_2\ldots,s_r)\le c_2 n^{r-1-1/\prod_{i=2}^{r-1}}r-1-1/\prod_{i=2}i=2^{r-1}r-1. Therefore, by Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, $\mathrm{mex}(n,K_{r},K_{1,s_2\ldots,s_r})=O(m^{(r-1/\prod_{i=2}^{r-1})/2})$\mathrm{mex}(n,K_{r}r,K_{1,s_2\ldots,s_r}1,s_2\ldots,s_r)=O(m^{(r-1/\prod_{i=2}^{r-1})/2}(r-1/\prod_{i=2}i=2^{r-1}r-1)/2).
\subsection{$(K_{s}\vee C_{l})$-free graph}
We denote by $C_l$C_l the cycle on $l$l vertices. The study of the edge count of $C_{2k}$C_{2k}2k-free graphs has been a significant topic in extremal graph theory. Bondy and Simonovits~\cite{Bondy_C2k} proved that $\text{ex}(n, C_{2k}) = O(n^{1 + 1/k})$\text{ex}(n, C_{2k}2k) = O(n^{1 + 1/k}1 + 1/k), and this result was improved by Bukh and Jiang~\cite{Bukh_bound} to $\text{ex}(n, C_{2k}) \leq 80 \sqrt{k} \log k \cdot n^{1 + 1/k} + O(n)$\text{ex}(n, C_{2k}2k) \leq 80 \sqrt{k} \log k \cdot n^{1 + 1/k}1 + 1/k + O(n). Meanwhile, the generalized Tur\'an problem $\text{ex}(n, K_r, C_l)$\text{ex}(n, K_r, C_l) has also been widely discussed. Alon and Shikhelman~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs} showed that $\text{ex}(n, K_3, C_{2k+1}) = O(n^{1 + 1/k})$\text{ex}(n, K_3, C_{2k+1}2k+1) = O(n^{1 + 1/k}1 + 1/k), and this result was extended by Gerbner, Methuku and Vizer~\cite{Gerbner_kF_free} in the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{ex(n,Kr,Cl)}~\cite{Gerbner_kF_free}
We have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] For any $r \geq 3, l \geq 2$,
$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l+1}\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}\right)$.
\item[(b)] For any $r\ge 2, l \geq 2$,
$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l}\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}\begin{lem}\label{ex(n,Kr,Cl)}~\cite{Gerbner_kF_free}
We have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] For any $r \geq 3, l \geq 2$,
$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l+1}\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}\right)$.
\item[(b)] For any $r\ge 2, l \geq 2$,
$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l}\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}\label{ex(n,Kr,Cl)}~\cite{Gerbner_kF_free}
We have
\item[(a)] For any $r \geq 3, l \geq 2$r \geq 3, l \geq 2,
$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l+1}\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}\right)$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l+1}2 l+1\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}1+1 / l\right).
\item[(b)] For any $r\ge 2, l \geq 2$r\ge 2, l \geq 2,
$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l}\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}\right)$\mathrm{ex}\left(n, K_r, C_{2 l}2 l\right) =O\left(n^{1+1 / l}1+1 / l\right).
Now we obtain the following estimates for $\text{mex}(m, K_r, K_{s}\vee C_{l})$\text{mex}(m, K_r, K_{s}s\vee C_{l}l).
\begin{thm}\label{mex(m,Kr,KsvCl)}
Let $r\geq 3$, $l\geq 4$ and $s\geq 1$ be positive integers. Then we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $l=2t$ and $r\geq s+2$, or $l=2t+1$ and $r\geq s+3$ for some $t\geq 2$, then $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}).$$
\item[(ii)] Otherwise, $\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}\begin{thm}\label{mex(m,Kr,KsvCl)}
Let $r\geq 3$, $l\geq 4$ and $s\geq 1$ be positive integers. Then we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $l=2t$ and $r\geq s+2$, or $l=2t+1$ and $r\geq s+3$ for some $t\geq 2$, then $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}).$$
\item[(ii)] Otherwise, $\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}\label{mex(m,Kr,KsvCl)}
Let $r\geq 3$r\geq 3, $l\geq 4$l\geq 4 and $s\geq 1$s\geq 1 be positive integers. Then we have
\item[(i)] If $l=2t$l=2t and $r\geq s+2$r\geq s+2, or $l=2t+1$l=2t+1 and $r\geq s+3$r\geq s+3 for some $t\geq 2$t\geq 2, then $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}).$$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}s\vee C_{l}l)=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}).
\item[(ii)] Otherwise, $\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}s\vee C_{l}l)=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2}).
\begin{proof}
If $l=2t$ and $r\leq s+1$, or $l=2t+1$ and $r\leq s+2$ for some $t\geq 2$, then $$\chi(K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\chi(K_s)+\chi(C_{l})\geq r+1,$$ which implies $(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$ by Corollary~\ref{When_number_Kt_reach_m^{t/2}}.
If $l=2t$ and $r-s\geq 2$ or $l=2t+1$ and $r-s\geq 3$ and let $G$ be a $K_{s-1}\vee C_{l}$-free graph of order $n$. Note that every $K_{r-1}$ in $G$ can be viewed as $K_{s-1} \vee K_{r-s}$. Since $G$ is $(K_{s-1} \vee C_l)$-free, within each copy of $K_{s-1}$, the common neighborhood of its vertices can contain at most $\text{ex}(n, K_{r-s}, C_l)$ copies of $K_{r-s}$. Thus by Lemma~\ref{ex(n,Kr,Cl)}, $$\text{ex}(n,K_{r-1},K_{s-1}\vee C_l)\le \binom{n}{s-1}\text{ex}(n,K_{r-s},C_l)=O(n^{{s}+\frac{1}{t}}).$$ Therefore, combining the fact that $\text{ex}(n,K_s\vee C_l)=\Theta(n^2)$ and Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, we have $\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}).$
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
If $l=2t$ and $r\leq s+1$, or $l=2t+1$ and $r\leq s+2$ for some $t\geq 2$, then $$\chi(K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\chi(K_s)+\chi(C_{l})\geq r+1,$$ which implies $(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$ by Corollary~\ref{When_number_Kt_reach_m^{t/2}}.
If $l=2t$ and $r-s\geq 2$ or $l=2t+1$ and $r-s\geq 3$ and let $G$ be a $K_{s-1}\vee C_{l}$-free graph of order $n$. Note that every $K_{r-1}$ in $G$ can be viewed as $K_{s-1} \vee K_{r-s}$. Since $G$ is $(K_{s-1} \vee C_l)$-free, within each copy of $K_{s-1}$, the common neighborhood of its vertices can contain at most $\text{ex}(n, K_{r-s}, C_l)$ copies of $K_{r-s}$. Thus by Lemma~\ref{ex(n,Kr,Cl)}, $$\text{ex}(n,K_{r-1},K_{s-1}\vee C_l)\le \binom{n}{s-1}\text{ex}(n,K_{r-s},C_l)=O(n^{{s}+\frac{1}{t}}).$$ Therefore, combining the fact that $\text{ex}(n,K_s\vee C_l)=\Theta(n^2)$ and Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, we have $\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}).$
\end{proof}
If $l=2t$l=2t and $r\leq s+1$r\leq s+1, or $l=2t+1$l=2t+1 and $r\leq s+2$r\leq s+2 for some $t\geq 2$t\geq 2, then $$\chi(K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\chi(K_s)+\chi(C_{l})\geq r+1,$$\chi(K_{s}s\vee C_{l}l)=\chi(K_s)+\chi(C_{l}l)\geq r+1, which implies $(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$(m,K_r,K_{s}s\vee C_{l}l)=\Theta(m^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2}) by Corollary~\ref{When_number_Kt_reach_m^{t/2}}.
If $l=2t$l=2t and $r-s\geq 2$r-s\geq 2 or $l=2t+1$l=2t+1 and $r-s\geq 3$r-s\geq 3 and let $G$G be a $K_{s-1}\vee C_{l}$K_{s-1}s-1\vee C_{l}l-free graph of order $n$n. Note that every $K_{r-1}$K_{r-1}r-1 in $G$G can be viewed as $K_{s-1} \vee K_{r-s}$K_{s-1}s-1 \vee K_{r-s}r-s. Since $G$G is $(K_{s-1} \vee C_l)$(K_{s-1}s-1 \vee C_l)-free, within each copy of $K_{s-1}$K_{s-1}s-1, the common neighborhood of its vertices can contain at most $\text{ex}(n, K_{r-s}, C_l)$\text{ex}(n, K_{r-s}r-s, C_l) copies of $K_{r-s}$K_{r-s}r-s. Thus by Lemma~\ref{ex(n,Kr,Cl)}, $$\text{ex}(n,K_{r-1},K_{s-1}\vee C_l)\le \binom{n}{s-1}\text{ex}(n,K_{r-s},C_l)=O(n^{{s}+\frac{1}{t}}).$$\text{ex}(n,K_{r-1}r-1,K_{s-1}s-1\vee C_l)\le \binom{n}n{s-1}s-1\text{ex}(n,K_{r-s}r-s,C_l)=O(n^{{s}+\frac{1}{t}}{s}s+\frac{1}{t}). Therefore, combining the fact that $\text{ex}(n,K_s\vee C_l)=\Theta(n^2)$\text{ex}(n,K_s\vee C_l)=\Theta(n^2) and Theorem \ref{Upperbound_of_Kr_in_some_F_free}, we have $\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}\vee C_{l})=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}).$\text{mex}(m,K_r,K_{s}s\vee C_{l}l)=O(m^{\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}}\frac{s+1}{2}+\frac{1}{2t}).
|
Applications
| false
|
2508.00483
| 4
|
76,438
|
\label{Appendix:nu}
\begin{figure*}[t]
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.10cm}
% \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/cs_data_example.pdf}
\caption{Example data of our code-switching dataset.}
\label{fig:cs_data}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/cs_data_example.pdf}
\caption{Example data of our code-switching dataset.}
\label{fig:cs_data}
Additional results of $\nu$\nu for 3 different LLMs are demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig:gemma2nu}-\ref{fig:llamanu}. We report the results at four different levels: ``first layers'', ``$\frac{1}{3}$\frac{1}{3} of the total layers'', ``$\frac{2}{3}$\frac{2}{3} of the total layers'', and the ``final layer''. Similarly to the results in Figure~\ref{fig:histogram_gemma-2-2b_layer_20}, the top-ranked features possess strong monolingual characteristics, and in most scenarios, the top-1 feature suffices in capturing these characteristics.
\begin{figure*}[t]
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.10cm}
% \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/gemma2nu.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$ of Gemma 2 2B.}
\label{fig:gemma2nu}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/gemma2nu.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$ of Gemma 2 2B.}
\label{fig:gemma2nu}
\begin{figure*}[t]
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.10cm}
% \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/gemma9nu.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$ of Gemma 2 9B.}
\label{fig:gemma9nu}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/gemma9nu.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$ of Gemma 2 9B.}
\label{fig:gemma9nu}
\begin{figure*}[t]
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.10cm}
% \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.30cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/llamanu.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$ of Llama-3.1-8B.}
\label{fig:llamanu}
\end{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{figs/llamanu.pdf}
\caption{The values of $\nu$ of Llama-3.1-8B.}
\label{fig:llamanu}
|
Additional Results of $$
| false
|
2505.05111
| 13
|
95,425
|
\subsection{Overall Framework}
(1) As shown in Figure \ref{fig:cdc}, the Causal Domain Clustering (CDC) method first learns two distinct domain affinity matrices through pre-gradient updates. The Isolated Domain Affinity Matrix $MI$MI quantifies the pairwise transfer effects across all domains without external influences, while the Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix $MH$MH considers the effects under domain interactions. (2) Next, causal discovery is employed to compute an Interaction Coefficient $\lambda$\lambda, which adaptively integrates the domain affinities from \(MI\)MI and \(MH\)MH to generate the transfer gain $J$J. The transfer gain $J$J is then used to select the optimal training set $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k for the target domain clusters $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k. (3) Finally, we propose the Co-Optimized Dynamic Clustering (CODC) algorithm, which alternately performs the following clustering steps: selecting the training source domain set $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k that maximizes performance for the target domain cluster $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k; recalculating each domain's gain based on current training source domain sets to update $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k. Note that CDC involves a feedback mechanism, allowing the chosen $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k to adapt the learning process of matrix $MH$MH. Therefore, as model training progresses, the reliability of the integrated gain \(J\)J improves, leading to the convergence of the grouping strategy for both target domains and source domains.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{1\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-13pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.86\linewidth, trim=-10 0 -10 0, clip]{pic/cdc_v2.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-18pt}
\caption{Causal Domain Clustering (CDC) framework. (1) We learn two inter-domain affinity matrices, $MI$ and $MH$, to capture domain relationships independently and interactively. (2) Causal discovery computes an Interaction Coefficient \(\lambda\), enabling the adaptive integration of \(MI\) and \(MH\) to assess the transfer gain \(J\) under any possible training source domain set $\mathcal{S}$. (3) CODC jointly optimizes both the target domain clusters $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}$ and the optimal training source domain set $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}$.}
\vspace{-16pt}
\label{fig:cdc}
\end{figure*}
\centering
[b]{1\linewidth}1\linewidth
\centering
\vspace{-13pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.86\linewidth, trim=-10 0 -10 0, clip]{pic/cdc_v2.pdf}
\vspace{-18pt}
\caption{Causal Domain Clustering (CDC) framework. (1) We learn two inter-domain affinity matrices, $MI$ and $MH$, to capture domain relationships independently and interactively. (2) Causal discovery computes an Interaction Coefficient \(\lambda\), enabling the adaptive integration of \(MI\) and \(MH\) to assess the transfer gain \(J\) under any possible training source domain set $\mathcal{S}$. (3) CODC jointly optimizes both the target domain clusters $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}$ and the optimal training source domain set $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}$.}
\vspace{-16pt}
\label{fig:cdc}
\subsection{Inter-Domain Affinity Matrices}
\label{sec:matrix}
This section introduces two affinity matrices: the Isolated Domain Affinity Matrix $MI$MI and the Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix $MH$MH. Here, \textit{affinity} refers to the transfer effect calculated based on the loss difference. The matrices are designed to model domain relationships from two perspectives: independently for $MI$MI and interactively for $MH$MH, providing a foundation for adaptive integration in Section \ref{sec:integrate}.
\subsubsection{Isolated Domain Affinity Matrix}
\label{sec:mi}
Effective domain clustering requires a metric to assess inter-domain relationships. Traditional grouping methods presume that domains with similar distributions should be clustered together, and often employ metrics such as static data distribution similarity \cite{swayamdipta2020dataset, sherif2024stg} or dynamic gradient distribution similarity during training \cite{bai2022saliency} to assess inter-domain affinity. However, as previously discussed in Challenge 1 of Section \ref{sec:intro} and corroborated by Standley et al. \cite{standley2020tasks}, similarity-based metrics may not be reliably effective for MDR scenarios because similarity does not necessarily equate to effective knowledge transfer. Moreover, these traditional metrics are non-directional (i.e., the influence of domain $d_u$d_u on domain $d_v$d_v is considered equivalent to that of domain $d_v$d_v on domain $d_u$d_u), which fails to reflect the directional nature of knowledge transfer that is inherent in transfer learning.
Therefore, inspired by ~\cite{fifty2021efficiently,wang2024principled}, we employ loss changes during one-step-forward training (also known as the \textit{lookahead} method) to measure inter-domain affinity. The lookahead method leverages future information to guide the current state~\cite{wang2024principled}, involving three steps: saving the current state of the MDR base model, applying one or more steps of gradient update with data from a subset of domains, and then reloading the saved model parameters to compare performance differences~\cite{fifty2021efficiently}. Specifically, we first warm up the base model using several batches of training data. At a given time step $t$t, we save the current model parameters $\Theta^t$\Theta^t. We then use data exclusively from domain $d_u$d_u to train and update the model's parameters, achieving $\Theta^{t+1}_{\{d_u\}}$\Theta^{t+1}t+1_{\{d_u\}}\{d_u\}. This updated model is subsequently employed to predict the loss for domain $d_v$d_v. Let matrix $MI^t \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}$MI^t \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}D \times D represent overall isolated inter-domain affinity, where $MI^t[u, v]$MI^t[u, v] denotes the affinity of domain $d_u$d_u on domain $d_v$d_v, denoted as:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mi}
MI^{t}[u, v] = \alpha &MI^{t-1}[u, v] \nonumber \\
\quad + (1-\alpha)&\left(1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\{d_u\}}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}\right),
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mi}
MI^{t}[u, v] = \alpha &MI^{t-1}[u, v] \nonumber \\
\quad + (1-\alpha)&\left(1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\{d_u\}}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}\right),
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:mi}
MI^{t}t[u, v] = \alpha &MI^{t-1}t-1[u, v] \nonumber \\
\quad + (1-\alpha)&\left(1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\{d_u\}}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}\right),
where $\alpha$\alpha is a smoothing factor to stabilize history affinity.
A positive value of $MI^t[u, v]$MI^t[u, v] indicates that the update on the model parameters results in a lower loss on domain $d_v$d_v than the original parameter values, suggesting a beneficial transfer of knowledge from domain $d_u$d_u to $d_v$d_v. Conversely, a negative value implies that the parameter update is adversely affects domain $d_v$d_v’s performance, indicating a negative transfer effect.
\subsubsection{Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix}
\label{sec:mh}
For any two domains $d_u$d_u and $d_v$d_v in MDR, the transfer of beneficial knowledge from $d_u$d_u to $d_v$d_v can manifest in two ways. Firstly, there may be a direct, positive independent transfer gain, as indicated by a positive value in the Isolated Domain Affinity Matrix $MI[u, v]$MI[u, v]. Secondly, a synergistic effect may arise when $d_u$d_u interacts with other domains during joint training, even if $MI[u, v]$MI[u, v] is not positive.
To quantify the interaction transfer effects, we introduce the Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix $MH \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}$MH \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}D \times D, designed to assess inter-domain affinity in a domain-interaction training context. At time step $t$t, let $\mathcal{M}^t_u$\mathcal{M}^t_u be the mixed domain set containing $d_u$d_u. We perform a lookahead update of the model using data from domains in $\mathcal{M}^t_u$\mathcal{M}^t_u and $\mathcal{M}^t_u - \{d_u\}$\mathcal{M}^t_u - \{d_u\}, obtaining parameters $\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u}$\Theta^{t+1}t+1_{\mathcal{M}^t_u}\mathcal{M}^t_u and $\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}}$\Theta^{t+1}t+1_{\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}}\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}, respectively. Here, $\mathcal{M}^t_u - \{d_u\}$\mathcal{M}^t_u - \{d_u\} denotes the set of domains in $\mathcal{M}^t_u$\mathcal{M}^t_u excluding domain $d_u$d_u. This design allows $\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u}$\Theta^{t+1}t+1_{\mathcal{M}^t_u}\mathcal{M}^t_u to capture all aspects of knowledge transfer from $d_u$d_u, particularly its interactions with other domains, while $\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}}$\Theta^{t+1}t+1_{\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}}\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\} excludes these influences. Consequently, $MH^t[u, v]$MH^t[u, v] is computed as:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mh}
MH^{t}[u, v] = \alpha&MH^{t-1}[u, v] \nonumber \\
\quad + (1-\alpha)&\left(1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}\right),
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mh}
MH^{t}[u, v] = \alpha&MH^{t-1}[u, v] \nonumber \\
\quad + (1-\alpha)&\left(1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}\right),
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:mh}
MH^{t}t[u, v] = \alpha&MH^{t-1}t-1[u, v] \nonumber \\
\quad + (1-\alpha)&\left(1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{M}^t_u-\{d_u\}}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}\right),
where $\alpha$\alpha serves as the smoothing factor, consistent with Equation (\ref{eq:mi}). The metric $MH^t[u, v]$MH^t[u, v] cleverly assesses the variation in $d_v$d_v's loss when the mixed domain set $\mathcal{M}^t_u$\mathcal{M}^t_u either includes or excludes $d_u$d_u, thus quantifying the affinity of $d_u$d_u towards $d_v$d_v under interactions. A positive $MH^t[u, v]$MH^t[u, v] indicates that including $d_u$d_u in the mixed domain set leads to parameter updates that benefit $d_v$d_v, suggesting a synergistic effect between $d_u$d_u and other domains within the set.
In practical training, the initial mixed domain set for domain $d_u$d_u, $\mathcal{M}^t_u$\mathcal{M}^t_u, starts as the complete set $\mathcal{M}^0_u = \mathcal{D}$\mathcal{M}^0_u = \mathcal{D}, and adapts over time based on the domain clustering outcomes at each time step $t$t:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:U}
\mathcal{M}^t_u = \begin{cases}
\mathcal{D}, & \text{if } t = 0, \\
\mathcal{S}^t_k, & \text{if } t > 0 \text{ and } k \text{ is such that } d_u \in \mathcal{T}^t_k.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:U}
\mathcal{M}^t_u = \begin{cases}
\mathcal{D}, & \text{if } t = 0, \\
\mathcal{S}^t_k, & \text{if } t > 0 \text{ and } k \text{ is such that } d_u \in \mathcal{T}^t_k.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:U}
\mathcal{M}^t_u =
\mathcal{D}, & \text{if } t = 0, \\
\mathcal{S}^t_k, & \text{if } t > 0 \text{ and } k \text{ is such that } d_u \in \mathcal{T}^t_k.
The innovation of the Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix lies in its strategy of excluding a specific training domain and then performing a lookahead update. This strategy enables the explicit demonstration of inter-domain interactions, illustrating how one domain either synergizes with or impedes other domains within a mixed domain set.
Furthermore, the mixed domain set $\mathcal{M}^t_u$\mathcal{M}^t_u dynamically evolves through successive iterations of domain clustering (Equation (\ref{eq:U})). This \textit{feedback mechanism} enables $MH^t$MH^t to progressively approach the true inter-domain affinity within the final clustering scheme, thereby mitigating the estimation bias of traditional clustering methods, where higher-order affinities are simply estimated by combinations of lower-order ones\cite{liu2022autolambda}.
\subsection{Causality-based Dual-View Affinity Integration}
\label{sec:integrate}
We propose a dual-view affinity integration method to fuse the affinities from $MI$MI and $MH$MH using causal discovery. To quantify intra-cluster similarity, we define \textit{cohesion} as the average causal distance between domains in a cluster. The method operates under two hypotheses: (1) When the cohesion among a jointly trained domain set is high, indicating strong domain similarity, beneficial knowledge transfer occurs mainly through direct, internal interactions. Thus, the Isolated Domain Affinity $MI$MI, which reflects affinity without inter-domain interactions, should be preferred. (2) Conversely, if cohesion is low, implying significant disparities among the domains, interactions across these domains-whether synergy or interference-can critically influence the transfer effectiveness. In such cases, reliance on the Hybrid Domain Affinity $MH$MH is advised, as it accounts for the complex dynamics of domain interactions.
Based on these hypotheses, at time step $t$t, given any possible training source domain set $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S}, our integration method follows three steps. First, we estimate the cohesion $c_{\mathcal{S}}$c_{\mathcal{S}}\mathcal{S} of $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S}. Next, based on this cohesion, we evaluate its influence on the target domain $d_v$d_v, quantified by the \textit{domain interaction coefficient} $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S}, as the effect of $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} differs for different target domains. Lastly, using $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S}, we compute the final transfer gain $J(u \rightarrow v \mid \mathcal{S})$J(u \rightarrow v \mid \mathcal{S}) of domain $d_u$d_u on $d_v$d_v:
\vspace{-2pt}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:J}
J(d_u\rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S})=(1-\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}) MI[u, v]+\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}MH[u, v].
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:J}
J(d_u\rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S})=(1-\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}) MI[u, v]+\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}MH[u, v].
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:J}
J(d_u\rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S})=(1-\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S}) MI[u, v]+\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S}MH[u, v].
The domain interaction coefficient $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S}, inversely proportional to \( \mathcal{S} \) \mathcal{S} 's cohesion, quantifies the influence of complexity within the training domain set $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} on domain $d_v$d_v. This coefficient is crucial not only for calculating the transfer gain $J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S})$J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}) but for initializing clusters during the iterative clustering process (Equation (\ref{eq:init_S}) and Algorithm \ref{al:cdc}, Line 9). In the following sections, we detail how causal discovery theory is applied to calculate $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{S}}d_v \mid \mathcal{S}, with random domain sampling used as \textit{Treatments} \cite{pearl2009causality} to derive the treatment effect matrix $MT$MT, and a causal distance matrix $MC$MC computed to capture latent domain dependencies more effectively.
\subsubsection{Domain Causal Distance}
\label{sec:mc}
To compute the interaction coefficient \(\lambda\)\lambda, a reliable domain distance metric is essential. Traditional metrics, such as distribution divergence, Euclidean distance, or cosine similarity, fail to capture dependencies in the transfer effect space. Instead, we adopt causal discovery, leveraging \textit{treatment effects} after \textit{intervention} to reveal underlying causal structures. For example, in genomics, causal discovery is utilized to determine causal distances between genes based on their expression levels, with genes considered strongly linked if they consistently co-express or co-suppress. Similarly, in multi-domain learning, two domains are considered similar if their performance gains remain consistently positive or negative across various training domains.
We approach the random sampling of domain data for training as a \textit{treatment} (or \textit{action}) in causality theory. Variations in domain losses are then interpreted as the \textit{treatment effect}. At time step $t$t, we perform $R$R sampling actions, and the treatment effects for $D$D domains across these actions are recorded in a Causal Treatment Matrix $MT^t \in \mathbb{R}^{R \times D}$MT^t \in \mathbb{R}^{R \times D}R \times D. For the $r^{th}$r^{th}th random sampling, the corresponding domain set is denoted as $\mathcal{R}^t_r$\mathcal{R}^t_r, and the gain for domain $d_v$d_v in this set is represented by $MT^t[r, v]$MT^t[r, v]:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mt}
MT^t[r, v] = 1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{R}^t_r }}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}.
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mt}
MT^t[r, v] = 1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{R}^t_r }}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}.
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:mt}
MT^t[r, v] = 1 - \frac{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t+1}_{\mathcal{R}^t_r }}(x, d), y(x, d))}}{\sum\limits_{d\in d_v}{\mathcal{L}(f_{\Theta^{t}}(x, d), y(x, d))}}.
Following, we use the \textit{dependence contribution kernel} $\kappa$\kappa, introduced in Section \ref{sec:kernel}, to derive a symmetric Causal Distance Matrix $MC^t \in [0, \pi/2]^{D \times D}$MC^t \in [0, \pi/2]^{D \times D}D \times D from the matrix $MT^t \in \mathbb{R}^{R \times D}$MT^t \in \mathbb{R}^{R \times D}R \times D:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dis}
MC^t[u,v] = \arccos\left(\kappa(MT^t[:, u], MT^t[:, v])\right),
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dis}
MC^t[u,v] = \arccos\left(\kappa(MT^t[:, u], MT^t[:, v])\right),
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:dis}
MC^t[u,v] = \arccos\left(\kappa(MT^t[:, u], MT^t[:, v])\right),
where $MT^t[:, u]$MT^t[:, u] and $MT^t[:, v]$MT^t[:, v] denote the treatment effect vectors for domains $d_u$d_u and $d_v$d_v across various treatments, respectively.
The kernel $\kappa$\kappa is essentially a cosine similarity in the causal space; thus, $\arccos \circ \kappa$\arccos \circ \kappa quantifies the dissimilarity in causal dependence patterns between $d_u$d_u and $d_v$d_v. The strength of this kernel lies in its isometry with the space of causal ancestral graphs \cite{markham2022distance}. Therefore, unlike traditional metrics such as cosine distance based on $MT^t[r, j]$MT^t[r, j], causal distance more accurately captures the inherent similarity between domains, as validated by experiments (see Section \ref{sec:ablation}). It is important to note that while domain clustering bears similarities with causal clustering, there are no actual causal relationships among domains. In other words, their interactions are not governed by stable physical mechanisms in nature.
\subsubsection{Cohesion and Interaction Coefficient}
Based on the causal distance $MC^t[u,v]$MC^t[u,v], we can calculate the cohesion of domain set $c^t_{\mathcal{S}}$c^t_{\mathcal{S}}\mathcal{S} and domain interaction coefficient $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S}. Given a time step $t$t, the cohesion $c^t_{\mathcal{S}}$c^t_{\mathcal{S}}\mathcal{S} of any given domain set $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} quantifies the average separation among domains within the set, as calculated from the causal distance $MC^t$MC^t:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
c^t_{\mathcal{S}} = \frac{1}{\left|\mathcal{S}\right|^2}\sum_{d_u\in \mathcal{S}} \sum_{d_v\in \mathcal{S}} MC^t[u,v].
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
c^t_{\mathcal{S}} = \frac{1}{\left|\mathcal{S}\right|^2}\sum_{d_u\in \mathcal{S}} \sum_{d_v\in \mathcal{S}} MC^t[u,v].
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
c^t_{\mathcal{S}}\mathcal{S} = \frac{1}{\left|\mathcal{S}\right|^2}\sum_{d_u\in \mathcal{S}}d_u\in \mathcal{S} \sum_{d_v\in \mathcal{S}}d_v\in \mathcal{S} MC^t[u,v].
A higher value of $c^t_{\mathcal{S}}$c^t_{\mathcal{S}}\mathcal{S} indicates a greater causal distance among the domains, suggesting significant diversity within the set. Conversely, a lower value indicates a higher degree of similarity among the domains, implying a more cohesive set.
Based on this, the domain interaction coefficient $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}} \in [0, 1]$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S} \in [0, 1] for domain $d_v \in \mathcal{S}$d_v \in \mathcal{S}, first introduced in Equation (\ref{eq:J}), is defined as:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lambda}
\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}} & = \min\left(1, \frac{\sum_{d_u\in\mathcal{S}}MC^t[u,v]}{2\left|\mathcal{S}\right|c^t_{\mathcal{S}}}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \min\left(1, \frac{\left|\mathcal{S}\right|\sum_{d_u\in\mathcal{S}}MC^t[u,v]}{2\sum_{d_u\in \mathcal{S}} \sum_{d_v\in \mathcal{S}} MC^t[u,v]}\right).
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lambda}
\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}} & = \min\left(1, \frac{\sum_{d_u\in\mathcal{S}}MC^t[u,v]}{2\left|\mathcal{S}\right|c^t_{\mathcal{S}}}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \min\left(1, \frac{\left|\mathcal{S}\right|\sum_{d_u\in\mathcal{S}}MC^t[u,v]}{2\sum_{d_u\in \mathcal{S}} \sum_{d_v\in \mathcal{S}} MC^t[u,v]}\right).
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:lambda}
\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S} & = \min\left(1, \frac{\sum_{d_u\in\mathcal{S}}MC^t[u,v]}{2\left|\mathcal{S}\right|c^t_{\mathcal{S}}}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \min\left(1, \frac{\left|\mathcal{S}\right|\sum_{d_u\in\mathcal{S}}MC^t[u,v]}{2\sum_{d_u\in \mathcal{S}} \sum_{d_v\in \mathcal{S}} MC^t[u,v]}\right).
The interaction coefficient $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S} leverages relative distances to dynamically consider both the cohesion of the domain set $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} and its influence on the target domain $d_v$d_v. According to Equations (\ref{eq:J}) and (\ref{eq:lambda}), when $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S} approaches $1$1, it indicates that domain $d_v$d_v is significantly different from other domains in $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S}, making the Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix $MH$MH predominantly determine the final effect estimation. Conversely, when $\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}$\lambda_{d_v\mid \mathcal{S}}d_v\mid \mathcal{S} is close to $0$0, $d_v$d_v closely aligns with the general domains in $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S}, emphasizing the Isolated Domain Affinity Matrix $MI$MI in determining the transfer effect.
\subsection{Co-Optimized Dynamic Clustering}
\label{sec:codc}
Given the NP-hard nature of the domain clustering problem, we propose the heuristic Co-Optimized Dynamic Clustering (CODC) method. CODC iteratively solves both the domain groupings $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k and their corresponding optimal training domain sets $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k.
\subsubsection{DM Training Domain Optimization}
\label{sec:dm}
The Dual-Metric (DM) Training Domain Optimization algorithm is designed to identify the optimal training domain groups $\{\mathcal{S}^t_k\}_{k=1}^{K}$\{\mathcal{S}^t_k\}_{k=1}k=1^{K}K for predefined target domain groups $\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^{K}$\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}k=1^{K}K, formalized by the function $F$F:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}^t_k=F(\mathcal{T}^t_k).
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}^t_k=F(\mathcal{T}^t_k).
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\mathcal{S}^t_k=F(\mathcal{T}^t_k).
As detailed in Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}, it combines two metrics: the inter-domain affinity $J(u \rightarrow v \mid \mathcal{S})$J(u \rightarrow v \mid \mathcal{S}) and an additional \textit{Affiliation Score} $P$P. $J$J measures the current transfer gain, while $P$P accounts for global benefits. This dual-metric strategy balances immediate performance improvements with long-term strategic fit.
\SetAlgoNoEnd
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\footnotesize
\setstretch{0.8}
\SetKwInOut{KwInit}{Init}
\caption{Dual-Metric Training Domain Optimization}
\label{al:search_train}
\KwIn{All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$; Domain sample proportions $\{w_u\}_{u=1}^D$, where $\sum_{u=1}^D w_u = 1$; Target domain cluster $\mathcal{T}_k^t$ for $k \in \{1, \dots, K\}$ at time step $t$; Domain affinity matrices $MI^t$ and $MH^t$; Causal distance matrix $MC^t$; Domain count $N$ to initialize set $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$; Dynamic weight $\rho^t$ of affiliation score.
}
\KwOut{Optimal training source domain set $\mathcal{S}_k^t$ maximizing overall performance for $\mathcal{T}_k^t$.}
\KwInit{Set iteration counter $i \gets 0$; Initialize $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$ using Equation (\ref{eq:init_S}).}
% Initialize $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$ according to Equation (\ref{eq:init_S});\\
% $i \gets 0$; \\
\While{$|\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}| < D$}{
\ForEach{candidate domain $d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$}{
Calculate transfer gain $J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\})$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:J_T}), using $MI^t, MH^t, MC^t$;\\
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
$P(d_u | k) \gets 0$;
}{
Calculate affiliation score $P(d_u | k)$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:P}), using $MC^t, \mathcal{S}_k^0, w_u$;
}
Select the optimal candidate domain $d_u$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:JP}), using $\rho^t$ and the calculated $J$ and $P$; \\
\If{$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}) + \rho^t \cdot P(d_u | k) < 0$}{
break;
}
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}$; \\
$i \gets i + 1$;
}
}
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$
\end{algorithm}\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\footnotesize
\setstretch{0.8}
\SetKwInOut{KwInit}{Init}
\caption{Dual-Metric Training Domain Optimization}
\label{al:search_train}
\KwIn{All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$; Domain sample proportions $\{w_u\}_{u=1}^D$, where $\sum_{u=1}^D w_u = 1$; Target domain cluster $\mathcal{T}_k^t$ for $k \in \{1, \dots, K\}$ at time step $t$; Domain affinity matrices $MI^t$ and $MH^t$; Causal distance matrix $MC^t$; Domain count $N$ to initialize set $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$; Dynamic weight $\rho^t$ of affiliation score.
}
\KwOut{Optimal training source domain set $\mathcal{S}_k^t$ maximizing overall performance for $\mathcal{T}_k^t$.}
\KwInit{Set iteration counter $i \gets 0$; Initialize $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$ using Equation (\ref{eq:init_S}).}
% Initialize $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$ according to Equation (\ref{eq:init_S});\\
% $i \gets 0$; \\
\While{$|\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}| < D$}{
\ForEach{candidate domain $d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$}{
Calculate transfer gain $J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\})$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:J_T}), using $MI^t, MH^t, MC^t$;\\
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
$P(d_u | k) \gets 0$;
}{
Calculate affiliation score $P(d_u | k)$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:P}), using $MC^t, \mathcal{S}_k^0, w_u$;
}
Select the optimal candidate domain $d_u$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:JP}), using $\rho^t$ and the calculated $J$ and $P$; \\
\If{$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}) + \rho^t \cdot P(d_u | k) < 0$}{
break;
}
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}$; \\
$i \gets i + 1$;
}
}
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$
\end{algorithm}[!t]
\footnotesize
\setstretch{0.8}0.8
\SetKwInOut{KwInit}KwInit{Init}Init
\caption{Dual-Metric Training Domain Optimization}
\label{al:search_train}
\KwIn{All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$; Domain sample proportions $\{w_u\}_{u=1}^D$, where $\sum_{u=1}^D w_u = 1$; Target domain cluster $\mathcal{T}_k^t$ for $k \in \{1, \dots, K\}$ at time step $t$; Domain affinity matrices $MI^t$ and $MH^t$; Causal distance matrix $MC^t$; Domain count $N$ to initialize set $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$; Dynamic weight $\rho^t$ of affiliation score.
}All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}; Domain sample proportions $\{w_u\}_{u=1}^D$\{w_u\}_{u=1}u=1^D, where $\sum_{u=1}^D w_u = 1$\sum_{u=1}u=1^D w_u = 1; Target domain cluster $\mathcal{T}_k^t$\mathcal{T}_k^t for $k \in \{1, \dots, K\}$k \in \{1, \dots, K\} at time step $t$t; Domain affinity matrices $MI^t$MI^t and $MH^t$MH^t; Causal distance matrix $MC^t$MC^t; Domain count $N$N to initialize set $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}k,0; Dynamic weight $\rho^t$\rho^t of affiliation score.
\KwOut{Optimal training source domain set $\mathcal{S}_k^t$ maximizing overall performance for $\mathcal{T}_k^t$.}Optimal training source domain set $\mathcal{S}_k^t$\mathcal{S}_k^t maximizing overall performance for $\mathcal{T}_k^t$\mathcal{T}_k^t.
\KwInit{Set iteration counter $i \gets 0$; Initialize $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$ using Equation (\ref{eq:init_S}).}Set iteration counter $i \gets 0$i \gets 0; Initialize $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}k,0 using Equation (\ref{eq:init_S}).
\While{$|\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}| < D$}$|\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}| < D$|\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i| < D{
\ForEach{candidate domain $d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$}{
Calculate transfer gain $J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\})$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:J_T}), using $MI^t, MH^t, MC^t$;\\
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
$P(d_u | k) \gets 0$;
}{
Calculate affiliation score $P(d_u | k)$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:P}), using $MC^t, \mathcal{S}_k^0, w_u$;
}
Select the optimal candidate domain $d_u$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:JP}), using $\rho^t$ and the calculated $J$ and $P$; \\
\If{$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}) + \rho^t \cdot P(d_u | k) < 0$}{
break;
}
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}$; \\
$i \gets i + 1$;
}
}
\ForEach{candidate domain $d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$}candidate domain $d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i{
Calculate transfer gain $J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\})$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:J_T}), using $MI^t, MH^t, MC^t$;\\
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
$P(d_u | k) \gets 0$;
}{
Calculate affiliation score $P(d_u | k)$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:P}), using $MC^t, \mathcal{S}_k^0, w_u$;
}
Select the optimal candidate domain $d_u$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:JP}), using $\rho^t$ and the calculated $J$ and $P$; \\
\If{$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}) + \rho^t \cdot P(d_u | k) < 0$}{
break;
}
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}$; \\
$i \gets i + 1$;
}
Calculate transfer gain $J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\})$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i \cup \{d_u\}) based on Equation (\ref{eq:J_T}), using $MI^t, MH^t, MC^t$MI^t, MH^t, MC^t;\\
\eIf{$t = 0$}$t = 0$t = 0{
$P(d_u | k) \gets 0$;
}
$P(d_u | k) \gets 0$P(d_u | k) \gets 0;
{
Calculate affiliation score $P(d_u | k)$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:P}), using $MC^t, \mathcal{S}_k^0, w_u$;
}
Calculate affiliation score $P(d_u | k)$P(d_u | k) based on Equation (\ref{eq:P}), using $MC^t, \mathcal{S}_k^0, w_u$MC^t, \mathcal{S}_k^0, w_u;
Select the optimal candidate domain $d_u$d_u based on Equation (\ref{eq:JP}), using $\rho^t$\rho^t and the calculated $J$J and $P$P; \\
\If{$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}) + \rho^t \cdot P(d_u | k) < 0$}$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}) + \rho^t \cdot P(d_u | k) < 0$J(d_u \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_k^t | \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i \cup \{d_u\}) + \rho^t \cdot P(d_u | k) < 0{
break;
}
break;
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} \cup \{d_u\}$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1}k,i+1 \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i \cup \{d_u\}; \\
$i \gets i + 1$i \gets i + 1;
$\mathcal{S}^t_{k} \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$\mathcal{S}^t_{k}k \gets \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i
\normalsize
Initially, the training domain sets $\mathcal{S}^t_k$\mathcal{S}^t_k are initialized by selecting the $N$N domains from $\mathcal{T}^t_k$\mathcal{T}^t_k with the smallest $\lambda$\lambda values:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:init_S}
\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0} = \{ d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^t_k} \text{ is among the smallest } N \text{ values}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:init_S}
\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0} = \{ d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^t_k} \text{ is among the smallest } N \text{ values}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:init_S}
\mathcal{S}^t_{k,0}k,0 = \{ d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^t_k}d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^t_k \text{ is among the smallest } N \text{ values}\}.
Subsequently, during each iteration $i$i, we evaluate the transfer gain of each external domain $d_u \notin \mathcal{S}_{k,i}$d_u \notin \mathcal{S}_{k,i}k,i to the target domain set $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k:
\vspace{-3pt}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:J_T}
J(d_u\rightarrow \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}\cup\{d_u\} ) = \frac{\sum\limits_{d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k } w_v J(d_u\rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}\cup\{d_u\})}{\sum\limits_{d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k} w_v} .%, d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}.
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:J_T}
J(d_u\rightarrow \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}\cup\{d_u\} ) = \frac{\sum\limits_{d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k } w_v J(d_u\rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}\cup\{d_u\})}{\sum\limits_{d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k} w_v} .%, d_u \notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}.
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:J_T}
J(d_u\rightarrow \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i\cup\{d_u\} ) = \frac{\sum\limits_{d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k } w_v J(d_u\rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}\cup\{d_u\})}{\sum\limits_{d_v \in \mathcal{T}^t_k} w_v} .
Here, $w_v$w_v represents the proportion of samples in domain $d_v$d_v, accounting for domain sample size to ensure fairness.
To enhance the robustness of $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1}$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i+1}k,i+1 and prevent local optima that could impede subsequent optimization step (Equation (\ref{eq:U})), we introduce the domain \textit{Affiliation Score} $P(d_u \mid k) \in [-1,1]$P(d_u \mid k) \in [-1,1]. This score quantifies the likelihood of domain $d_u$d_u belonging to the final training domain set $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:P}
P(d_u \mid k) = (1-2*\lambda_{d_u \mid \mathcal{S}_k^0})*\sqrt{w_u},
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:P}
P(d_u \mid k) = (1-2*\lambda_{d_u \mid \mathcal{S}_k^0})*\sqrt{w_u},
\end{equation}
\end{footnotesize}
\label{eq:P}
P(d_u \mid k) = (1-2*\lambda_{d_u \mid \mathcal{S}_k^0}d_u \mid \mathcal{S}_k^0)*\sqrt{w_u},
where $\mathcal{S}^0_k$\mathcal{S}^0_k, derived from causal distance clustering, provides a reliable and robust reliable starting point for further optimizations.
\SetAlgoNoEnd
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\footnotesize
\setstretch{0.8}
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.96}
\SetKwInOut{KwInit}{Init}
\caption{Causal Domain Clustering (CDC)}
\label{al:cdc}
\KwIn{Base multi-domain model of CDC with parameter $\Theta$; All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$.}
% ; History affinity matrix smoothing factor $\alpha$; Lookahead update batch number $B_{lookahead}$; Sample actions times $R$.}
\KwOut{Target domain clusters $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}_{k=1}^K$ and training source domain sets $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}^K$; Optimized CDC model.}
\KwInit{Warm up CDC; set time step $t \gets 0$.}
\While{CDC has not converged}{
\eIf{condition to update domain matrices is met}{
% $\Theta^t \gets$ current parameter state of CDC\;
Compute $MI^t$, $MH^t$, $MT^t$ based on the lookahead method\;
Calculate matrix $MC^t$ using $MT^t$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:dis})\;
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
Perform $K$-means clustering on $MC^t$ to get $\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^K$\;
}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Initialize $\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k\}$ where $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}$ is the smallest;
}
Set unclustered domain set $\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{D} - \bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{T}^t_k$\;
\While{$\mathcal{Q}$ is not empty}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$, where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$\;
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}{
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
}
}
}
Compute $\{\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)\}_{k=1}^K$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
$t \gets t + 1$\;
}{Train the CDC model according to the domain cluster \(\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\). Specifically, for sample from domain \(d\), update the shared parameters and the \(k\)-th domain-specific parameters, where \(k\) is determined by the cluster \(d \in \mathcal{T}^t_k\)\;
}
}
\end{algorithm}\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\footnotesize
\setstretch{0.8}
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.96}
\SetKwInOut{KwInit}{Init}
\caption{Causal Domain Clustering (CDC)}
\label{al:cdc}
\KwIn{Base multi-domain model of CDC with parameter $\Theta$; All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$.}
% ; History affinity matrix smoothing factor $\alpha$; Lookahead update batch number $B_{lookahead}$; Sample actions times $R$.}
\KwOut{Target domain clusters $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}_{k=1}^K$ and training source domain sets $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}^K$; Optimized CDC model.}
\KwInit{Warm up CDC; set time step $t \gets 0$.}
\While{CDC has not converged}{
\eIf{condition to update domain matrices is met}{
% $\Theta^t \gets$ current parameter state of CDC\;
Compute $MI^t$, $MH^t$, $MT^t$ based on the lookahead method\;
Calculate matrix $MC^t$ using $MT^t$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:dis})\;
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
Perform $K$-means clustering on $MC^t$ to get $\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^K$\;
}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Initialize $\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k\}$ where $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}$ is the smallest;
}
Set unclustered domain set $\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{D} - \bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{T}^t_k$\;
\While{$\mathcal{Q}$ is not empty}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$, where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$\;
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}{
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
}
}
}
Compute $\{\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)\}_{k=1}^K$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
$t \gets t + 1$\;
}{Train the CDC model according to the domain cluster \(\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\). Specifically, for sample from domain \(d\), update the shared parameters and the \(k\)-th domain-specific parameters, where \(k\) is determined by the cluster \(d \in \mathcal{T}^t_k\)\;
}
}
\end{algorithm}[!t]
\footnotesize
\setstretch{0.8}0.8
\SetKwInOut{KwInit}KwInit{Init}Init
\caption{Causal Domain Clustering (CDC)}
\label{al:cdc}
\KwIn{Base multi-domain model of CDC with parameter $\Theta$; All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$.}Base multi-domain model of CDC with parameter $\Theta$\Theta; All domains $\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}$\mathcal{D} = \{d_1, \dots, d_D\}.
\KwOut{Target domain clusters $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}_{k=1}^K$ and training source domain sets $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}^K$; Optimized CDC model.}Target domain clusters $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}_{k=1}^K$\{\mathcal{T}_k\}_{k=1}k=1^K and training source domain sets $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}^K$\{\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}k=1^K; Optimized CDC model.
\KwInit{Warm up CDC; set time step $t \gets 0$.}Warm up CDC; set time step $t \gets 0$t \gets 0.
\While{CDC has not converged}CDC has not converged{
\eIf{condition to update domain matrices is met}{
% $\Theta^t \gets$ current parameter state of CDC\;
Compute $MI^t$, $MH^t$, $MT^t$ based on the lookahead method\;
Calculate matrix $MC^t$ using $MT^t$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:dis})\;
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
Perform $K$-means clustering on $MC^t$ to get $\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^K$\;
}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Initialize $\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k\}$ where $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}$ is the smallest;
}
Set unclustered domain set $\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{D} - \bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{T}^t_k$\;
\While{$\mathcal{Q}$ is not empty}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$, where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$\;
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}{
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
}
}
}
Compute $\{\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)\}_{k=1}^K$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
$t \gets t + 1$\;
}{Train the CDC model according to the domain cluster \(\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\). Specifically, for sample from domain \(d\), update the shared parameters and the \(k\)-th domain-specific parameters, where \(k\) is determined by the cluster \(d \in \mathcal{T}^t_k\)\;
}
}
\eIf{condition to update domain matrices is met}condition to update domain matrices is met{
% $\Theta^t \gets$ current parameter state of CDC\;
Compute $MI^t$, $MH^t$, $MT^t$ based on the lookahead method\;
Calculate matrix $MC^t$ using $MT^t$ based on Equation (\ref{eq:dis})\;
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
Perform $K$-means clustering on $MC^t$ to get $\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^K$\;
}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Initialize $\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k\}$ where $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}$ is the smallest;
}
Set unclustered domain set $\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{D} - \bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{T}^t_k$\;
\While{$\mathcal{Q}$ is not empty}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$, where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$\;
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}{
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
}
}
}
Compute $\{\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)\}_{k=1}^K$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
$t \gets t + 1$\;
}
Compute $MI^t$MI^t, $MH^t$MH^t, $MT^t$MT^t based on the lookahead method\;
Calculate matrix $MC^t$MC^t using $MT^t$MT^t based on Equation (\ref{eq:dis})\;
\eIf{$t = 0$}$t = 0$t = 0{
Perform $K$-means clustering on $MC^t$ to get $\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^K$\;
}
Perform $K$K-means clustering on $MC^t$MC^t to get $\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^K$\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}k=1^K\;
{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Initialize $\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k\}$ where $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}$ is the smallest;
}
Set unclustered domain set $\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{D} - \bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{T}^t_k$\;
\While{$\mathcal{Q}$ is not empty}{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$, where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$\;
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}{
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
}
}
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}$k \gets 1$k \gets 1 \KwTo $K$K{
Initialize $\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k\}$ where $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}$ is the smallest;
}
Initialize $\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k\}$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \{d_v\in \mathcal{T}^{t-1}t-1_k\} where $\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}$\lambda_{d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}_k}d_v \mid \mathcal{T}^{t-1}t-1_k is the smallest;
Set unclustered domain set $\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{D} - \bigcup_{k=1}^K \mathcal{T}^t_k$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{D} - \bigcup_{k=1}k=1^K \mathcal{T}^t_k\;
\While{$\mathcal{Q}$ is not empty}$\mathcal{Q}$\mathcal{Q} is not empty{
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$, where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$\;
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}{
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}{
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
}
}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}$k \gets 1$k \gets 1 \KwTo $K$K{
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$ using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$, where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$\;
}
Compute $\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)$\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k) using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
Find candidate domain for $\mathcal{T}^t_k$\mathcal{T}^t_k, i.e., $d_{cand,k} = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v)$d_{cand,k}cand,k = \underset{d_v \in \mathcal{Q}}d_v \in \mathcal{Q}{\arg \max }\arg \max J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v), where $J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k} J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)$J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_v) = \sum_{d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k}d_u \in \mathcal{S}^t_k J(d_u \rightarrow d_v \mid \mathcal{S}^t_k)\;
\For{$k \gets 1$ \KwTo $K$}$k \gets 1$k \gets 1 \KwTo $K$K{
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}{
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
}
\tcp{\scriptsize Verify if \(k\) is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)}\scriptsize Verify if \(k\)k is the most optimal cluster for domain \(d_{cand,k}\)d_{cand,k}cand,k
\If{$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$}$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}{\arg \max } J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k})$k = \underset{k=1, \dots, K}k=1, \dots, K{\arg \max }\arg \max J(\mathcal{S}^t_k \rightarrow d_{cand,k}cand,k){
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\;
}
$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}\}$\mathcal{T}^t_k \gets \mathcal{T}^t_k \cup \{d_{cand,k}cand,k\}\;
$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}\}$\mathcal{Q} \gets \mathcal{Q} - \{d_{cand,k}cand,k\}\;
Compute $\{\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)\}_{k=1}^K$\{\mathcal{S}^t_k \gets F(\mathcal{T}^t_k)\}_{k=1}k=1^K using Algorithm \ref{al:search_train}\;
$t \gets t + 1$t \gets t + 1\;
{Train the CDC model according to the domain cluster \(\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\). Specifically, for sample from domain \(d\), update the shared parameters and the \(k\)-th domain-specific parameters, where \(k\) is determined by the cluster \(d \in \mathcal{T}^t_k\)\;
}Train the CDC model according to the domain cluster \(\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\)\{\mathcal{T}^t_k\}_{k=1}k=1^{K}K. Specifically, for sample from domain \(d\)d, update the shared parameters and the \(k\)k-th domain-specific parameters, where \(k\)k is determined by the cluster \(d \in \mathcal{T}^t_k\)d \in \mathcal{T}^t_k\;
\normalsize
Finally, the training domain set for the next iteration is updated by combining Equations (\ref{eq:J_T}) and (\ref{eq:P}):
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
d_u=\argmax_{d_u\notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} } & \left(J(d_u\rightarrow \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}\cup\{d_u\} )+\rho^t P(d_u \mid k) \right), \label{eq:JP} \\
& \mathcal{S}_{k, i+1}^t = \mathcal{S}_{k, i}^t \cup \{d_u\},
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align}
d_u=\argmax_{d_u\notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} } & \left(J(d_u\rightarrow \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}\cup\{d_u\} )+\rho^t P(d_u \mid k) \right), \label{eq:JP} \\
& \mathcal{S}_{k, i+1}^t = \mathcal{S}_{k, i}^t \cup \{d_u\},
\end{align}
\end{footnotesize}
d_u=\argmax_{d_u\notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i} }d_u\notin \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i & \left(J(d_u\rightarrow \mathcal{T}^t_k \mid \mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i\cup\{d_u\} )+\rho^t P(d_u \mid k) \right), \label{eq:JP} \\
& \mathcal{S}_{k, i+1}k, i+1^t = \mathcal{S}_{k, i}k, i^t \cup \{d_u\},
where the decay coefficient $\rho^t = \rho^0 * \beta^t $\rho^t = \rho^0 * \beta^t gradually reduces the influence of $P$P over time to prioritize transfer gains.
Algorithm \ref{al:search_train} outlines the complete DM Training Optimization process. It dynamically optimizes training domain selection by simultaneously balancing the immediate transfer gains and global affiliation scores. This approach mitigates the volatility of early optimization gains and enhances the robustness.
\subsubsection{Heuristic Co-Optimization}
\label{sec:heuristic}
As outlined in Algorithm \ref{al:cdc}, the heuristic Co-Optimized Dynamic Clustering (CODC) algorithm iteratively executes the following clustering steps: selecting the optimal source training domain set $\mathcal{S}^t_k$\mathcal{S}^t_k for maximum performance of target domain group $\mathcal{T}^t_k$\mathcal{T}^t_k; and based on the current groupings of source training domains $\mathcal{S}^t_k$\mathcal{S}^t_k, computing the gains for each domain to assign them to the target group where they maximize the gain.
|
Method
| false
|
2507.06877
| 4
|
95,426
|
\label{sec:exp}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\textbf{Public Dataset.} We use two widely recognized datasets: the Amazon dataset \cite{ni2019justifying} and AliCCP dataset \cite{ma2018entire}, where domains are defined based on item categories. Detailed statistics of these datasets are provided in Table \ref{tab:dataset}. The \textbf{Amazon dataset} includes all $25$25 item categories, with data from the most recent $12$12 months. Ratings above $4$4 are labeled as positive. The data is temporally split into training, validation, and test sets with a ratio of $90:5:5$90:5:5. For the \textbf{AliCCP dataset}, we sample $50$50 item categories as distinct domains. To more closely simulate real-world recommender platforms, where a domain typically contains multiple item categories, an additional $10$10 item categories are randomly selected and merged with existing domains. Click events serve as binary labels in this dataset. The training set uses the dataset's predefined training segment, while the original test set is split equally into validation and test subsets.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.75}
\vspace{-9pt}
\caption{Public datasets statistics. The "Majority ratio" refers to the sample ratio in the largest domain, and "Minor domains" represent domains with less than 2\% of the samples.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3.3mm}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{crr}
\toprule
Datasets & Amazon & AliCCP \\
\midrule
\#Users & 2,899,335 & 234,952 \\
\#Items & 1,286,361 & 107,694 \\
\#Samples & 17,664,862 & 18,952,318 \\
\#Positive samples & 12,013,077 & 834,050 \\
\#Domains ($D$) & 25 & 50 \\
Majority ratio & 16.99\% & 14.26\% \\
\#Minor domains & 12 & 38 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}%
\label{tab:dataset}%
% \begin{tablenotes}
% \small
% \item $*$ The "Majority ratio" refers to the sample ratio in the largest domain, and "Minor domains" represent domains with less than 2\% of the samples.
% \end{tablenotes}
\vspace{-16pt}
\end{table}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.75}
\vspace{-9pt}
\caption{Public datasets statistics. The "Majority ratio" refers to the sample ratio in the largest domain, and "Minor domains" represent domains with less than 2\% of the samples.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3.3mm}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{crr}
\toprule
Datasets & Amazon & AliCCP \\
\midrule
\#Users & 2,899,335 & 234,952 \\
\#Items & 1,286,361 & 107,694 \\
\#Samples & 17,664,862 & 18,952,318 \\
\#Positive samples & 12,013,077 & 834,050 \\
\#Domains ($D$) & 25 & 50 \\
Majority ratio & 16.99\% & 14.26\% \\
\#Minor domains & 12 & 38 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\footnotesize
\toprule
Datasets & Amazon & AliCCP \\
\midrule
\#Users & 2,899,335 & 234,952 \\
\#Items & 1,286,361 & 107,694 \\
\#Samples & 17,664,862 & 18,952,318 \\
\#Positive samples & 12,013,077 & 834,050 \\
\#Domains ($D$D) & 25 & 50 \\
Majority ratio & 16.99\% & 14.26\% \\
\#Minor domains & 12 & 38 \\
\bottomrule
\label{tab:dataset}\vspace{-16pt}
\textbf{Industrial Dataset.} For offline evaluations, we collect exposure logs of \textbf{81 business domains} from the recommender system of an industrial app marketplace, which \textbf{ranks among the top five globally by monthly active users}. These domains feature relatively high user interaction costs and low data volumes. To enhance their performance, we incorporate auxiliary data from three high-volume domains. Specifically, we collect datasets over two distinct periods: MDR-229M spanning $8$8 days with $229$229 million records, and MDR-865M over $31$31 days with $865$865 million records. Download logs are defined as positive samples and make up $4.73\%$4.73\% of the data. The three high-volume domains account for $63.67\%$63.67\% of the total volume, while 50 domains each contribute less than $0.5\%$0.5\%. The final day’s data is reserved for testing, with the remainder used for training.
\subsection{Baselines}
\label{sec:baseline}
We compare CDC with a range of state-of-the-art baselines, categorized into three types based on their transfer learning strategies.
(1) \textbf{Single-Domain Recommendation Models}: \textbf{DeepFM}~\cite{guo2017deepfm}, \textbf{DCN}~\cite{wang2017dcn}, \textbf{AutoInt}~\cite{song2019autoint} and \textbf{DCNv2}~\cite{wang2021dcnv2}, each trained on the mixed dataset aggregated from all domains.
(2) \textbf{Multi-Domain Recommendation Models}: We adapt multi-task recommenders such as \textbf{MMoE}~\cite{ma2018mmoe} and \textbf{PLE}~\cite{tang2020ple} by assigning a domain-specific tower network to each domain. We also consider MDR-specific methods: \textbf{STAR}~\cite{sheng2021star}, \textbf{AdaSparse}~\cite{yang2022adasparse}, \textbf{HiNet}~\cite{zhou2023hinet}, \textbf{PEPNet}~\cite{chang2023pepnet}, and \textbf{ADL}~\cite{li2023adl}.
(3) \textbf{Domain Grouping Methods}: These methods, including \textbf{Random}, \textbf{Manual} (not applicable to the AliCCP dataset due to anonymized domains), and \textbf{TAG}~\cite{fifty2021efficiently}, implement MDR in two phases: first, domains are explicitly grouped into $K$K clusters based on specific criteria or strategies; second, the $K$K clusters are treated as $K$K individual domains for multi-domain learning.
Our CDC method supports both a similar two-phase learning process (\textbf{CDC}) and a streamlined, end-to-end framework (\textbf{CDC (end-to-end)}). Notably, some recent grouping-related methods, such as MTG-Net~\cite{song2022efficient}, are excluded due to their high computational overhead (requiring over 3000 meta‑training cycles). Instead, we compare CDC with the SOTA baseline TAG, which sufficiently demonstrates CDC’s advancements, as supported by recent literature \cite{wang2024principled}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.9}
\vspace{-14pt}
\caption{Performance comparison of different methods trained across all domains on Amazon and AliCCP datasets. Best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined, respectively. $*$ indicates statistically significant differences (\textit{p}-value $< 0.01$) from the second-best baseline. Results are averaged over five runs.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{clcccccccc}
% \begin{tabular}{cc|cccc|cccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}[4]{*}{Method}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Amazon} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{AliCCP} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-10} \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Minor10AUC } & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & Minor10AUC \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Single\end{sideways}}} & DeepFM & 0.6451 & 0.6394 & 0.6490 & 0.6515 & 0.5764 & 0.5908 & 0.5768 & 0.5645 \\
& DCN & 0.6524 & 0.6472 & 0.6561 & 0.6607 & 0.5846 & 0.5986 & 0.5852 & 0.5703 \\
& AutoInt & 0.6446 & 0.6396 & 0.6492 & 0.6509 & 0.5855 & 0.5995 & 0.5865 & 0.5701 \\
& DCNv2 & 0.6532 & 0.6481 & 0.6576 & 0.6605 & 0.5835 & 0.5973 & 0.5839 & 0.5692 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{9}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Multi\end{sideways}}} & MMoE & 0.6536 & 0.6488 & 0.6574 & 0.6615 & 0.5848 & 0.5988 & 0.5853 & 0.5714 \\
& PLE & 0.6505 & 0.6458 & 0.6547 & 0.6536 & 0.5851 & 0.5992 & 0.5858 & 0.5710 \\
& STAR & 0.6563 & 0.6498 & 0.6614 & 0.6603 & 0.5878 & 0.6007 & 0.5878 & 0.5622 \\
& AdaSparse & 0.6572 & 0.6516 & 0.6605 & \underline{0.6696} & 0.5855 & 0.5989 & 0.5855 & 0.5634 \\
& HiNet & 0.6512 & 0.6467 & 0.6547 & 0.6583 & 0.5845 & 0.5989 & 0.5845 & 0.5592 \\
& PEPNet (single) & 0.6566 & 0.6503 & 0.6613 & 0.6648 & 0.5905 & 0.6039 & 0.5922 & 0.5771 \\
& PEPNet & 0.6552 & 0.6485 & 0.6601 & 0.6625 & 0.5849 & 0.5988 & 0.5856 & 0.5704 \\
& ADL (group) & 0.6543 & 0.6488 & 0.6586 & 0.6623 & 0.5848 & 0.5987 & 0.5848 & 0.5666 \\
& ADL & 0.6469 & 0.6431 & 0.6506 & 0.6553 & 0.5829 & 0.5971 & 0.5829 & 0.5644 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{3}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Group\end{sideways}}} & Random & 0.6296 & 0.6264 & 0.6335 & 0.6295 & 0.5780 & 0.5891 & 0.5793 & 0.5600 \\
& Manual & 0.6411 & 0.6375 & 0.6449 & 0.6414 & - & - & - & - \\
& TAG & 0.6523 & 0.6486 & 0.6560 & 0.6536 & 0.5889 & 0.6023 & 0.5899 & 0.5682 \\
\midrule
& CDC (end-to-end) & \underline{0.6592*} & \textbf{0.6545* } & \underline{0.6631*} & 0.6680 & \underline{0.5923*} & \textbf{0.6065* } & \underline{0.5944*} & \underline{0.5813} \\
& CDC & \textbf{0.6613* } & \underline{0.6528*} & \textbf{0.6664* } & \textbf{0.6728* } & \textbf{0.5972* } & \underline{0.6038} & \textbf{0.5961* } & \textbf{0.5855* } \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}%
\label{tab:public_res}%
\vspace{-11pt}
\end{table*}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.9}
\vspace{-14pt}
\caption{Performance comparison of different methods trained across all domains on Amazon and AliCCP datasets. Best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined, respectively. $*$ indicates statistically significant differences (\textit{p}-value $< 0.01$) from the second-best baseline. Results are averaged over five runs.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{clcccccccc}
% \begin{tabular}{cc|cccc|cccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}[4]{*}{Method}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Amazon} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{AliCCP} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-10} \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Minor10AUC } & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & Minor10AUC \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Single\end{sideways}}} & DeepFM & 0.6451 & 0.6394 & 0.6490 & 0.6515 & 0.5764 & 0.5908 & 0.5768 & 0.5645 \\
& DCN & 0.6524 & 0.6472 & 0.6561 & 0.6607 & 0.5846 & 0.5986 & 0.5852 & 0.5703 \\
& AutoInt & 0.6446 & 0.6396 & 0.6492 & 0.6509 & 0.5855 & 0.5995 & 0.5865 & 0.5701 \\
& DCNv2 & 0.6532 & 0.6481 & 0.6576 & 0.6605 & 0.5835 & 0.5973 & 0.5839 & 0.5692 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{9}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Multi\end{sideways}}} & MMoE & 0.6536 & 0.6488 & 0.6574 & 0.6615 & 0.5848 & 0.5988 & 0.5853 & 0.5714 \\
& PLE & 0.6505 & 0.6458 & 0.6547 & 0.6536 & 0.5851 & 0.5992 & 0.5858 & 0.5710 \\
& STAR & 0.6563 & 0.6498 & 0.6614 & 0.6603 & 0.5878 & 0.6007 & 0.5878 & 0.5622 \\
& AdaSparse & 0.6572 & 0.6516 & 0.6605 & \underline{0.6696} & 0.5855 & 0.5989 & 0.5855 & 0.5634 \\
& HiNet & 0.6512 & 0.6467 & 0.6547 & 0.6583 & 0.5845 & 0.5989 & 0.5845 & 0.5592 \\
& PEPNet (single) & 0.6566 & 0.6503 & 0.6613 & 0.6648 & 0.5905 & 0.6039 & 0.5922 & 0.5771 \\
& PEPNet & 0.6552 & 0.6485 & 0.6601 & 0.6625 & 0.5849 & 0.5988 & 0.5856 & 0.5704 \\
& ADL (group) & 0.6543 & 0.6488 & 0.6586 & 0.6623 & 0.5848 & 0.5987 & 0.5848 & 0.5666 \\
& ADL & 0.6469 & 0.6431 & 0.6506 & 0.6553 & 0.5829 & 0.5971 & 0.5829 & 0.5644 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{3}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Group\end{sideways}}} & Random & 0.6296 & 0.6264 & 0.6335 & 0.6295 & 0.5780 & 0.5891 & 0.5793 & 0.5600 \\
& Manual & 0.6411 & 0.6375 & 0.6449 & 0.6414 & - & - & - & - \\
& TAG & 0.6523 & 0.6486 & 0.6560 & 0.6536 & 0.5889 & 0.6023 & 0.5899 & 0.5682 \\
\midrule
& CDC (end-to-end) & \underline{0.6592*} & \textbf{0.6545* } & \underline{0.6631*} & 0.6680 & \underline{0.5923*} & \textbf{0.6065* } & \underline{0.5944*} & \underline{0.5813} \\
& CDC & \textbf{0.6613* } & \underline{0.6528*} & \textbf{0.6664* } & \textbf{0.6728* } & \textbf{0.5972* } & \underline{0.6038} & \textbf{0.5961* } & \textbf{0.5855* } \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\footnotesize
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}2{c}c{\multirow{2}[4]{*}{Method}}\multirow{2}2[4]{*}*{Method}Method & \multicolumn{4}4{c}c{Amazon}Amazon & \multicolumn{4}4{c}c{AliCCP}AliCCP \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-6}3-6 \cmidrule(lr){7-10}7-10 \multicolumn{2}2{c}c{} & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & \multicolumn{1}1{c}c{Minor10AUC }Minor10AUC & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & Minor10AUC \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}1{c}c{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Single\end{sideways}}}\multirow{4}4[2]{*}*{\begin{sideways}Single\end{sideways}}Single & DeepFM & 0.6451 & 0.6394 & 0.6490 & 0.6515 & 0.5764 & 0.5908 & 0.5768 & 0.5645 \\
& DCN & 0.6524 & 0.6472 & 0.6561 & 0.6607 & 0.5846 & 0.5986 & 0.5852 & 0.5703 \\
& AutoInt & 0.6446 & 0.6396 & 0.6492 & 0.6509 & 0.5855 & 0.5995 & 0.5865 & 0.5701 \\
& DCNv2 & 0.6532 & 0.6481 & 0.6576 & 0.6605 & 0.5835 & 0.5973 & 0.5839 & 0.5692 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}1{c}c{\multirow{9}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Multi\end{sideways}}}\multirow{9}9[2]{*}*{\begin{sideways}Multi\end{sideways}}Multi & MMoE & 0.6536 & 0.6488 & 0.6574 & 0.6615 & 0.5848 & 0.5988 & 0.5853 & 0.5714 \\
& PLE & 0.6505 & 0.6458 & 0.6547 & 0.6536 & 0.5851 & 0.5992 & 0.5858 & 0.5710 \\
& STAR & 0.6563 & 0.6498 & 0.6614 & 0.6603 & 0.5878 & 0.6007 & 0.5878 & 0.5622 \\
& AdaSparse & 0.6572 & 0.6516 & 0.6605 & \underline{0.6696} & 0.5855 & 0.5989 & 0.5855 & 0.5634 \\
& HiNet & 0.6512 & 0.6467 & 0.6547 & 0.6583 & 0.5845 & 0.5989 & 0.5845 & 0.5592 \\
& PEPNet (single) & 0.6566 & 0.6503 & 0.6613 & 0.6648 & 0.5905 & 0.6039 & 0.5922 & 0.5771 \\
& PEPNet & 0.6552 & 0.6485 & 0.6601 & 0.6625 & 0.5849 & 0.5988 & 0.5856 & 0.5704 \\
& ADL (group) & 0.6543 & 0.6488 & 0.6586 & 0.6623 & 0.5848 & 0.5987 & 0.5848 & 0.5666 \\
& ADL & 0.6469 & 0.6431 & 0.6506 & 0.6553 & 0.5829 & 0.5971 & 0.5829 & 0.5644 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}1{c}c{\multirow{3}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Group\end{sideways}}}\multirow{3}3[2]{*}*{\begin{sideways}Group\end{sideways}}Group & Random & 0.6296 & 0.6264 & 0.6335 & 0.6295 & 0.5780 & 0.5891 & 0.5793 & 0.5600 \\
& Manual & 0.6411 & 0.6375 & 0.6449 & 0.6414 & - & - & - & - \\
& TAG & 0.6523 & 0.6486 & 0.6560 & 0.6536 & 0.5889 & 0.6023 & 0.5899 & 0.5682 \\
\midrule
& CDC (end-to-end) & \underline{0.6592*} & \textbf{0.6545* } & \underline{0.6631*} & 0.6680 & \underline{0.5923*} & \textbf{0.6065* } & \underline{0.5944*} & \underline{0.5813} \\
& CDC & \textbf{0.6613* } & \underline{0.6528*} & \textbf{0.6664* } & \textbf{0.6728* } & \textbf{0.5972* } & \underline{0.6038} & \textbf{0.5961* } & \textbf{0.5855* } \\
\bottomrule
\label{tab:public_res}\vspace{-11pt}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
% \vspace{3pt}
\caption{Performance of domain grouping methods with independently training of MDR models within each group.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.2mm}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
Dataset & Metric & Random & Manual & TAG & CDC (split) \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}[2]{*}{Amazon} & DomainAUC & 0.6208 & 0.6359 & \underline{0.6576} & \textbf{0.6660}* \\
& Major5AUC & 0.6253 & 0.6406 & \underline{0.6615} & \textbf{0.6707}* \\
& Minor10AUC & 0.6280 & 0.6471 & \underline{0.6649} & \textbf{0.6781}* \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}[2]{*}{AliCCP} & DomainAUC & 0.5703 & - & \underline{0.5805} & \textbf{0.5906}* \\
& Major5AUC & 0.5718 & - & \underline{0.5813} & \textbf{0.5922}* \\
& Minor10AUC & 0.5505 & - & \underline{0.5585} & \textbf{0.5763}* \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}%
\label{tab:separate}%
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{table}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{Performance of domain grouping methods with independently training of MDR models within each group.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.2mm}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
Dataset & Metric & Random & Manual & TAG & CDC (split) \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}[2]{*}{Amazon} & DomainAUC & 0.6208 & 0.6359 & \underline{0.6576} & \textbf{0.6660}* \\
& Major5AUC & 0.6253 & 0.6406 & \underline{0.6615} & \textbf{0.6707}* \\
& Minor10AUC & 0.6280 & 0.6471 & \underline{0.6649} & \textbf{0.6781}* \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}[2]{*}{AliCCP} & DomainAUC & 0.5703 & - & \underline{0.5805} & \textbf{0.5906}* \\
& Major5AUC & 0.5718 & - & \underline{0.5813} & \textbf{0.5922}* \\
& Minor10AUC & 0.5505 & - & \underline{0.5585} & \textbf{0.5763}* \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\footnotesize
\toprule
Dataset & Metric & Random & Manual & TAG & CDC (split) \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}3[2]{*}*{Amazon}Amazon & DomainAUC & 0.6208 & 0.6359 & \underline{0.6576} & \textbf{0.6660}* \\
& Major5AUC & 0.6253 & 0.6406 & \underline{0.6615} & \textbf{0.6707}* \\
& Minor10AUC & 0.6280 & 0.6471 & \underline{0.6649} & \textbf{0.6781}* \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}3[2]{*}*{AliCCP}AliCCP & DomainAUC & 0.5703 & - & \underline{0.5805} & \textbf{0.5906}* \\
& Major5AUC & 0.5718 & - & \underline{0.5813} & \textbf{0.5922}* \\
& Minor10AUC & 0.5505 & - & \underline{0.5585} & \textbf{0.5763}* \\
\bottomrule
\label{tab:separate}\vspace{-12pt}
\subsection{Metrics}
In the MDR setting, where item interactions are independently assessed within each domain, \textbf{DomainAUC} serves as the primary evaluation metric. This metric computes the AUC\cite{fawcett2006introduction} for each domain individually, averaging and weighting these values by their respective sample sizes.
DomainAUC effectively reflects the model's ability to adapt across diverse domains, aligning well with potential online deployment gains.
Given the limited space available for displaying all domain results, we introduce two supplementary metrics: \textbf{Major5AUC} and \textbf{Minor10AUC}. Major5AUC calculates the weighted average AUC of the five largest domains by sample size, while Minor10AUC focuses on the ten smallest domains. \textbf{TotalAUC} is provided as a global reference metric. In large-scale recommender systems, an improvement in AUC at the \textbf{0.001 level (1\textperthousand)} in CTR prediction tasks is considered significant and can lead to substantial commercial benefits\cite{song2019autoint, zhou2023hinet}.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\label{sec:implement}
For optimization on public dataset, Adam\cite{kingma2014adam} is used with learning rates $[5e^{-4}, 1e^{-3}, 2e^{-3}, 3e^{-3}]$[5e^{-4}-4, 1e^{-3}-3, 2e^{-3}-3, 3e^{-3}-3] and batch sizes $[1024, 2048, 4096]$[1024, 2048, 4096] optimized through grid search. The number of clustering of "ADL (group)" and domain grouping methods is searched in $[3, 4, 5]$[3, 4, 5]. The base model for domain grouping and CDC is selected from [MMoE, STAR, HiNet, PEPNet]. During the warm-up phase of CDC, the number of training batches is chosen from the range [1000, 2000]. During the lookahead updates, each update step involves updating only one batch. The initial domain count \(N\)N for \(\mathcal{S}_{k,0}^t\)\mathcal{S}_{k,0}k,0^t is set to 2.
Three deployment versions of CDC have been developed. The first version, \textbf{CDC (end-to-end)}, implements a single-stage, end-to-end learning framework where the converged multi-domain model, as specified in Algorithm \ref{al:cdc}, is directly applied for inference. The second version, \textbf{CDC}, treats each previously generated target cluster $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k as a single domain and retrains a unified multi-domain model across these clusters. This approach offers the advantage of having similar time and storage costs as conventional MDR models, and often delivers better performance than the first version. This version has been selected for deployment in online A/B testing. The third version, \textbf{CDC (split)}, aligned with the setup in Table \ref{tab:separate} and Section \ref{sec:ablation}, trains independent models within each cluster $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k and evaluates them on their respective $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k, potentially achieving the highest performance by minimizing domain conflicts.
Notably, CDC (split) cannot measure TotalAUC, as the use of multiple models prevents global sorting of predictions across all domains.
\subsection{Performance on Public Datasets}
Table \ref{tab:public_res} and \ref{tab:separate} present the experimental results on two public datasets. From the results, we have the following observations:
(1) \textbf{CDC} and \textbf{CDC (end-to-end)} significantly outperform all the competitive baselines of all three types on both public datasets on all metrics. Specifically, compared to the best-performing baselines in Table \ref{tab:public_res}, CDC gains an average improvement of 4.14\textperthousand{} and 6.76\textperthousand{} on DomainAUC on the Amazon and AliCCP datasets, respectively.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
% \vspace{-3pt}
\caption{Offline evaluation on the MDR-229M dataset.}
\vspace{-9pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Method} & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & Minor20AUC \\
\midrule
% \multirow{3}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Baseline\end{sideways}} &
DCN & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ \\
STAR & -3.33‰ & -0.63‰ & -2.79‰ & -5.12‰ \\
PEPNet & +0.67‰ & \underline{+0.67‰} & +0.89‰ & +2.25‰ \\
\midrule
% \multirow{2}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Group\end{sideways}} &
CDC-STAR & +0.38‰ & \textbf{+1.49‰} & +1.49‰ & -4.79‰ \\
CDC-PEPNet & \underline{+1.89‰} & -4.89‰ & \underline{+2.37‰} & \underline{+2.46‰} \\
\midrule
% \multirow{3}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Independent\end{sideways}} &
CDC-$\mathcal{T}_k$ & +1.63‰ & - & +1.90‰ & -2.12‰ \\
CDC-$\mathcal{D}$ & +2.19‰ & - & +2.15‰ & -0.77‰ \\
CDC-$\mathcal{S}_k$ & \textbf{+2.85‰} & - & \textbf{+2.65‰} & \textbf{2.65‰} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:offline}}%
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{table}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{Offline evaluation on the MDR-229M dataset.}
\vspace{-9pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Method} & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & Minor20AUC \\
\midrule
% \multirow{3}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Baseline\end{sideways}} &
DCN & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ \\
STAR & -3.33‰ & -0.63‰ & -2.79‰ & -5.12‰ \\
PEPNet & +0.67‰ & \underline{+0.67‰} & +0.89‰ & +2.25‰ \\
\midrule
% \multirow{2}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Group\end{sideways}} &
CDC-STAR & +0.38‰ & \textbf{+1.49‰} & +1.49‰ & -4.79‰ \\
CDC-PEPNet & \underline{+1.89‰} & -4.89‰ & \underline{+2.37‰} & \underline{+2.46‰} \\
\midrule
% \multirow{3}[2]{*}{\begin{sideways}Independent\end{sideways}} &
CDC-$\mathcal{T}_k$ & +1.63‰ & - & +1.90‰ & -2.12‰ \\
CDC-$\mathcal{D}$ & +2.19‰ & - & +2.15‰ & -0.77‰ \\
CDC-$\mathcal{S}_k$ & \textbf{+2.85‰} & - & \textbf{+2.65‰} & \textbf{2.65‰} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:offline}}
\footnotesize
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}1{c}c{Method}Method & DomainAUC & TotalAUC & Major5AUC & Minor20AUC \\
\midrule
DCN & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ & 0.00‰ \\
STAR & -3.33‰ & -0.63‰ & -2.79‰ & -5.12‰ \\
PEPNet & +0.67‰ & \underline{+0.67‰} & +0.89‰ & +2.25‰ \\
\midrule
CDC-STAR & +0.38‰ & \textbf{+1.49‰} & +1.49‰ & -4.79‰ \\
CDC-PEPNet & \underline{+1.89‰} & -4.89‰ & \underline{+2.37‰} & \underline{+2.46‰} \\
\midrule
CDC-$\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k & +1.63‰ & - & +1.90‰ & -2.12‰ \\
CDC-$\mathcal{D}$\mathcal{D} & +2.19‰ & - & +2.15‰ & -0.77‰ \\
CDC-$\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k & \textbf{+2.85‰} & - & \textbf{+2.65‰} & \textbf{2.65‰} \\
\bottomrule
\label{tab:offline}\vspace{-15pt}
(2) Compared to other multi-domain models, CDC (end-to-end) exhibits advantages by clustering domains with synergistic effects into the same group. This strategy mitigates negative transfer caused by indiscriminately blending all domains, and alleviates the data sparsity issue of minor domains. As for CDC, its improvements over other domain-grouping methods stem from the innovative design of adaptive domain affinity. Note that CDC (end-to-end) underperforms AdaSparse in the Minor10AUC metric on the Amazon dataset, possibly due to the shifting domain grouping during training,
more significantly affecting minor domains.
(3) As shown in Table \ref{tab:separate}, \textbf{CDC (split)} achieve DomainAUC improvements of 8.46\textperthousand{} on Amazon and 10.15\textperthousand{} on AliCCP, outperforming all baselines. This significant enhancement highlights the importance of learning both training source domain sets $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}$\{\mathcal{S}_k\} and target domain groups $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}$\{\mathcal{T}_k\}.
Furthermore, the improvement over Table \ref{tab:public_res} on the Amazon dataset demonstrates that training on carefully selected subsets of domains, rather than all available domains, is more effective when significant inter-domain variability exists.
\subsection{Offline Evaluation}
For offline evaluation, we conduct representative model experiments on the industrial datasets to test the efficacy of CDC, given data scale and industrial platform constraints. The results on the MDR-229M dataset are shown in Table \ref{tab:offline}, using the Minor20AUC metric due to the large number of domains (over 80). The \textbf{DCN} single-domain model served as a benchmark to evaluate improvements of other models. \textbf{STAR} and \textbf{PEPNet} methods, which manually group domains based on business knowledge prior to training, contrast with \textbf{CDC-STAR} and \textbf{CDC-PEPNet} methods that employ CDC-derived grouping scheme to train a unified MDR model, respectively. These approaches demonstrate improvements over their respective base models, validating the efficacy of CDC's clustering outcomes. Methods including \textbf{CDC-$\mathcal{T}_k$}, \textbf{CDC-$\mathcal{D}$}, and \textbf{CDC-$\mathcal{S}_k$} each train independent PEPNet models within their clusters, using domain data sourced respectively from $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k, all domains $\mathcal{D}$\mathcal{D}, and $\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k, with all evaluations and early stopping guided by $\mathcal{T}_k$\mathcal{T}_k. The notable performance of CDC-$\mathcal{S}_k$\mathcal{S}_k highlights the importance of learning appropriate source training domain sets. Additionally, the prolonged experimental duration on \textbf{MDR-865M} limit the testing to \textbf{PEPNet} and \textbf{CDC-PEPNet}. The latter outperform the former with enhancements of $7.24$7.24\textperthousand{} in DomainAUC and $7.09$7.09\textperthousand{} in TotalAUC.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{-3pt}
\includegraphics[height=0.10\textheight, trim=1 5 11 0,clip]{pic/ablation_hyper_one.pdf}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Ablation study (subfigure (a)) and hyper-parameter analysis (subfigures (b)-(e) for \(K\), \(\alpha\), \(\rho_0\), and \(\beta\), respectively).}
\vspace{-17pt}
\label{fig:ablation_hyper}
\end{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-3pt}
\includegraphics[height=0.10\textheight, trim=1 5 11 0,clip]{pic/ablation_hyper_one.pdf}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Ablation study (subfigure (a)) and hyper-parameter analysis (subfigures (b)-(e) for \(K\), \(\alpha\), \(\rho_0\), and \(\beta\), respectively).}
\vspace{-17pt}
\label{fig:ablation_hyper}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
\label{sec:ablation}
Figure \ref{fig:ablation_hyper}'s leftmost subplot presents the DomainAUC results for various ablation versions of our CDC on the Amazon dataset. Each domain cluster derived from CDC independently trains a multi-domain model, i.e., "CDC (split)", aligned with the setup in Table \ref{tab:separate}. We then evaluate the impact of removing key components. (1) CDC without the Isolated Domain Affinity Matrix $MI$MI and the Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix $MH$MH are labeled as \textbf{w/o $MI$} and \textbf{w/o $MH$}, respectively. The results confirm the significant contribution of these matrices to capturing domain affinities, with $MH$MH proving more crucial for enhancing high-order domain interactions. (2) Replacing the causal dependence contribution kernel $\kappa$\kappa with a cosine function in Equation \ref{eq:dis} leads to the \textbf{w/o Causal} configuration. The decline in performance in this setup indicates that causal-based distances capture domain similarities more effectively than traditional cosine distances. (3) Without CODC, where we directly set $\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}$\mathcal{S}^t_{k,i}k,i to $\mathcal{T}^t_{k,i}$\mathcal{T}^t_{k,i}k,i in each iteration, the model is referred to as \textbf{w/o CODC}. The diminished effectiveness of w/o CODC underscores the necessity of iteratively learning the training and target domain sets.
\subsection{Hyper-Parameter Study}
\label{sec:hyper}
In this section, we explore several key hyperparameters of the CDC mechanism on the Amazon dataset, including the number of clusters $K$K, the smoothing factor $\alpha$\alpha for history matrices in Equations (\ref{eq:mi}) and (\ref{eq:mh}), and the dynamic weighting coefficient $\rho^t = \rho^0 \cdot \beta^t$\rho^t = \rho^0 \cdot \beta^t for $P(d_u\mid k)$P(d_u\mid k) in Equation (\ref{eq:JP}). Results are displayed in the rightmost four subfigures of Figure \ref{fig:ablation_hyper}, evaluating DomainAUC, Major5AUC, and Minor10AUC metrics. We vary the cluster number $K$K within $[2, 3, 4]$[2, 3, 4] and find that the optimal number of clusters for the 25 domains in the dataset is 3. $\alpha$\alpha is tested over $[0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4]$[0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4], with the best performance observed at $\alpha = 0.3$\alpha = 0.3. This indicates that appropriately leveraging the historical affinity matrix can enhance the robustness and stability of the current matrix. Furthermore, we examine the parameters $\rho^0$\rho^0 and $\beta$\beta, with their optimal values determined to be $0.01$0.01 and $0.95$0.95, respectively.
Combining results of these two parameters reveals that a minor weight $\rho^t$\rho^t for $P$P may slightly decrease performance; however, a larger $\rho^t$\rho^t typically results in significant performance degradation.
This outcome likely stems from $P$P, calculated based on the initial domain sets $\mathcal{S}_k^0$\mathcal{S}_k^0. This setup is primarily intended to offer global sight and mitigate the impact of inaccurate calculations of transfer gain $J$J during early optimization stages. As the optimization progresses and the reliability of $J$J improves, an excessively high weight $\rho^t$\rho^t for $P$P can unnecessarily constrain the flexibility of clustering.
\subsection{Case Study}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{-8pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth, trim=0 15 0 0,clip]{pic/case_study_small.pdf}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Case study: Compared to manual grouping based on primary category, CDC reveals genuine cross-domain transfer effects to group domains that mutually benefit each other.}
\vspace{-18pt}
\label{fig:case}
\end{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-8pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth, trim=0 15 0 0,clip]{pic/case_study_small.pdf}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Case study: Compared to manual grouping based on primary category, CDC reveals genuine cross-domain transfer effects to group domains that mutually benefit each other.}
\vspace{-18pt}
\label{fig:case}
To demonstrate CDC’s industrial applicability, we present a case from our app marketplace. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:case}, users browse primary categories such as "Lifestyle and Convenience", "Education", and "Business", which further subdivide into secondary categories. Each secondary category's app exposure slate is treated as a separate domain. Traditionally, domains under the same primary category are manually grouped based on expert knowledge. However, CDC provides different insights. The Hybrid Domain Affinity Matrix \(MH\)MH shows that most domains negatively influence the "Real Estate" domain, except "Popular Education" and "Recruitment". As a result, CDC groups these three domains together, despite their differing primary categories.
This grouping may seem counterintuitive, yet it reflects user behaviors. For example, housing searches often follow job or education changes. CDC captures these inter-domain synergies, providing insights into user decision-making that other grouping methods overlook, highlighting its practical value in industrial settings.
\subsection{Complexity Analysis}
We evaluate the scalability of the proposed CDC method by comparing its parameter storage and training time with other models on the public Amazon dataset and the industrial MDR-229M dataset (Table \ref{tab:complexity}). For Amazon, the "CDC (end-to-end)" configuration incurs an 8.9\% increase in training time, while the MDR-229M shows a 1.5\% increase. This increase remains stable across different sizes of interaction data. The complexity of the "CDC" configuration aligns with other baseline models, and this is the version deployed online.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\vspace{-9pt}
\caption{Average time and space complexity of CDC and its competitors on the Amazon and MDR-229M datasets.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}[0]{*}{Methods}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Amazon} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{MDR-229M} \\
& Storage (MB) & Training (min) & Storage (rel) & Training (rel) \\
\midrule
Single & 1969.14 & 162.36 & 1.00x & 1.00x \\
Multi & 1980.71 & 214.95 & OOM & OOM \\
Grouping & 1971.90 & 387.91+128.17 & 1.00x & 1.13x \\
CDC (end-to-end) & 1969.06 & 234.15 & 1.00x & 1.25x \\
CDC & 1971.90 & 139.32 & 1.00x & 1.09x \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:complexity}
\vspace{-18pt}
\end{table}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\vspace{-9pt}
\caption{Average time and space complexity of CDC and its competitors on the Amazon and MDR-229M datasets.}
\vspace{-8pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
{
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}[0]{*}{Methods}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Amazon} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{MDR-229M} \\
& Storage (MB) & Training (min) & Storage (rel) & Training (rel) \\
\midrule
Single & 1969.14 & 162.36 & 1.00x & 1.00x \\
Multi & 1980.71 & 214.95 & OOM & OOM \\
Grouping & 1971.90 & 387.91+128.17 & 1.00x & 1.13x \\
CDC (end-to-end) & 1969.06 & 234.15 & 1.00x & 1.25x \\
CDC & 1971.90 & 139.32 & 1.00x & 1.09x \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\footnotesize
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}1{c}c{\multirow{2}[0]{*}{Methods}}\multirow{2}2[0]{*}*{Methods}Methods & \multicolumn{2}2{c}c{Amazon}Amazon & \multicolumn{2}2{c}c{MDR-229M}MDR-229M \\
& Storage (MB) & Training (min) & Storage (rel) & Training (rel) \\
\midrule
Single & 1969.14 & 162.36 & 1.00x & 1.00x \\
Multi & 1980.71 & 214.95 & OOM & OOM \\
Grouping & 1971.90 & 387.91+128.17 & 1.00x & 1.13x \\
CDC (end-to-end) & 1969.06 & 234.15 & 1.00x & 1.25x \\
CDC & 1971.90 & 139.32 & 1.00x & 1.09x \\
\bottomrule
\label{tab:complexity}
\vspace{-18pt}
|
Experiments
| false
|
2507.06877
| 5
|
858
|
For a given graph $H$H on $h$h vertices, let $V(H) = [h]$V(H) = [h] and $s$s be a positive integer. We say that a graph $G$G is an $s$s-blow-up of $H$H if $V(G)$V(G) can be partitioned into $V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_h$V_1 \cup \dots \cup V_h, where each $V_i$V_i is an independent set, and there is an edge between $v_i \in V_i$v_i \in V_i and $v_j \in V_j$v_j \in V_j if and only if $i$i and $j$j are adjacent in $H$H. Lemma~\ref{Alon_Kr_O(n^r)_iff_chi(F)>r} is a direct corollary of the following proposition obtained by Alon and Shikhelman~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}, which inspires us to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for $\text{mex}(m, K_r, F) = \Omega(m^{\frac{r}{2}})$\text{mex}(m, K_r, F) = \Omega(m^{\frac{r}{2}}\frac{r}{2}), i.e. Corollary~\ref{When_number_Kt_reach_m^{t/2}}.
\begin{thm}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}\label{ex(n,T,H)_Blowup}
Let $T$ be a fixed graph on $t$ vertices. Then $\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)=\Omega(n^t)$ iff $H$ is not a subgraph of a blow-up of $T$. Otherwise, $\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)\leq n^{t-\epsilon\left(T,H\right)}$ for some $\epsilon(T,H)>0$.
\end{thm}\begin{thm}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}\label{ex(n,T,H)_Blowup}
Let $T$ be a fixed graph on $t$ vertices. Then $\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)=\Omega(n^t)$ iff $H$ is not a subgraph of a blow-up of $T$. Otherwise, $\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)\leq n^{t-\epsilon\left(T,H\right)}$ for some $\epsilon(T,H)>0$.
\end{thm}~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}\label{ex(n,T,H)_Blowup}
Let $T$T be a fixed graph on $t$t vertices. Then $\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)=\Omega(n^t)$\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)=\Omega(n^t) iff $H$H is not a subgraph of a blow-up of $T$T. Otherwise, $\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)\leq n^{t-\epsilon\left(T,H\right)}$\mathrm{ex}(n,T,H)\leq n^{t-\epsilon\left(T,H\right)}t-\epsilon\left(T,H\right) for some $\epsilon(T,H)>0$\epsilon(T,H)>0.
However, Theorem \ref{ex(n,T,H)_Blowup} does not have an analogue under the constraint of a fixed number of edges.
One can see this by showing that $\text{mex}(m,K_{1,r},K_{s,t})=\Theta(m^r)$\text{mex}(m,K_{1,r}1,r,K_{s,t}s,t)=\Theta(m^r) for $t\geq s\geq 2$t\geq s\geq 2. Note that when $s \geq 2$s \geq 2 and $s r \geq t$s r \geq t, the graph $K_{s,t}$K_{s,t}s,t is a subgraph of an $s$s-blow-up of $K_{1,r}$K_{1,r}1,r.
\begin{prop}
Let $t\geq s\geq 2 $ and $ r\geq 1$ be fixed integers, then $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{1,r},K_{s,t})=\binom{m}{r}.$$
\end{prop}\begin{prop}
Let $t\geq s\geq 2 $ and $ r\geq 1$ be fixed integers, then $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{1,r},K_{s,t})=\binom{m}{r}.$$
\end{prop}
Let $t\geq s\geq 2 $t\geq s\geq 2 and $ r\geq 1$ r\geq 1 be fixed integers, then $$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{1,r},K_{s,t})=\binom{m}{r}.$$\mathrm{mex}(m,K_{1,r}1,r,K_{s,t}s,t)=\binom{m}m{r}r.
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a $K_{s,t}$-free graph of size $m$. Then we choose any $r$ edges in $G$. These edges can induce at most $1$ copy of $K_{1,r}$, which implies $\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r},G)\leq \binom{m}{r}$. On the other hand, when $G$ is a star $K_{1,m}$ of size $m$, then $\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r},K_{1,m})=\binom{m}{r}$.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a $K_{s,t}$-free graph of size $m$. Then we choose any $r$ edges in $G$. These edges can induce at most $1$ copy of $K_{1,r}$, which implies $\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r},G)\leq \binom{m}{r}$. On the other hand, when $G$ is a star $K_{1,m}$ of size $m$, then $\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r},K_{1,m})=\binom{m}{r}$.
\end{proof}
Let $G$G be a $K_{s,t}$K_{s,t}s,t-free graph of size $m$m. Then we choose any $r$r edges in $G$G. These edges can induce at most $1$1 copy of $K_{1,r}$K_{1,r}1,r, which implies $\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r},G)\leq \binom{m}{r}$\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r}1,r,G)\leq \binom{m}m{r}r. On the other hand, when $G$G is a star $K_{1,m}$K_{1,m}1,m of size $m$m, then $\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r},K_{1,m})=\binom{m}{r}$\mathcal{N}(K_{1,r}1,r,K_{1,m}1,m)=\binom{m}m{r}r.
We further investigate the relationship between $\text{mex}(m, H, F)$\text{mex}(m, H, F) and $\text{ex}(n, H, F)$\text{ex}(n, H, F). By Theorem~\ref{UpperBound_K_r_in_K_st-free_Fixed_Edge}, when $r = 3$r = 3, $s\geq 3$s\geq 3 and $t \geq (s-1)! + 1$t \geq (s-1)! + 1, we obtain $\text{mex}(m, K_r, K_{s,t}) = \Theta(m^{\frac{3s - 3}{2s - 1}})$\text{mex}(m, K_r, K_{s,t}s,t) = \Theta(m^{\frac{3s - 3}{2s - 1}}\frac{3s - 3}{2s - 1}). Meanwhile, since $\text{ex}(n, K_{s,t}) = \Theta(n^{2 - \frac{1}{s}})$\text{ex}(n, K_{s,t}s,t) = \Theta(n^{2 - \frac{1}{s}}2 - \frac{1}{s}), it follows that $\text{ex}(n, K_r, K_{s,t}) = O(n^{3 - \frac{3}{s}})$\text{ex}(n, K_r, K_{s,t}s,t) = O(n^{3 - \frac{3}{s}}3 - \frac{3}{s}). Furthermore, by the existence of $H(q, s)$H(q, s), we deduce that $\text{ex}(n, K_r, K_{s,t}) = \Theta(n^{3 - \frac{3}{s}})$\text{ex}(n, K_r, K_{s,t}s,t) = \Theta(n^{3 - \frac{3}{s}}3 - \frac{3}{s}). To this end, we introduce the following definition:
\begin{definition}
Let $F$ and $H$ be two fixed simple graphs. Let $f_F(n)=\text{ex}(n,F)$, $f_{H,F}(n)=\text{ex}(n,H,F)$ and $g_{H,F}(m)=\text{mex}(m,H,F)$. We say $H$ is $F$-edge-Tur\'an-good if for any $f_H(n)\le m<f_H(n+1)$, $g_{H,F}(m)=\Theta(f_{H,F}(n))$.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
Let $F$ and $H$ be two fixed simple graphs. Let $f_F(n)=\text{ex}(n,F)$, $f_{H,F}(n)=\text{ex}(n,H,F)$ and $g_{H,F}(m)=\text{mex}(m,H,F)$. We say $H$ is $F$-edge-Tur\'an-good if for any $f_H(n)\le m<f_H(n+1)$, $g_{H,F}(m)=\Theta(f_{H,F}(n))$.
\end{definition}
Let $F$F and $H$H be two fixed simple graphs. Let $f_F(n)=\text{ex}(n,F)$f_F(n)=\text{ex}(n,F), $f_{H,F}(n)=\text{ex}(n,H,F)$f_{H,F}H,F(n)=\text{ex}(n,H,F) and $g_{H,F}(m)=\text{mex}(m,H,F)$g_{H,F}H,F(m)=\text{mex}(m,H,F). We say $H$H is $F$F-edge-Tur\'an-good if for any $f_H(n)\le m<f_H(n+1)$f_H(n)\le m<f_H(n+1), $g_{H,F}(m)=\Theta(f_{H,F}(n))$g_{H,F}H,F(m)=\Theta(f_{H,F}H,F(n)).
According to our discussions above, $K_3$K_3 is $K_{s,t}$K_{s,t}s,t-edge-Tur\'an-good for $t\geq (s-1)!+1\geq 3$t\geq (s-1)!+1\geq 3. Evidently, $K_u$K_u is $K_r$K_r-edge-Tur\'an-good if $u<r$u<r. Here we give an example that $H$H is not $F$F-edge-Tur\'an-good. Let $H=K_3$H=K_3 and $F=C_{2k+1}$F=C_{2k+1}2k+1. Notice that $f_{C_{2k+1}}(n)=\Omega(n^2)$f_{C_{2k+1}}C_{2k+1}2k+1(n)=\Omega(n^2), $f_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}(n)=O(n^{1+\frac{1}{k}})$f_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}K_3,C_{2k+1}2k+1(n)=O(n^{1+\frac{1}{k}}1+\frac{1}{k}) by Alon and Shikhelman~\cite{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}, and $g_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}(m)=\Theta(m)$g_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}K_3,C_{2k+1}2k+1(m)=\Theta(m),
$$g_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}(f_{C_{2k+1}}(n))=\Omega(n^2)\gg f_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}(n)=O(n^{1+\frac{1}{k}}).$$g_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}K_3,C_{2k+1}2k+1(f_{C_{2k+1}}C_{2k+1}2k+1(n))=\Omega(n^2)\gg f_{K_3,C_{2k+1}}K_3,C_{2k+1}2k+1(n)=O(n^{1+\frac{1}{k}}1+\frac{1}{k}). Therefore, we propose the following natural question.
\begin{question}
Which pair of graphs $(H,F)$ satisfies the condition that $H$ is $F$-edge-Tur\'an-good?
\end{question}\begin{question}
Which pair of graphs $(H,F)$ satisfies the condition that $H$ is $F$-edge-Tur\'an-good?
\end{question}
Which pair of graphs $(H,F)$(H,F) satisfies the condition that $H$H is $F$F-edge-Tur\'an-good?
|
Concluding remarks
| false
|
2508.00483
| 5
|
859
|
Yan Wang is supported by the National Key R\&D Program of China under Grant No. 2022YFA1006400 and Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (No. 2024AIYB003).
Xiao-Dong Zhang is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12371354) and the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 22JC1403600), the Montenegrin-Chinese Science and Technology.
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{Alon_Norm_graph}
N. Alon, R. Lajos, and S. Tibor. Norm-graphs: variations and applications. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 76 (1999): 280-290. https://doi.org/10.1006/jctb.1999.1906
\bibitem{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
N. Alon and C. Shikhelman. Many T copies in H-free graphs. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 121 (2016): 146–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2016.03.004
\bibitem{15_Aragao_Intro_tku}
L. Arag\~{a}o and V. Souza. Localised graph Maclaurin inequalities. \textit{Ann. Comb.}, 28(3) (2024): 1021–1033. http://doi:10.1007/s00026-023-00672-0
\bibitem{complete_r_partite_free}
J. Balogh, S. Jiang and H. Luo. On the maximum number of $r$-cliques in graphs free of complete $r$-partite subgraphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 348(8) (2025): 114508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2025.114508
\bibitem{Bollobas_Intro}
B. Bollobas and E. Gyori. Pentagons vs. triangles. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 308(19) (2008): 4332-4336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2007.08.016
\bibitem{Bondy_C2k}
J.A. Bondy and M. Simonovits. Cycles of even length in graphs. \textit{J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B}, 16(2) (1974): 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(74)90052-5
\bibitem{Bukh_bound}
B. Bukh and Z. Jiang. A Bound on the Number of Edges in Graphs Without an Even Cycle. \textit{Comb. Probab. Comput.}, 26(1) (2017): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963548316000134
\bibitem{3_Chakraborti_Intro_edge}
D. Chakraborti and D. Q. Chen. Many cliques with few edges and bounded maximum degree. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 151 (2021): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2021.05.005
\bibitem{4_Chakraborti_Intro_edge}
D. Chakraborti and D. Q. Chen. Exact results on generalized Erd\H{o}s-Gallai problems. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 120 (2024): 103955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2024.103955
\bibitem{Chase_Intro}
Z. Chase. The maximum number of triangles in a graph of given maximum degree. \textit{Adv. Com.}, (2020): paper No.10, 5 pp. https://doi.org/10.19086/aic.16788
\bibitem{Erdos_Intro}
P. Erd\H{o}s and M. Simonovits. Some extremal problems in graph theory. \textit{Combinatorial Theory and Its Applications}, (1970): pp. 377–390.
%P. Erd\H{o}s and M. Simonovits, Some extremal problems in graph theory, Combinatorial Theory and Its Applications 1970, pp.377–390.?????
\bibitem{Eckhoff_Intro_edge}
J. Eckhoff. A new Turán-type theorem for cliques in graphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 282(1–3) (2004): 113-122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2003.11.007.
\bibitem{9_Frohmader_Intro_edge}
A. Frohmader. Face vectors of flag complexes. \textit{Israel J. Math.}, 164(1) (2008): 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11856-008-0024-3.
\bibitem{Gerbner_Intro}
D. Gerbner, E. Gy\H{o}ri, A. Methuku and M. Vizer. Generalized Turán problems for even cycles. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 145 (2020): 169-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2020.05.005.
\bibitem{Gerbner_kF_free}
D. Gerbner, A. Methuku and M. Vizer. Generalized Turán problems for disjoint copies of graphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 342(11) (2019):3130-3141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2019.06.022.
\bibitem{Survey_Gerbner}
D. Gerbner and C. Palmer. Survey of generalized Tur\'an problems -- counting subgraphs. \textit{arXiv e-prints} (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03418
\bibitem{Grzesik_Intro}
A. Grzesik. On the maximum number of five-cycles in a triangle-free graph. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 102 (2012): 1061-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2012.04.001.
% \bibitem{11_Hadziivanov_Intro}
% N. Had\v{z}iivanov, Inequalities for graphs. C. R. Acad. Bulgare Sci., 30(6) (1977), 793–796.
\bibitem{Hatami_Intro}
H. Hatami, J. Hladky, D. Kral, S. Norine and A. Razborov. On the number of Pentagons in triangle-free graphs. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. A}, 120(3) (2013): 722-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcta.2012.12.008.
\bibitem{Janson_Random}
S. Janson, T. Luczak and A. Rucinski. \textit{Random graphs}, (2011), John Wiley \& Sons.
\bibitem{Jiang_Intro}
T. Jiang and R. Seiver. Tur\'an Numbers of Subdivided Graphs. \textit{SIAM J. Discrete Math.},26(3) (2012): 1238-1255. https://doi.org/10.1137/100819254
\bibitem{Kirsch_25_Intro}
R. Kirsch. Maximizing subgraph density in graphs of bounded degree and clique number. \textit{arXiv e-prints}, (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.10290
\bibitem{14_Kirsch_Intro_Ku}
R. Kirsch and J. Radcliffe. Many cliques in bounded-degree hypergraphs. \textit{SIAM. J. Discrete Math.}, 37(3) (2023):1436–1456. https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1507565
\bibitem{14_Kirsch_Intro_edge}
R. Kirsch and JD Nir. A Localized Approach to Generalized Turán Problems. \textit{Electron. J. Combin.}, 31(3) (2024): 3-34. https://doi.org/10.37236/12132
\bibitem{Luo_Intro}
R. Luo. The maximum number of cliques in graphs without long cycles. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 128 (2017): 219-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2017.08.005
\bibitem{Ma_Intro}
J. Ma and Y. Qiu. Some sharp results on the generalized Turan numbers. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 84(2020): 103026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2019.103026
\bibitem{18_Radcliff_Intro_edge}
J. Radcliffe and A. Uzzell. Stability and Erd\H{o}s–Stone type results for F-free graphs with a fixed number of edges. \textit{arXiv e-prints} (2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04746
\bibitem{Zhu_Intro}
X. Zhu, Y. Chen, D. Gerbner, E. Gy\H{o}ri and H. H. Karim. The maximum number of triangles in $F_k$-free graphs. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 114 (2023): 103793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2023.103793
\bibitem{Zykov_Intro}
A. A. Zykov. On some properties of linear complexes. \textit{Mat. Sbornik N.S.}, 24(66) (1949): 163–188. http://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=35428
\end{thebibliography}\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{Alon_Norm_graph}
N. Alon, R. Lajos, and S. Tibor. Norm-graphs: variations and applications. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 76 (1999): 280-290. https://doi.org/10.1006/jctb.1999.1906
\bibitem{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}
N. Alon and C. Shikhelman. Many T copies in H-free graphs. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 121 (2016): 146–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2016.03.004
\bibitem{15_Aragao_Intro_tku}
L. Arag\~{a}o and V. Souza. Localised graph Maclaurin inequalities. \textit{Ann. Comb.}, 28(3) (2024): 1021–1033. http://doi:10.1007/s00026-023-00672-0
\bibitem{complete_r_partite_free}
J. Balogh, S. Jiang and H. Luo. On the maximum number of $r$-cliques in graphs free of complete $r$-partite subgraphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 348(8) (2025): 114508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2025.114508
\bibitem{Bollobas_Intro}
B. Bollobas and E. Gyori. Pentagons vs. triangles. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 308(19) (2008): 4332-4336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2007.08.016
\bibitem{Bondy_C2k}
J.A. Bondy and M. Simonovits. Cycles of even length in graphs. \textit{J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B}, 16(2) (1974): 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(74)90052-5
\bibitem{Bukh_bound}
B. Bukh and Z. Jiang. A Bound on the Number of Edges in Graphs Without an Even Cycle. \textit{Comb. Probab. Comput.}, 26(1) (2017): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963548316000134
\bibitem{3_Chakraborti_Intro_edge}
D. Chakraborti and D. Q. Chen. Many cliques with few edges and bounded maximum degree. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 151 (2021): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2021.05.005
\bibitem{4_Chakraborti_Intro_edge}
D. Chakraborti and D. Q. Chen. Exact results on generalized Erd\H{o}s-Gallai problems. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 120 (2024): 103955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2024.103955
\bibitem{Chase_Intro}
Z. Chase. The maximum number of triangles in a graph of given maximum degree. \textit{Adv. Com.}, (2020): paper No.10, 5 pp. https://doi.org/10.19086/aic.16788
\bibitem{Erdos_Intro}
P. Erd\H{o}s and M. Simonovits. Some extremal problems in graph theory. \textit{Combinatorial Theory and Its Applications}, (1970): pp. 377–390.
%P. Erd\H{o}s and M. Simonovits, Some extremal problems in graph theory, Combinatorial Theory and Its Applications 1970, pp.377–390.?????
\bibitem{Eckhoff_Intro_edge}
J. Eckhoff. A new Turán-type theorem for cliques in graphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 282(1–3) (2004): 113-122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2003.11.007.
\bibitem{9_Frohmader_Intro_edge}
A. Frohmader. Face vectors of flag complexes. \textit{Israel J. Math.}, 164(1) (2008): 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11856-008-0024-3.
\bibitem{Gerbner_Intro}
D. Gerbner, E. Gy\H{o}ri, A. Methuku and M. Vizer. Generalized Turán problems for even cycles. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 145 (2020): 169-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2020.05.005.
\bibitem{Gerbner_kF_free}
D. Gerbner, A. Methuku and M. Vizer. Generalized Turán problems for disjoint copies of graphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 342(11) (2019):3130-3141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2019.06.022.
\bibitem{Survey_Gerbner}
D. Gerbner and C. Palmer. Survey of generalized Tur\'an problems -- counting subgraphs. \textit{arXiv e-prints} (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03418
\bibitem{Grzesik_Intro}
A. Grzesik. On the maximum number of five-cycles in a triangle-free graph. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 102 (2012): 1061-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2012.04.001.
% \bibitem{11_Hadziivanov_Intro}
% N. Had\v{z}iivanov, Inequalities for graphs. C. R. Acad. Bulgare Sci., 30(6) (1977), 793–796.
\bibitem{Hatami_Intro}
H. Hatami, J. Hladky, D. Kral, S. Norine and A. Razborov. On the number of Pentagons in triangle-free graphs. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. A}, 120(3) (2013): 722-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcta.2012.12.008.
\bibitem{Janson_Random}
S. Janson, T. Luczak and A. Rucinski. \textit{Random graphs}, (2011), John Wiley \& Sons.
\bibitem{Jiang_Intro}
T. Jiang and R. Seiver. Tur\'an Numbers of Subdivided Graphs. \textit{SIAM J. Discrete Math.},26(3) (2012): 1238-1255. https://doi.org/10.1137/100819254
\bibitem{Kirsch_25_Intro}
R. Kirsch. Maximizing subgraph density in graphs of bounded degree and clique number. \textit{arXiv e-prints}, (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.10290
\bibitem{14_Kirsch_Intro_Ku}
R. Kirsch and J. Radcliffe. Many cliques in bounded-degree hypergraphs. \textit{SIAM. J. Discrete Math.}, 37(3) (2023):1436–1456. https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1507565
\bibitem{14_Kirsch_Intro_edge}
R. Kirsch and JD Nir. A Localized Approach to Generalized Turán Problems. \textit{Electron. J. Combin.}, 31(3) (2024): 3-34. https://doi.org/10.37236/12132
\bibitem{Luo_Intro}
R. Luo. The maximum number of cliques in graphs without long cycles. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 128 (2017): 219-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2017.08.005
\bibitem{Ma_Intro}
J. Ma and Y. Qiu. Some sharp results on the generalized Turan numbers. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 84(2020): 103026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2019.103026
\bibitem{18_Radcliff_Intro_edge}
J. Radcliffe and A. Uzzell. Stability and Erd\H{o}s–Stone type results for F-free graphs with a fixed number of edges. \textit{arXiv e-prints} (2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04746
\bibitem{Zhu_Intro}
X. Zhu, Y. Chen, D. Gerbner, E. Gy\H{o}ri and H. H. Karim. The maximum number of triangles in $F_k$-free graphs. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 114 (2023): 103793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2023.103793
\bibitem{Zykov_Intro}
A. A. Zykov. On some properties of linear complexes. \textit{Mat. Sbornik N.S.}, 24(66) (1949): 163–188. http://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=35428
\end{thebibliography}{99}99
\bibitem{Alon_Norm_graph}Alon_Norm_graph
N. Alon, R. Lajos, and S. Tibor. Norm-graphs: variations and applications. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 76 (1999): 280-290. https://doi.org/10.1006/jctb.1999.1906
\bibitem{Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs}Alon_Many T copies in H-free graphs
N. Alon and C. Shikhelman. Many T copies in H-free graphs. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 121 (2016): 146–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2016.03.004
\bibitem{15_Aragao_Intro_tku}15_Aragao_Intro_tku
L. Arag\~{a}o and V. Souza. Localised graph Maclaurin inequalities. \textit{Ann. Comb.}, 28(3) (2024): 1021–1033. http://doi:10.1007/s00026-023-00672-0
\bibitem{complete_r_partite_free}complete_r_partite_free
J. Balogh, S. Jiang and H. Luo. On the maximum number of $r$r-cliques in graphs free of complete $r$r-partite subgraphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 348(8) (2025): 114508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2025.114508
\bibitem{Bollobas_Intro}Bollobas_Intro
B. Bollobas and E. Gyori. Pentagons vs. triangles. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 308(19) (2008): 4332-4336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2007.08.016
\bibitem{Bondy_C2k}Bondy_C2k
J.A. Bondy and M. Simonovits. Cycles of even length in graphs. \textit{J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B}, 16(2) (1974): 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(74)90052-5
\bibitem{Bukh_bound}Bukh_bound
B. Bukh and Z. Jiang. A Bound on the Number of Edges in Graphs Without an Even Cycle. \textit{Comb. Probab. Comput.}, 26(1) (2017): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963548316000134
\bibitem{3_Chakraborti_Intro_edge}3_Chakraborti_Intro_edge
D. Chakraborti and D. Q. Chen. Many cliques with few edges and bounded maximum degree. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 151 (2021): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2021.05.005
\bibitem{4_Chakraborti_Intro_edge}4_Chakraborti_Intro_edge
D. Chakraborti and D. Q. Chen. Exact results on generalized Erd\H{o}s-Gallai problems. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 120 (2024): 103955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2024.103955
\bibitem{Chase_Intro}Chase_Intro
Z. Chase. The maximum number of triangles in a graph of given maximum degree. \textit{Adv. Com.}, (2020): paper No.10, 5 pp. https://doi.org/10.19086/aic.16788
\bibitem{Erdos_Intro}Erdos_Intro
P. Erd\H{o}s and M. Simonovits. Some extremal problems in graph theory. \textit{Combinatorial Theory and Its Applications}, (1970): pp. 377–390.
\bibitem{Eckhoff_Intro_edge}Eckhoff_Intro_edge
J. Eckhoff. A new Turán-type theorem for cliques in graphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 282(1–3) (2004): 113-122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2003.11.007.
\bibitem{9_Frohmader_Intro_edge}9_Frohmader_Intro_edge
A. Frohmader. Face vectors of flag complexes. \textit{Israel J. Math.}, 164(1) (2008): 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11856-008-0024-3.
\bibitem{Gerbner_Intro}Gerbner_Intro
D. Gerbner, E. Gy\H{o}ri, A. Methuku and M. Vizer. Generalized Turán problems for even cycles. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 145 (2020): 169-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2020.05.005.
\bibitem{Gerbner_kF_free}Gerbner_kF_free
D. Gerbner, A. Methuku and M. Vizer. Generalized Turán problems for disjoint copies of graphs. \textit{Discrete Math.}, 342(11) (2019):3130-3141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2019.06.022.
\bibitem{Survey_Gerbner}Survey_Gerbner
D. Gerbner and C. Palmer. Survey of generalized Tur\'an problems -- counting subgraphs. \textit{arXiv e-prints} (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03418
\bibitem{Grzesik_Intro}Grzesik_Intro
A. Grzesik. On the maximum number of five-cycles in a triangle-free graph. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 102 (2012): 1061-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2012.04.001.
\bibitem{Hatami_Intro}Hatami_Intro
H. Hatami, J. Hladky, D. Kral, S. Norine and A. Razborov. On the number of Pentagons in triangle-free graphs. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. A}, 120(3) (2013): 722-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcta.2012.12.008.
\bibitem{Janson_Random}Janson_Random
S. Janson, T. Luczak and A. Rucinski. \textit{Random graphs}, (2011), John Wiley \& Sons.
\bibitem{Jiang_Intro}Jiang_Intro
T. Jiang and R. Seiver. Tur\'an Numbers of Subdivided Graphs. \textit{SIAM J. Discrete Math.},26(3) (2012): 1238-1255. https://doi.org/10.1137/100819254
\bibitem{Kirsch_25_Intro}Kirsch_25_Intro
R. Kirsch. Maximizing subgraph density in graphs of bounded degree and clique number. \textit{arXiv e-prints}, (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.10290
\bibitem{14_Kirsch_Intro_Ku}14_Kirsch_Intro_Ku
R. Kirsch and J. Radcliffe. Many cliques in bounded-degree hypergraphs. \textit{SIAM. J. Discrete Math.}, 37(3) (2023):1436–1456. https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1507565
\bibitem{14_Kirsch_Intro_edge}14_Kirsch_Intro_edge
R. Kirsch and JD Nir. A Localized Approach to Generalized Turán Problems. \textit{Electron. J. Combin.}, 31(3) (2024): 3-34. https://doi.org/10.37236/12132
\bibitem{Luo_Intro}Luo_Intro
R. Luo. The maximum number of cliques in graphs without long cycles. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. B}, 128 (2017): 219-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2017.08.005
\bibitem{Ma_Intro}Ma_Intro
J. Ma and Y. Qiu. Some sharp results on the generalized Turan numbers. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 84(2020): 103026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2019.103026
\bibitem{18_Radcliff_Intro_edge}18_Radcliff_Intro_edge
J. Radcliffe and A. Uzzell. Stability and Erd\H{o}s–Stone type results for F-free graphs with a fixed number of edges. \textit{arXiv e-prints} (2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04746
\bibitem{Zhu_Intro}Zhu_Intro
X. Zhu, Y. Chen, D. Gerbner, E. Gy\H{o}ri and H. H. Karim. The maximum number of triangles in $F_k$F_k-free graphs. \textit{European J. Combin.}, 114 (2023): 103793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2023.103793
\bibitem{Zykov_Intro}Zykov_Intro
A. A. Zykov. On some properties of linear complexes. \textit{Mat. Sbornik N.S.}, 24(66) (1949): 163–188. http://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=35428
|
Acknowledgement
| false
|
2508.00483
| 6
|
95,427
|
We conducted online A/B testing experiments over a 14-day period within our app marketplace's recommender system, \textbf{covering 64 domains and 20\% of user traffic}. This translates to \textbf{millions of users and billions of exposures daily}. Utilizing the domain clustering results $\{\mathcal{T}_k\}_{k=1}^K$\{\mathcal{T}_k\}_{k=1}k=1^K derived from our CDC, we trained a unified multi-domain model with the same architecture as the fully-deployed baseline. This implementation matched the training costs of the current baseline and resulted in a significant increase in overall revenue metric eCPM, or effective cost per mille, by $4.9\%$4.9\%. Notably, it improved eCPM in $56$56 of these domains, demonstrating its effectiveness in managing a large number of domains in industry.
|
Online Evaluation
| false
|
2507.06877
| 6
|
95,428
|
We propose a novel CDC framework to address domain clustering challenges in multi-domain recommendation systems with a large number of domains. We use two affinity matrices to dynamically capture inter-domain transfer effects in different transfer patterns. We then apply causal discovery to adaptively integrate these matrices. Finally, the CODC method iteratively optimizes target domain clusters and their corresponding training source domain sets. Extensive evaluations on public datasets and real-world recommendation systems demonstrate that CDC significantly outperforms existing multi-domain strategies and domain grouping methods.
\begin{acks}
Supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant No. 2024YFF0729003, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 62176014 and 62276015, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
\end{acks}\begin{acks}
Supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant No. 2024YFF0729003, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 62176014 and 62276015, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
\end{acks}
Supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant No. 2024YFF0729003, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 62176014 and 62276015, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}ACM-Reference-Format
\bibliography{ref}
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06877
| 7
|
95,429
|
\begin{quote}
\emph{“\textbf{Sapere aude}! Have courage to use your own reason!”} \\
\hfill --- Immanuel Kant, \textit{An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?} (1784)
\end{quote}\begin{quote}
\emph{“\textbf{Sapere aude}! Have courage to use your own reason!”} \\
\hfill --- Immanuel Kant, \textit{An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?} (1784)
\end{quote}
\emph{“\textbf{Sapere aude}! Have courage to use your own reason!”} \\
\hfill --- Immanuel Kant, \textit{An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?} (1784)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognized as a transformative tool for education. According to UNESCO, AI has the potential to tackle some of the most pressing educational challenges, enhance teaching and learning practices, and accelerate progress toward the Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) \cite{unescoAIeducation}. Yet, the rapid development and unprecedented adoption rates --particularly of chatbots-- present significant risks that often outpace existing policy and regulatory frameworks.
Empirical evidence supports the educational benefits of AI-driven systems. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, for instance, have shown \textbf{generally positive effects }on student learning and performance \cite{letourneauSystematicReviewAIdriven2025}. Generative AI could also serve as a personal tutor—particularly valuable in contexts of\textbf{ teacher shortages}—and produce adaptive, personalized, diverse, and \textbf{up-to-date educational materials} tailored to individual learners’ needs \cite{tafazoliExploringPotentialGenerative2024, al-zahraniExploringImpactArtificial2024}. These systems aim to promote\textbf{ self-paced, autonomous learning} by supporting the key phases of \textbf{self-regulated learning}: goal setting, performance monitoring, and reflection \cite{lanQualitativeSystematicReview2025, vorobyevaPersonalizedLearningAI2025,al-zahraniExploringImpactArtificial2024}. \textbf{Instant feedback and 24/7 availability } should support the learner’s ability to progress independently and at their own pace \cite{vorobyevaPersonalizedLearningAI2025}. Consequently, AI has the potential to reduce teacher workload, increase cost-effectiveness, and personalize and scale educational access, contributing to a more \textbf{equitable and democratized} learning environment \cite{worldbank2024ai}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{visual.pdf}
\caption{Ensuring a Human-Centered, responsible, and critical use of AI in education: challenges and interventions}
\label{fig:visual}
\end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{visual.pdf}
\caption{Ensuring a Human-Centered, responsible, and critical use of AI in education: challenges and interventions}
\label{fig:visual}
Despite its many advantages, the integration of AI in education raises significant concerns.
\textbf{Over-reliance on AI} may lead to \textbf{reduced critical thinking}, as students increasingly offload cognitive effort \cite{ravseljHigherEducationStudents2025,gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a}, and a \textbf{loss of agency}, where learners feel less in control of their own learning processes \cite{darvishi2024impact,roe2024generative}.
AI use may have a \textbf{significant negative impact on the students’ emotional well-being} by leading to dependency, diminishing self-efficacy and self-esteem, and triggering feelings such as anxiety, AI guilt, impostor syndrome, cognitive dissonance, or digital isolation \cite{rodriguez-ruizArtificialIntelligenceUse2025}. \textbf{Data privacy} is another concern as student data could potentially be misused or inadequately protected make \cite{kwapiszPrivacyConcernsStudent2024}.
In this paper, we reflect on and discuss these ambivalent implications of AI integration in education, with a focus on the impact of chatbots on critical thinking and learner autonomy by analyzing: cognitive atrophy in Section \ref{sec:co}, loss of agency in Section \ref{sec:agency}, undermined emotional well-being in Section \ref{sec:emo}, and ethical and academic concerns in Section \ref{sec:ethic}. The necessary student perspectives are presented in Section \ref{sec:stu}. Finally, we propose in Section \ref{sec:action} three additional principles for a responsible, constructive, and empowering use of AI in learning environments. Figure~\ref{fig:visual} provides an overview of the challenges and proposed interventions.
In sum, we argue for a human-centic approach, such that the \textbf{integration of AI in education prioritizes the learners' growth, autonomy, and well-being over automation}.
|
Introduction
| false
|
2507.06878
| 1
|
95,430
|
\label{sec:co}
The widespread adoption of AI tools, especially chatbots, in education raises concerns about how students engage with information. Rather than critically processing content, many users tend to accept AI-generated responses quickly and uncritically, preferring fast, simplified answers over independent reasoning \cite{zhaiEffectsOverrelianceAI2024, ravseljHigherEducationStudents2025,williams2024ethical,letourneauSystematicReviewAIdriven2025, zhangYouHaveAI2024}.
\subsection{Cognitive offloading and critical thinking}
\textbf{Cognitive offloading}, \emph{i.e.}, the use of external tools to reduce the mental load on working memory, is a well-documented phenomenon in education \cite{riskoCognitiveOffloading2016,gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a}. Tools like calculators, gestures, or diagrams can aid learning when they offload non-essential demands and free cognitive resources for deeper thinking. However, not all offloading is beneficial. If the mental effort that is freed is not redirected towards other meaningful cognitive tasks, it can undermine learning outcomes \cite{riskoCognitiveOffloading2016}.
Certain use of AI has been found to contribute to the offloading of core thinking tasks, including analytical, reasoning, or synthesis tasks, weakening the students' critical engagement with the content \cite{zhaiEffectsOverrelianceAI2024, gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a,ravseljHigherEducationStudents2025,williams2024ethical,letourneauSystematicReviewAIdriven2025, zhangYouHaveAI2024}. Over-reliance on AI may lead to reduced independent and critical thinking, memory, creativity, deep reasoning, and the motivation to exert cognitive effort. A user study by \citet{gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a} across age and education levels found that a higher reliance on AI was correlated with lower performance on the HCTA critical thinking assessment by Halpern \cite{halpern2010halpern} mediated by cognitive offloading. The study emphasizes that automation of analytical tasks can erode the learners' ability for independent reasoning, complex problem-solving, and active learning.
These effects are especially concerning in educational settings, where cultivating intellectual resilience and independent thought is essential \cite{mezirowTransformativeLearningTheory1997, letourneauSystematicReviewAIdriven2025}.
Integrating AI in education must be balanced with deliberate strategies to preserve and promote critical thinking. \textbf{Fostering cognitive resilience instead of automation} alone should be a key goal of AI-enhanced education.
\subsection{Pedagogical and Cog-Sci Principles}
Effective learning is grounded in well-established principles from pedagogy and cognitive science.
\textbf{Active learning} seeks to engage learners in activities that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of content, rather than passive reception. Empirical evidence demonstrates that this approach leads to significantly better outcomes than traditional, more passive, instruction methods \cite{freeman2014active}.
\textbf{Constructivism} encourages learners to actively construct knowledge by integrating new information with their prior understanding, through personal experience and social interaction. This dynamic process not only fosters deeper understanding, but also cultivates transferable skills \cite{fosnot2013constructivism}.
\textbf{Scaffolding} refers to the gradual reduction of instructional support as learners gain competence. This method promotes the autonomy of the student: by the end of the process, the students are able to solve complex problems independently \cite{van2002scaffolding}.
Unfortunately, most existing chatbots that are heavily used by students do not embody these principles \cite{letourneauSystematicReviewAIdriven2025,openai2025aiready,ravseljHigherEducationStudents2025}. They typically deliver pre-digested information in a static, directive manner, limiting the learner’s opportunity to engage in critical thinking or self-directed exploration. This passive interaction can hinder learning outcomes \cite{williams2024ethical,zhaiEffectsOverrelianceAI2024, gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a}. In contrast, AI-powered tutoring systems that are explicitly designed according to educational theory show considerable promise. Well-designed AI tutors can outperform even active learning techniques in rigorous academic settings \cite{kestin*AITutoringOutperforms2024}. Students using these AI tutors learned more than twice and in less time than those engaged in traditional active learning, highlighting both the efficiency and effectiveness of pedagogically-informed AI systems.
These results emphasize a critical distinction: AI becomes truly transformative only when aligned with cognitive and educational science. The most effective systems integrate scaffolding, manage cognitive load, and foster a growth mindset, three foundational principles in educational psychology. By contrast, generic generative AI tools often act as shortcuts to answers, outsourcing rather than stimulating the thinking process \cite{gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a,al-zahraniUnveilingShadowsHype2024}. This distinction matters. \textbf{When AI supports, rather than replaces} the cognitive engagement of the learner, it can meaningfully foster critical thinking, autonomy, and deep learning.
\subsection{Superficial learning vs. desirable difficulties}
Effective learning entails mental friction, \emph{i.e.}, it requires an effort but also leads to deeper understanding and long-term retention \cite{bjork2011making}. Research on desirable difficulties highlights strategies like spacing, interleaving, retrieval practice, and delayed feedback as essential for robust learning, even if they momentarily slow performance. These methods promote knowledge transfer and critical thinking precisely because they are mentally taxing \cite{de2023worth,meraUnravelingBenefitsExperiencing2022}.
However, learners often try to avoid such an effort. Studies show that high perceived difficulty and low short-term performance can discourage engagement, despite clear long-term benefits. Interestingly, \citet{deslauriersMeasuringActualLearning2019} found that students in active learning environments learned more but felt they learned less. Mental effort was misinterpreted as failure, while smooth lectures mistakenly felt more effective, though they were not. This cognitive bias leads students to favor fluent, low-effort activities that give the illusion of learning, such as re-reading polished explanations, without fostering deep processing \cite{de2023worth,biwer2020future, zhangYouHaveAI2024}.
AI tools, and particularly chatbots, may exacerbate this issue. By offering quick, fluent, and simplified answers, they reduce the cognitive struggle which is essential to learning \cite{zhaiEffectsOverrelianceAI2024}. Their convenience may lead to passive consumption, decreased research and reasoning skills, and a growing dependence on pre-digested knowledge \cite{howladerFactorsInfluencingAcceptance2025}. Ease of use is appealing, but true learning comes from effort, complexity, and time.
To leverage AI without undermining learning, its use must be aligned with the principles of \textbf{desirable difficulty}. Tools should preserve cognitive effort, prompt active engagement, and help learners understand that struggle is not a sign of failure and it is necessary for the learning itself \cite{bjork2011making,biwer2020future,meraUnravelingBenefitsExperiencing2022}.
|
Cognitive atrophy of the learning
| false
|
2507.06878
| 2
|
95,431
|
\label{sec:agency}
While AI tools offer substantial support, their increasing presence in educational contexts may foster over-reliance, undermining students' ability to engage deeply and reflect critically \cite{al-zahraniUnveilingShadowsHype2024}. This dependence becomes particularly dangerous when AI-generated content is inconsistent, biased, false or misleading, potentially reinforcing inequalities and spreading false or fabricated information.
\subsection{Dependency}
As students increasingly turn to AI for academic support, particularly for feedback, they may do so at the expense of developing essential cognitive and self-regulatory skills. When AI assistance is withdrawn, performance tends to decline, revealing a lack of internalized learning strategies and self-monitoring habits \cite{darvishi2024impact}. Even when AI is used in conjunction with metacognitive scaffolds, students often fail to regain full autonomy.
This growing reliance on AI raises concerns about its deeper cognitive and educational implications. Routine use of AI tools can hinder the development of metacognitive skills, independent thinking, and intellectual agency \cite{lanQualitativeSystematicReview2025, rodriguez-ruizArtificialIntelligenceUse2025}. As students begin to outsource decision-making to the machine, they risk becoming passive recipients of information rather than critical participants in the learning process \cite{al-zahraniExploringImpactArtificial2024}. This passivity is linked to broader deficits, including reduced creativity, increased mental laziness, and diminished capacity for critical thought \cite{zhangYouHaveAI2024}. Moreover, dependency on AI tools can lead to the uncritical acceptance of their outputs. When students perceive these systems as convenient, accurate, and reliable, they may stop questioning the information provided, which fosters cognitive dependency, \emph{i.e.}, the erosion of the ability to assess, verify, and challenge content independently \cite{gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a}. Finally, excessive use of AI can deteriorate emotional intelligence and human connection, contributing to isolation and anxiety \cite{klimova2025exploring}.
These risks are especially pronounced among students with lower digital literacy. These learners are more susceptible to misinformation and over-reliance on AI systems, further exacerbating educational inequalities \cite{becirovic2025exploring,zhangYouHaveAI2024}. As AI-generated prompts increasingly shape learning trajectories, the roles of the students are shifting from active knowledge constructors to passive respondents, which threatens both individual learner autonomy and the foundational principles of educational equity \cite{roe2024generative}.
To mitigate these AI-dependent behaviors, it is essential to develop the skill of a \textbf{deliberate and purposeful use of AI} \cite{zhangYouHaveAI2024}.
\subsection{Over-trusting}
This AI dependence is exacerbated by an apparent reliability of AI tools. As a result, the learners' capacity for independent judgment is eroded, and their critical engagement with learning content is weakened. \cite{gerlichPowerVirtualInfluencers2023}.
The human-like nature of many AI systems compounds the issue. Students often accept AI outputs as accurate simply because they are presented in a conversational, articulate and somewhat authoritative tone \cite{schaaff2024impacts}. This perceived credibility fosters uncritical trust, weakening students’ judgment and reinforcing the notion that AI “knows better.” Over time, this trust can lead to the outsourcing of cognitive tasks: students stop thinking for themselves and defer to the machine. Such trust reduces the impulse to question information, directly undermining critical thinking \cite{gerlichPowerVirtualInfluencers2023}. The more students rely on AI, the less they engage in evaluative thought, leading to cognitive offloading and a decline in deep learning. Chatbots, in particular, have been shown to erode student confidence and reduce autonomous decision-making \cite{williams2024ethical}.
To reduce overtrust in AI, \textbf{students should be taught how AI systems actually work}, highlighting that they are algorithms trained on data, not conscious beings. This understanding helps demystify AI, fosters critical thinking, and restores student agency by encouraging them to question rather than blindly trust AI outputs \cite{bastaniGenerativeAICan2024}.
\subsection{Conformity}
By providing ready-made answers or persuasive feedback, chatbots can limit creative exploration and encourage intellectual conformity \cite{tafazoliExploringPotentialGenerative2024}. Rather than promoting diverse perspectives, it risks promoting uniform responses, homogenizing the richness of student thought \cite{al-zahraniExploringImpactArtificial2024}. Indeed, AI systems may subtly shape the way students think.
Meaningful learning is inseparable from agency. \textbf{Transformative learning requires the ability to think critically, question assumptions, and make autonomous choices} \cite{mezirowTransformativeLearningTheory1997}. Without these capacities, intellectual growth is stunted, and the very purpose of education is compromised.
|
Loss of agency
| false
|
2507.06878
| 3
|
95,432
|
\label{sec:emo}
Beyond cognitive and agency effects, the integration of AI tools into education raises critical concerns about the learners' emotional well-being and identity formation.
\subsection{Self-efficacy and self-esteem}
Students with low academic self-efficacy or self-esteem are more likely to rely on AI to compensate for what they see as their own shortcomings \cite{lanQualitativeSystematicReview2025, rodriguez-ruizArtificialIntelligenceUse2025, zhangYouHaveAI2024}. This reliance can create a harmful cycle: the more students use AI to avoid academic challenges, the less confident they become in their own abilities. This loss of confidence reduces their willingness to take initiative, which in turn increases dependence on AI and further weakens self-belief \cite{williams2024ethical, chanExploringFactorsAI2024}. Such students also tend to feel more stress and face unrealistic academic expectations, which pushes them even more toward the use of AI. As a result, their ability to think critically, be creative, and learn independently may decline over time \cite{zhangYouHaveAI2024}.
When students see AI as faster and more capable than themselves, they may begin to undervalue their own efforts and knowledge. One student said, \emph{“I will never be better than AI”} \cite{lanQualitativeSystematicReview2025}, illustrating how AI can unintentionally lower the students’ motivation and belief in their potential, leading to the \emph{Impostor Syndrome} \cite{chanExploringFactorsAI2024}. Students who have a better understanding of how AI systems work, including what they can and cannot do, show higher levels of academic self-efficacy \cite{becirovic2025exploring}. Thus, \textbf{demystifying AI} will contribute to support the students' trust in their own abilities.
\subsection{AI guilt and cognitive dissonance}
Relying on AI for academic work can lead to \emph{AI guilt}: feelings of shame, anxiety, and moral discomfort tied to the use of AI tools \cite{chanExploringFactorsAI2024}. Students express sentiments like: \emph{“I feel like I am not being truthful when I use it,”} and describe feeling “lazy” or afraid of being judged by peers and instructors \cite{chanExploringFactorsAI2024}. These emotions affect not only their well-being but also their sense of identity, self-worth and personal agency.
Such feelings often lead to \emph{cognitive dissonance}, \emph{i.e.}, the psychological discomfort that occurs when actions conflict with deeply held beliefs \cite{elliot1994motivational}. Cognitive dissonance helps explain the tension students feel when they value originality and personal effort, yet use AI tools that may undermine these ideals. For instance, a student may feel proud of an AI-assisted essay but also guilty that it does not reflect their own independent thinking \cite{chanExploringFactorsAI2024}. This internal conflict can be intense. When students believe that genuine academic work should come from human creativity and effort, using AI challenges their core values. The result is often stress, anxiety, and a weakened sense of authenticity in their learning journey \cite{lanQualitativeSystematicReview2025}.
To address feelings of guilt associated with using AI, it is important to \textbf{strike a balance between technological assistance and personal contribution}. Educators can promote this balance by encouraging students to use AI for guidance or support, while making sure that the final work genuinely represents the student’s own understanding and effort \cite{chanExploringFactorsAI2024}.
On the other hand, \emph{AI entitlement} reflects a growing belief that access to AI assistance is not only acceptable but a rightful part of modern education. The tension between these two concepts (guilt vs entitlement) reveals a broader cultural tension on how we define and value effort, ownership and fairness in learning and underscores the urgent need for clear norms about the use of AI in education.
\subsection{Emotional risks}
Constant use of AI can contribute to technostress, digital fatigue, and social isolation, particularly when it displaces interpersonal interaction and collaborative learning \cite{klimova2025exploring}.
These emotional risks of AI use in education are not marginal and directly affect the motivation, identity, and well-being of the learner \cite{al-zahraniExploringImpactArtificial2024}. Designing pedagogical approaches that acknowledge and mitigate these risks is essential to ensure that \textbf{AI supports, rather than replaces,} the development of resilient, confident, and autonomous learners.
|
Undermined emotional well-being
| false
|
2507.06878
| 4
|
95,433
|
\label{sec:ethic}
The integration of AI, especially chatbots, into educational environments raises profound ethical challenges, especially concerning student privacy, surveillance, academic integrity and the dynamics of power in digital learning spaces \cite{williams2024ethical, kwapiszPrivacyConcernsStudent2024}.
\subsection{Privacy}
While AI educational technologies promise personalized support and enhanced learning outcomes, they also risk creating environments where students feel constantly observed, judged, and recorded \cite{al-zahraniUnveilingShadowsHype2024,shores2024surveillance}. Constant tracking has psychological impacts: when students know that everything they write is potentially stored and analyzed, the natural process of learning through trial and error may be inhibited \cite{shores2024surveillance}. Making mistakes is an essential part of developing critical thinking \cite{mason2016learning,meraUnravelingBenefitsExperiencing2022}, yet, fear of doing something wrong can lead to shame, loss of confidence, and reduced willingness to take intellectual risks \cite{kwapiszPrivacyConcernsStudent2024,shores2024surveillance}, which goes against the goals of learning which should foster curiosity, resilience, and reflective thinking \cite{mezirowTransformativeLearningTheory1997}.
\subsection{Data exploitation}
These harms are compounded by the broader issue of data privacy \cite{klimova2025exploring}. Generative AI systems often manage sensitive student information, and their deployment raises serious concerns about how this data is stored, used, and protected \cite{al-zahraniExploringImpactArtificial2024}. The improper use or insecure storage of student data, ranging from performance metrics to behavioral patterns, poses substantial risks \cite{al-zahraniUnveilingShadowsHype2024}.
Although compliance with data protection laws, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is essential, it is frequently difficult to enforce in practice \cite{williams2024ethical, howladerFactorsInfluencingAcceptance2025}. This difficulty is exacerbated by the power imbalance between educational institutions and students, who often have little understanding or control over what data is collected and how it is used. As a result, what is framed as educational support can easily become a justification for constant surveillance and data extraction \cite{kwapiszPrivacyConcernsStudent2024}.
We emphasize the need for strong ethical frameworks that comply with informed consent and the protection of the students’ fundamental rights, including the right to make mistakes without fear of judgment or repercussion. \textbf{AI in education should empower learners, not reduce them to data points.} Ensuring privacy and data security is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative if AI is to support, rather than undermine, the development of critical and autonomous thinkers.
\vspace*{-0.15cm}
\subsection{Academic integrity}
When classroom environments lack pedagogical support or clear guidance, students are more likely to turn to generic AI chatbots and other AI tools, which serve as quick fixes rather than learning companions. This pattern of use fuels procrastination and ultimately undermines academic integrity \cite{niloyAIChatbotsDisguised2024}. Instead of fostering deep learning and critical engagement, poorly integrated AI tools in education encourage shortcut-seeking behaviors, ranging from superficial answers to plagiarism and cheating. The sophisticated language generation capabilities of today's chatbots challenge traditional plagiarism detection methods by producing text that is both original in structure and closely aligned with human writing patterns, making it difficult to distinguish between genuinely authored content and AI-assisted compositions using conventional tools. Without careful instructional design and clear boundaries for AI use, these technologies risk becoming enablers of academic misconduct rather than tools for intellectual growth \cite{williams2024ethical}.
In response to these challenges, institutions must approach AI integration with both ambition and caution. Effective use of AI in education requires a commitment to pedagogy, not just technology. At the same time, safeguards must be implemented to preserve academic integrity and support the development of honest, independent learners. This includes \textbf{designing assessments that reward critical engagement, embedding AI literacy in curricula, and establishing clear norms around acceptable AI use} \cite{al-zahraniUnveilingShadowsHype2024,kwapiszPrivacyConcernsStudent2024}.
\vspace*{-.15cm}
|
Ethical and Academic concerns
| false
|
2507.06878
| 5
|
95,434
|
\label{sec:stu}
In support of a human-centered approach to the integration of AI in education, it is crucial to give voice to the students’ perspectives.
\subsection{AI adoption}
According to OpenAI, young adults aged 18–24 are the biggest adopters of ChatGPT in the U.S., with over one-third using the tool regularly \cite{openai2025aiready}. Among these users, more than a quarter of messages are related to education, including tutoring, writing support, and programming help. In a survey of 1,200 students in this age group, AI tools were most often used for initiating papers and projects (49\%), summarizing texts (48\%), brainstorming (45\%), topic exploration (44\%), and revising writing (44\%).
On a global scale, a 2024 international survey of 4,000 university students across 16 countries found that students value AI primarily for its timely support (63\%), help in understanding tool use (46\%), and access to training opportunities (45\%) \cite{digitaleducationcouncil2025}.
\subsection{Concerns}
Students are aware of the potential negative consequences of their AI use and formulate their concerns: 61\% worry about data privacy, while many question the reliability of AI-generated content and the academic risks of over-reliance. They fear that excessive dependence on AI could undermine learning, critical thinking, and the instructional value of education \cite{digitaleducationcouncil2025}. Aligned with these findings, a qualitative study by \citet{gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a} found that students were increasingly aware of: (1) their dependency on AI for both routine and cognitive tasks; (2) the diminished opportunities for independent thinking; and (3) ethical issues such as bias, transparency, and decision-making influence. Table~\ref{tab:testi} provides selected participant exemplary comments regarding such concerns.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Student concerns on their AI use \cite{gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a}. }
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.3cm}|p{4.6cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Concerns} & \textbf{Testimonials} \\ \hline
High reliance on AI tools &
\textit{“I use AI for everything, from scheduling to finding information. It's become a part of how I think.” “I can’t imagine functioning without my digital assistant.”} \\ \hline
Diminished cognitive engagement &
\textit{"The more I use AI, the less I feel the need to problem-solve on my own. It's like I'm losing my ability to think critically.”} \\ \hline
Ethical implications (transparency, bias, influence) &
\textit{“I sometimes wonder if AI is subtly nudging me toward decisions I wouldn't normally make.”,“I rarely reflect on the biases behind the AI recommendations; I tend to trust them outright.”} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:testi}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Student concerns on their AI use \cite{gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a}. }
\hline
\textbf{Concerns} & \textbf{Testimonials} \\ \hline
High reliance on AI tools &
\textit{“I use AI for everything, from scheduling to finding information. It's become a part of how I think.” “I can’t imagine functioning without my digital assistant.”} \\ \hline
Diminished cognitive engagement &
\textit{"The more I use AI, the less I feel the need to problem-solve on my own. It's like I'm losing my ability to think critically.”} \\ \hline
Ethical implications (transparency, bias, influence) &
\textit{“I sometimes wonder if AI is subtly nudging me toward decisions I wouldn't normally make.”,“I rarely reflect on the biases behind the AI recommendations; I tend to trust them outright.”} \\ \hline
\label{tab:testi}
\subsection{The educational level shapes AI critical use}
Attitudes toward AI use and the ability to critically evaluate its outputs vary significantly depending on one’s educational background. For instance, in \cite{gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a} a high schooler states: \emph{“I don't have the time or skills to verify what AI says; I just trust it.”} In contrast, a doctoral-level participant explained: \emph{“While I use AI tools regularly, I always make sure to critically evaluate the information I receive. My education has taught me the importance of not accepting things at face value, especially when it comes to AI, which can sometimes offer biased or incomplete information”}. These contrasting perspectives emphasize a pressing need for \textbf{inclusive AI literacy education} that equips all learners with the skills to engage critically with AI-generated content and avoid deepening cognitive and educational divides.
|
Student perspectives
| false
|
2507.06878
| 6
|
95,435
|
\label{sec:action}
It is evident that students should be taught to critically assess AI educational tools to recognize its limitations \cite{zhaiEffectsOverrelianceAI2024}. The risks of AI technology are not inherent to the tools themselves but lie in how they are utilized. Therefore, effective integration requires targeted educational, ethical, and infrastructural strategies. Beyond each end-of-section suggestion, we believe that the use of AI in education should:
\textbf{1. Empower reasoning.} Education should prioritize constructivist, active learning, and metacognitive strategies to reduce overreliance on AI and mitigate cognitive offloading \cite{riskoCognitiveOffloading2016, niloyAIChatbotsDisguised2024}. For instance, rather than providing direct answers, AI tools should be used to support scaffolding, prompting deeper reflection, reasoning, and understanding \cite{letourneauSystematicReviewAIdriven2025, bastaniGenerativeAICan2024, favero2024enhancing}. Students must be encouraged to \textbf{engage their own reasoning} by working on tasks that require them to compare AI-generated outputs with human logic, question assumptions, and uncover blind spots \cite{zhaiEffectsOverrelianceAI2024, gerlichAIToolsSociety2025a}.
\textbf{2. Foster emotional well-being.} To address feelings of guilt, confusion, or in-authenticity surrounding AI use, students need guidance not only on what AI can do, but also on \textbf{how and when to use it in ways that enhance learning}. Meta-cognitive training and critical thinking exercises are key to helping students reflect on their engagement with AI and build confidence in their intellectual abilities \cite{chanExploringFactorsAI2024}. We must emphasize that human value should not be measured against that of AI algorithms.
AI systems lack consciousness and a lived experience in the physical world, rendering such comparisons fundamentally flawed and intellectually unproductive \cite{becirovic2025exploring}.
Furthermore, it is essential to preserve meaningful human interaction in education to maintain empathy, communication, and social learning \cite{al-zahraniUnveilingShadowsHype2024}.
\textbf{3. Institutional support} is necessary to achieve our vision of human-centric AI for education. First, \textbf{robust AI literacy programs} are needed to prepare students for responsible and informed use of AI tools \cite{becirovic2025exploring}, including data privacy, security, and algorithmic transparency, supported by audits and bias mitigation \cite{al-zahraniUnveilingShadowsHype2024}. As only 25\% of U.S. colleges currently offer formal AI training \cite{openai2025aiready}, there is a pressing need to develop AI-integrated curricula across all educational levels. Equally important is professional development for educators, enabling them to guide students in using AI ethically and effectively \cite{williams2024ethical}. Institutions must \textbf{define clear policies} regarding (1) transparency and mitigation power dynamic \cite{kwapiszPrivacyConcernsStudent2024}, (2) data privacy that complies with informed consent and protection of the students' rights \cite{klimova2025exploring}, (3) acceptable AI use, plagiarism, and student accountability \cite{williams2024ethical}, and (4) inclusive and equitable access while preserving learner agency \cite{roe2024generative}.
\vspace*{-.2cm}
|
Discussion
| false
|
2507.06878
| 7
|
95,436
|
AI offers unprecedented opportunities to support, democratize and personalize education. However, it also poses risks that need to be addressed before its potential is realized. In this paper, we have structured such risks in four key areas in the learning process: cognition, emotion, ethics and agency. We advocate for a reflective, interdisciplinary approach to AI in education that prioritizes pedagogical goals over mere technological capabilities.
Such an alignment needs to be continuously assessed, not assumed: if we aim to cultivate critical thinkers, we must critically evaluate the tools that we entrust to that help us with that task.
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06878
| 8
|
95,447
|
\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper presents an extension to the formal semantics of AADL RTS specified in \cite{ISOLA2022} to include time. Some of the port operations are also simplified to make the temporal semantics more concise and comprehensible to enforce the \emph{receive-execute-send} paradigm. A modal logic based on Kripke structure is defined to establish ``worlds'' representing instants of system operation using @ as a modal operator to access other worlds. The AADL RTS are defined in terms of this modal (temporal) logic to describe the progression during execution of variable values for both threads and RTS infrastructure. Additional RTS not included in the AADL standard, but necessary for state-machine implementation of threads are defined. Director semantics, adapted from \cite{ISOLA2022}, are also defined in terms of the modal logic. A summary of the additional AADL RTS implemented by HAMR (an AADL multi-platform code generation toolset) is also presented. HAMR, augmented by BLESS plugins, generates executable byte code that demonstrates the use of the additional RTS functions, including timestamp, timeout, and deferred dispatch.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}elsarticle-num
\bibliography{biblio}
|
Conclusion
| false
|
2507.06881
| 10
|
95,454
|
\label{sec:BarriersMO}
While \gls{mo}mo offers significant advantages for power systems, its integration into existing infrastructure does present some challenges. This section addresses these challenges, drawing insights from the successful application of \gls{mo}mo in power system optimization presented in this paper.
\vspace{2mm}\noindent\textbf{{Complexity of Implementation}}. The theoretical foundations of \gls{mo}mo involve differential geometry and manifold theory, which can appear complex. At first, the classical mathematical model of power flow in \gls{epds}epds may seem very complex. Including all the restrictions in the cost function, deriving it on the chosen Manifold and computing an initial point for it may be challenging. Furthermore, deriving a model from the power equations in \gls{epts}epts, given the wide variety of traditional methods, can be challenging.\\
\textit{Mitigation:} The practical implementation of MO, as demonstrated in this paper for power flow problems, has proven to be less intricate than initially perceived. The use of tools like Manopt, reducing the need for deep specialized knowledge in differential geometry, with the choice of using the \gls{bfs}bfs approach for \gls{epds}epds, simplifies the process. The presented power flow approaches for the \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts were all successfully solved using Manopt, highlighting a relatively straightforward implementation process once the problem is formulated.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{{Algorithmic Design and Tuning:}} The classical mathematical power flow model would undoubtedly pose challenges when incorporating all constraints into the cost function, deriving it from the chosen manifold, and computing an initial point. Furthermore, the very nature of the \gls{bfs}bfs approach can be inherently challenging, considering that the problem variables are usually complex and must be treated in such a way as to separate the real and imaginary components, and also the possibility of this approach including expansion planning, which is generally not done in the literature.\\
\textit{Mitigation:} The case studies demonstrate that these algorithms converge efficiently, indicating a \textit{plug-and-play} capability for many power system scenarios once the problem is appropriately structured as an optimization on a manifold. This contradicts the notion that significant expertise in algorithm selection and tuning is always required.
\vspace{2mm}\noindent\textbf{{Computational Overhead}}
It stands to reason that for large-scale power systems, the Manopt implemented algorithm would exhibit scaled execution time. In any case, power flow problems tend to be inherently complex regardless of the approaches chosen, so papers focus heavily on computational time and accuracy.\\
\textit{Mitigation:} For the 14-bus, 33-bus, and 69-bus \gls{epds}epds models, Manopt achieved comparable or better execution times while maintaining very high accuracy. This suggests that \gls{mo}mo methods do not inherently lead to increased processing times or hinder real-time processing capabilities in power systems. The tendency is that the computational time is kept low for \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts, and is of the same order as other commercial solvers, maintaining competitiveness.
\vspace{2mm}\noindent\textbf{{Integration with Existing Systems}}
A legitimate concern would certainly be the use of standard IEEE test systems, given their complexity and large scale.\\
\textit{Mitigation:} The successful application of \gls{mo}mo to power flow problems in \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts within this paper demonstrates its potential for seamless integration with existing power system analysis frameworks. By formulating power flow equations as equality constraints on a manifold with the shown approaches, \gls{mo}mo tends to be able to solve any power system with almost perfect accuracy and with very good computational time.
\vspace{2mm}\noindent\textbf{{Scalability Concerns}}
The complexity of the optimization problem grows with the number of users in a network. \gls{mo}mo methods must be scalable to handle large-scale deployments without compromising performance. A common concern would certainly be the scalability of the algorithm when applied to large-scale, complex systems such as IEEE standard test systems.\\
\textit{Mitigation:} The scalability of \gls{mo}mo methods has been positively highlighted in this paper. The results for 14-bus, 33-bus, and 69-bus \gls{epds}epds models demonstrate that \gls{mo}mo performs consistently well across different system sizes, with computational times remaining highly competitive. This indicates that \gls{mo}mo can effectively handle the increasing complexity and dimensionality of modern power systems, positioning it as a robust solution for large-scale deployments.
\vspace{2mm}\noindent\textbf{{Planning for Expansion}}
The \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts planning problem is a classical challenge characterized by a combinatorial explosion, which has rightly attracted significant attention from researchers employing diverse techniques to tackle such complexity. The primary difficulties in solving this problem stem from the combinatorial nature of the planning process, which typically leads to an explosive number of alternatives, even for medium-sized systems \cite{romero}.\\
\textit{Mitigation:} Manopt has the potential to incorporate other planning strategies, such as optimal reconfiguration, further expanding its applicability in power system optimization. One approach could involve a Master-Slave configuration, where the Master proposes a value for the problem’s core variable (often binary or integer), and the Slave returns the corresponding power flow calculation. Considering Algorithm~\ref{alg:bfs_power_flow}, it would be enough to consider a vector of binary variables $y$y, which represents the activation or inactivation of the lines, given by the Master and use $I_L(i) \gets I_n^{aux}(N_j(i)) \cdot y(i)$I_L(i) \gets I_n^{aux}aux(N_j(i)) \cdot y(i) in Algorithm~\ref{alg:bfs_power_flow}.\\
\textit{Data ordering:} It is said that to work correctly with the \gls{bfs}bfs approach, the line data must be ordered, which is typically not the case with reconfiguration or other strategies. A simple algorithm with negligible computational overhead, such as Algorithm~\ref{alg:branch_reorganization}, can be used to organize the data in the data transition from Master to Slave.
\begin{algorithm}
\small
\caption{Branch reorganization}
\label{alg:branch_reorganization}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input:}
\State \quad $L$ - List of all branches (sender and receiver)
\State \quad $sub$ - Slack bus/substation index
\State \textbf{Output:}
\State \quad $L$ - Reorganized branch list
\State $sub_{aux} \gets \{sub\}$ \Comment{Initialize with substation}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \textbf{to} $\text{length}(L)$}
\For{$i \gets 1$ \textbf{to} $\text{size}(L,1)$}
\If{$L(i,2) \in sub_{aux}$ \textbf{and} $L(i,1) \notin sub_{aux}$}
\State $L(i,1:2) \gets [L(i,2), L(i,1)]$ \Comment{Swap sender and receiver}
\EndIf
\If{$L(i,1) \in sub_{aux}$ \textbf{and} $L(i,2) \notin sub_{aux}$}
\State $sub_{aux} \gets sub_{aux} \cup \{L(i,2)\}$ \Comment{Add new accessible bus}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}\begin{algorithm}
\small
\caption{Branch reorganization}
\label{alg:branch_reorganization}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input:}
\State \quad $L$ - List of all branches (sender and receiver)
\State \quad $sub$ - Slack bus/substation index
\State \textbf{Output:}
\State \quad $L$ - Reorganized branch list
\State $sub_{aux} \gets \{sub\}$ \Comment{Initialize with substation}
\For{$k \gets 1$ \textbf{to} $\text{length}(L)$}
\For{$i \gets 1$ \textbf{to} $\text{size}(L,1)$}
\If{$L(i,2) \in sub_{aux}$ \textbf{and} $L(i,1) \notin sub_{aux}$}
\State $L(i,1:2) \gets [L(i,2), L(i,1)]$ \Comment{Swap sender and receiver}
\EndIf
\If{$L(i,1) \in sub_{aux}$ \textbf{and} $L(i,2) \notin sub_{aux}$}
\State $sub_{aux} \gets sub_{aux} \cup \{L(i,2)\}$ \Comment{Add new accessible bus}
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\small
\caption{Branch reorganization}
\label{alg:branch_reorganization}
[1]
\State \textbf{Input:}
\State \quad $L$L - List of all branches (sender and receiver)
\State \quad $sub$sub - Slack bus/substation index
\State \textbf{Output:}
\State \quad $L$L - Reorganized branch list
\State $sub_{aux} \gets \{sub\}$sub_{aux}aux \gets \{sub\} \Comment{Initialize with substation}Initialize with substation
\For{$k \gets 1$ \textbf{to} $\text{length}(L)$}$k \gets 1$k \gets 1 \textbf{to} $\text{length}(L)$\text{length}(L)
\For{$i \gets 1$ \textbf{to} $\text{size}(L,1)$}$i \gets 1$i \gets 1 \textbf{to} $\text{size}(L,1)$\text{size}(L,1)
\If{$L(i,2) \in sub_{aux}$ \textbf{and} $L(i,1) \notin sub_{aux}$}$L(i,2) \in sub_{aux}$L(i,2) \in sub_{aux}aux \textbf{and} $L(i,1) \notin sub_{aux}$L(i,1) \notin sub_{aux}aux
\State $L(i,1:2) \gets [L(i,2), L(i,1)]$L(i,1:2) \gets [L(i,2), L(i,1)] \Comment{Swap sender and receiver}Swap sender and receiver
\EndIf
\If{$L(i,1) \in sub_{aux}$ \textbf{and} $L(i,2) \notin sub_{aux}$}$L(i,1) \in sub_{aux}$L(i,1) \in sub_{aux}aux \textbf{and} $L(i,2) \notin sub_{aux}$L(i,2) \notin sub_{aux}aux
\State $sub_{aux} \gets sub_{aux} \cup \{L(i,2)\}$sub_{aux}aux \gets sub_{aux}aux \cup \{L(i,2)\} \Comment{Add new accessible bus}Add new accessible bus
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
|
INTEGRATION CHALLENGES OF MANIFOLD OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES IN POWER SYSTEMS
| false
|
2507.06883
| 7
|
95,455
|
\label{sec:VII}
This paper demonstrates that \gls{mo}mo offers a robust and versatile framework for tackling complex optimization challenges, particularly the non-convex power flow problems inherent in \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts. \gls{mo}mo has shown significant advantages over conventional methods by leveraging the inherent geometric properties of manifolds. Specifically, it reformulates constrained problems as unconstrained optimization over a smooth manifold structure. This approach, as applied in this work, facilitates more efficient and effective solutions by naturally handling non-convex constraints and exploiting these geometric properties, proving particularly well-suited for the intricacies of advanced power systems.
The application of \gls{mo}mo in \gls{epds}epds reveals that when applied to power flow optimization, demonstrates highly competitive performance against conventional mathematical modeling approaches, including nonlinear, linear, and convex formulations solved with established commercial software. \gls{mo}mo methods particularly excel in this domain due to their inherent capability to naturally handle the non-convex constraints that characterize power system operational equations, this is achieved by framing the optimization problem directly on a smooth manifold. Consequently, \gls{mo}mo offers a more robust framework for addressing these intricate challenges compared to heuristic evolutionary algorithms, convex relaxation techniques, or linearization strategies. The \gls{epds}epds case studies within this work specifically underscore \gls{mo}mo's key strengths: its effective exploitation of the system's geometric properties and its capacity to manage the high-dimensional variable space typical of power flow problems, ultimately leading to accurate and efficient solutions.
The results from case studies using 14-bus, 33-bus, and 69-bus \gls{epds}epds models, and 3-bus and 4-bus \gls{epts}epts models, consistently highlight \gls{mo}mo's effectiveness. The Manopt toolbox has demonstrated performance comparable to or even surpassing some commercial solvers in terms of execution time and accuracy for power flow problems in \gls{epds}epds. This indicates that \gls{mo}mo methods do not inherently lead to increased processing times and can maintain competitiveness in computational efficiency while delivering very high accuracy. Furthermore, \gls{mo}mo has shown robust performance across different system sizes, effectively managing the increasing complexity and dimensionality of modern power systems, thus positioning it as a robust solution for large-scale deployments.
Despite its promise, integrating \gls{mo}mo into existing power system infrastructures presents challenges related to implementation complexity, algorithmic design and scalability, in addition to future concerns such as planning for expansion. However, this paper has demonstrated that the practical implementation can be less intricate than initially perceived, especially with tools like Manopt and approaches like the \gls{bfs}bfs. Moreover, \gls{mo}mo's potential to incorporate other planning strategies, such as reconfiguration through Master-Slave configurations, further expands its applicability in power system optimization. For this, the Slave must have very low computational time and very high precision, and this is exactly what was proven in this article.
To fully harness \gls{mo}mo's transformative potential in power systems optimization, continued research and development are essential. Addressing the remaining challenges through collaborative efforts from researchers and industry professionals will pave the way for more efficient, resilient, and scalable \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts.
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{#1}
\csname url@samestyle\endcsname
\providecommand{\newblock}{\relax}
\providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=0pt\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor}{4}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=\fontdimen2\font plus
\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor\fontdimen3\font minus
\fontdimen4\font\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBforeignlanguage}[2]{{%
\expandafter\ifx\csname l@#1\endcsname\relax
\typeout{** WARNING: IEEEtran.bst: No hyphenation pattern has been}%
\typeout{** loaded for the language `#1'. Using the pattern for}%
\typeout{** the default language instead.}%
\else
\language=\csname l@#1\endcsname
\fi
#2}}
\providecommand{\BIBdecl}{\relax}
\BIBdecl
\bibitem{FP:ref6}
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for Simultaneous Optimal Reconfiguration and Optimal
Placement of Capacitor Banks in Distribution Networks},'' \emph{IEEE Access},
vol.~10, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3175189, pp. 52\,655--52\,673, 2022.
\bibitem{convex1}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
W.~Gil-González, O.~D. Montoya, L.~F. Grisales-Noreña, C.~L. Trujillo, and
D.~A. Giral-Ramírez, ``{A Mixed-Integer Second-Order Cone Model for Optimal
Siting and Sizing of Dynamic Reactive Power Compensators in Distribution
Grids},'' \emph{Results in Engineering}, vol.~15, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100475, p. 100475, 2022. [Online].
Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123022001451}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{convex2}
M.~Farivar and S.~H. Low, ``{Branch Flow Model: Relaxations and
Convexification—Part I},'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems},
vol.~28, DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2255317, no.~3, pp. 2554--2564, 2013.
\bibitem{Zimmerman1996}
R.~D. Zimmerman, ``{Comprehensive Distribution Power Flow: Modeling,
Formulation, Solution Algorithms and Analysis},'' Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University, USA, 1996, uMI Order No. GAX95-37160.
\bibitem{Muruganantham2016}
B.~Muruganantham, R.~Gnanadass, and N.~P. Padhy, ``{Performance Analysis and
Comparison of Load Flow Methods in a Practical Distribution System},'' in
\emph{2016 National Power Systems Conference (NPSC)}, DOI
10.1109/NPSC.2016.7858848, pp. 1--6, 2016.
\bibitem{Mahmoud2016}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
K.~Mahmoud and N.~Yorino, ``{Robust Quadratic-Based BFS Power Flow Method for
Multi-Phase Distribution Systems},'' \emph{IET Generation, Transmission \&
Distribution}, vol.~10, DOI 10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1518, pp. 2240--2250, 2016.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://digital-library.theiet.org/doi/abs/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1518}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{manopt2014}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
N.~Boumal, B.~Mishra, P.-A. Absil, and R.~Sepulchre, ``{{M}anopt, a {M}atlab
Toolbox for Optimization on Manifolds},'' \emph{Journal of Machine Learning
Research}, vol.~15, no.~42, pp. 1455--1459, 2014. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.manopt.org}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{Boumal_book_2023}
N.~Boumal, \emph{{An Introduction to Optimization on Smooth Manifolds}},
1st~ed.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax UK: Cambridge University
Press, Sep. 2023, \url{https://cambridge.org/9781009166157}.
\bibitem{Absil2007}
P.-A. Absil, R.~Mahony, and R.~Sepulchre, \emph{{Optimization Algorithms on
Matrix Manifolds}}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax USA: Princeton
University Press, 2007.
\bibitem{Hu2020}
J.~Hu, X.~Liu, Z.-W. Wen, and Y.-x. Yuan, ``{A Brief Introduction to Manifold
Optimization},'' \emph{Journal of the Operations Research Society of China},
vol.~8, DOI 10.1007/s40305-020-00295-9, 04 2020.
\bibitem{CVX}
M.~Grant and S.~Boyd, ``{{CVX}: Matlab Software for Disciplined Convex
Programming, version 2.1},'' \url{http://cvxr.com/cvx}, Mar. 2014.
\bibitem{AMPLIDE}
{AMPL Optimization}, ``{AMPL IDE: A Simple and Straightforward Enhanced
Modeling Editor for AMPL Users},'' \url{https://ampl.com/}, accessed:
2025-03-07.
\bibitem{Pyomo}
{Pyomo}, ``{Pyomo: A Python-Based, Open-Source Optimization Modeling
Language},'' \url{https://www.pyomo.org/}, accessed: 2025-03-07.
\bibitem{GarcesRuiz2022}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~Garcés-Ruiz, ``\BIBforeignlanguage{Español}{{ Power Flow in Unbalanced
Three-Phase Power Distribution Networks Using Matlab: Theory, analysis, and
quasi-dynamic simulation }},''
\emph{\BIBforeignlanguage{Español}{Ingeniería}}, 2022. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=498873733002}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{fiacco1968nonlinear}
A.~Fiacco and G.~McCormick, \emph{{Nonlinear Programming: Sequential
Unconstrained Minimization Techniques}}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus
0.4em\relax New York: John Wiley \& Sons, 1968.
\bibitem{Bazaraa2006}
M.~Bazaraa, H.~Sherali, and C.~Shetty, \emph{{Nonlinear Programming: Theory and
Algorithms}}, 3rd~ed.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax John Wiley \&
Sons, 2006.
\bibitem{FP:ref2}
A.~Hauswirth, S.~Bolognani, G.~Hug, and F.~Dörfler, ``{Projected Gradient
Descent on Riemannian Manifolds with Applications to Online Power System
Optimization},'' in \emph{2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on
Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)}, DOI
10.1109/ALLERTON.2016.7852234, pp. 225--232, 2016.
\bibitem{FP:ref3}
A.~Hauswirth, A.~Zanardi, S.~Bolognani, F.~Dörfler, and G.~Hug, ``{Online
Optimization in Closed Loop on the Power Flow Manifold},'' in \emph{2017 IEEE
Manchester PowerTech}, DOI 10.1109/PTC.2017.7980998, pp. 1--6, 2017.
\bibitem{FP:ref4}
S.~Bolognani and F.~Dörfler, ``{Fast Power System Analysis Via Implicit
Linearization of the Power Flow Manifold},'' in \emph{2015 53rd Annual
Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)}, DOI
10.1109/ALLERTON.2015.7447032, pp. 402--409, 2015.
\bibitem{github}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A. Gallego~Pareja, ``{Data of the Electrical Distribution Systems Used in
This Paper},''
\url{https://github.com/LuisGallego2019/ElectricalSystemsDataForReconfiguration},
2024. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://github.com/LuisGallego2019/ElectricalSystemsDataForReconfiguration}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{19}
C.-T. Su and C.-S. Lee, ``{Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems
Using Improved Mixed-Integer Hybrid Differential Evolution},'' \emph{IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery}, vol.~18, DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2003.813641,
no.~3, pp. 1022--1027, 2003.
\bibitem{91}
J.-P. Chiou, C.-F. Chang, and C.-T. Su, ``{Variable Scaling Hybrid Differential
Evolution for Solving Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems},''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems}, vol.~20, DOI
10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846096, no.~2, pp. 668--674, 2005.
\bibitem{67}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
B.~Tomoiagă, M.~Chindriş, A.~Sumper, R.~Villafafila-Robles, and
A.~Sudria-Andreu, ``{Distribution System Reconfiguration Using Genetic
Algorithm Based on Connected Graphs},'' \emph{Electric Power Systems
Research}, vol. 104, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2013.06.021, pp.
216--225, 2013. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779613001715}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{76}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
S.~Sivanagaraju, J.~V. Rao, and P.~S.~R. and, ``{Discrete Particle Swarm
Optimization to Network Reconfiguration for Loss Reduction and Load
Balancing},'' \emph{Electric Power Components and Systems}, vol.~36, DOI
10.1080/15325000701735389, no.~5, pp. 513--524, 2008. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://doi.org/10.1080/15325000701735389}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{31}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
H.~Ahmadi and J.~R. Martí, ``{Mathematical Representation of Radiality
Constraint in Distribution System Reconfiguration Problem},''
\emph{International Journal of Electrical Power \& Energy Systems}, vol.~64,
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.06.076, pp. 293--299, 2015.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014206151400475X}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{68}
A.~M. Eldurssi and R.~M. O'Connell, ``{A Fast Nondominated Sorting Guided
Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Power Distribution System
Reconfiguration Problem},'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems},
vol.~30, DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2332953, no.~2, pp. 593--601, 2015.
\bibitem{systems}
M.~Mahdavi, H.~H. Alhelou, and P.~Cuffe, ``{Test Distribution Systems: Network
Parameters and Diagrams of Electrical Structural},'' \emph{IEEE Open Access
Journal of Power and Energy}, vol.~8, DOI 10.1109/OAJPE.2021.3119183, pp.
409--420, 2021.
\bibitem{7bus12bus}
M.~Mahdavi, H.~H. Alhelou, N.~D. Hatziargyriou, and A.~Al-Hinai, ``{An
Efficient Mathematical Model for Distribution System Reconfiguration Using
AMPL},'' \emph{IEEE Access}, vol.~9, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3083688, pp.
79\,961--79\,993, 2021.
\bibitem{FP:ref1}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for the Simultaneous Optimal Distribution Network
Reconfiguration and Optimal Placement of Distributed Generation},''
\emph{Energies}, vol.~15, DOI 10.3390/en15093063, no.~9, 2022. [Online].
Available: \url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/9/3063}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{92}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
M.~D. Gonçalves-Leite, E.~M. Carreño-Franco, and J.~M. López-Lezama,
``{Impact of Distributed Generation on the Effectiveness of Electric
Distribution System Reconfiguration},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16176154, no.~17, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6154}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{14}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
M.~Kashem, G.~Jasmon, and V.~Ganapathy, ``{A New Approach of Distribution
System Reconfiguration for Loss Minimization},'' \emph{International Journal
of Electrical Power \& Energy Systems}, vol.~22, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-0615(99)00057-5, no.~4, pp. 269--276, 2000.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061599000575}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{30}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~K. Ferdavani, A.~A.~M. Zin, A.~Khairuddin, and M.~M. Naeini,
``{Reconfiguration of Distribution System Through Two Minimum-Current
Neighbour-Chain Updating Methods},'' \emph{IET Generation, Transmission \&
Distribution}, vol.~7, DOI 10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0737, pp. 1492--1497, 2013.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://digital-library.theiet.org/doi/abs/10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0737}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{26}
H.~Ahmadi and J.~R. Martí, ``{Distribution System Optimization Based on a
Linear Power-Flow Formulation},'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery},
vol.~30, DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2014.2300854, no.~1, pp. 25--33, 2015.
\bibitem{16}
P.~Díaz, M.~Cisneros, E.~Cuevas, O.~Avalos, J.~Gálvez, S.~Hinojosa, and
D.~Zaldivar, ``{An Improved Crow Search Algorithm Applied to Energy
Problems},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~11, DOI 10.3390/en11030571, p. 571, 03
2018.
\bibitem{FP:ref5}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{Optimal Integration
of Distribution Network Reconfiguration and Conductor Selection in Power
Distribution Systems via MILP},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16196998, no.~19, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/19/6998}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{13}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~R. Abul’Wafa, ``{Multi-Conductor Feeder Design for Radial Distribution
Networks},'' \emph{Electric Power Systems Research}, vol. 140, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.06.023, pp. 184--192, 2016. [Online].
Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779616302310}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{18}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A. Gallego~Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~Gómez~Carmona, ``{A MILP
Model for Optimal Conductor Selection and Capacitor Banks Placement in
Primary Distribution Systems},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16114340, no.~11, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/11/4340}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{romero}
R.~Romero and A.~Monticelli, \emph{{Planejamento a Longo Prazo da Expansão de
Sistemas de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica}}, Campinas, 2000.
\bibitem{romero2}
R.~Romero, A.~Monticelli, A.~Garcia, and S.~Haffner, ``{Test Systems and
Mathematical Models for Transmission Network Expansion Planning},''
\emph{Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEE Proceedings-}, vol. 149,
DOI 10.1049/ip-gtd:20020026, pp. 27 -- 36, 02 2002.
\end{thebibliography}\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{#1}
\csname url@samestyle\endcsname
\providecommand{\newblock}{\relax}
\providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=0pt\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor}{4}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=\fontdimen2\font plus
\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor\fontdimen3\font minus
\fontdimen4\font\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBforeignlanguage}[2]{{%
\expandafter\ifx\csname l@#1\endcsname\relax
\typeout{** WARNING: IEEEtran.bst: No hyphenation pattern has been}%
\typeout{** loaded for the language `#1'. Using the pattern for}%
\typeout{** the default language instead.}%
\else
\language=\csname l@#1\endcsname
\fi
#2}}
\providecommand{\BIBdecl}{\relax}
\BIBdecl
\bibitem{FP:ref6}
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for Simultaneous Optimal Reconfiguration and Optimal
Placement of Capacitor Banks in Distribution Networks},'' \emph{IEEE Access},
vol.~10, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3175189, pp. 52\,655--52\,673, 2022.
\bibitem{convex1}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
W.~Gil-González, O.~D. Montoya, L.~F. Grisales-Noreña, C.~L. Trujillo, and
D.~A. Giral-Ramírez, ``{A Mixed-Integer Second-Order Cone Model for Optimal
Siting and Sizing of Dynamic Reactive Power Compensators in Distribution
Grids},'' \emph{Results in Engineering}, vol.~15, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100475, p. 100475, 2022. [Online].
Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123022001451}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{convex2}
M.~Farivar and S.~H. Low, ``{Branch Flow Model: Relaxations and
Convexification—Part I},'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems},
vol.~28, DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2255317, no.~3, pp. 2554--2564, 2013.
\bibitem{Zimmerman1996}
R.~D. Zimmerman, ``{Comprehensive Distribution Power Flow: Modeling,
Formulation, Solution Algorithms and Analysis},'' Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University, USA, 1996, uMI Order No. GAX95-37160.
\bibitem{Muruganantham2016}
B.~Muruganantham, R.~Gnanadass, and N.~P. Padhy, ``{Performance Analysis and
Comparison of Load Flow Methods in a Practical Distribution System},'' in
\emph{2016 National Power Systems Conference (NPSC)}, DOI
10.1109/NPSC.2016.7858848, pp. 1--6, 2016.
\bibitem{Mahmoud2016}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
K.~Mahmoud and N.~Yorino, ``{Robust Quadratic-Based BFS Power Flow Method for
Multi-Phase Distribution Systems},'' \emph{IET Generation, Transmission \&
Distribution}, vol.~10, DOI 10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1518, pp. 2240--2250, 2016.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://digital-library.theiet.org/doi/abs/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1518}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{manopt2014}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
N.~Boumal, B.~Mishra, P.-A. Absil, and R.~Sepulchre, ``{{M}anopt, a {M}atlab
Toolbox for Optimization on Manifolds},'' \emph{Journal of Machine Learning
Research}, vol.~15, no.~42, pp. 1455--1459, 2014. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.manopt.org}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{Boumal_book_2023}
N.~Boumal, \emph{{An Introduction to Optimization on Smooth Manifolds}},
1st~ed.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax UK: Cambridge University
Press, Sep. 2023, \url{https://cambridge.org/9781009166157}.
\bibitem{Absil2007}
P.-A. Absil, R.~Mahony, and R.~Sepulchre, \emph{{Optimization Algorithms on
Matrix Manifolds}}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax USA: Princeton
University Press, 2007.
\bibitem{Hu2020}
J.~Hu, X.~Liu, Z.-W. Wen, and Y.-x. Yuan, ``{A Brief Introduction to Manifold
Optimization},'' \emph{Journal of the Operations Research Society of China},
vol.~8, DOI 10.1007/s40305-020-00295-9, 04 2020.
\bibitem{CVX}
M.~Grant and S.~Boyd, ``{{CVX}: Matlab Software for Disciplined Convex
Programming, version 2.1},'' \url{http://cvxr.com/cvx}, Mar. 2014.
\bibitem{AMPLIDE}
{AMPL Optimization}, ``{AMPL IDE: A Simple and Straightforward Enhanced
Modeling Editor for AMPL Users},'' \url{https://ampl.com/}, accessed:
2025-03-07.
\bibitem{Pyomo}
{Pyomo}, ``{Pyomo: A Python-Based, Open-Source Optimization Modeling
Language},'' \url{https://www.pyomo.org/}, accessed: 2025-03-07.
\bibitem{GarcesRuiz2022}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~Garcés-Ruiz, ``\BIBforeignlanguage{Español}{{ Power Flow in Unbalanced
Three-Phase Power Distribution Networks Using Matlab: Theory, analysis, and
quasi-dynamic simulation }},''
\emph{\BIBforeignlanguage{Español}{Ingeniería}}, 2022. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=498873733002}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{fiacco1968nonlinear}
A.~Fiacco and G.~McCormick, \emph{{Nonlinear Programming: Sequential
Unconstrained Minimization Techniques}}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus
0.4em\relax New York: John Wiley \& Sons, 1968.
\bibitem{Bazaraa2006}
M.~Bazaraa, H.~Sherali, and C.~Shetty, \emph{{Nonlinear Programming: Theory and
Algorithms}}, 3rd~ed.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax John Wiley \&
Sons, 2006.
\bibitem{FP:ref2}
A.~Hauswirth, S.~Bolognani, G.~Hug, and F.~Dörfler, ``{Projected Gradient
Descent on Riemannian Manifolds with Applications to Online Power System
Optimization},'' in \emph{2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on
Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)}, DOI
10.1109/ALLERTON.2016.7852234, pp. 225--232, 2016.
\bibitem{FP:ref3}
A.~Hauswirth, A.~Zanardi, S.~Bolognani, F.~Dörfler, and G.~Hug, ``{Online
Optimization in Closed Loop on the Power Flow Manifold},'' in \emph{2017 IEEE
Manchester PowerTech}, DOI 10.1109/PTC.2017.7980998, pp. 1--6, 2017.
\bibitem{FP:ref4}
S.~Bolognani and F.~Dörfler, ``{Fast Power System Analysis Via Implicit
Linearization of the Power Flow Manifold},'' in \emph{2015 53rd Annual
Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)}, DOI
10.1109/ALLERTON.2015.7447032, pp. 402--409, 2015.
\bibitem{github}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A. Gallego~Pareja, ``{Data of the Electrical Distribution Systems Used in
This Paper},''
\url{https://github.com/LuisGallego2019/ElectricalSystemsDataForReconfiguration},
2024. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://github.com/LuisGallego2019/ElectricalSystemsDataForReconfiguration}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{19}
C.-T. Su and C.-S. Lee, ``{Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems
Using Improved Mixed-Integer Hybrid Differential Evolution},'' \emph{IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery}, vol.~18, DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2003.813641,
no.~3, pp. 1022--1027, 2003.
\bibitem{91}
J.-P. Chiou, C.-F. Chang, and C.-T. Su, ``{Variable Scaling Hybrid Differential
Evolution for Solving Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems},''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems}, vol.~20, DOI
10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846096, no.~2, pp. 668--674, 2005.
\bibitem{67}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
B.~Tomoiagă, M.~Chindriş, A.~Sumper, R.~Villafafila-Robles, and
A.~Sudria-Andreu, ``{Distribution System Reconfiguration Using Genetic
Algorithm Based on Connected Graphs},'' \emph{Electric Power Systems
Research}, vol. 104, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2013.06.021, pp.
216--225, 2013. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779613001715}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{76}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
S.~Sivanagaraju, J.~V. Rao, and P.~S.~R. and, ``{Discrete Particle Swarm
Optimization to Network Reconfiguration for Loss Reduction and Load
Balancing},'' \emph{Electric Power Components and Systems}, vol.~36, DOI
10.1080/15325000701735389, no.~5, pp. 513--524, 2008. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://doi.org/10.1080/15325000701735389}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{31}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
H.~Ahmadi and J.~R. Martí, ``{Mathematical Representation of Radiality
Constraint in Distribution System Reconfiguration Problem},''
\emph{International Journal of Electrical Power \& Energy Systems}, vol.~64,
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.06.076, pp. 293--299, 2015.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014206151400475X}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{68}
A.~M. Eldurssi and R.~M. O'Connell, ``{A Fast Nondominated Sorting Guided
Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Power Distribution System
Reconfiguration Problem},'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems},
vol.~30, DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2332953, no.~2, pp. 593--601, 2015.
\bibitem{systems}
M.~Mahdavi, H.~H. Alhelou, and P.~Cuffe, ``{Test Distribution Systems: Network
Parameters and Diagrams of Electrical Structural},'' \emph{IEEE Open Access
Journal of Power and Energy}, vol.~8, DOI 10.1109/OAJPE.2021.3119183, pp.
409--420, 2021.
\bibitem{7bus12bus}
M.~Mahdavi, H.~H. Alhelou, N.~D. Hatziargyriou, and A.~Al-Hinai, ``{An
Efficient Mathematical Model for Distribution System Reconfiguration Using
AMPL},'' \emph{IEEE Access}, vol.~9, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3083688, pp.
79\,961--79\,993, 2021.
\bibitem{FP:ref1}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for the Simultaneous Optimal Distribution Network
Reconfiguration and Optimal Placement of Distributed Generation},''
\emph{Energies}, vol.~15, DOI 10.3390/en15093063, no.~9, 2022. [Online].
Available: \url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/9/3063}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{92}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
M.~D. Gonçalves-Leite, E.~M. Carreño-Franco, and J.~M. López-Lezama,
``{Impact of Distributed Generation on the Effectiveness of Electric
Distribution System Reconfiguration},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16176154, no.~17, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6154}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{14}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
M.~Kashem, G.~Jasmon, and V.~Ganapathy, ``{A New Approach of Distribution
System Reconfiguration for Loss Minimization},'' \emph{International Journal
of Electrical Power \& Energy Systems}, vol.~22, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-0615(99)00057-5, no.~4, pp. 269--276, 2000.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061599000575}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{30}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~K. Ferdavani, A.~A.~M. Zin, A.~Khairuddin, and M.~M. Naeini,
``{Reconfiguration of Distribution System Through Two Minimum-Current
Neighbour-Chain Updating Methods},'' \emph{IET Generation, Transmission \&
Distribution}, vol.~7, DOI 10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0737, pp. 1492--1497, 2013.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://digital-library.theiet.org/doi/abs/10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0737}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{26}
H.~Ahmadi and J.~R. Martí, ``{Distribution System Optimization Based on a
Linear Power-Flow Formulation},'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery},
vol.~30, DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2014.2300854, no.~1, pp. 25--33, 2015.
\bibitem{16}
P.~Díaz, M.~Cisneros, E.~Cuevas, O.~Avalos, J.~Gálvez, S.~Hinojosa, and
D.~Zaldivar, ``{An Improved Crow Search Algorithm Applied to Energy
Problems},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~11, DOI 10.3390/en11030571, p. 571, 03
2018.
\bibitem{FP:ref5}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{Optimal Integration
of Distribution Network Reconfiguration and Conductor Selection in Power
Distribution Systems via MILP},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16196998, no.~19, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/19/6998}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{13}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~R. Abul’Wafa, ``{Multi-Conductor Feeder Design for Radial Distribution
Networks},'' \emph{Electric Power Systems Research}, vol. 140, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.06.023, pp. 184--192, 2016. [Online].
Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779616302310}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{18}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A. Gallego~Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~Gómez~Carmona, ``{A MILP
Model for Optimal Conductor Selection and Capacitor Banks Placement in
Primary Distribution Systems},'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16114340, no.~11, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/11/4340}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{romero}
R.~Romero and A.~Monticelli, \emph{{Planejamento a Longo Prazo da Expansão de
Sistemas de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica}}, Campinas, 2000.
\bibitem{romero2}
R.~Romero, A.~Monticelli, A.~Garcia, and S.~Haffner, ``{Test Systems and
Mathematical Models for Transmission Network Expansion Planning},''
\emph{Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEE Proceedings-}, vol. 149,
DOI 10.1049/ip-gtd:20020026, pp. 27 -- 36, 02 2002.
\end{thebibliography}{10}10
\providecommand{\url}[1]{#1}
\csname url@samestyle\endcsname
\providecommand{\newblock}{\relax}
\providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=0pt\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor}{4}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=\fontdimen2\font plus
\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor\fontdimen3\font minus
\fontdimen4\font\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBforeignlanguage}[2]{{%
\expandafter\ifx\csname l@#1\endcsname\relax
\typeout{** WARNING: IEEEtran.bst: No hyphenation pattern has been}%
\typeout{** loaded for the language `#1'. Using the pattern for}%
\typeout{** the default language instead.}%
\else
\language=\csname l@#1\endcsname
\fi
#2}}
\providecommand{\BIBdecl}{\relax}
\BIBdecl
\bibitem{FP:ref6}FP:ref6
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for Simultaneous Optimal Reconfiguration and Optimal
Placement of Capacitor Banks in Distribution Networks}A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for Simultaneous Optimal Reconfiguration and Optimal
Placement of Capacitor Banks in Distribution Networks,'' \emph{IEEE Access},
vol.~10, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3175189, pp. 52\,655--52\,673, 2022.
\bibitem{convex1}convex1
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
W.~Gil-González, O.~D. Montoya, L.~F. Grisales-Noreña, C.~L. Trujillo, and
D.~A. Giral-Ramírez, ``{A Mixed-Integer Second-Order Cone Model for Optimal
Siting and Sizing of Dynamic Reactive Power Compensators in Distribution
Grids}A Mixed-Integer Second-Order Cone Model for Optimal
Siting and Sizing of Dynamic Reactive Power Compensators in Distribution
Grids,'' \emph{Results in Engineering}, vol.~15, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100475, p. 100475, 2022. [Online].
Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123022001451}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{convex2}convex2
M.~Farivar and S.~H. Low, ``{Branch Flow Model: Relaxations and
Convexification—Part I}Branch Flow Model: Relaxations and
Convexification—Part I,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems},
vol.~28, DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2255317, no.~3, pp. 2554--2564, 2013.
\bibitem{Zimmerman1996}Zimmerman1996
R.~D. Zimmerman, ``{Comprehensive Distribution Power Flow: Modeling,
Formulation, Solution Algorithms and Analysis}Comprehensive Distribution Power Flow: Modeling,
Formulation, Solution Algorithms and Analysis,'' Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University, USA, 1996, uMI Order No. GAX95-37160.
\bibitem{Muruganantham2016}Muruganantham2016
B.~Muruganantham, R.~Gnanadass, and N.~P. Padhy, ``{Performance Analysis and
Comparison of Load Flow Methods in a Practical Distribution System}Performance Analysis and
Comparison of Load Flow Methods in a Practical Distribution System,'' in
\emph{2016 National Power Systems Conference (NPSC)}, DOI
10.1109/NPSC.2016.7858848, pp. 1--6, 2016.
\bibitem{Mahmoud2016}Mahmoud2016
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
K.~Mahmoud and N.~Yorino, ``{Robust Quadratic-Based BFS Power Flow Method for
Multi-Phase Distribution Systems}Robust Quadratic-Based BFS Power Flow Method for
Multi-Phase Distribution Systems,'' \emph{IET Generation, Transmission \&
Distribution}, vol.~10, DOI 10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1518, pp. 2240--2250, 2016.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://digital-library.theiet.org/doi/abs/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1518}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{manopt2014}manopt2014
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
N.~Boumal, B.~Mishra, P.-A. Absil, and R.~Sepulchre, ``{{M}anopt, a {M}atlab
Toolbox for Optimization on Manifolds}{M}Manopt, a {M}Matlab
Toolbox for Optimization on Manifolds,'' \emph{Journal of Machine Learning
Research}, vol.~15, no.~42, pp. 1455--1459, 2014. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.manopt.org}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{Boumal_book_2023}Boumal_book_2023
N.~Boumal, \emph{{An Introduction to Optimization on Smooth Manifolds}},
1st~ed.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax UK: Cambridge University
Press, Sep. 2023, \url{https://cambridge.org/9781009166157}.
\bibitem{Absil2007}Absil2007
P.-A. Absil, R.~Mahony, and R.~Sepulchre, \emph{{Optimization Algorithms on
Matrix Manifolds}}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax USA: Princeton
University Press, 2007.
\bibitem{Hu2020}Hu2020
J.~Hu, X.~Liu, Z.-W. Wen, and Y.-x. Yuan, ``{A Brief Introduction to Manifold
Optimization}A Brief Introduction to Manifold
Optimization,'' \emph{Journal of the Operations Research Society of China},
vol.~8, DOI 10.1007/s40305-020-00295-9, 04 2020.
\bibitem{CVX}CVX
M.~Grant and S.~Boyd, ``{{CVX}: Matlab Software for Disciplined Convex
Programming, version 2.1}{CVX}CVX: Matlab Software for Disciplined Convex
Programming, version 2.1,'' \url{http://cvxr.com/cvx}, Mar. 2014.
\bibitem{AMPLIDE}AMPLIDE
{AMPL Optimization}AMPL Optimization, ``{AMPL IDE: A Simple and Straightforward Enhanced
Modeling Editor for AMPL Users}AMPL IDE: A Simple and Straightforward Enhanced
Modeling Editor for AMPL Users,'' \url{https://ampl.com/}, accessed:
2025-03-07.
\bibitem{Pyomo}Pyomo
{Pyomo}Pyomo, ``{Pyomo: A Python-Based, Open-Source Optimization Modeling
Language}Pyomo: A Python-Based, Open-Source Optimization Modeling
Language,'' \url{https://www.pyomo.org/}, accessed: 2025-03-07.
\bibitem{GarcesRuiz2022}GarcesRuiz2022
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~Garcés-Ruiz, ``\BIBforeignlanguage{Español}Español{{ Power Flow in Unbalanced
Three-Phase Power Distribution Networks Using Matlab: Theory, analysis, and
quasi-dynamic simulation }}{ Power Flow in Unbalanced
Three-Phase Power Distribution Networks Using Matlab: Theory, analysis, and
quasi-dynamic simulation } Power Flow in Unbalanced
Three-Phase Power Distribution Networks Using Matlab: Theory, analysis, and
quasi-dynamic simulation ,''
\emph{\BIBforeignlanguage{Español}{Ingeniería}}, 2022. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=498873733002}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{fiacco1968nonlinear}fiacco1968nonlinear
A.~Fiacco and G.~McCormick, \emph{{Nonlinear Programming: Sequential
Unconstrained Minimization Techniques}}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus
0.4em\relax New York: John Wiley \& Sons, 1968.
\bibitem{Bazaraa2006}Bazaraa2006
M.~Bazaraa, H.~Sherali, and C.~Shetty, \emph{{Nonlinear Programming: Theory and
Algorithms}}, 3rd~ed.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax John Wiley \&
Sons, 2006.
\bibitem{FP:ref2}FP:ref2
A.~Hauswirth, S.~Bolognani, G.~Hug, and F.~Dörfler, ``{Projected Gradient
Descent on Riemannian Manifolds with Applications to Online Power System
Optimization}Projected Gradient
Descent on Riemannian Manifolds with Applications to Online Power System
Optimization,'' in \emph{2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on
Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)}, DOI
10.1109/ALLERTON.2016.7852234, pp. 225--232, 2016.
\bibitem{FP:ref3}FP:ref3
A.~Hauswirth, A.~Zanardi, S.~Bolognani, F.~Dörfler, and G.~Hug, ``{Online
Optimization in Closed Loop on the Power Flow Manifold}Online
Optimization in Closed Loop on the Power Flow Manifold,'' in \emph{2017 IEEE
Manchester PowerTech}, DOI 10.1109/PTC.2017.7980998, pp. 1--6, 2017.
\bibitem{FP:ref4}FP:ref4
S.~Bolognani and F.~Dörfler, ``{Fast Power System Analysis Via Implicit
Linearization of the Power Flow Manifold}Fast Power System Analysis Via Implicit
Linearization of the Power Flow Manifold,'' in \emph{2015 53rd Annual
Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)}, DOI
10.1109/ALLERTON.2015.7447032, pp. 402--409, 2015.
\bibitem{github}github
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A. Gallego~Pareja, ``{Data of the Electrical Distribution Systems Used in
This Paper}Data of the Electrical Distribution Systems Used in
This Paper,''
\url{https://github.com/LuisGallego2019/ElectricalSystemsDataForReconfiguration},
2024. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://github.com/LuisGallego2019/ElectricalSystemsDataForReconfiguration}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{19}19
C.-T. Su and C.-S. Lee, ``{Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems
Using Improved Mixed-Integer Hybrid Differential Evolution}Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems
Using Improved Mixed-Integer Hybrid Differential Evolution,'' \emph{IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery}, vol.~18, DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2003.813641,
no.~3, pp. 1022--1027, 2003.
\bibitem{91}91
J.-P. Chiou, C.-F. Chang, and C.-T. Su, ``{Variable Scaling Hybrid Differential
Evolution for Solving Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems}Variable Scaling Hybrid Differential
Evolution for Solving Network Reconfiguration of Distribution Systems,''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems}, vol.~20, DOI
10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846096, no.~2, pp. 668--674, 2005.
\bibitem{67}67
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
B.~Tomoiagă, M.~Chindriş, A.~Sumper, R.~Villafafila-Robles, and
A.~Sudria-Andreu, ``{Distribution System Reconfiguration Using Genetic
Algorithm Based on Connected Graphs}Distribution System Reconfiguration Using Genetic
Algorithm Based on Connected Graphs,'' \emph{Electric Power Systems
Research}, vol. 104, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2013.06.021, pp.
216--225, 2013. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779613001715}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{76}76
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
S.~Sivanagaraju, J.~V. Rao, and P.~S.~R. and, ``{Discrete Particle Swarm
Optimization to Network Reconfiguration for Loss Reduction and Load
Balancing}Discrete Particle Swarm
Optimization to Network Reconfiguration for Loss Reduction and Load
Balancing,'' \emph{Electric Power Components and Systems}, vol.~36, DOI
10.1080/15325000701735389, no.~5, pp. 513--524, 2008. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://doi.org/10.1080/15325000701735389}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{31}31
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
H.~Ahmadi and J.~R. Martí, ``{Mathematical Representation of Radiality
Constraint in Distribution System Reconfiguration Problem}Mathematical Representation of Radiality
Constraint in Distribution System Reconfiguration Problem,''
\emph{International Journal of Electrical Power \& Energy Systems}, vol.~64,
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.06.076, pp. 293--299, 2015.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014206151400475X}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{68}68
A.~M. Eldurssi and R.~M. O'Connell, ``{A Fast Nondominated Sorting Guided
Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Power Distribution System
Reconfiguration Problem}A Fast Nondominated Sorting Guided
Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Power Distribution System
Reconfiguration Problem,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Systems},
vol.~30, DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2332953, no.~2, pp. 593--601, 2015.
\bibitem{systems}systems
M.~Mahdavi, H.~H. Alhelou, and P.~Cuffe, ``{Test Distribution Systems: Network
Parameters and Diagrams of Electrical Structural}Test Distribution Systems: Network
Parameters and Diagrams of Electrical Structural,'' \emph{IEEE Open Access
Journal of Power and Energy}, vol.~8, DOI 10.1109/OAJPE.2021.3119183, pp.
409--420, 2021.
\bibitem{7bus12bus}7bus12bus
M.~Mahdavi, H.~H. Alhelou, N.~D. Hatziargyriou, and A.~Al-Hinai, ``{An
Efficient Mathematical Model for Distribution System Reconfiguration Using
AMPL}An
Efficient Mathematical Model for Distribution System Reconfiguration Using
AMPL,'' \emph{IEEE Access}, vol.~9, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3083688, pp.
79\,961--79\,993, 2021.
\bibitem{FP:ref1}FP:ref1
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for the Simultaneous Optimal Distribution Network
Reconfiguration and Optimal Placement of Distributed Generation}A Mixed-Integer
Linear Programming Model for the Simultaneous Optimal Distribution Network
Reconfiguration and Optimal Placement of Distributed Generation,''
\emph{Energies}, vol.~15, DOI 10.3390/en15093063, no.~9, 2022. [Online].
Available: \url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/9/3063}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{92}92
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
M.~D. Gonçalves-Leite, E.~M. Carreño-Franco, and J.~M. López-Lezama,
``{Impact of Distributed Generation on the Effectiveness of Electric
Distribution System Reconfiguration}Impact of Distributed Generation on the Effectiveness of Electric
Distribution System Reconfiguration,'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16176154, no.~17, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6154}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{14}14
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
M.~Kashem, G.~Jasmon, and V.~Ganapathy, ``{A New Approach of Distribution
System Reconfiguration for Loss Minimization}A New Approach of Distribution
System Reconfiguration for Loss Minimization,'' \emph{International Journal
of Electrical Power \& Energy Systems}, vol.~22, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-0615(99)00057-5, no.~4, pp. 269--276, 2000.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061599000575}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{30}30
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~K. Ferdavani, A.~A.~M. Zin, A.~Khairuddin, and M.~M. Naeini,
``{Reconfiguration of Distribution System Through Two Minimum-Current
Neighbour-Chain Updating Methods}Reconfiguration of Distribution System Through Two Minimum-Current
Neighbour-Chain Updating Methods,'' \emph{IET Generation, Transmission \&
Distribution}, vol.~7, DOI 10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0737, pp. 1492--1497, 2013.
[Online]. Available:
\url{https://digital-library.theiet.org/doi/abs/10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0737}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{26}26
H.~Ahmadi and J.~R. Martí, ``{Distribution System Optimization Based on a
Linear Power-Flow Formulation}Distribution System Optimization Based on a
Linear Power-Flow Formulation,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery},
vol.~30, DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2014.2300854, no.~1, pp. 25--33, 2015.
\bibitem{16}16
P.~Díaz, M.~Cisneros, E.~Cuevas, O.~Avalos, J.~Gálvez, S.~Hinojosa, and
D.~Zaldivar, ``{An Improved Crow Search Algorithm Applied to Energy
Problems}An Improved Crow Search Algorithm Applied to Energy
Problems,'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~11, DOI 10.3390/en11030571, p. 571, 03
2018.
\bibitem{FP:ref5}FP:ref5
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A.~G. Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~G. Carmona, ``{Optimal Integration
of Distribution Network Reconfiguration and Conductor Selection in Power
Distribution Systems via MILP}Optimal Integration
of Distribution Network Reconfiguration and Conductor Selection in Power
Distribution Systems via MILP,'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16196998, no.~19, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/19/6998}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{13}13
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
A.~R. Abul’Wafa, ``{Multi-Conductor Feeder Design for Radial Distribution
Networks}Multi-Conductor Feeder Design for Radial Distribution
Networks,'' \emph{Electric Power Systems Research}, vol. 140, DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.06.023, pp. 184--192, 2016. [Online].
Available:
\url{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779616302310}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{18}18
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
L.~A. Gallego~Pareja, J.~M. López-Lezama, and O.~Gómez~Carmona, ``{A MILP
Model for Optimal Conductor Selection and Capacitor Banks Placement in
Primary Distribution Systems}A MILP
Model for Optimal Conductor Selection and Capacitor Banks Placement in
Primary Distribution Systems,'' \emph{Energies}, vol.~16, DOI
10.3390/en16114340, no.~11, 2023. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/11/4340}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{romero}romero
R.~Romero and A.~Monticelli, \emph{{Planejamento a Longo Prazo da Expansão de
Sistemas de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica}}, Campinas, 2000.
\bibitem{romero2}romero2
R.~Romero, A.~Monticelli, A.~Garcia, and S.~Haffner, ``{Test Systems and
Mathematical Models for Transmission Network Expansion Planning}Test Systems and
Mathematical Models for Transmission Network Expansion Planning,''
\emph{Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEE Proceedings-}, vol. 149,
DOI 10.1049/ip-gtd:20020026, pp. 27 -- 36, 02 2002.
\begin{comment}
\newpage
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/lucca.png}}]
{Lucca Rodrigues Pinto } received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil, in 2024, where he is currently pursuing its M.Sc. degree, with a primary focus on research areas on optimal operation and planning of transmission and distribution systems.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/WJR.png}}]
{Wilson De Souza Junior } received the B.S. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from the State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil, in 2021 and 2023, respectively, where he is currently pursuing its Ph.D. degree, with a primary focus on research areas on resource allocation for RIS-assisted massive MIMO, XL-MIMO, and NOMA. Beyond this, his research interests extend to optimization theory and the application of machine learning in emerging technologies, encompassing ISAC, cooperative communication, relaying, symbiotic systems, SWIPT for URLLC, and mMTC scenarios and all within the context of 5G and beyond 5G communication networks.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/jaime.png}}]
{Jaime Laelson Jacob}\, received a degree in Electrical Engineering from the Federal Technological University of Paraná in 1992. Additionally, he obtained master's and doctorate degrees in Electrical Engineering from the State University of Londrina in 2006 and 2022, respectively. He worked at Brasil Telecom from 1992 to 2008 as a Telecommunications Engineer. Between 2008 and 2012, he served as an assistant professor on a temporary contract, and since 2013, he has been a full professor at the State University of Londrina. He has experience in Electrical Engineering, with an emphasis on Telecommunications, working primarily on the following topics: MIMO, massive MIMO, NOMA and B5G systems.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/pareja.png}}]
{Luis Alfonso Gallego Pareja } received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from the Technological University of Pereira, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia, in 2001 and 2003, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Universidade Stadual Paulista (UNESP), Ilha Solteria, São Paulo, Brazil, in 2009. Since 2011, he has been a Full-Time Professor with Londrina State University. His research interests include optimal operation and planning of transmission and distribution systems and protection of electrical systems.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}[{\includegraphics[width=1in,height=1.25in,clip,keepaspectratio]{photo/TA.pdf}}]{Taufik Abrão } (IEEE-M'97, SM'12, Pq-1C CNPq) received the B.S., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Polytechnic School of the University of S\~ao Paulo, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil, in 1992, 1996, and 2001, respectively. Since March 1997, he has been with the Communications Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Londrina State University, Paran\'a, Brazil, where he is an Associate Professor in Telecommunications and the Head of Telecomm. \& Signal Processing Lab. In May 2024, Prof. Abrão was an Invited Researcher with the WiCoNS research group at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. From July to October 2018, he was a Guest Researcher with the Connectivity section at Aalborg University. In 2012, he was an Academic Visitor with the Southampton Wireless Research Group, University of Southampton, U.K. He has also served as Associate Editor for the \textsc{IEEE Systems Journal}, the \textsc{IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Tech.}. Previously, he served as AE of the \textsc{IEEE Communication Surveys \& Tutorials} (2013-2017), the \textsc{IEEE Access} (2016-2019), and the IET Signal Processing (2018-2020). His research interests include integrating sensing and communication (ISAC) massive and XL-MIMO, RIS-aided communications, Non-terrestrial Networks for 6G; URLLC, mMTC, random access protocols, detection and estimation, NOMA systems, cooperative communication, resource allocation, machine learning-aided communications, and optimization techniques for 5G and 6G wireless systems.
%
He has supervised 36 M.Sc., 20 Ph.D. students, and 6 postdoctoral researchers, co-authored 9 book chapters on mobile radio communications, and published over 250 research papers in international journals.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\newpage
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/lucca.png}}]
{Lucca Rodrigues Pinto } received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil, in 2024, where he is currently pursuing its M.Sc. degree, with a primary focus on research areas on optimal operation and planning of transmission and distribution systems.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/WJR.png}}]
{Wilson De Souza Junior } received the B.S. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from the State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil, in 2021 and 2023, respectively, where he is currently pursuing its Ph.D. degree, with a primary focus on research areas on resource allocation for RIS-assisted massive MIMO, XL-MIMO, and NOMA. Beyond this, his research interests extend to optimization theory and the application of machine learning in emerging technologies, encompassing ISAC, cooperative communication, relaying, symbiotic systems, SWIPT for URLLC, and mMTC scenarios and all within the context of 5G and beyond 5G communication networks.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/jaime.png}}]
{Jaime Laelson Jacob}\, received a degree in Electrical Engineering from the Federal Technological University of Paraná in 1992. Additionally, he obtained master's and doctorate degrees in Electrical Engineering from the State University of Londrina in 2006 and 2022, respectively. He worked at Brasil Telecom from 1992 to 2008 as a Telecommunications Engineer. Between 2008 and 2012, he served as an assistant professor on a temporary contract, and since 2013, he has been a full professor at the State University of Londrina. He has experience in Electrical Engineering, with an emphasis on Telecommunications, working primarily on the following topics: MIMO, massive MIMO, NOMA and B5G systems.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/pareja.png}}]
{Luis Alfonso Gallego Pareja } received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from the Technological University of Pereira, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia, in 2001 and 2003, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Universidade Stadual Paulista (UNESP), Ilha Solteria, São Paulo, Brazil, in 2009. Since 2011, he has been a Full-Time Professor with Londrina State University. His research interests include optimal operation and planning of transmission and distribution systems and protection of electrical systems.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{IEEEbiography}[{\includegraphics[width=1in,height=1.25in,clip,keepaspectratio]{photo/TA.pdf}}]{Taufik Abrão } (IEEE-M'97, SM'12, Pq-1C CNPq) received the B.S., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Polytechnic School of the University of S\~ao Paulo, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil, in 1992, 1996, and 2001, respectively. Since March 1997, he has been with the Communications Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Londrina State University, Paran\'a, Brazil, where he is an Associate Professor in Telecommunications and the Head of Telecomm. \& Signal Processing Lab. In May 2024, Prof. Abrão was an Invited Researcher with the WiCoNS research group at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. From July to October 2018, he was a Guest Researcher with the Connectivity section at Aalborg University. In 2012, he was an Academic Visitor with the Southampton Wireless Research Group, University of Southampton, U.K. He has also served as Associate Editor for the \textsc{IEEE Systems Journal}, the \textsc{IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Tech.}. Previously, he served as AE of the \textsc{IEEE Communication Surveys \& Tutorials} (2013-2017), the \textsc{IEEE Access} (2016-2019), and the IET Signal Processing (2018-2020). His research interests include integrating sensing and communication (ISAC) massive and XL-MIMO, RIS-aided communications, Non-terrestrial Networks for 6G; URLLC, mMTC, random access protocols, detection and estimation, NOMA systems, cooperative communication, resource allocation, machine learning-aided communications, and optimization techniques for 5G and 6G wireless systems.
%
He has supervised 36 M.Sc., 20 Ph.D. students, and 6 postdoctoral researchers, co-authored 9 book chapters on mobile radio communications, and published over 250 research papers in international journals.
\end{IEEEbiography}
\end{comment}
\newpage
\vspace{-3mm}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/lucca.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/lucca.png}]
{Lucca Rodrigues Pinto }Lucca Rodrigues Pinto received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil, in 2024, where he is currently pursuing its M.Sc. degree, with a primary focus on research areas on optimal operation and planning of transmission and distribution systems.
\vspace{-3mm}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/WJR.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/WJR.png}]
{Wilson De Souza Junior }Wilson De Souza Junior received the B.S. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from the State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil, in 2021 and 2023, respectively, where he is currently pursuing its Ph.D. degree, with a primary focus on research areas on resource allocation for RIS-assisted massive MIMO, XL-MIMO, and NOMA. Beyond this, his research interests extend to optimization theory and the application of machine learning in emerging technologies, encompassing ISAC, cooperative communication, relaying, symbiotic systems, SWIPT for URLLC, and mMTC scenarios and all within the context of 5G and beyond 5G communication networks.
\vspace{-3mm}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/jaime.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/jaime.png}]
{Jaime Laelson Jacob}Jaime Laelson Jacob\, received a degree in Electrical Engineering from the Federal Technological University of Paraná in 1992. Additionally, he obtained master's and doctorate degrees in Electrical Engineering from the State University of Londrina in 2006 and 2022, respectively. He worked at Brasil Telecom from 1992 to 2008 as a Telecommunications Engineer. Between 2008 and 2012, he served as an assistant professor on a temporary contract, and since 2013, he has been a full professor at the State University of Londrina. He has experience in Electrical Engineering, with an emphasis on Telecommunications, working primarily on the following topics: MIMO, massive MIMO, NOMA and B5G systems.
\vspace{-3mm}
[{\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/pareja.png}}\includegraphics[width=0.8in,height=1.2in,clip]{photo/pareja.png}]
{Luis Alfonso Gallego Pareja }Luis Alfonso Gallego Pareja received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from the Technological University of Pereira, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia, in 2001 and 2003, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Universidade Stadual Paulista (UNESP), Ilha Solteria, São Paulo, Brazil, in 2009. Since 2011, he has been a Full-Time Professor with Londrina State University. His research interests include optimal operation and planning of transmission and distribution systems and protection of electrical systems.
\vspace{-3mm}
[{\includegraphics[width=1in,height=1.25in,clip,keepaspectratio]{photo/TA.pdf}}\includegraphics[width=1in,height=1.25in,clip,keepaspectratio]{photo/TA.pdf}]{Taufik Abrão }Taufik Abrão (IEEE-M'97, SM'12, Pq-1C CNPq) received the B.S., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Polytechnic School of the University of S\~ao Paulo, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil, in 1992, 1996, and 2001, respectively. Since March 1997, he has been with the Communications Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Londrina State University, Paran\'a, Brazil, where he is an Associate Professor in Telecommunications and the Head of Telecomm. \& Signal Processing Lab. In May 2024, Prof. Abrão was an Invited Researcher with the WiCoNS research group at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. From July to October 2018, he was a Guest Researcher with the Connectivity section at Aalborg University. In 2012, he was an Academic Visitor with the Southampton Wireless Research Group, University of Southampton, U.K. He has also served as Associate Editor for the \textsc{IEEE Systems Journal}, the \textsc{IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Tech.}. Previously, he served as AE of the \textsc{IEEE Communication Surveys \& Tutorials} (2013-2017), the \textsc{IEEE Access} (2016-2019), and the IET Signal Processing (2018-2020). His research interests include integrating sensing and communication (ISAC) massive and XL-MIMO, RIS-aided communications, Non-terrestrial Networks for 6G; URLLC, mMTC, random access protocols, detection and estimation, NOMA systems, cooperative communication, resource allocation, machine learning-aided communications, and optimization techniques for 5G and 6G wireless systems.
He has supervised 36 M.Sc., 20 Ph.D. students, and 6 postdoctoral researchers, co-authored 9 book chapters on mobile radio communications, and published over 250 research papers in international journals.
|
CONCLUSION
| false
|
2507.06883
| 8
|
95,448
|
\IEEEPARstart{T}T{he}he core strength of \gls{mo}mo methods lies in their superior ability to tackle complex optimization problems, outperforming conventional methods in efficiency and effectiveness, particularly for the intricate non-convex optimization challenges inherent in \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts with their specific power flow considerations.
Many optimization problems in power systems are characterized by non-convex constraints, which frequently arise from the physical laws governing power flow and the operational limits of the network. Traditional optimization methods can find these constraints challenging to navigate efficiently. \gls{mo}mo offers a more inherently suitable approach by treating the set of feasible solutions—defined by these very constraints—as a smooth manifold. This paradigm allows \gls{mo}mo to directly leverage the problem's intrinsic geometric properties, leading to more efficient and often more robust solution methods.
A key technique enabling this is local linearization. While a manifold can be complex globally, it is locally Euclidean. This means that in the immediate vicinity of any point on the manifold, the space behaves much like standard Euclidean space. This property is crucial because it allows for the adaptation and generalization of powerful iterative optimization algorithms, such as gradient descent and Newton's method, to these otherwise curved and constrained spaces. The methodologies applied in this paper for power flow optimization indeed capitalize on such generalized gradient-based approaches.
Furthermore, power system models often involve a large number of variables and interdependent equations, creating a complex, high-dimensional landscape for optimization. \gls{mo}mo provides tools and perspectives to manage this complexity. Finally, and central to its application in this paper, \gls{mo}mo methods offer profound versatility in integrating the specific, often intricate, constraints of a given problem directly into the optimization process. Instead of treating power flow equations as separate, challenging boundary conditions, \gls{mo}mo allows these to define the very fabric of the manifold on which the optimization occurs. This adaptability in conforming to the unique structure of power system problems is a significant advantage, enabling the tailored and effective optimization strategies demonstrated herein.
Common approaches in the literature to tackle the complexities of the power flow model often involve linearization, which includes discretizing nonlinear terms \cite{FP:ref6}. However, such linearization introduces a dependency on parameters that must be tuned using the original nonlinear, non-convex model, which can compromise solution accuracy and introduce uncertainties. Another strategy, convexification of the power flow problem into models like \gls{socp}socp, offers benefits for planning and expansion, as combinatorial strategies like network reconfiguration can inherit this convexity \cite{convex1}, \cite{convex2}. Despite these advancements, both linearized and convex models encounter significant hurdles regarding solver accessibility. Solvers that support the integer variables standard in these strategies are often commercial. This reliance on often expensive commercial software for robust solutions presents a notable challenge, as freely available global nonlinear solvers for integer variables are scarce, and local solvers typically only ensure first-order KKT conditions, which may not be sufficient.
Given these challenges with traditional modeling and solver availability, alternative approaches are warranted. Direct application of nonlinear models, especially in the context of \gls{mo}mo, can face difficulties with initial point selection and computational demands, particularly as power flow calculations involve interdependent variables across shared buses, necessitating iterative computations akin to a \gls{bfs}bfs approach \cite{Zimmerman1996}. The \gls{bfs}bfs algorithm itself is a well-established and computationally efficient method for power flow analysis in \gls{epds}epds, especially for radial or weakly meshed systems, often outperforming traditional Newton-Raphson or Zbus methods in speed and robustness. For instance, studies have shown BFS, particularly with enhancements, can be significantly faster, and its variants like \gls{fbs}fbs and \gls{qbbfs}qbbfs have demonstrated superior performance in scenarios with high resistance-to-reactance ratios or multi-phase systems \cite{Muruganantham2016}, \cite{Mahmoud2016}. While a \gls{bfs}bfs algorithm offers a robust alternative to direct modeling for power flow calculations, integrating its procedural nature into an \gls{mo}mo framework requires the thoughtful derivation of an appropriate cost function, a critical step explored in this paper.
\subsection{MOTIVATION AND CONTRIBUTION}
The optimization of modern \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts frequently involves solving complex, non-convex problems, particularly in power flow analysis. Traditional optimization methods often struggle with the inherent non-linearities and constraints of these systems, leading to computationally intensive processes, reliance on linearization or convex relaxation techniques that may sacrifice accuracy, or the use of heuristic methods that lack convergence guarantees. While \gls{mo}mo offers a theoretically powerful alternative by recasting constrained problems as unconstrained ones on smooth manifolds, its practical implementation can appear daunting due to the specialized knowledge of differential geometry typically required.
This is where toolboxes like Manopt become pivotal. A primary motivation for this work stems from the accessibility and flexibility Manopt brings to \gls{mo}mo. Manopt significantly lowers the barrier to applying sophisticated \gls{mo}mo techniques by requiring the user to primarily focus on defining a well-structured problem by stating a cost function and its well-defined gradient. Furthermore, Manopt operates within familiar environments like MATLAB or Python, meaning users are not confined by a restrictive, specialized optimization syntax. Instead, they can leverage the full expressive power and extensive libraries of these environments to formulate their cost functions, gradients, and any auxiliary computations. This flexibility motivates the exploration and practical application of \gls{mo}mo to complex power system problems that might otherwise be considered too intricate to implement from first principles. Building on this motivation, the contributions of this paper are multifaceted:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm] Practical Application of \gls{mo} via Manopt: We demonstrate the successful and practical application of \gls{mo}, facilitated by the Manopt toolbox, to solve non-convex power flow optimization problems in both \gls{epds} and \gls{epts}. This includes novel problem formulations where:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm] For \gls{epds}, a cost function is derived from the \gls{bfs} algorithm, with constraints handled via penalty methods, showcasing a flexible integration of procedural algorithms within the \gls{mo} framework.
\item[\dm] For \gls{epts}, standard power flow equations are directly used to define equality constraints, forming a cost function suitable for \gls{mo}.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm] Performance Validation and Benchmarking: Through detailed case studies on standard test systems (14-bus, 33-bus, and 69-bus for \gls{epds}; and 3-bus and 4-bus systems for \gls{epts}), we rigorously validate the proposed \gls{mo} approaches. We show that \gls{mo}, implemented in Manopt, achieves high accuracy and exhibits computational performance that is highly competitive with, and in several instances comparable or superior to, well-established commercial solvers (like Knitro, CPLEX, Gurobi) and traditional mathematical modeling techniques.
\item[\dm] Highlighting Manopt's Enabling Role: This work underscores Manopt's crucial role in democratizing the use of \gls{mo}. By abstracting the complex geometric calculations and solver implementations, Manopt allows researchers and engineers to concentrate on the core task of defining the optimization problem within a familiar and powerful programming environment, thereby broadening the scope and applicability of \gls{mo} techniques in power systems.
\item[\dm] Foundation for Advanced Applications (Expansion Planning): We establish that the efficiency and accuracy of the \gls{mo}-based power flow solutions, particularly the \gls{bfs}-Manopt approach for \gls{epds}, provide a solid foundation for future extensions to more complex planning and operational problems, such as network reconfiguration using Master-Slave architectures.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm] Practical Application of \gls{mo} via Manopt: We demonstrate the successful and practical application of \gls{mo}, facilitated by the Manopt toolbox, to solve non-convex power flow optimization problems in both \gls{epds} and \gls{epts}. This includes novel problem formulations where:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm] For \gls{epds}, a cost function is derived from the \gls{bfs} algorithm, with constraints handled via penalty methods, showcasing a flexible integration of procedural algorithms within the \gls{mo} framework.
\item[\dm] For \gls{epts}, standard power flow equations are directly used to define equality constraints, forming a cost function suitable for \gls{mo}.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm] Performance Validation and Benchmarking: Through detailed case studies on standard test systems (14-bus, 33-bus, and 69-bus for \gls{epds}; and 3-bus and 4-bus systems for \gls{epts}), we rigorously validate the proposed \gls{mo} approaches. We show that \gls{mo}, implemented in Manopt, achieves high accuracy and exhibits computational performance that is highly competitive with, and in several instances comparable or superior to, well-established commercial solvers (like Knitro, CPLEX, Gurobi) and traditional mathematical modeling techniques.
\item[\dm] Highlighting Manopt's Enabling Role: This work underscores Manopt's crucial role in democratizing the use of \gls{mo}. By abstracting the complex geometric calculations and solver implementations, Manopt allows researchers and engineers to concentrate on the core task of defining the optimization problem within a familiar and powerful programming environment, thereby broadening the scope and applicability of \gls{mo} techniques in power systems.
\item[\dm] Foundation for Advanced Applications (Expansion Planning): We establish that the efficiency and accuracy of the \gls{mo}-based power flow solutions, particularly the \gls{bfs}-Manopt approach for \gls{epds}, provide a solid foundation for future extensions to more complex planning and operational problems, such as network reconfiguration using Master-Slave architectures.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm] Practical Application of \gls{mo}mo via Manopt: We demonstrate the successful and practical application of \gls{mo}mo, facilitated by the Manopt toolbox, to solve non-convex power flow optimization problems in both \gls{epds}epds and \gls{epts}epts. This includes novel problem formulations where:
\item[\dm] For \gls{epds}epds, a cost function is derived from the \gls{bfs}bfs algorithm, with constraints handled via penalty methods, showcasing a flexible integration of procedural algorithms within the \gls{mo}mo framework.
\item[\dm] For \gls{epts}epts, standard power flow equations are directly used to define equality constraints, forming a cost function suitable for \gls{mo}mo.
\item[\dm] Performance Validation and Benchmarking: Through detailed case studies on standard test systems (14-bus, 33-bus, and 69-bus for \gls{epds}epds; and 3-bus and 4-bus systems for \gls{epts}epts), we rigorously validate the proposed \gls{mo}mo approaches. We show that \gls{mo}mo, implemented in Manopt, achieves high accuracy and exhibits computational performance that is highly competitive with, and in several instances comparable or superior to, well-established commercial solvers (like Knitro, CPLEX, Gurobi) and traditional mathematical modeling techniques.
\item[\dm] Highlighting Manopt's Enabling Role: This work underscores Manopt's crucial role in democratizing the use of \gls{mo}mo. By abstracting the complex geometric calculations and solver implementations, Manopt allows researchers and engineers to concentrate on the core task of defining the optimization problem within a familiar and powerful programming environment, thereby broadening the scope and applicability of \gls{mo}mo techniques in power systems.
\item[\dm] Foundation for Advanced Applications (Expansion Planning): We establish that the efficiency and accuracy of the \gls{mo}mo-based power flow solutions, particularly the \gls{bfs}bfs-Manopt approach for \gls{epds}epds, provide a solid foundation for future extensions to more complex planning and operational problems, such as network reconfiguration using Master-Slave architectures.
The motivations and contributions of this paper are significant in advancing the understanding and application of \gls{mo}mo techniques in the context of modern power systems. The successful application of \gls{mo}mo to complex power flow problems in this paper, particularly enabled by the flexibility of tools like Manopt, clearly demonstrates its transformative potential for power systems optimization. To fully realize this potential and extend these benefits, continued research and development are essential.
\subsection{ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER}
The remaining content is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:II} provides an overview of manifold concepts, alternatives, and fundamental tools. Section \ref{sec:III} structures the methodology for formulating and solving optimization problems with manifolds. Section \ref{sec:IV} presents gradient descent-based algorithms adapted for manifold optimization. Section \ref{sec:V} demonstrates practical applications in power systems optimization, focusing on power flow analysis in EPDS and EPTS using Manopt. Section \ref{sec:BarriersMO} addresses integration challenges of manifold optimization techniques in power systems. Finally, Section \ref{sec:VII} draws conclusions and perspectives on manifold optimization for power systems applications, concluding with future research directions.
|
INTRODUCTION
| false
|
2507.06883
| 1
|
95,449
|
\label{sec:II}
In this section, we start by highlighting different alternatives to the \gls{mo}mo technique. In the subsequent subsection, we explain the \gls{mo}mo framework. Finally, we catalog a list of manifolds found in many different real-world problems.
\subsection{ALTERNATIVES TO MANIFOLD OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE}
There are some alternatives for solving non-convex optimization problems, including \glspl{hem}hem, {\it convex relaxation}\it convex relaxation techniques, \gls{ml}ml-based algorithms, and {\it gradient-based}\it gradient-based methods. {\bf HEMs}\bf HEMs, such as \gls{ga}ga, \gls{pso}pso, \gls{gwo}gwo, \gls{sa}sa, among others, are capable of performing a global search and are less likely to get trapped in local minima, therefore, being suitable to be applied to a wide range of problems without requiring gradient information, however, they present demerits of {\it a}\it a) computationally intensive, often requiring many function evaluations, making them computationally expensive; {\it b}\it b) lack of guarantees of convergence to the global optimum and can be slow to converge.
The merits of {\bf convex relaxation}\bf convex relaxation techniques, such as \gls{sdp}sdp, and \gls{ccp}ccp, include {\it a}\it a) rigorous framework for approximating non-convex problems into convex ones, and b) polynomial-time solvability. However, these techniques suffer scalability issues, rapidly becoming computationally infeasible for large-scale problems; moreover, the quality of the solution provided by \gls{sdp}sdp and \gls{ccp}ccp depends on how well the non-convex problem can be approximated by a convex one.
Besides, {\bf \gls{ml}-based algorithms}\bf \gls{ml}ml-based algorithms can present impressive results since it can deal with large-scale problems, providing sub-optimal solutions. However, their feasibility in real-world scenarios is often limited. This limitation arises because many \gls{ml}ml-based algorithms require an offline training stage (particularly \glspl{nn}nn in supervised learning), utilizing data collected from real-world scenarios, however, it can be incompatible with the highly dynamic nature of power systems environments. The necessity for constant adaptation in these environments makes it challenging to rely on pre-trained models. Therefore, their practical application in power systems remains constrained by these real-world considerations.
Finally, {\bf gradient-based}\bf gradient-based methods, such as {\it gradient descent, Newton's method}\it gradient descent, Newton's method, and {\it conjugate gradient}\it conjugate gradient, represent a competitive alternative to the \gls{mo}mo approach for problems where gradient information is available, revealing strong local convergence properties in such scenarios. However, gradient-based methods can easily become trapped in local minima. As a substantial limitation, these methods require the \gls{of}of to be differentiable, which cannot always be practical.
The key {\bf pros}\bf pros and {\bf cons}\bf cons of \gls{mo}mo over traditional optimization methods in power systems are summarized in Table \ref{table:comparison}, and include a) natural handling of non-convex constraints; b) geometric property exploitation; c) local linearization; d) versatility in handling constraints and symmetries; and e) high-dimensional data management: power systems often deal with high-dimensional data. Therefore, \gls{mo}mo methods can transform this data into a more manageable form, improving signal processing and resource allocation optimization.
\begin{table*}[ht!]
\caption{Comparison of \gls{mo} methods to its alternatives}\label{table:comparison}
%\tiny
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{|>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{2.6cm}|>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{7.5cm}|>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{6.3cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Pros} & \textbf{Cons} \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{\gls{mo}}
&
{\it Handling Non-Convex Constraints}: \gls{mo} methods naturally handle non-convex constraints by treating the problem as an optimization over a smooth manifold.& {\it Complexity in Implementation}: Implementing \gls{mo} methods can be complex due to the need for specialized knowledge in differential geometry and manifold theory.\\
\cline{2-3}
&
{\it Exploiting Geometric Properties}: \gls{mo} methods leverage the geometric properties of the problem, handling constraints and symmetries (orthonormality, low rank, positivity, and invariance), allowing for more efficient solutions.
&
{\it Algorithmic Design Challenges}: The manifold constraint adds complexity to the algorithmic design and theoretical analysis.\\
\cline{2-3}
& {\it Local Linearization}: Manifolds are locally Euclidean, enabling linear optimization techniques in a more generalized form. &
{\it Computational Overhead}: While efficient, \gls{mo} methods can still be computationally intensive, especially for high-dimensional problems.\\
\cline{2-3}
& {\it High-Dimensional Data Management}: \gls{mo} methods can transform high-dimensional data into a more manageable form, improving optimization in tasks like signal processing and resource allocation. & \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{\glspl{hem}}
& {\it Global Search Capability}: These methods perform a global search and are less likely to get trapped in local minima.
&
{\it Computationally Intensive}: They often require many function evaluations, making them computationally expensive.
\\
\cline{2-3}
& {\it Flexibility}: They can be applied to various problems without requiring gradient information.
&
{\it Lack of Guarantees}: No guarantee to converge to the global optimum or can converge slowly. \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Convex Relaxation Techniques} &
{\it Mathematical Rigor}: These methods provide a rigorous framework for approximating non-convex problems. &
{\it Approximation Quality}: The quality of the solution depends on how well the non-convex problem can be approximated by a convex one.
\\
\cline{2-3}
& {\it Polynomial-Time Solvability}: Convex problems can be solved efficiently using polynomial-time algorithms. &
{\it Scalability Issues}: These methods can become computationally infeasible for large-scale problems. \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{\gls{ml}-based algorithms}
& \textit{Adaptability}: \gls{ml} methods can adapt to various scenarios and data patterns without requiring explicit modeling of the underlying physical processes.
& \textit{Training Data Requirement}: \gls{ml} methods require large amounts of high-quality training data, which may not always be available or easy to obtain.
\\
\cline{2-3}
& \textit{Data-Driven}: \gls{ml} methods leverage large datasets to learn and improve performance over time, making them suitable for environments where data is abundant.
& \textit{Computational Complexity}: Training \gls{ml} models, especially deep learning models, can be computationally intensive and time-consuming.
\\
\cline{2-3}
& \textit{Automation}: Once trained, \gls{ml} models can automate complex decision-making processes, reducing the need for manual intervention.
& \textit{Generalization}: \gls{ml} models may struggle to generalize well to unseen scenarios or out-of-distribution data, leading to suboptimal performance.
\\
\cline{2-3}
& \textit{Scalability}: \gls{ml} algorithms can handle high-dimensional data and scale well with the increasing complexity of power systems.
& \textit{Interpretability}: Particularly deep \gls{nn}, often act as black boxes, making it difficult to interpret/understand their decision-making processes.
\\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Gradient-Based Methods}
& {\it Efficiency}: These methods are efficient for problems where gradient information is available.
& {\it Requirement of Smoothness}: These methods require the \gls{of} to be differentiable. \\
\cline{2-3}
& {\it Local Convergence}: They have strong local convergence properties. & {\it Local Minima}: They can easily get trapped in local minima.\\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table*}
\caption{Comparison of \gls{mo} methods to its alternatives}\label{table:comparison}
\centering
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Pros} & \textbf{Cons} \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{\gls{mo}}
&
{\it Handling Non-Convex Constraints}\it Handling Non-Convex Constraints: \gls{mo}mo methods naturally handle non-convex constraints by treating the problem as an optimization over a smooth manifold.& {\it Complexity in Implementation}\it Complexity in Implementation: Implementing \gls{mo}mo methods can be complex due to the need for specialized knowledge in differential geometry and manifold theory.\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
&
{\it Exploiting Geometric Properties}\it Exploiting Geometric Properties: \gls{mo}mo methods leverage the geometric properties of the problem, handling constraints and symmetries (orthonormality, low rank, positivity, and invariance), allowing for more efficient solutions.
&
{\it Algorithmic Design Challenges}\it Algorithmic Design Challenges: The manifold constraint adds complexity to the algorithmic design and theoretical analysis.\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& {\it Local Linearization}\it Local Linearization: Manifolds are locally Euclidean, enabling linear optimization techniques in a more generalized form. &
{\it Computational Overhead}\it Computational Overhead: While efficient, \gls{mo}mo methods can still be computationally intensive, especially for high-dimensional problems.\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& {\it High-Dimensional Data Management}\it High-Dimensional Data Management: \gls{mo}mo methods can transform high-dimensional data into a more manageable form, improving optimization in tasks like signal processing and resource allocation. & \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{\glspl{hem}}
& {\it Global Search Capability}\it Global Search Capability: These methods perform a global search and are less likely to get trapped in local minima.
&
{\it Computationally Intensive}\it Computationally Intensive: They often require many function evaluations, making them computationally expensive.
\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& {\it Flexibility}\it Flexibility: They can be applied to various problems without requiring gradient information.
&
{\it Lack of Guarantees}\it Lack of Guarantees: No guarantee to converge to the global optimum or can converge slowly. \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Convex Relaxation Techniques} &
{\it Mathematical Rigor}\it Mathematical Rigor: These methods provide a rigorous framework for approximating non-convex problems. &
{\it Approximation Quality}\it Approximation Quality: The quality of the solution depends on how well the non-convex problem can be approximated by a convex one.
\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& {\it Polynomial-Time Solvability}\it Polynomial-Time Solvability: Convex problems can be solved efficiently using polynomial-time algorithms. &
{\it Scalability Issues}\it Scalability Issues: These methods can become computationally infeasible for large-scale problems. \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{\gls{ml}-based algorithms}
& \textit{Adaptability}: \gls{ml}ml methods can adapt to various scenarios and data patterns without requiring explicit modeling of the underlying physical processes.
& \textit{Training Data Requirement}: \gls{ml}ml methods require large amounts of high-quality training data, which may not always be available or easy to obtain.
\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& \textit{Data-Driven}: \gls{ml}ml methods leverage large datasets to learn and improve performance over time, making them suitable for environments where data is abundant.
& \textit{Computational Complexity}: Training \gls{ml}ml models, especially deep learning models, can be computationally intensive and time-consuming.
\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& \textit{Automation}: Once trained, \gls{ml}ml models can automate complex decision-making processes, reducing the need for manual intervention.
& \textit{Generalization}: \gls{ml}ml models may struggle to generalize well to unseen scenarios or out-of-distribution data, leading to suboptimal performance.
\\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& \textit{Scalability}: \gls{ml}ml algorithms can handle high-dimensional data and scale well with the increasing complexity of power systems.
& \textit{Interpretability}: Particularly deep \gls{nn}nn, often act as black boxes, making it difficult to interpret/understand their decision-making processes.
\\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Gradient-Based Methods}
& {\it Efficiency}\it Efficiency: These methods are efficient for problems where gradient information is available.
& {\it Requirement of Smoothness}\it Requirement of Smoothness: These methods require the \gls{of}of to be differentiable. \\
\cline{2-3}2-3
& {\it Local Convergence}\it Local Convergence: They have strong local convergence properties. & {\it Local Minima}\it Local Minima: They can easily get trapped in local minima.\\
\hline
\subsection{MANIFOLD OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK}
In an optimization framework, we consider the search space $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} as the set containing all possible answers to our problem, and a cost function $f:\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$f:\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} which associates a cost $f(x)$f(x) to each element $x$x of $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S}. The goal is to find $x \in \mathcal{S}$x \in \mathcal{S} such that $f(x)$f(x) is minimized:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\arg \min_{x\in \mathcal{S}} f(x).
\end{align}
\end{small}\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\arg \min_{x\in \mathcal{S}} f(x).
\end{align}
\end{small}
\arg \min_{x\in \mathcal{S}}x\in \mathcal{S} f(x).
We occasionally wish to denote the subset of $\mathcal{S}$\mathcal{S} for which the minimal cost is achieved. We should bear in mind that this set might be empty.
The Euclidean structure of $\mathbb{R}^n$\mathbb{R}^n and the \gls{of}of $f$f's smoothness are irrelevant to the optimization problem's definition. They are merely structures that we should use algorithmically to our advantage. Assuming linearity, the \gls{mo}mo approach requires smoothness as the key structure to exploit.
\subsubsection{Optimization Over Smooth Surfaces}
Manifolds are a fundamental concept in mathematics, particularly in geometry and topology. Manifolds provide a generalization of shapes and spaces that locally resemble Euclidean space. In fact, \gls{mo}mo is a versatile framework for continuous optimization. It encompasses optimization over vectors and matrices and allows optimizing over curved spaces to handle constraints and symmetries such as orthonormality, low rank, positivity, and invariance under group actions \cite{manopt2014}.
Consider the set $\mathcal{M}$\mathcal{M} as a smooth manifold, and the function $f$f is smooth on $\mathcal{M}$\mathcal{M}. Optimization over such surfaces can be understood as constrained because $x$x is not free to travel in $\mathbb{R}^n$\mathbb{R}^n space, but is allowed only to stay on the surface. The favored alternative viewpoint, in this case, is to consider this as unconstrained optimization in a universe where the smooth surface is the only thing that exists. As a result, generalized Euclidean methods from unconstrained optimization can be applied to the larger class of optimization over smooth manifolds. We require a correct knowledge of gradient and Hessian on smooth manifolds to generalize techniques such as gradient descent and Newton's method. In the linear case, this requires including an inner product or an Euclidean structure. In a more general situation, it is advisable to exploit the property that smooth manifolds are locally linearizable around all points. The linearization at $x$x is the tangent space. Giving each tangent space its inner product\footnote{Varying smoothly with $x$ in a way to be determined precisely.} transforms the manifold into a \gls{rm}rm, upon which we construct what is known as a Riemannian structure \cite{Boumal_book_2023, manopt2014}.
\subsubsection{Operators on Riemannian Manifold}
\gls{rm}rms are mathematical objects that generalize the notion of Euclidean space to more complex and curved geometries. These spaces are fundamental in various fields, including optimization, differential geometry, and theoretical physics \cite{Absil2007}. A Riemannian manifold is locally similar to an Euclidean space, but differs in that it is equipped with a Riemannian metric tensor. This tensor defines the distances and angles between points on the manifold by assigning a positive definite inner product to each tangent space. This inner product allows the measurement and interpretation of geometric properties such as length, angle, and curvature. Some key definitions and concepts in Riemannian geometry include:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]Riemannian Gradient ($\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{x})$): This is the generalization of the gradient from Euclidean space $\nabla f$ to Riemannian manifolds. Specifically, the Riemannian gradient of a function $f$ on a manifold $\mathcal{M}$ is the projection of the Euclidean gradient onto the tangent space of the manifold at a given point.
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{x}) = \textrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}} (\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})),
\end{align}
\end{small}
where $\textrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}}(\cdot)$ is the projection operator onto the tangent space $\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}$. It represents the direction of the steepest ascent of a function $f$ on the manifold $\mathcal{M}$.
\item[\dm]Retraction Operation ($\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{M}}(\boldsymbol{x})$): The retraction operator $\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{M}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ of a point on a manifold $\mathcal{M}$ is the projection of the given point $\boldsymbol{x}$ over the manifold $\mathcal{M}$. Retractions are used to ensure that optimization steps remain on the manifold.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]Riemannian Gradient ($\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{x})$): This is the generalization of the gradient from Euclidean space $\nabla f$ to Riemannian manifolds. Specifically, the Riemannian gradient of a function $f$ on a manifold $\mathcal{M}$ is the projection of the Euclidean gradient onto the tangent space of the manifold at a given point.
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{x}) = \textrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}} (\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})),
\end{align}
\end{small}
where $\textrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}}(\cdot)$ is the projection operator onto the tangent space $\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}$. It represents the direction of the steepest ascent of a function $f$ on the manifold $\mathcal{M}$.
\item[\dm]Retraction Operation ($\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{M}}(\boldsymbol{x})$): The retraction operator $\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{M}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ of a point on a manifold $\mathcal{M}$ is the projection of the given point $\boldsymbol{x}$ over the manifold $\mathcal{M}$. Retractions are used to ensure that optimization steps remain on the manifold.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm]Riemannian Gradient ($\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{x})$\nabla_{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M} f(\boldsymbol{x}x)): This is the generalization of the gradient from Euclidean space $\nabla f$\nabla f to Riemannian manifolds. Specifically, the Riemannian gradient of a function $f$f on a manifold $\mathcal{M}$\mathcal{M} is the projection of the Euclidean gradient onto the tangent space of the manifold at a given point.
\nabla_{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M} f(\boldsymbol{x}x) = \textrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}}\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M} (\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}x)),
where $\textrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}}(\cdot)$\textrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}}\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}(\cdot) is the projection operator onto the tangent space $\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}$\mathcal{T}_x \mathcal{M}. It represents the direction of the steepest ascent of a function $f$f on the manifold $\mathcal{M}$\mathcal{M}.
\item[\dm]Retraction Operation ($\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{M}}(\boldsymbol{x})$\operatorname{Retr}Retr_{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M}(\boldsymbol{x}x)): The retraction operator $\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{M}}(\boldsymbol{x})$\operatorname{Retr}Retr_{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M}(\boldsymbol{x}x) of a point on a manifold $\mathcal{M}$\mathcal{M} is the projection of the given point $\boldsymbol{x}$\boldsymbol{x}x over the manifold $\mathcal{M}$\mathcal{M}. Retractions are used to ensure that optimization steps remain on the manifold.
The Riemannian gradient and retraction operation are essential for algorithms that optimize manifolds, as they ensure that the iterative steps respect the manifold's geometric structure. Moreover, we should bear in mind that each manifold has its own projection operator on the tangent space, as well as the retraction operator.
\subsubsection{Challenges in Manifold Optimization}
If additional constraints other than the manifold constraint are applied, one can add an indicator function of the feasible set of such additional constraints in the \gls{of}of. Hence, the optimization problem covers a general formulation for \gls{mo}mo. Moreover, the manifold constraint is one of the main difficulties in algorithmic design and theoretical analysis.
One of the main challenges in \gls{mo}mo usually is the non-convexity of the manifold constraints. By utilizing the geometry of the manifold, a large class of constrained optimization problems can be viewed as unconstrained optimization problems on the manifold \cite{Hu2020}.
\subsection{COLLECTION OF MANIFOLDS}
Optimization on manifolds is a versatile framework for continuous optimization. It encompasses optimization over vectors and matrices and adds the possibility to optimize over curved spaces to handle constraints and symmetries such as orthonormality, low rank, positivity, and invariance under group actions.
One of the most common manifolds is the {\bf \gls{ccm}}\bf \gls{ccm}ccm, in which all elements of the optimization variable must have a unit modulus. This naturally arises in voltage phasor optimization, where bus voltages are constrained to fixed magnitudes (e.g., in voltage-controlled (PV) buses or unity power factor inverters). Hence, the \gls{mo}mo framework is well-suited for power system problems involving phasor constraints, such as optimal power flow or distributed control of inverter-based resources.
Table \ref{tab:manifolds} summarizes the common real and complex types of manifolds, with particular emphasis on the \gls{ccm}ccm, also known as the “complex one-manifold”.
A {\it complex manifold}\it complex manifold is a manifold with a structure that locally resembles complex Euclidean space, {\it i.e.}\it i.e., $\mathbb{C}^n$\mathbb{C}^n. This means a neighborhood is homeomorphic around every point to an open subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$\mathbb{C}^n. In particular, Table \ref{tab:ComplexCircle} shows the main features and applications of the Complex Circle $(\mathcal{S}^1)$(\mathcal{S}^1) manifold.
\begin{table*}[!htbp]
\centering
\caption{Common collection of manifolds \cite{Boumal_book_2023}}
\label{tab:manifolds}
\begin{tabular}{|p{1.7cm}|p{15cm}|}
\hline
\bf Manifolds & \bf Feature \\
\hline\hline
\bf Euclidean Space $\mathbb{R}^n$ & $ \mathbb{R}^n $ is the most straightforward example of a manifold, where each point has a local neighborhood that looks exactly like $ \mathbb{R}^n$. Flat, infinite extent, commonly used in most basic analyses. \\
\hline
\bf Circle ($\mathcal{S}^1$) & $ \mathcal{S}^1 $ represents a one-dimensional manifold (1-manifold), which can be thought of as points equidistant from a center point in 2D space, like the perimeter of a circle; intrinsic periodicity (models cyclical phenomena). \\
\hline
\textbf{Sphere ($\mathcal{S}^n$)} & $\mathcal{S}^n$ generalizes the concept of a circle and sphere to “$n$” dimensions; e.g., $ S^2 $ is the 2D surface of a 3D ball. Compact, without boundary, intrinsic higher-dimensional analogs. {\bf Use Cases:} Modeling surfaces like Earth's surface $(S^2)$. \\
\hline
\bf Torus $(\mathcal{T}^2)$ & The 2D torus is a surface shaped like a donut, which can be defined as $\mathcal{S}^1 \times \mathcal{S}^1$, the product of two circles or, generalizing, a product of $n$ circles, closed and compact. {\bf Use Cases:} Modeling periodic boundary conditions, complex cyclical phenomena \\
\hline
{\bf Projective Space} $\mathbb{RP}^n$ & Space of lines through the origin, compact, involves projective transformation. {\bf Use Cases:} Computer vision, robotics, projective geometry. \\
\hline
\textbf{Hyperbolic Space} $\mathbb{H}^n$ & Non-Euclidean, negatively curved. {\bf Use Cases:} Representing hierarchical tree structures, complex networks. \\
\hline
{\bf Hyperplanes} & These are generalizations of planes in higher dimensions. \\
\hline
\textbf{Lie Groups:} & Smooth manifold that is also a group, with applications in physics and engineering. \textit{Examples:} $SO(3)$, $SU(2)$. {\bf Use Cases:} Robotics, control theory, representation of symmetries. \\
\hline
\textbf{Grassmannian} ($G(k, n)$) & Space of all $ k $-dimensional subspaces of an n-dimensional vector space. {\bf Use Cases:} Signal processing, principal component analysis in higher dimensions. \\
\hline
\textbf{Stiefel Manifold} ($V(k, n)$): & Space of all orthonormal $ k $-frames in $ n $-space. {\bf Use Cases:} Multivariate statistics, optimization on orthonormal matrices. \\
\hline
\textbf{Kähler Manifold:} & A complex manifold with a Hermitian metric, deeply tied to complex and symplectic geometry. \textbf{Use Cases:} Theoretical physics, string theory. \\
\hline
\textbf{Calabi-Yau Manifold:} & A special type of Kähler manifold with a Ricci-flat metric. {\bf Use Cases:} String theory, particularly compactification methods. \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textit{\textbf{Complex Manifolds}}} \\
\hline
\vspace{1.3mm}
\bf Complex Circle $(\mathcal{S}^1)$ & or {\it Complex 1-Manifold}: identified with the complex circle; defined as the set of all complex numbers of the unit norm, defined as: $\mathcal{S}^1 = \{ z \in \mathbb{C} \mid |z| = 1 \}$. Here, $|z|$ denotes the modulus of the complex number $z$. Manifolds modeled on complex numbers, allowing holomorphic coordinates. {\bf Use Cases:} Complex dynamics, algebraic geometry. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\centering
\caption{Common collection of manifolds \cite{Boumal_book_2023}}
\label{tab:manifolds}
\hline
\bf Manifolds & \bf Feature \\
\hline\hline
\bf Euclidean Space $\mathbb{R}^n$\mathbb{R}^n & $ \mathbb{R}^n $ \mathbb{R}^n is the most straightforward example of a manifold, where each point has a local neighborhood that looks exactly like $ \mathbb{R}^n$ \mathbb{R}^n. Flat, infinite extent, commonly used in most basic analyses. \\
\hline
\bf Circle ($\mathcal{S}^1$\mathcal{S}^1) & $ \mathcal{S}^1 $ \mathcal{S}^1 represents a one-dimensional manifold (1-manifold), which can be thought of as points equidistant from a center point in 2D space, like the perimeter of a circle; intrinsic periodicity (models cyclical phenomena). \\
\hline
\textbf{Sphere ($\mathcal{S}^n$)} & $\mathcal{S}^n$\mathcal{S}^n generalizes the concept of a circle and sphere to “$n$n” dimensions; e.g., $ S^2 $ S^2 is the 2D surface of a 3D ball. Compact, without boundary, intrinsic higher-dimensional analogs. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Modeling surfaces like Earth's surface $(S^2)$(S^2). \\
\hline
\bf Torus $(\mathcal{T}^2)$(\mathcal{T}^2) & The 2D torus is a surface shaped like a donut, which can be defined as $\mathcal{S}^1 \times \mathcal{S}^1$\mathcal{S}^1 \times \mathcal{S}^1, the product of two circles or, generalizing, a product of $n$n circles, closed and compact. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Modeling periodic boundary conditions, complex cyclical phenomena \\
\hline
{\bf Projective Space}\bf Projective Space $\mathbb{RP}^n$\mathbb{RP}^n & Space of lines through the origin, compact, involves projective transformation. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Computer vision, robotics, projective geometry. \\
\hline
\textbf{Hyperbolic Space} $\mathbb{H}^n$\mathbb{H}^n & Non-Euclidean, negatively curved. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Representing hierarchical tree structures, complex networks. \\
\hline
{\bf Hyperplanes}\bf Hyperplanes & These are generalizations of planes in higher dimensions. \\
\hline
\textbf{Lie Groups:} & Smooth manifold that is also a group, with applications in physics and engineering. \textit{Examples:} $SO(3)$SO(3), $SU(2)$SU(2). {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Robotics, control theory, representation of symmetries. \\
\hline
\textbf{Grassmannian} ($G(k, n)$G(k, n)) & Space of all $ k $ k -dimensional subspaces of an n-dimensional vector space. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Signal processing, principal component analysis in higher dimensions. \\
\hline
\textbf{Stiefel Manifold} ($V(k, n)$V(k, n)): & Space of all orthonormal $ k $ k -frames in $ n $ n -space. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Multivariate statistics, optimization on orthonormal matrices. \\
\hline
\textbf{Kähler Manifold:} & A complex manifold with a Hermitian metric, deeply tied to complex and symplectic geometry. \textbf{Use Cases:} Theoretical physics, string theory. \\
\hline
\textbf{Calabi-Yau Manifold:} & A special type of Kähler manifold with a Ricci-flat metric. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: String theory, particularly compactification methods. \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}2{|c|}|c|{\textit{\textbf{Complex Manifolds}}}\textit{\textbf{Complex Manifolds}} \\
\hline
\vspace{1.3mm}
\bf Complex Circle $(\mathcal{S}^1)$(\mathcal{S}^1) & or {\it Complex 1-Manifold}\it Complex 1-Manifold: identified with the complex circle; defined as the set of all complex numbers of the unit norm, defined as: $\mathcal{S}^1 = \{ z \in \mathbb{C} \mid |z| = 1 \}$\mathcal{S}^1 = \{ z \in \mathbb{C} \mid |z| = 1 \}. Here, $|z|$|z| denotes the modulus of the complex number $z$z. Manifolds modeled on complex numbers, allowing holomorphic coordinates. {\bf Use Cases:}\bf Use Cases: Complex dynamics, algebraic geometry. \\
\hline
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Features and applications for the complex circle $(\mathcal{S}^1)$ Manifold}
\label{tab:ComplexCircle}
\begin{tabular}{|p{1.4cm}|p{6cm}|}
\hline
\bf Feature & \bf Description\\
\hline\hline
\textbf{1-Dim.} & While being embedded in $\mathbb{C}$ (which is like $\mathbb{R}^2$), the complex circle $\mathcal{S}^1$ is a 1-dimensional manifold.
\\
\hline
\textbf{Compactness} & It is a closed and bounded subset of $\mathbb{C}$.
\\
\hline
\textbf{Local Structure} & Locally, around any point on $\mathcal{S}^1$, it resembles the real line $\mathbb{R}$, meaning it can be mapped one-to-one onto an open interval of $\mathbb{R}$
\\
\hline
\bf Visualization & One can visualize $\mathcal{S}^1$ as the unit circle in the complex plane, where each point on the circle is defined by a complex number $z$ with $|z| = 1$. This can be parameterized as $z = e^{i\theta}$ for $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$, capturing its circular nature.
\\
\hline
\bf Complex Structure & Looking at local coordinates as a complex manifold using complex logarithms and exponential. These give the local diffeomorphisms needed to open up parts of $\mathbb{C}$. The manifold structure is given by charts that map intervals around each point to the Euclidean space $ \mathbb{C}$.
\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textsc{Applications of the Complex Circle Manifold}}\\
\hline
\textbf{Topology}& Understanding the structure and properties of $\mathcal{S}^1$ is fundamental in algebraic topology, which contributes to studying fundamental groups and covering spaces.
\\
\hline
\bf Complex Structure &
$\mathcal{S}^1$ is the natural domain for periodic functions and is central in studying Fourier analysis.
\\
\hline
\textbf{Physics}& The complex circle appears in various physical theories, including quantum mechanics and wave mechanics, describing spaces of phases.
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\centering
\caption{Features and applications for the complex circle $(\mathcal{S}^1)$ Manifold}
\label{tab:ComplexCircle}
\hline
\bf Feature & \bf Description\\
\hline\hline
\textbf{1-Dim.} & While being embedded in $\mathbb{C}$\mathbb{C} (which is like $\mathbb{R}^2$\mathbb{R}^2), the complex circle $\mathcal{S}^1$\mathcal{S}^1 is a 1-dimensional manifold.
\\
\hline
\textbf{Compactness} & It is a closed and bounded subset of $\mathbb{C}$\mathbb{C}.
\\
\hline
\textbf{Local Structure} & Locally, around any point on $\mathcal{S}^1$\mathcal{S}^1, it resembles the real line $\mathbb{R}$\mathbb{R}, meaning it can be mapped one-to-one onto an open interval of $\mathbb{R}$\mathbb{R}
\\
\hline
\bf Visualization & One can visualize $\mathcal{S}^1$\mathcal{S}^1 as the unit circle in the complex plane, where each point on the circle is defined by a complex number $z$z with $|z| = 1$|z| = 1. This can be parameterized as $z = e^{i\theta}$z = e^{i\theta}i\theta for $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$\theta \in [0, 2\pi), capturing its circular nature.
\\
\hline
\bf Complex Structure & Looking at local coordinates as a complex manifold using complex logarithms and exponential. These give the local diffeomorphisms needed to open up parts of $\mathbb{C}$\mathbb{C}. The manifold structure is given by charts that map intervals around each point to the Euclidean space $ \mathbb{C}$ \mathbb{C}.
\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}2{|c|}|c|{\textsc{Applications of the Complex Circle Manifold}}\textsc{Applications of the Complex Circle Manifold}\\
\hline
\textbf{Topology}& Understanding the structure and properties of $\mathcal{S}^1$\mathcal{S}^1 is fundamental in algebraic topology, which contributes to studying fundamental groups and covering spaces.
\\
\hline
\bf Complex Structure &
$\mathcal{S}^1$\mathcal{S}^1 is the natural domain for periodic functions and is central in studying Fourier analysis.
\\
\hline
\textbf{Physics}& The complex circle appears in various physical theories, including quantum mechanics and wave mechanics, describing spaces of phases.
\\
\hline
\begin{comment}
\section{MANIFOLD LEARNING METHODS AND STRUCTURES}\label{sec:III}
While different optimization tasks in power systems operate under established physical laws and network principles, specific problems encountered within these scenarios will invariably exhibit unique characteristics, involve distinct operational data, and possess varying properties. To effectively model the inherent structure of a given problem, whether from its data or its governing constraints—and thereby optimize the power system's performance, a thorough understanding of that specific problem is necessary. Consequently, it is important to recognize that the selection or definition of an appropriate manifold for optimization purposes can differ significantly from one power system problem to another, as it is intrinsically tied to the unique attributes and requirements of each particular situation.
A proper understanding of the underlying manifold associated with a power system problem allows the effective use of manifold-based techniques. For instance, manifold learning can be employed to transform high-dimensional data into a more manageable, lower-dimensional representation, which can lead to better optimization results. In the context of practical power system challenges, manifold techniques and optimization are valuable tools to effectively model complex, high-dimensional operational spaces. This approach can enhance performance in various tasks, including signal processing, resource allocation, and network management within these power systems.
\subsection{STEPS FOR IDENTIFYING A MANIFOLD}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\bf {1)}}] {\it Identifies the Problem Domain and Requirements}: Common problems can be formulated based on well-defined metrics with respect to physical variables. Therefore, identifying the specific requirements and constraints is essential.
\item[{\bf {2)}}] {\it Analyze the Data}: Collect and analyze the data relevant to the optimization problem.
\item[{\bf {3)}}] {\it Understand the Dimensionality}: Determine the intrinsic dimensionality of the data. High-dimensional datasets often have a lower-dimensional structure that can be exploited. Use \gls{pca} or exploratory data analysis to estimate the true dimensionality of the data.
\item[{\bf {4)}}] {\it Identify an Appropriate Manifold Learning Technique}\cite{meila2023manifoldlearning}:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Principal Component Analysis (\gls{pca}):}.
This linear technique reduces dimensionality while retaining the maximum variance in the data.
\textit{Use Cases:} Effective for datasets where the important variance is linear and global structure is more important.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{mds}:} Can be either linear or non-linear, and aims to preserve pairwise distances. \textit{Use Cases:} Good for visualizing distances or dissimilarities among data points.
\item[\dm] {\bf \gls{isomap}:} Non-linear and preserves global geodesic distances, useful when the data lies on a curved surface; suitable for data on a nonlinear manifold. \textit{Use Cases:} Data where the intrinsic geometry is best captured by a global isometry.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{lle}:} Effective for capturing local neighborhood information, useful in highly curved manifolds. It preserves local neighborhood structure using linear reconstructions. \textit{Use Cases:} Capturing local manifold structure, suitable for highly curved manifolds.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{t-sne}:} Often used to visualize high-dimensional data visualization, capturing local similarities. Non-linear and focuses on preserving local similarities. \textit{Use Cases:} Visualization of high-dimensional datasets, often used in exploratory data analysis.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{umap}:}
Non-linear, faster, and more scalable than \gls{t-sne}, preserves local and global structures. \textit{Use Cases:} Similar use cases as \gls{t-sne} but with better scalability and speed.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Laplacian Eigenmaps:} Non-linear, relies on graph-based representation, preserves local neighborhood information. \textit{Use Cases:} Data where local connectivity and local geometrical features are important.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Autoencoders:} Non-linear, based on neural networks, encodes data into latent spaces. \textit{Use Cases:} Data with complex non-linear structures, can be used for both unsupervised and supervised learning.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Hessian Eigenmaps:} Non-linear, focuses on preserving second-order structure (curvatures). \textit{Use Cases:} Manifolds where curvature information is crucial.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Diffusion Maps:} Non-linear, uses diffusion processes to find meaningful geometric descriptions. \textit{Use Cases:} Clustering, spectral embedding, data denoising.
\end{itemize}
\item[{\bf {5)}}] {\it Implement and Validate}: Implement the chosen manifold learning technique using frameworks such as \href{https://scikit-learn.org/stable}{\texttt{scikit-learn}} or custom-built solutions. Thus, validating the manifold representation by examining how well it captures the critical features of the data and supports the optimization objectives can be done. Use cross-validation or other validation techniques to ensure the manifold model generalizes well to new data.
\item[{\bf {6)}}] {\it Apply for Optimization}: Once the manifold is identified and validated, use it to transform and simplify the optimization problem.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}\begin{comment}
\section{MANIFOLD LEARNING METHODS AND STRUCTURES}\label{sec:III}
While different optimization tasks in power systems operate under established physical laws and network principles, specific problems encountered within these scenarios will invariably exhibit unique characteristics, involve distinct operational data, and possess varying properties. To effectively model the inherent structure of a given problem, whether from its data or its governing constraints—and thereby optimize the power system's performance, a thorough understanding of that specific problem is necessary. Consequently, it is important to recognize that the selection or definition of an appropriate manifold for optimization purposes can differ significantly from one power system problem to another, as it is intrinsically tied to the unique attributes and requirements of each particular situation.
A proper understanding of the underlying manifold associated with a power system problem allows the effective use of manifold-based techniques. For instance, manifold learning can be employed to transform high-dimensional data into a more manageable, lower-dimensional representation, which can lead to better optimization results. In the context of practical power system challenges, manifold techniques and optimization are valuable tools to effectively model complex, high-dimensional operational spaces. This approach can enhance performance in various tasks, including signal processing, resource allocation, and network management within these power systems.
\subsection{STEPS FOR IDENTIFYING A MANIFOLD}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\bf {1)}}] {\it Identifies the Problem Domain and Requirements}: Common problems can be formulated based on well-defined metrics with respect to physical variables. Therefore, identifying the specific requirements and constraints is essential.
\item[{\bf {2)}}] {\it Analyze the Data}: Collect and analyze the data relevant to the optimization problem.
\item[{\bf {3)}}] {\it Understand the Dimensionality}: Determine the intrinsic dimensionality of the data. High-dimensional datasets often have a lower-dimensional structure that can be exploited. Use \gls{pca} or exploratory data analysis to estimate the true dimensionality of the data.
\item[{\bf {4)}}] {\it Identify an Appropriate Manifold Learning Technique}\cite{meila2023manifoldlearning}:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Principal Component Analysis (\gls{pca}):}.
This linear technique reduces dimensionality while retaining the maximum variance in the data.
\textit{Use Cases:} Effective for datasets where the important variance is linear and global structure is more important.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{mds}:} Can be either linear or non-linear, and aims to preserve pairwise distances. \textit{Use Cases:} Good for visualizing distances or dissimilarities among data points.
\item[\dm] {\bf \gls{isomap}:} Non-linear and preserves global geodesic distances, useful when the data lies on a curved surface; suitable for data on a nonlinear manifold. \textit{Use Cases:} Data where the intrinsic geometry is best captured by a global isometry.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{lle}:} Effective for capturing local neighborhood information, useful in highly curved manifolds. It preserves local neighborhood structure using linear reconstructions. \textit{Use Cases:} Capturing local manifold structure, suitable for highly curved manifolds.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{t-sne}:} Often used to visualize high-dimensional data visualization, capturing local similarities. Non-linear and focuses on preserving local similarities. \textit{Use Cases:} Visualization of high-dimensional datasets, often used in exploratory data analysis.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{umap}:}
Non-linear, faster, and more scalable than \gls{t-sne}, preserves local and global structures. \textit{Use Cases:} Similar use cases as \gls{t-sne} but with better scalability and speed.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Laplacian Eigenmaps:} Non-linear, relies on graph-based representation, preserves local neighborhood information. \textit{Use Cases:} Data where local connectivity and local geometrical features are important.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Autoencoders:} Non-linear, based on neural networks, encodes data into latent spaces. \textit{Use Cases:} Data with complex non-linear structures, can be used for both unsupervised and supervised learning.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Hessian Eigenmaps:} Non-linear, focuses on preserving second-order structure (curvatures). \textit{Use Cases:} Manifolds where curvature information is crucial.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Diffusion Maps:} Non-linear, uses diffusion processes to find meaningful geometric descriptions. \textit{Use Cases:} Clustering, spectral embedding, data denoising.
\end{itemize}
\item[{\bf {5)}}] {\it Implement and Validate}: Implement the chosen manifold learning technique using frameworks such as \href{https://scikit-learn.org/stable}{\texttt{scikit-learn}} or custom-built solutions. Thus, validating the manifold representation by examining how well it captures the critical features of the data and supports the optimization objectives can be done. Use cross-validation or other validation techniques to ensure the manifold model generalizes well to new data.
\item[{\bf {6)}}] {\it Apply for Optimization}: Once the manifold is identified and validated, use it to transform and simplify the optimization problem.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
|
MANIFOLD FUNDAMENTALS
| false
|
2507.06883
| 2
|
95,450
|
\label{sec:III}
While different optimization tasks in power systems operate under established physical laws and network principles, specific problems encountered within these scenarios will invariably exhibit unique characteristics, involve distinct operational data, and possess varying properties. To effectively model the inherent structure of a given problem, whether from its data or its governing constraints—and thereby optimize the power system's performance, a thorough understanding of that specific problem is necessary. Consequently, it is important to recognize that the selection or definition of an appropriate manifold for optimization purposes can differ significantly from one power system problem to another, as it is intrinsically tied to the unique attributes and requirements of each particular situation.
A proper understanding of the underlying manifold associated with a power system problem allows the effective use of manifold-based techniques. For instance, manifold learning can be employed to transform high-dimensional data into a more manageable, lower-dimensional representation, which can lead to better optimization results. In the context of practical power system challenges, manifold techniques and optimization are valuable tools to effectively model complex, high-dimensional operational spaces. This approach can enhance performance in various tasks, including signal processing, resource allocation, and network management within these power systems.
\subsection{STEPS FOR IDENTIFYING A MANIFOLD}
\vspace{2mm}
\item[{\bf {1)}}] {\it Identifies the Problem Domain and Requirements}\it Identifies the Problem Domain and Requirements: Common problems can be formulated based on well-defined metrics with respect to physical variables. Therefore, identifying the specific requirements and constraints is essential.
\item[{\bf {2)}}] {\it Analyze the Data}\it Analyze the Data: Collect and analyze the data relevant to the optimization problem.
\item[{\bf {3)}}] {\it Understand the Dimensionality}\it Understand the Dimensionality: Determine the intrinsic dimensionality of the data. High-dimensional datasets often have a lower-dimensional structure that can be exploited. Use \gls{pca}pca or exploratory data analysis to estimate the true dimensionality of the data.
\item[{\bf {4)}}] {\it Identify an Appropriate Manifold Learning Technique}\it Identify an Appropriate Manifold Learning Technique\cite{meila2023manifoldlearning}:
\item[\dm]\textbf{Principal Component Analysis (\gls{pca}):}.
This linear technique reduces dimensionality while retaining the maximum variance in the data.
\textit{Use Cases:} Effective for datasets where the important variance is linear and global structure is more important.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{mds}:} Can be either linear or non-linear, and aims to preserve pairwise distances. \textit{Use Cases:} Good for visualizing distances or dissimilarities among data points.
\item[\dm] {\bf \gls{isomap}:}\bf \gls{isomap}isomap: Non-linear and preserves global geodesic distances, useful when the data lies on a curved surface; suitable for data on a nonlinear manifold. \textit{Use Cases:} Data where the intrinsic geometry is best captured by a global isometry.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{lle}:} Effective for capturing local neighborhood information, useful in highly curved manifolds. It preserves local neighborhood structure using linear reconstructions. \textit{Use Cases:} Capturing local manifold structure, suitable for highly curved manifolds.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{t-sne}:} Often used to visualize high-dimensional data visualization, capturing local similarities. Non-linear and focuses on preserving local similarities. \textit{Use Cases:} Visualization of high-dimensional datasets, often used in exploratory data analysis.
\item[\dm] \textbf{\gls{umap}:}
Non-linear, faster, and more scalable than \gls{t-sne}t-sne, preserves local and global structures. \textit{Use Cases:} Similar use cases as \gls{t-sne}t-sne but with better scalability and speed.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Laplacian Eigenmaps:} Non-linear, relies on graph-based representation, preserves local neighborhood information. \textit{Use Cases:} Data where local connectivity and local geometrical features are important.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Autoencoders:} Non-linear, based on neural networks, encodes data into latent spaces. \textit{Use Cases:} Data with complex non-linear structures, can be used for both unsupervised and supervised learning.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Hessian Eigenmaps:} Non-linear, focuses on preserving second-order structure (curvatures). \textit{Use Cases:} Manifolds where curvature information is crucial.
\item[\dm] \textbf{Diffusion Maps:} Non-linear, uses diffusion processes to find meaningful geometric descriptions. \textit{Use Cases:} Clustering, spectral embedding, data denoising.
\item[{\bf {5)}}] {\it Implement and Validate}\it Implement and Validate: Implement the chosen manifold learning technique using frameworks such as \href{https://scikit-learn.org/stable}https://scikit-learn.org/stable{\texttt{scikit-learn}}\texttt{scikit-learn} or custom-built solutions. Thus, validating the manifold representation by examining how well it captures the critical features of the data and supports the optimization objectives can be done. Use cross-validation or other validation techniques to ensure the manifold model generalizes well to new data.
\item[{\bf {6)}}] {\it Apply for Optimization}\it Apply for Optimization: Once the manifold is identified and validated, use it to transform and simplify the optimization problem.
|
MANIFOLD LEARNING METHODS AND STRUCTURES
| false
|
2507.06883
| 3
|
95,451
|
\label{sec:III}
In the following, we illustrate the \gls{mo}mo methodology by detailing the steps involved in addressing a real-world problem in power systems. Specifically, we will optimize the voltage phase angles in a distributed grid using a \gls{mo}mo technique. This approach serves as an example, but the methodology can be applied to any problem involving non-convex constraints that can be represented as a manifold.
Power systems are designed to balance dynamically the generation and demand while maintaining stability; thus, optimizing voltage angles to enhance power flow efficiency is crucial, particularly in networks with high renewable energy penetration. The phase angles of bus voltages and the setpoints of distributed energy resources constitute high-dimensional and nonlinear spaces. \gls{mo}mo provides a structured framework for efficiently dealing with these complex and non-convex optimization problems.
\subsection*{STEP 1: PROBLEM FORMULATION}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Define the Objective}: Clearly define the optimization problem in terms of an \gls{of}. This could involve optimizing key operational metrics such as power loss minimization, voltage stability margin, or economic dispatch efficiency. The \gls{of} is represented by $f(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{v})$, where $\boldsymbol{v}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ denote the complex bus voltages and phase angles, respectively, in a system with $N$ buses, with $[\boldsymbol{v}]_n = V_n e^{j\theta_n}$.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Constraints}: Identify the constraints of the problem, such as inferior and superior bounds on the injected power, represented as $\mathcal{P}_n^{\min} \leq P_n \leq \mathcal{P}_n^{\max}$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$, voltage magnitude bounds $V_n^{\min} \leq |V_n| \leq V_n^{\max}$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$, and power balance equations $\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{diag(V)YV^*}$, with $\mathbf{V}$ being the complex voltage and $\mathbf{Y}$ the adimittance matrix. For voltage-controlled buses, the following must hold:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
|V_n e^{j\theta_n}| = V_n^{\text{ref}} \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}},
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$ denotes the set of PV buses and $V_n^{\text{ref}}$ is the specified voltage magnitude.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Define the Objective}: Clearly define the optimization problem in terms of an \gls{of}. This could involve optimizing key operational metrics such as power loss minimization, voltage stability margin, or economic dispatch efficiency. The \gls{of} is represented by $f(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{v})$, where $\boldsymbol{v}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ denote the complex bus voltages and phase angles, respectively, in a system with $N$ buses, with $[\boldsymbol{v}]_n = V_n e^{j\theta_n}$.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Constraints}: Identify the constraints of the problem, such as inferior and superior bounds on the injected power, represented as $\mathcal{P}_n^{\min} \leq P_n \leq \mathcal{P}_n^{\max}$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$, voltage magnitude bounds $V_n^{\min} \leq |V_n| \leq V_n^{\max}$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$, and power balance equations $\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{diag(V)YV^*}$, with $\mathbf{V}$ being the complex voltage and $\mathbf{Y}$ the adimittance matrix. For voltage-controlled buses, the following must hold:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
|V_n e^{j\theta_n}| = V_n^{\text{ref}} \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}},
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$ denotes the set of PV buses and $V_n^{\text{ref}}$ is the specified voltage magnitude.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Define the Objective}: Clearly define the optimization problem in terms of an \gls{of}of. This could involve optimizing key operational metrics such as power loss minimization, voltage stability margin, or economic dispatch efficiency. The \gls{of}of is represented by $f(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{v})$f(\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta,\boldsymbol{v}v), where $\boldsymbol{v}$\boldsymbol{v}v and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta denote the complex bus voltages and phase angles, respectively, in a system with $N$N buses, with $[\boldsymbol{v}]_n = V_n e^{j\theta_n}$[\boldsymbol{v}v]_n = V_n e^{j\theta_n}j\theta_n.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Constraints}: Identify the constraints of the problem, such as inferior and superior bounds on the injected power, represented as $\mathcal{P}_n^{\min} \leq P_n \leq \mathcal{P}_n^{\max}$\mathcal{P}_n^{\min}\min \leq P_n \leq \mathcal{P}_n^{\max}\max $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}\text{PV}, voltage magnitude bounds $V_n^{\min} \leq |V_n| \leq V_n^{\max}$V_n^{\min}\min \leq |V_n| \leq V_n^{\max}\max $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$\forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}\text{PV}, and power balance equations $\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{diag(V)YV^*}$\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{diag(V)YV^*}, with $\mathbf{V}$\mathbf{V} being the complex voltage and $\mathbf{Y}$\mathbf{Y} the adimittance matrix. For voltage-controlled buses, the following must hold:
|V_n e^{j\theta_n}j\theta_n| = V_n^{\text{ref}}\text{ref} \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}\text{PV},
\noindent where $\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}\text{PV} denotes the set of PV buses and $V_n^{\text{ref}}$V_n^{\text{ref}}\text{ref} is the specified voltage magnitude.
\subsection*{STEP 2: IDENTIFY THE MANIFOLD STRUCTURE}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Manifold Description}: Establish the geometric structure of the constraint. For instance, voltage phasors in power systems lie on \gls{ccm}, which can be treated as a manifold\footnote{Common manifolds in power systems include the Euclidean manifold (for traditional power flow and OPF), the Grassmann manifold (for low-rank subspace methods in PMU data), and the SPD manifold (for covariance-based uncertainty analysis). For a complete list of manifolds, see Table \ref{tab:manifolds}.} and described as
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}^1 = \{V_n e^{j\theta_n} \in \mathbb{C} \mid \theta_n \in [0, 2\pi), V_n = V_n^{\text{ref}}\}, \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}},
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$ is the set of voltage-controlled (PV) buses in the system.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Manifold Description}: Establish the geometric structure of the constraint. For instance, voltage phasors in power systems lie on \gls{ccm}, which can be treated as a manifold\footnote{Common manifolds in power systems include the Euclidean manifold (for traditional power flow and OPF), the Grassmann manifold (for low-rank subspace methods in PMU data), and the SPD manifold (for covariance-based uncertainty analysis). For a complete list of manifolds, see Table \ref{tab:manifolds}.} and described as
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}^1 = \{V_n e^{j\theta_n} \in \mathbb{C} \mid \theta_n \in [0, 2\pi), V_n = V_n^{\text{ref}}\}, \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}},
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$ is the set of voltage-controlled (PV) buses in the system.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Manifold Description}: Establish the geometric structure of the constraint. For instance, voltage phasors in power systems lie on \gls{ccm}ccm, which can be treated as a manifold\footnote{Common manifolds in power systems include the Euclidean manifold (for traditional power flow and OPF), the Grassmann manifold (for low-rank subspace methods in PMU data), and the SPD manifold (for covariance-based uncertainty analysis). For a complete list of manifolds, see Table \ref{tab:manifolds}.} and described as
\mathcal{S}^1 = \{V_n e^{j\theta_n}j\theta_n \in \mathbb{C} \mid \theta_n \in [0, 2\pi), V_n = V_n^{\text{ref}}\text{ref}\}, \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}\text{PV},
\noindent where $\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}$\mathcal{N}_{\text{PV}}\text{PV} is the set of voltage-controlled (PV) buses in the system.
\subsection*{STEP 3: REFORMULATE THE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Manifold Representation}: Reformulate the original non-convex constraint problem in terms of manifold constraints. For example, if the optimization involves fixed-voltage-magnitude constraints, e.g., PV bus voltage angles $\theta_n \in [0, 2\pi)$, it should be represented in terms of the complex phasor form $V_ne^{j\theta_n}$. In power system optimization, the problem becomes:
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\max_{\boldsymbol{\theta} \in \mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{V}),
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ is the vector of voltage phase angles at PV buses, $\boldsymbol{V}$ represents the complex bus voltages, and $\mathcal{M}$ denotes the power flow manifold incorporating both voltage magnitude constraints and network physics.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Alternative Parameterization}: Use appropriate parameterizations to represent elements on the manifold in a computationally friendly way.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Manifold Representation}: Reformulate the original non-convex constraint problem in terms of manifold constraints. For example, if the optimization involves fixed-voltage-magnitude constraints, e.g., PV bus voltage angles $\theta_n \in [0, 2\pi)$, it should be represented in terms of the complex phasor form $V_ne^{j\theta_n}$. In power system optimization, the problem becomes:
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\max_{\boldsymbol{\theta} \in \mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{V}),
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ is the vector of voltage phase angles at PV buses, $\boldsymbol{V}$ represents the complex bus voltages, and $\mathcal{M}$ denotes the power flow manifold incorporating both voltage magnitude constraints and network physics.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Alternative Parameterization}: Use appropriate parameterizations to represent elements on the manifold in a computationally friendly way.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Manifold Representation}: Reformulate the original non-convex constraint problem in terms of manifold constraints. For example, if the optimization involves fixed-voltage-magnitude constraints, e.g., PV bus voltage angles $\theta_n \in [0, 2\pi)$\theta_n \in [0, 2\pi), it should be represented in terms of the complex phasor form $V_ne^{j\theta_n}$V_ne^{j\theta_n}j\theta_n. In power system optimization, the problem becomes:
\max_{\boldsymbol{\theta} \in \mathcal{M}}\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta \in \mathcal{M} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta,\boldsymbol{V}V),
\noindent where $\boldsymbol{\theta}$\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta is the vector of voltage phase angles at PV buses, $\boldsymbol{V}$\boldsymbol{V}V represents the complex bus voltages, and $\mathcal{M}$\mathcal{M} denotes the power flow manifold incorporating both voltage magnitude constraints and network physics.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Alternative Parameterization}: Use appropriate parameterizations to represent elements on the manifold in a computationally friendly way.
\subsection*{STEP 4: DEVELOP AN OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Initialization}: Start with an initial feasible point on the manifold. This might involve random initialization or a heuristic-based initialization.
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)} = [\theta_1^{(0)}, \theta_2^{(0)}, \ldots, \theta_N^{(0)}]^T.
\end{align}
\end{small}
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Gradient Descent}: Use some {\it manifold-based optimization technique} (see subsection \ref{subsec:gradient} of section \ref{sec:V}) to iteratively update the phase shifts and move towards the local optimum. The steps should ensure the updated points lie on the manifold.
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)} = \boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)} + \alpha \nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)}),
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\alpha$ is the step size and $\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)})$ is the Riemannian gradient at the $k$-th iteration.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]{\bf Returning to the Manifold}: After updating the phase shifts, the updated point should be on the manifold surfaces, therefore, the retraction operator should be applied. Specifically, for the \gls{ccm} manifold, the retraction operator is given as
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{S}^1}(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}) = \frac{\left[\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}\right]_n}{\left|\left[\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}\right]_n \right|}, \quad \forall n={1,2,\dots,N}. \label{eq:Retraction_CCM}
\end{align}
\end{small}
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Initialization}: Start with an initial feasible point on the manifold. This might involve random initialization or a heuristic-based initialization.
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)} = [\theta_1^{(0)}, \theta_2^{(0)}, \ldots, \theta_N^{(0)}]^T.
\end{align}
\end{small}
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Gradient Descent}: Use some {\it manifold-based optimization technique} (see subsection \ref{subsec:gradient} of section \ref{sec:V}) to iteratively update the phase shifts and move towards the local optimum. The steps should ensure the updated points lie on the manifold.
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)} = \boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)} + \alpha \nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)}),
\end{align}
\end{small}
\noindent where $\alpha$ is the step size and $\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)})$ is the Riemannian gradient at the $k$-th iteration.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]{\bf Returning to the Manifold}: After updating the phase shifts, the updated point should be on the manifold surfaces, therefore, the retraction operator should be applied. Specifically, for the \gls{ccm} manifold, the retraction operator is given as
%
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\operatorname{Retr}_{\mathcal{S}^1}(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}) = \frac{\left[\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}\right]_n}{\left|\left[\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}\right]_n \right|}, \quad \forall n={1,2,\dots,N}. \label{eq:Retraction_CCM}
\end{align}
\end{small}
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Initialization}: Start with an initial feasible point on the manifold. This might involve random initialization or a heuristic-based initialization.
\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta^{(0)}(0) = [\theta_1^{(0)}(0), \theta_2^{(0)}(0), \ldots, \theta_N^{(0)}(0)]^T.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Gradient Descent}: Use some {\it manifold-based optimization technique}\it manifold-based optimization technique (see subsection \ref{subsec:gradient} of section \ref{sec:V}) to iteratively update the phase shifts and move towards the local optimum. The steps should ensure the updated points lie on the manifold.
\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta^{(k+1)}(k+1) = \boldsymbol{\theta}\theta^{(k)}(k) + \alpha \nabla_{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta^{(k)}(k)),
\noindent where $\alpha$\alpha is the step size and $\nabla_{\mathcal{M}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)})$\nabla_{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta^{(k)}(k)) is the Riemannian gradient at the $k$k-th iteration.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[\dm]{\bf Returning to the Manifold}\bf Returning to the Manifold: After updating the phase shifts, the updated point should be on the manifold surfaces, therefore, the retraction operator should be applied. Specifically, for the \gls{ccm}ccm manifold, the retraction operator is given as
\operatorname{Retr}Retr_{\mathcal{S}^1}\mathcal{S}^1(\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta^{(k+1)}(k+1)) = \frac{\left[\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}\right]_n}{\left|\left[\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k+1)}\right]_n \right|}, \quad \forall n={1,2,\dots,N}1,2,\dots,N. \label{eq:Retraction_CCM}
\subsection*{STEP 5: ITERATIVE OPTIMIZATION}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Iterative Process}: Iterate the optimization process until convergence. The stopping criterion could be based on the change in the \gls{of} value or the gradient norm at the $k$-th iteration till a small positive threshold $\epsilon$.
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Iterative Process}: Iterate the optimization process until convergence. The stopping criterion could be based on the change in the \gls{of} value or the gradient norm at the $k$-th iteration till a small positive threshold $\epsilon$.
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Iterative Process}: Iterate the optimization process until convergence. The stopping criterion could be based on the change in the \gls{of}of value or the gradient norm at the $k$k-th iteration till a small positive threshold $\epsilon$\epsilon.
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\|\nabla_M f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)})\| < \epsilon.
\end{align}
\end{small}\begin{small}
\begin{align}
\|\nabla_M f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(k)})\| < \epsilon.
\end{align}
\end{small}
\|\nabla_M f(\boldsymbol{\theta}\theta^{(k)}(k))\| < \epsilon.
\subsection*{STEP 6: VALIDATION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Validation}: Validate the optimized voltage profiles by evaluating the system's power flow solutions. Compare the performance with conventional optimization methods (e.g., interior-point or Newton-Raphson) to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the \gls{mo}-based approach through metrics like:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm] Power loss reduction: $\Delta P_{\text{loss}} = P_{\text{loss}}^{\text{conv}} - P_{\text{loss}}^{\text{MO}}$
\item[\dm] Voltage stability margin improvement: $\Delta VSM = VSM^{\text{MO}} - VSM^{\text{conv}}$
\item[\dm] Computational time savings: $t_{\text{savings}} = t_{\text{conv}} - t_{\text{MO}}$
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Validation}: Validate the optimized voltage profiles by evaluating the system's power flow solutions. Compare the performance with conventional optimization methods (e.g., interior-point or Newton-Raphson) to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the \gls{mo}-based approach through metrics like:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\dm] Power loss reduction: $\Delta P_{\text{loss}} = P_{\text{loss}}^{\text{conv}} - P_{\text{loss}}^{\text{MO}}$
\item[\dm] Voltage stability margin improvement: $\Delta VSM = VSM^{\text{MO}} - VSM^{\text{conv}}$
\item[\dm] Computational time savings: $t_{\text{savings}} = t_{\text{conv}} - t_{\text{MO}}$
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item[\dm]\textbf{Validation}: Validate the optimized voltage profiles by evaluating the system's power flow solutions. Compare the performance with conventional optimization methods (e.g., interior-point or Newton-Raphson) to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the \gls{mo}mo-based approach through metrics like:
\item[\dm] Power loss reduction: $\Delta P_{\text{loss}} = P_{\text{loss}}^{\text{conv}} - P_{\text{loss}}^{\text{MO}}$\Delta P_{\text{loss}}\text{loss} = P_{\text{loss}}\text{loss}^{\text{conv}}\text{conv} - P_{\text{loss}}\text{loss}^{\text{MO}}\text{MO}
\item[\dm] Voltage stability margin improvement: $\Delta VSM = VSM^{\text{MO}} - VSM^{\text{conv}}$\Delta VSM = VSM^{\text{MO}}\text{MO} - VSM^{\text{conv}}\text{conv}
\item[\dm] Computational time savings: $t_{\text{savings}} = t_{\text{conv}} - t_{\text{MO}}$t_{\text{savings}}\text{savings} = t_{\text{conv}}\text{conv} - t_{\text{MO}}\text{MO}
|
METHODOLOGY FOR FORMULATING AND SOLVING OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS WITH MANIFOLDS
| false
|
2507.06883
| 4
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.