Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the reidemeister torsion is an invariant for a cw - complex and a representation of its fundamental group . in other words , this invariant associates with the local system for a representation of the fundamental group . originally the reidemeister torsion is defined if the local system is @xmath4 , i.e. , all homology groups vanish . however we can extend the definition of the reidemeister torsion to non - acyclic cases @xcite . in this paper , we focus on the non - acyclic cases . it is known that the fox calculus plays important roles in the study of the reidemeister torsion @xcite . the many results were obtained by using the fox calculus for the acyclic reidemeister torsion . in particular , there are important results related to the alexander polynomial in the knot theory @xcite . the fox calculus is also important for non - acyclic cases @xcite . it is related to the cohomology theory of groups . this paper contributes to the study of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion by using the fox calculus . our purpose is to apply the fox calculus for the acyclic cases to the study of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion by using a relationship between the acyclic reidemeister torsion and the non - acyclic one . our main theorem says that the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion for a knot exterior is given by the differential coefficients of the twisted alexander invariant of the knot . the twisted alexander invariant of a knot is the acyclic reidemeister torsion and expressed as a one variable rational function @xcite . a conjecture due to j. dubois and r. kashaev @xcite will be solved in @xcite by using our main theorem .    in the latter of this paper , we apply this relationship to study the reidemeister torsion for the pair of a @xmath3-bridge knot and @xmath1-representation of its knot group . we give an explicit expression of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion associated to @xmath5 knot . this is a new example of calculation of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion . furthermore , we investigate where the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion associated to a @xmath3-bridge knot has critical points . note that the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion is parametrized by the representations of a knot group . moreover this reidemeister torsion turns into a function on the character variety of the knot group . we will see that the critical points of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion associated to a @xmath3-bridge knot are binary dihedral representations and these representations are related to the geometry of the character variety of a @xmath3-bridge knot group . this paper is organized as follows . in section [ review_twisted_torsion ] , we review the reidemeister torsion . in particular , we give the notion of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion of knot exteriors @xcite . section [ main_theorem ] includes our main theorem on a relationship between the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion and the twisted alexander invariant for knot exteriors . we give a formula of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion for a knot exterior by using a wirtinger presentation of a knot group .    in section [ applications ] , we apply the results of section [ main_theorem ] to study the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion for a @xmath3-bridge knot group and @xmath1-representation of its knot group . in this paper , we use the following notations .    * @xmath6 is the field @xmath7 or @xmath8 . * @xmath9 is the lie group @xmath1 ( resp . @xmath10 if @xmath6 is @xmath7 ( resp . @xmath8 ) . the symbol @xmath11 denotes the lie algebra of @xmath9 . * @xmath12 denotes the adjoint action of @xmath9 to the lie group @xmath11 . * @xmath13 is a product on the @xmath11 , which is defined by @xmath14 * @xmath15 denotes an @xmath16-dimensional vector space over @xmath6 . * for two ordered bases @xmath17 and @xmath18 in a vector space , we denote by @xmath19 the base - change matrix from @xmath20 to @xmath21 satisfying @xmath22 . we write simply @xmath23 $ ] for the determinant @xmath24 of @xmath19 . we deal with ordered bases in this paper . we recall the definition of the torsion . let @xmath25 be a chain complex over @xmath6 . for each @xmath26 let @xmath27 denote the kernel of @xmath28 , @xmath29 the image of @xmath30 and @xmath31 the homology group @xmath32 . we say that @xmath33 is _ acyclic _ if @xmath31 vanishes for every @xmath26 . let @xmath34 be a basis of @xmath35 and @xmath36 be the collection @xmath37 . we call the pair @xmath38 a _ based chain complex _ , @xmath36 the preferred basis of @xmath33 and @xmath34 the preferred basis of @xmath35 . let @xmath39 be a basis of @xmath31 . we construct another basis as follows . by the definitions of @xmath27 , @xmath29 and @xmath31 , the following two split exact sequences exist . @xmath40 @xmath41 let @xmath42 be a lift of @xmath43 to @xmath35 and @xmath44 a lift of @xmath31 to @xmath27 . then we can decompose @xmath35 as follows . @xmath45 we choose @xmath46 a basis of @xmath29 . we write @xmath47 for a lift of @xmath46 and @xmath48 for a lift of @xmath39 . by the construction , the set @xmath49 forms another ordered basis of @xmath35 . we denote simply this new basis by @xmath50 . then the definition of @xmath51 is as follows . @xmath52^{(-1)^{i+1 } } \in { { \mathbb f}}^*.\ ] ] it is well known that @xmath51 is independent of the choices of @xmath53 , the lifts @xmath54 and @xmath55 . we also define the torsion @xmath56 with the sign term @xmath57 as follows @xcite @xmath58 here @xmath59 where @xmath60 and @xmath61 . let @xmath62 be a finite connected cw - complex and @xmath63 its universal covering with the induced cw - structure . since the fundamental group @xmath64 acts on @xmath63 by the covering transformation , the chain complex @xmath65 has a natural structure of a left @xmath66$]-module . we denote by @xmath67 a homomorphism from @xmath64 to @xmath9 . we regard the lie group @xmath68 as a right @xmath66$]-module by @xmath69 . we use the notation @xmath70 for @xmath11 with the right @xmath66$]-module structure . following @xcite , we introduce the following notations . set @xmath71 where @xmath72 is @xmath73 and @xmath74 is a surjective homomorphism from @xmath64 to the multiplicative group @xmath75 . note that @xmath76 . we call @xmath77 _ the @xmath70-twisted chain complex _ and @xmath78 _ the @xmath79-twisted chain complex _ of @xmath62 . we also denote by @xmath80 the @xmath6-module consisting of the @xmath64-equivalent homomorphisms from @xmath81 to @xmath11 , i.e. , a homomorphism @xmath82 satisfies @xmath83 for @xmath84 . we call @xmath80 _ the @xmath70-twisted cochain complex _ of @xmath62 . @xmath85 and @xmath86 denote the homology and cohomology groups of the @xmath70-twisted chain and cochain complexes . we keep the notation of the previous subsection . let @xmath87 be the set of @xmath26-dimensional cells of @xmath62 . we take a lift @xmath88 of the cell @xmath89 in @xmath63 . then , for each @xmath26 , @xmath90 is a basis of the @xmath66$]-module @xmath91 . let @xmath92 be a basis of @xmath11 . then we obtain the following basis of @xmath93 : @xmath94 when @xmath95 is a basis of @xmath96 , we denote by @xmath97 the basis @xmath98 of @xmath99 . then @xmath100 is well defined . furthermore adding a sign - refinement term into @xmath101 , we define _ the reidemeister torsion _ of @xmath102 as a vector in some @xmath103-dimensional vector space as follows . let @xmath104 be the basis over @xmath7 of @xmath105 . choose an orientation @xmath106 of the real vector space @xmath107 and provide @xmath108 with a basis @xmath109 such that each @xmath39 is a basis of @xmath110 and the orientation determined by @xmath111 agrees with @xmath106 . let @xmath112 be either @xmath113 or @xmath114 according to the sign of @xmath115 . then we define the reidemeister torsion @xmath116 by @xmath117 where @xmath118 and @xmath119 here @xmath120 means the dual space of a vector space @xmath15 and the dual basis of @xmath118 is @xmath121 where @xmath122 is the dual element of @xmath123 . we made some choices in the definition of @xmath116 . however the following well - definedness is known @xcite :    * the sign of @xmath116 is determined by the homology orientation @xmath106 i.e. , if we choose the other homology orientation , then the sign of @xmath116 changes ; * @xmath116 does not depend on the choice of the lift @xmath124 for each cell @xmath89 ; * @xmath116 does not depend on the choice of the basis @xmath97 in @xmath125 . we also have the following well - definedness . if the euler characteristic of @xmath62 is equal to zero , then @xmath116 does not depend on the choice of the basis of @xmath11 . this follows from the definition . similarly we define the reidemeister torsion of the twisted @xmath79-chain complex . we define @xmath126 by @xmath127    @xmath126 has the indeterminacy of @xmath128 where @xmath129 . this indeterminacy is caused by the choice of the lifts @xmath130 and the action of @xmath74 . it is also known that the sign refined torsion @xmath131 has the invariance under simple homotopy equivalences , and that it satisfies the following _ multiplicativity property_. suppose we have the following exact sequence of based chain complexes : @xmath132 where these chain complexes are based chain complexes which consist of vector spaces with bases . here we denote bases of @xmath133 by @xmath134 and a lift of @xmath135 to @xmath33 by @xmath136 . for each @xmath26 , fix the volume forms on @xmath137 by using given bases and choose volume forms on @xmath138 and @xmath139 . there exists the long exact sequence in homology associated to the short exact sequence @xmath140 : @xmath141 we denote by @xmath142 this acyclic complex . note that this acyclic complex is a based chain complex . [ m_property ] we have @xmath143 where @xmath144 \in { { \mathbb z}}/2{{\mathbb z}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] let @xmath145 be a finitely generated group and we denote by @xmath146 the space of @xmath9-representations of @xmath145 . we define the topology of this space by compact - open topology . here we assume that @xmath145 has the discrete topology and the lie group @xmath9 has the usual one . a representation @xmath147 is called _ central _ if @xmath148 . a representation @xmath67 is called _ abelian _ if its image @xmath149 is an abelian subgroup of @xmath9 . a representation @xmath67 is called _ reducible _ if there exists a proper non - trivial subspace @xmath150 of @xmath151 such that @xmath152 for any @xmath153 . a representation @xmath67 is called _ irreducible _ if it is not reducible . we denote by @xmath154 the subset of reducible representations and by @xmath155 the subset of irreducible ones . note that all abelian representations are reducible . the lie group @xmath9 acts on @xmath146 by conjugation . we write @xmath156 $ ] for the conjugacy class of @xmath157 , and we denote by @xmath158 the quotient space @xmath159 . if @xmath9 is @xmath1 , then one can see that the reducible representations are exactly abelian ones . note that this does not hold for the case of @xmath2-representations . the action by conjugation of @xmath1 on @xmath160 factors through @xmath161 . this action is free on the @xmath162 . we set @xmath163 . if @xmath9 is @xmath2 , then the quotient space @xmath164 is not hausdorff in general . following @xcite , we will focus on the _ character variety _ @xmath165 which is the set of @xmath166 of @xmath145 . associated to the representation @xmath167 , its character @xmath168 , defined by @xmath169 . in some sense , @xmath170 is the `` algebro quotient '' of @xmath171 by @xmath172 . it is well known that @xmath171 and @xmath173 have the structure of complex algebraic affine sets and two irreducible representations of @xmath145 in @xmath2 with the same character are conjugate by an element of @xmath2 . ( for the details , see @xcite . )      in this subsection , we recall @xmath0-regular representations and how to construct distinguished bases of @xmath70-twisted homology groups of knot exteriors for a @xmath0-regular representation @xmath67 . these definitions have originally been given in @xcite . the original definitions are written in terms of the @xmath70-twisted cohomology group . we introduce the homology version by using the duality between the twisted homology and cohomology associated to _ the kronecker pairing _ @xmath174 @xcite . let @xmath175 be a knot in a homology three sphere @xmath176 . we give a knot exterior @xmath177 the canonical homology orientation defined as follows . it is well known that the @xmath7-vector space @xmath178 has the basis @xmath179 , [ \mu]\}$ ] . here $ ] is the homology class of a point and @xmath181 $ ] is the homology class of a meridian of @xmath175 . we denote by @xmath106 the orientation induced by @xmath182 , [ \mu]\}$ ] . we calculate the twisted homology groups of a circle and a @xmath3-dimensional torus before giving the definition of a natural basis of @xmath183 . here @xmath184 consists of one @xmath185-cell @xmath186 and one @xmath103-cell @xmath187 . [ lemma : homology_circle ] suppose that @xmath9 is @xmath1 . if @xmath188 is central , then @xmath189 . if @xmath67 is non - central , then we have @xmath190 , \,and \\ h_0(s^1 ; { \mathfrak{g}_\rho } ) & = { { \mathbb r}}[p_{\rho }   \otimes \tilde e^{(0)}]\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath191 is a vector in @xmath11 , which satisfies that @xmath192 for any @xmath193 . suppose that @xmath9 is @xmath2 . if @xmath188 is central , then @xmath194 . if @xmath67 is non - central and @xmath195 has no parabolic elements , then we have @xmath196 , \,and\\   h_0(s^1 ; { \mathfrak{g}_\rho})&={{\mathbb c}}[p_{\rho } \otimes \tilde e^{(0 ) } ]   \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath191 is a vector in @xmath11 , which satisfies that @xmath192 for any @xmath193 . if @xmath67 is non - central and the subgroup @xmath195 is contained in a subgroup which consists of parabolic elements , then we have @xmath197.\ ] ]    this is a consequence of the following fact of homology of groups . for @xmath198 , it follows that @xmath199 and @xmath200 where @xmath9 is a group , @xmath201 is a @xmath201-module , @xmath202 is the group of invariants of @xmath201 and @xmath203 is the group of co - invariants of @xmath201 ( for the details , see @xcite ) . we denote by @xmath204 a @xmath3-dimensional torus . here @xmath204 consists of one @xmath185-cell @xmath186 , two @xmath103-cells @xmath205 and one @xmath3-cell @xmath206 . we denote each cell @xmath207 and @xmath206 by @xmath208 and @xmath204 . one can also calculate the @xmath70-twisted homology groups of @xmath209 as follows . [ lem : homology_torus ] suppose that @xmath9 is @xmath1 . if @xmath210 is central , then @xmath211 . if @xmath210 is non - central , then we have @xmath212 , \\ h_1(t^2 ; { \mathfrak{g}_\rho } ) & = { { \mathbb r}}[\ , p_{\rho } \otimes \tilde \mu\ , ] \oplus     { { \mathbb r}}[\ , p_{\rho } \otimes \tilde \lambda\,],\\ h_0(t^2 ; { \mathfrak{g}_\rho } ) & = { { \mathbb r}}[\,p_{\rho } \otimes \widetilde pt\,]\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath191 is a vector of @xmath11 such that @xmath213 for any @xmath214 . suppose that @xmath9 is @xmath2 . if @xmath210 is central , then @xmath215 . if @xmath210 is non - central and @xmath216 contains a non - parabolic element , then we have @xmath217,\\ h_1(t^2 ; { \mathfrak{g}_\rho } ) & = { { \mathbb c}}[\ , p_{\rho } \otimes \tilde \mu\ , ] \oplus     { { \mathbb c}}[\ , p_{\rho } \otimes \tilde \lambda \,],\\ h_0(t^2 ; { \mathfrak{g}_\rho } ) & = { { \mathbb c}}[\ , p_{\rho } \otimes \widetilde pt \ , ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath191 is a vector of @xmath11 such that @xmath213 for any @xmath214 . if @xmath210 is non - central and the subgroup @xmath216 is contained in a subgroup which consists of parabolic elements , then we have @xmath218\ ] ] and @xmath219 $ ] is a non - zero class in @xmath220 . this is a consequence of ( * ? ? ? * proposition 3.18 ) . next we give the definition of regular representations for @xmath221 in terms of the twisted @xmath70-chain complex . we say that @xmath67 is _ regular _ if @xmath67 is irreducible and @xmath222 . we let @xmath223 be a simple closed curve in @xmath224 . we say that @xmath67 is _ @xmath223-regular _ if :    * @xmath67 is regular ; * an inclusion @xmath225 induces the surjective homomorphism @xmath226 * if @xmath227 , then @xmath228 . we fix an invariant vector @xmath229 as above . let @xmath223 be a simple closed curve in @xmath224 . an inclusion @xmath230 and the the kronecker pairing between homology and cohomology induce the linear form @xmath231 . by lemma [ lemma : homology_circle ] , it is explicitly described by @xmath232 ) , v ) = ( p_{\rho } , v(\tilde \gamma))_{{\mathfrak{g } } }   \quad   \text{for any}\,\ ,   v \in h^1(m_k ; { \mathfrak{g}_\rho}).\ ] ] an alternative formulation of @xmath223-regular representations is given in @xcite . similarly , we can also give the following alternative formulation of the @xmath223-regularity in our conventions . [ check_gamma_regular ] a representation @xmath233 is @xmath223-regular if and only if the linear form @xmath234 is an isomorphism . if @xmath235 is an isomorphism , then we have that @xmath236 and @xmath237)$ ] is a non - zero class in @xmath220 . it follows from the kronecker pairing between the @xmath70-twisted homology and cohomology that @xmath238 is also one . hence @xmath239 is surjective . if @xmath67 is @xmath223-regular , then we have that @xmath240 and @xmath241 is surjective . we denote a generator of @xmath220 by @xmath242 . there exists an element @xmath243 $ ] of @xmath244 such that @xmath245)=\sigma$ ] . if @xmath246 is central , then @xmath247 satisfies that @xmath248 for any @xmath249 . therefore @xmath250)$ ] induces the isomorphism @xmath235 . suppose that @xmath246 is non - central , then @xmath244 is generated by @xmath251 $ ] . there exists an element @xmath252 such that @xmath243 = c [ p_{\rho } \otimes \tilde \gamma]$ ] . hence @xmath237)$ ] is a non - zero class in @xmath220 . therefore @xmath237)$ ] induces the isomorphism @xmath235 . we define a reference generator of @xmath220 by using the above isomorphism @xmath235 . let @xmath67 be a @xmath0-regular representation of @xmath221 . by lemma [ lem : homology_torus ] , the reference generator of @xmath220 is defined by @xmath253).\ ] ]    moreover the reference generator of @xmath254 is defined as follows . let @xmath255 be an inclusion map . if @xmath256 is @xmath223-regular , then we have the isomorphism @xmath257 .    using this isomorphism @xmath258 , we define the reference generator of @xmath254 by @xmath259).\ ] ]    the reference generators of @xmath260 and @xmath261 have been defined in @xcite by using another metric of @xmath11 . if we define reference generators of @xmath260 and @xmath261 by using our metric @xmath262 , then the resulting generators become the dual bases of @xmath263 and @xmath264 from the above propositions . ( for the details , see @xcite . ) we recall the definition of _ the twisted reidemeister torsion _ for knot exteriors . let @xmath265 be a @xmath0-regular representation . we define @xmath266 by the coefficient of the reidemeister torsion @xmath267 where we choose the reference generators @xmath268 as a basis of @xmath269 , i.e. , @xmath270 is given explicitly by @xmath271    given the reference generator of @xmath183 , the basis of the determinant line @xmath272 is also given . this means that a trivialization of the line bundle @xmath272 at @xmath67 is given . the reidemeister torsion @xmath267 is a section of the line bundle @xmath272 . we can regard @xmath273 as a section of the line bundle @xmath272 over @xmath0-regular representations with respect to the trivialization by @xmath274 . we also call @xmath270 _ the twisted reidemeister torsion_. our purpose is to express the twisted reidemeister torsion by using a limit of the acyclic reidemeister torsion . let @xmath175 be a knot in a homology three sphere @xmath176 and @xmath177 its exterior . one of the invariants which we will investigate is the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath275 . the other is the acyclic reidemeister torsion @xmath276 . this invariant coincides with the twisted alexander invariant of @xmath221 @xcite . the twisted alexander invariant is computed by using the fox calculus @xcite . we prove that the twisted reidemeister torsion may be expressed as the differential coefficient of the twisted alexander invariant of @xmath221 . the invariant @xmath276 is only defined when the local system @xmath277 is acyclic . on the other hand , the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath275 is defined on the set of @xmath0-regular representations of @xmath221 . we need to check whether the local system @xmath277 is acyclic for a @xmath0-regular representation @xmath67 . [ propositiona ] let @xmath67 be an @xmath1 or @xmath2-representation of a knot group . if @xmath67 is @xmath0-regular , then the twisted chain complex @xmath278 is acyclic .    note that for a knot exterior in a homology @xmath279-sphere , the homomorphism @xmath74 satisfies @xmath280 where @xmath281 is the meridian of the knot . therefore @xmath275 and @xmath276 are well defined on @xmath0-regular representations . by the definitions , the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath275 is an element of @xmath282 and the twisted alexander invariant @xmath276 is an element of @xmath283 . actually the following relation between @xmath284 and the rational function @xmath285 . [ thm : main_theorem ] if @xmath67 is a @xmath0-regular representation , then the acyclic reidemeister torsion @xmath286 for @xmath67 has a simple zero at @xmath287 . moreover the following holds : @xmath288    this says that we can compute the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath275 algebraically by using fox calculus of the twisted alexander invariant of @xmath175 . we prove proposition [ propositiona ] by using the @xmath0-regularity of @xmath67 . it is well known that any compact connected triangulated @xmath279-manifold whose boundary is non - empty and consists of tori can be collapsed into a @xmath3-dimensional sub - complex ( see ii . cor . 11.9 in @xcite ) . moreover , by the simple - homotopy extension theorem , every cw - complex has the simple - homotopy type of a cw - complex which has only one vertex . we denote this @xmath3-dimensional cw - complex by @xmath62 and this deformation from @xmath177 to @xmath62 by @xmath289 . since two @xmath79-twisted homology groups @xmath290 and @xmath291 are isomorphic , we prove that @xmath292 vanishes in the following . the fact that @xmath293 is proved in ( * ? ? ? * proposition 3.5 ) . since the euler characteristic of @xmath62 is zero , the dimension of @xmath294 is equal to that of @xmath295 . we must prove that the dimension of @xmath296 over @xmath297 is zero . it is enough to prove that the rank over @xmath298 $ ] of the second homology group of the following local system is zero : @xmath299 )     =     { \mathfrak{g}}[t , t^{-1 } ] \otimes_{\alpha \otimes ad \circ \rho } c_*(\tilde w;{{\mathbb z}})\ ] ] where @xmath300 $ ] is @xmath298 \otimes { \mathfrak{g}}$ ] . we denote the homology group of this chain complex by @xmath301)$ ] . suppose that the rank of @xmath302 ) > 0 $ ] . there exists the long exact homology sequence @xcite : @xmath303 )     \xrightarrow{(t-1)\cdot } h_2(w;{\mathfrak{g}_\rho}[t , t^{-1 } ] )    \xrightarrow{t=1 } h_2(w;{\mathfrak{g}_\rho } )    \xrightarrow{\delta } h_1(w;{\mathfrak{g}_\rho}[t , t^{-1 } ] )    \to \cdots\ ] ] associated to the short exact sequence : @xmath304      \xrightarrow{(t-1)\cdot } { \mathfrak{g}}[t , t^{-1 } ]     \xrightarrow{t=1 } { \mathfrak{g}}\to 0.\ ] ] since the rank of @xmath305)$ ] is not zero , the multiplication with @xmath306 is not surjective . hence the image of the evaluation map @xmath307 is not trivial and therefore surjective since the dimension of @xmath308 is only one . this implies that @xmath309 is trivial . on the other hand the equation @xmath310 implies that @xmath311 )   = [ 1\otimes p_{\rho } \otimes \widetilde{\varphi(\lambda)}]$ ] . but @xmath312 $ ] can not be trivial since it is mapped under the evaluation map @xmath307 to @xmath313 $ ] and the chain @xmath314 represents a non - zero homology class in @xmath315 . this is a contradiction . therefore the rank of @xmath316)$ ] over @xmath298 $ ] is zero . hence we have that @xmath317 . also @xmath318 is zero .      at first , we prepare some notations and an algebraic proposition . let @xmath33 is an @xmath16-dimensional chain complex which consists of left @xmath9-modules @xmath319 where @xmath9 is a group . we denote by @xmath320 the chain complex which consists of the vector spaces @xmath321 where @xmath15 is a right @xmath9-vector space over @xmath6 and @xmath67 is a homomorphism from @xmath9 to @xmath322 . let @xmath323 be the homology groups of @xmath320 , @xmath324 the subchain complex which consists of a lift of @xmath323 to @xmath320 and @xmath325 the quotient of @xmath320 by @xmath324 . we denote by @xmath326 and @xmath135 the bases of @xmath327 and @xmath325 . note that @xmath328 is a lift of @xmath329 to @xmath320 . if there exists a homomorphism @xmath74 from @xmath9 to the multiplicative group @xmath75 , we denote by @xmath330 which consists of vector spaces @xmath331 . here we denote @xmath332 by @xmath333 . moreover let @xmath334 be the subchain complex which is given by extending the coefficients of @xmath324 to @xmath297 by using @xmath74 and @xmath335 the quotient of @xmath330 by @xmath334 . [ prop : alg_preparation ] we assume that @xmath330 and @xmath334 are acyclic . the following relation holds : @xmath336 where @xmath136 is a lift of @xmath135 to @xmath320 , @xmath337 is @xmath338 in proposition [ m_property ] , and @xmath339 is given by @xmath340 . the chain complex @xmath335 is also acyclic from the long exact sequence of the pair @xmath341 . we can apply proposition [ m_property ] for the short exact sequence : @xmath342 then , we obtain the following equation of the torsions . @xmath343 note that @xmath344 because @xmath330 , @xmath334 and @xmath335 are acyclic . next we consider @xmath345 . it follows from the long exact sequence of the pair @xmath346 and the definition of @xmath324 that the chain complex @xmath325 is also acyclic . since @xmath325 is acyclic , we can choose a basis @xmath347 of @xmath348 for each @xmath26 . here @xmath348 is a lift of @xmath349 to @xmath350 . [ claim : on_lift_b ] a subset @xmath351 in @xmath352 generates a subspace on which the boundary operator @xmath30 is injective . _ proof of claim [ claim : on_lift_b ] . _ if the determinant of the boundary operator restricted on @xmath353 is zero , then substituting @xmath103 for the parameter @xmath354 we have that the determinant of the boundary operator restricted on @xmath355 is also zero . this is a contradiction to the choices of @xmath347 . ( claim [ claim : on_lift_b ] ) @xmath356    therefore @xmath357 is represented as @xmath358^{(-1)^{i+1}}.\ ] ] we denote by @xmath47 a lift @xmath351 to @xmath330 simply . note that @xmath359^{(-1)^{i+1 } } } & \\ & =    \prod_{i=0}^n    \left [      ( 1 \otimes c'^i ) \ , \partial_{i+1 } ( \tilde b^i ) \ , \tilde b^{i-1 }       /   1 \otimes c'^i \cup 1 \otimes \bar c''^i    \right]^{(-1)^{i+1}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we substitute these results into the equation ( [ eqn : result_m_property ] ) then we have @xmath360^{(-1)^{i+1 } } \nonumber\\ & =    \prod_{i=0}^n    ( -1)^{\dim_{{{\mathbb f } } } b''_i \cdot \dim_{{{\mathbb f}}}h_i(v ) }    \left [      \partial_{i+1 } ( \tilde b^i)\ , ( 1 \otimes c'^i ) \ , \tilde b^{i-1 }        / 1 \otimes c'^i \cup 1 \otimes \bar c''^i    \right]^{(-1)^{i+1}}. \label{eqn : ratio_torsion}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the acyclicity of @xmath325 shows that @xmath361 substituting @xmath103 for @xmath354 , the right hand side ( [ eqn : ratio_torsion ] ) turns into @xmath362^{(-1)^{i+1}}.\ ] ] this is equal to @xmath363 . although the left hand side is determined up to a factor @xmath364 , the limit at @xmath287 is determined because the factor @xmath128 does not affect taking a limit at @xmath287 .    we can prove theorem [ thm : main_theorem ] as an application of proposition [ prop : alg_preparation ] . as in the proof of proposition [ propositiona ] , let @xmath62 be a @xmath3-dimensional cw - complex with a single vertex which has the same simple - homotopy type as @xmath177 . we denote the deformation from @xmath177 to @xmath62 by @xmath289 . the compact @xmath279-manifold @xmath177 is simple homotopy equivalent to @xmath62 . it is enough to prove the theorem for @xmath62 because of the invariance of the simple homotopy equivalence for the reidemeister torsion . let @xmath67 be a @xmath0-regular representation of @xmath221 . we denote by the same symbols @xmath67 and @xmath106 the representation of @xmath64 and the homology orientation of @xmath108 induced from that of @xmath177 under the map @xmath289 . we define the subchain complex @xmath365 of the @xmath70-twisted chain complex @xmath77 by @xmath366 and @xmath367 where @xmath191 is an invariant vector of @xmath11 such that @xmath368 for any @xmath369 . the modules of this subchain complex are lifts of homology groups @xmath99 . by the definition , the boundary operators of @xmath365 are zero homomorphisms . let @xmath370 be the quotient of @xmath77 by @xmath365 . similarly , we define the subcomplex @xmath371 of @xmath78 to be @xmath372 and @xmath373 for @xmath374 . the boundary operators of @xmath371 is given by @xmath375 this shows that the subchain complex @xmath376 is acyclic . by proposition [ propositiona ] , the @xmath79-twisted chain complex @xmath277 is also acyclic . the twisted chain complex @xmath365 has the natural basis : @xmath377 let @xmath135 be a basis of @xmath370 and @xmath136 a lift of @xmath135 to @xmath77 . applying proposition [ prop : alg_preparation ] , we have @xmath378    [ claim : proof_main_thm ]    1 . 2 .   @xmath380 . 3 .   @xmath381 . _ proof of claim [ claim : proof_main_thm ] . _ @xmath382 it follows by the definition . @xmath383 if we denote the number of @xmath103-cells of @xmath62 by @xmath384 , the cw - complex @xmath62 has one @xmath185-cell , @xmath384 @xmath103-cells and @xmath385 @xmath3-cells . we have @xmath386 . @xmath387 this follows from @xmath388 and @xmath389 . ( claim [ claim : proof_main_thm])@xmath356    the equation ( [ eqn : alg_prop_w ] ) turns into @xmath390 multiplying the both sides by the alternative products of the determinants of the base - change matrices @xmath391^{(-1)^{i+1}},\ ] ] we obtain the following equation : @xmath392 finally multiplying the both sides by the sign @xmath112 gives @xmath393    summarizing the above calculation , we have shown that the rational function @xmath276 has a simple zero at @xmath287 and its differential coefficient at @xmath287 agrees with minus the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath394 . let @xmath175 be a knot in @xmath396 and @xmath397 its exterior . we assume that @xmath398 is @xmath0-regular . from theorem [ thm : main_theorem ] we can describe @xmath394 by using the differential coefficient of @xmath399 . we will describe the differential coefficient of @xmath399 more explicitly by using a wirtinger representation of @xmath400 .    for a wirtinger representation : @xmath401 we obtain a @xmath3-dimensional cw - complex @xmath62 which consists of one @xmath185-cell @xmath402 , @xmath384 @xmath103-cells @xmath403 and @xmath385 @xmath3-cells @xmath404 attached by the relation @xmath405 . this cw - complex @xmath62 is simple homotopy equivalent to @xmath397 . let @xmath406 such that @xmath280 . here @xmath281 is a meridian of @xmath175 . note that for all @xmath26 , @xmath407 is equal to @xmath354 in @xmath408 . the following calculation is due to the result of @xcite . this chain complex @xmath78 is as follows : @xmath409 where @xmath410 here we briefly denote the @xmath411-times direct sum of @xmath72 by @xmath412 . we denote by @xmath413 @xmath414 matrix : @xmath415 under this situation , the twisted alexander invariant @xmath126 is given by @xmath416 up to a factor @xmath417 . if @xmath418 is conjugate to the upper triangulate matrix @xmath419 then @xmath420 is conjugate to the upper triangulate matrix @xmath421 calculating @xmath422 , we have that @xmath423 since @xmath399 has zero at @xmath287 , @xmath424    if @xmath425 , then we have @xmath426    the function @xmath399 has a simple zero at @xmath287 and the numerator @xmath427 is an element of @xmath298 $ ] . hence @xmath428 divides @xmath427 . we write @xmath429 for @xmath427 . then the left hand side turns into @xmath430 , i.e. , @xmath431 . on the other hand , the right hand side becomes as follows . @xmath432_{t=1 } \\ & = \tau_0 f(1).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the numerator @xmath427 is called _ the first homology torsion _ of @xmath433 @xcite . we denote the first homology torsion by @xmath434 . by the above calculations , we obtain the following description of @xmath435 .    [ another_form_torsion ] if @xmath436 , then we have the following expression . @xmath437    if @xmath9 is @xmath1 and @xmath67 is @xmath0-regular , then @xmath438 . we use a wirtinger representation of @xmath400 to describe @xmath399 in the above calculation . the twisted alexander invariant @xmath399 does not depend on the representation of @xmath400 @xcite . since @xmath399 is determined by the finite presentable group @xmath400 and @xmath439 , we do not necessarily need to use a wirtinger representation on calculating @xmath399 . in this section , we deal with a @xmath3-bridge knot @xmath175 in @xmath396 and @xmath1-representations of its knot group . in this case @xmath440 is irreducible if and only if @xmath441 is a non - abelian subgroup of @xmath1 . we will show the explicit calculation of @xmath1-twisted reidemeister torsion associated to @xmath5 knot and study the critical points of the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath275 . if @xmath175 is hyperbolic and @xmath9 is @xmath2 , then some features of @xmath442 , given in this section , have appeared in ( * ? ? ? * section 4.3 ) . it is well known that @xmath400 has the representation : @xmath443 where @xmath444 is a word in @xmath445 and @xmath446 . here @xmath445 and @xmath446 represent the meridian of the knot . the method we use to describe the space of @xmath2 and @xmath1-representations is due to r. riley(@xcite ) . he shows how to parametrize conjugacy classes of irreducible @xmath2 and @xmath1-representations of any @xmath3-bridge knot group . we review his method ( @xcite ) .    given @xmath447 , we consider the assignment as follows : @xmath448 let @xmath62 be the matrix obtained by replacing @xmath445 and @xmath446 by the above two matrices in the word @xmath444 . this assignment defines a @xmath449-representation if and only if @xmath450 where @xmath451 . one can obtain an @xmath2-representation from this @xmath449-representation by dividing the above two matrices by some square root of @xmath452 . if we give a path @xmath453 in @xmath151 with @xmath454 and some continuous branch of the square root along @xmath455 , then we obtain a path of @xmath2-representations . furthermore , all conjugacy classes of non - abelian @xmath2-representations arise in this way .    according to proposition @xmath456 of riley s paper @xcite , a pair @xmath457 with @xmath450 corresponds to an @xmath1-representation if and only if @xmath458 , and @xmath459 is real number which lies in the interval @xmath460 = [ 2\cos \theta -2 , 0]$ ] where @xmath461 . this correspondence means that the @xmath2-representation resulting from such a pair @xmath457 and some square root of @xmath452 is conjugate to an @xmath1-representation in @xmath2 . we take the ordered basis @xmath462 of @xmath463 as follows . @xmath464 the lie algebra @xmath465 is a subspace of @xmath463 . the vectors @xmath462 also form a basis of @xmath465 . since the euler characteristic of @xmath397 is zero , the non - abelian reidemeister torsion @xmath466 does not depend on a choice of a basis of @xmath465 . we can use @xmath462 as an ordered basis of @xmath465 . we denote by @xmath467 the representation corresponding to the pair @xmath468 . the representation matrices of @xmath469 and @xmath470 for this ordered basis are given as follows . [ rep_matrix_adjoint ] @xmath471    note that even if we choose another square root of @xmath452 , we obtain the same representation matrices of the adjoint actions of @xmath472 and @xmath473 . we consider @xmath5 knot in the knot table of rolfsen @xcite . note that this knot is not fibered , since its alexander polynomial is not monic . this is the simplest example such as non - fibered in @xmath3-bridge knots . let @xmath175 be @xmath5 knot . a diagram of @xmath175 is shown as in figure [ diagram_5_2 ] .     knot . ]    this knot is also called @xmath279-twist knot . it follows from theorem @xmath279 of @xcite that @xmath474 consists of one circle and one open arc . the knot group @xmath475 has the following representation : @xmath476 where @xmath477 from this representation , the riley s polynomial of @xmath5 is given by @xmath478 we may take riley s polynomial @xmath479 as @xmath480 we want to know pairs @xmath457 such that @xmath481 , @xmath459 is a real number in the interval @xmath482 $ ] and @xmath450 . when we regard @xmath450 as the equation of @xmath459 , the relation between the number of solutions of @xmath450 and @xmath452 is as follows .    * if @xmath483 , then @xmath450 has three different simple root in @xmath484 $ ] . * if @xmath485 , then @xmath450 has a simple root and a multiple root in @xmath484 $ ] . * if @xmath486 , then @xmath450 has a simple root in @xmath484 $ ] . the figure of @xmath474 is given as in figure [ fig : su2_rep_5_2 ] .     where @xmath175 is @xmath5 knot . ]    we denote the @xmath1-representation corresponding to @xmath457 by @xmath487 . then we can express @xmath488 from proposition [ another_form_torsion ] as follows . @xmath489    using a computer , we calculate a half of the differential coefficient of the second order of the numerator and simplify with the equation @xmath450 . then we have @xmath490 therefore we have @xmath491 where @xmath492 satisfies @xmath493 .      from the example in the previous subsection , one can guess that the @xmath1-twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath395 associated to a @xmath3-bridge knot @xmath175 is a function for the parameter @xmath494 . indeed the following holds . [ prop : parameter_torsion ] let @xmath175 be a @xmath3-bridge knot and @xmath223 a simple closed curve in the boundary torus of @xmath397 . suppose that @xmath223-regular @xmath1-representations are parametrized by @xmath495 of riley s method . if the trace of the meridian , @xmath496 , gives a local parameter of the @xmath1-character variety , then the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath497 is a smooth function for @xmath498 . if we denote by @xmath487 a @xmath223-regular representation corresponding to @xmath499 , then there exists some homomorphism @xmath500 such that @xmath501 is a @xmath223-regular representation corresponding to @xmath502 . by the construction of @xmath503 , @xmath504 is equal to @xmath505 . since @xmath496 is a square root of @xmath506 and regular representations are irreducible , the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath507 is a smooth function for @xmath494 . [ cor : parameter_torsion ] if the trace of the meridian gives a local parameter of the @xmath1-character variety and the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath275 is defined , then @xmath275 is a smooth function for @xmath498 . [ rem : parameter_dihedral ] all representations @xmath67 of @xmath3-bridge knot groups into @xmath1 such that @xmath508 are binary dihedral representations . it follows from @xcite that there exists a neighbourhood of the character of each binary dihedral representation for any @xmath3-bridge knot , which is diffeomorphic to an open interval . from @xcite , the trace of the meridian gives a local parameter on a neighbourhood of the character of each dihedral representation for @xmath3-bridge knots . we can regard the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath270 as a smooth function on a neighbourhood of the character of each binary dihedral representation . moreover these characters can be critical points of @xmath270 as follows . [ critical_pt_torsion ] let @xmath175 be a @xmath3-bridge knot . if a @xmath0-regular component of the @xmath1-character variety of @xmath400 contains the characters of dihedral representations , then the function @xmath270 has a critical point at the character of each dihedral representation .    by corollary [ cor : parameter_torsion ] and remark [ rem : parameter_dihedral ] , the twisted reidemeister torsion @xmath270 is a smooth function for @xmath494 . when we substitute @xmath509 for @xmath452 , we can describe @xmath466 as @xmath510 where @xmath511 is a smooth function for @xmath512 . this is a description of @xmath270 with respect to the local coordinate @xmath513 of @xmath474 . the derivation of this function for @xmath513 becomes @xmath514 we recall that @xmath515 . if @xmath516 , then @xmath517 . hence the derivation of @xmath270 vanishes if @xmath67 satisfies @xmath518 .    from @xcite , for @xmath3-bridge knots , the character of a binary dihedral representation is a branch point of the two - fold branched cover from the @xmath1-character variety to the @xmath519-character variety . moreover , every algebraic component of the @xmath1-character variety contains the character of such a representation .    by ( * theorem 10 ) , for a knot @xmath175 , the number of conjugacy class of binary dihedral representations is given by @xmath520 where @xmath521 is the alexander polynomial of @xmath175 . in particular , for a @xmath3-bridge knot @xmath522 ( schubert s notation , see for example @xcite ) , this number is given by @xmath523 . the author would like to express sincere gratitude to mikio furuta for his suggestions and helpful discussions . he is thankful to hiroshi goda , takayuki morifuji , teruaki kitano for helpful suggestions . especially the author gratefully acknowledges the many helpful suggestions of hiroshi goda during the preparation of the paper . our main theorem was written as the statement for knots in @xmath396 at first . jrme dubois pointed out that our main theorem can hold for knots in homology three spheres . the author is thankful to jrme dubois for his pointing out . he also would like to thank the referee for his / her careful reading and appropriate advices . he / she has given suggestions to improve the proofs of proposition [ propositiona ] and proposition [ prop : parameter_torsion ] . he / she also suggested the fact that critical points of reidemeister torsion are related to the dihedral representations . 99 k. s. brown , , graduate texts in mathematics 87 springer - verlag , new york ( 1994 ) x+306 pp . g. burde , , math . ann . 288 ( 1990 ) 103119 . and h. zieschang , , de gruyter studies in mathematics 5 walter de gruyter ( 2003 ) xii+559 pp . j. dubois , , ann . inst . fourier ( grenoble ) 55 ( 2005 ) 16851734 . , , canad . math . bull . 49 ( 2006 ) 5571 . and r. kashaev , , to appear in math . , arxiv : math.gt/0510607 . m. heusener and e. klassen , , proc . ( 1997 ) 30393047 . p. kirk and e. klassen , , math . ( 1990 ) 343367 . p. kirk and c. livingston , , topology 38 ( 1999 ) 635661 . t. kitano , , pacific j. math . 174 ( 1996 ) 431442 . e. klassen , , trans . ( 1991 ) 795828 . j. milnor , , bull . 72 ( 1966 ) 358426 . , , conference on the topology of manifolds @xmath524michigan state univ . 1967@xmath525 prindle weber & schmidt boston , mass . ( 1968 ) 115133 . j. w. morgan and p. b. shalen , , ann . of math . ( 2 ) 120 ( 1984 ) 401476 . j. porti , , mem . amer . math . 128 ( 612 ) ( 1997 ) x+139 pp . r. riley , , quart . oxford ser . ( 2 ) 35 ( 1984 ) 191208 . d. rolfsen , , mathematics lecture series 7 publish or perish inc . houston , tx ( 1990 ) xiv+439 pp . e. h. spanier , , springer - verlag , new york - berlin ( 1981 ) xvi+528 pp . v. turaev , , lectures in mathematics eth zrich birkhuser verlag , basel ( 2001 ) viii+123 pp . , , progress in mathematics 208 birkhuser verlag , basel ( 2002 ) x+196 pp . m. wada , , topology 33 ( 1994 ) 241256 . y. yamaguchi , , arxiv : math.gt/0512277 .
Abstract:

Answer: we show a relationship between the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion and a zero of the acyclic reidemeister torsion for a @xmath0-regular @xmath1 or @xmath2-representation of a knot group . then we give a method to calculate the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion of a knot exterior . we calculate a new example and investigate the behavior of the non - acyclic reidemeister torsion associated to a @xmath3-bridge knot and @xmath1-representations of its knot group .


Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: we consider a graph where every edge can be sampled . when sampling an edge , the decision maker obtains a signal that is related to the value of the nodes defining the edge . the objective of the decision maker is to locate the node with the highest value . since there is no possibility to sample the value of the nodes directly , the decision maker has to infer which is the best node by considering the differences between the nodes .    as a motivation , consider the setup where a user interacts with a webpage . in the webpage , several links or ads can be presented , and the response of the user is to click one or none of them . essentially , in this setup we query the user to compare between the different alternatives . the response of the user is comparative : a preference of one alternative to the other will be reflected in a higher probability of choosing the alternative . it is much less likely to obtain direct feedback from a user , asking her to provide an evaluation of the worth of the selected alternative . in such a setup , not all pairs of alternatives can be directly compared or , even if so , there might be constraints on the number of times a pair of ads can be presented to a user . for example , in the context of ads it is reasonable to require that ads for similar items will not appear in the same page ( e.g. , two competing brands of luxury cars will not appear on the same page ) . in these contexts , a click on a particular link can not be seen as an absolute relevance judgement  ( e.g. , @xcite ) , but rather as a relative preference . moreover , feedback can be noisy and/or inconsistent , hence aggregating the choices into a coherent picture may be a non - trivial task . finally , in such contexts pairwise comparisons occur more frequently than multiple comparisons , and are also more natural from a cognitive point of view  ( e.g.,@xcite ) . we model this learning scenario as bandits on graphs where the information that is obtained is differential . we assume that there is an inherent and unknown value per node , and that the graph describes the allowed ( pairwise ) comparisons . that is , nodes @xmath1 and @xmath2 are connected by an edge if they can be compared by a single query . in this case , the query returns a random variable whose distribution depends , in general , on the values of @xmath1 and @xmath2 . for the sake of simplicity , we assume that the observation of the edge between nodes @xmath1 and @xmath2 is a random variable that depends only on the _ difference _ between the values of @xmath1 and @xmath2 . since this assumption is restrictive in terms of applicability of the algorithms , we also consider the more general setup where contextual information is observed before sampling the edges . this is intended to model a more practical setting where , say , a web system has preliminary access to a set of user profile features .    in this paper , our goal is to identify the node with the highest value , a problem that has been studied extensively in the machine learning literature ( e.g. , @xcite ) . more formally , our objective is to find an approximately optimal node ( i.e. , a node whose value is at most @xmath3 smaller than the highest value ) with a given failure probability @xmath4 as quickly as possible . when contextual information is added , the goal becomes to progressively fasten the time needed for identifying a good node for the given user at hand , as more and more users interact with the system . * related work . * there are two common objectives in stochastic bandit problems : minimizing the regret and identifying the `` best '' arm . while both objectives are of interest , regret minimization seems particularly difficult in our setup . in fact , a recent line of research related to our paper is the _ dueling bandits problem _ of yue et al . @xcite ( see also @xcite ) . in the dualing bandit setting , the learner has at its disposal a _ complete _ graph of comparisons between pairs of nodes , and each edge @xmath5 hosts an unknwon preference probability @xmath6 to be interpreted as the probability that node @xmath1 will be preferred over node @xmath2 . further consistency assumptions ( stochastic transitivity and stochastic triangle inequality ) are added . the complete graph assumption allows the authors to define a well - founded notion of regret , and analyze a regret minimization algorithm which is further enhanced in @xcite where the consistency assumptions are relaxed . although at first look our paper seems to deal with the same setup , we highlight here the main differences . first , the setups are different with respect to the topology handled . in @xcite the topology is always a complete graph which results in the possibility to directly compare between every two nodes . in our work ( as in real life ) the topology is _ not _ a complete graph , resulting in a framework where a comparison of two nodes requires sampling all the edges between the nodes . in the extreme case of a straight line we need to sample all the given edges in the graph in order to compare the two nodes that are farthest apart . second , the objective of minimizing the regret is natural for a complete graph where it amounts to comparing a choice of the best bandit repeatedly with the actual pairs chosen . in a topology other than the complete graph this notion is less clear since one has to restrict choices to edges that are available . finally , the algorithms in @xcite are geared towards the elimination of arms that are not optimal with high probability . in our setup one _ can not _ eliminate such nodes and edges because it is crucial in comparing candidates for optimal nodes . therefore , the resulting algorithms and analyses are quite different . on the other hand , constraining to a given set of allowed comparisons leads us to make less general statistical assumptions than @xcite , in that our algorithms are based on the ability to reconstruct the reward difference on adjacent nodes by observing their connecting edge .    from a different perspective , the setup we consider is reminiscent of online learning with partial monitoring @xcite . in the partial monitoring setup , one usually does not observe the reward directly , but rather a signal that is related ( probabilistically ) to the unobserved reward . however , as far we know , the alternatives ( called arms usually ) in the partial monitoring setup are separate and there is no additional structure : when sampling an arm a reward that is related to this arm alone is obtained but not observed . our work differs in imposing an additional structure , where the signal is derived from the structure of the problem where the signal is always relative to adjacent nodes . this means that comparing two nodes that are not adjacent requires sampling all the edges on a path between the two nodes . so that deciding which of two remote nodes has higher value requires a high degree of certainty regarding all the comparisons on the path between them . another research area which is somewhat related to this paper is learning to rank via comparisons ( a very partial list of references includes  @xcite ) . roughly speaking , in this problem we have a collection of training instances to be associated with a finite set of possible alternatives or classes ( the graph nodes in our setting ) . every training example is assigned a set of ( possibly noisy or inconsistent ) pairwise ( or groupwise ) preferences between the classes . the goal is to learn a function that maps a new training example to a total order ( or ranking ) of the classes . we emphasize that the goal in this paper is different in that we work in the bandit setup with a given structure for the comparisons and , in addition , we are just aiming at identifying the ( approximately ) best class , rather than ranking them all . * content of the paper . * the rest of the paper is organized as follows . we start from the formal model in section [ sec : model ] . we analyze the basic linear setup , where each node is comparable to at most two nodes in section  [ sec : linear - topology ] . we then move to the tree setup and analyze it in section [ s : tree ] . the general setup of a network is treated in section [ s : net ] . some experiments are then presented in section [ s : sims ] to elucidate the theoretical findings in previous sections . in section [ s : extensions ] we discuss the more general setting with contextual information . we close with some directions for future research . in this section we describe the classical multi - armed bandit ( mab ) setup , describe the graphical bandit ( gb ) setup , state / recall two concentration bounds for sequences of random variables , and review a few terms from graph theory .      the mab model @xcite is comprised of a set of _ arms _ @xmath7 . when sampling arm @xmath8 , a _ reward _ which is a random variable @xmath9 , is provided . let @xmath10 $ ] . the goal in the mab setup is to find the arm with the highest expected reward , denoted by @xmath11 , where we term this arm s reward the _ optimal reward_. an arm whose expected reward is strictly less than @xmath11 is called a _ non - best arm_. an arm @xmath1 is called an @xmath3-optimal arm if its expected reward is at most @xmath3 from the optimal reward , i.e. , @xmath12\ge r^{*}-\epsilon$ ] . in some cases , the goal in the mab setup is to find an @xmath3-optimal arm .    a typical algorithm for the mab problem does the following . at each time step @xmath13 it samples an arm @xmath14 and receives a reward @xmath15 . when making its selection , the algorithm may depend on the history ( i.e. , the actions and rewards ) up to time @xmath16 . eventually the algorithm must commit to a single arm and select it . next we define the desired properties of such an algorithm . ( pac - mab ) an algorithm is an @xmath17-probably approximately correct ( or @xmath17-pac ) algorithm for the mab problem with sample complexity @xmath18 , if it terminates and outputs an @xmath3-optimal arm with probability at least @xmath0 , and the number of times it samples arms before termination is bounded by @xmath18 .    in the case of standard mab problems there is no structure defined over the arms . in the next section we describe the setup of our work where such a structure exists . suppose that we have an undirected and connected graph @xmath19 with nodes @xmath20 and edges @xmath21 . the nodes are associated with reward values @xmath22 , respectively , that are unknown to us . we denote the node with highest value by @xmath23 and , as before , @xmath24 . define @xmath25 to be the difference between the node with the highest value and the node with the second highest value . we call @xmath26 the reward _ gap _ , and interpret it as a measure for how easy is to discriminate between the two best nodes in the network . as expected , the gap @xmath26 has a significant influence on the sample complexity bounds ( provided the accuracy parameter @xmath3 is not large ) . we say that nodes @xmath1 and @xmath2 are _ neighbors _ if there is an edge in @xmath21 connecting them ( and denote the edge random variable by @xmath27 ) . this edge value is a random variable whose distribution is determined by the nodes it is connecting , i.e. , @xmath5 s statistics are determined by @xmath28 and @xmath29 . in this work , we assume that as a directed edge from @xmath1 to @xmath2 . it is understood that @xmath30 . ] @xmath31= r_{j}-r_{i}$ ] . also , for the sake of concreteness , we assume the edge values are bounded in @xmath32 $ ] .    in this model , we can only sample the graph edges @xmath27 that provide independent realizations of the node differences . for instance , we may interpret @xmath33 if the feedback we receive says that item @xmath2 is preferred over item @xmath1 , @xmath34 if @xmath1 is preferred over @xmath2 , and @xmath35 if no feedback is received . then the reward difference @xmath36 becomes equal to the difference between the probability of preferring @xmath2 over @xmath1 and the probability of preferring @xmath1 over @xmath2 . let us denote the realizations of @xmath27 by @xmath37 where the subscript @xmath13 denotes time . our goal is to find an @xmath3-optimal node , i.e. , a node @xmath1 whose reward satisfies @xmath38 .    whereas neighboring nodes can be directly compared by sampling its connecting edge , if the nodes are far apart , a comparison between the two can only be done indirectly , by following a path connecting them . we denote a _ path _ between node @xmath1 and node @xmath2 by @xmath39 . observe that there can be several paths in @xmath40 connecting @xmath1 to @xmath2 . for a given path @xmath41 from @xmath1 to @xmath2 , we define the _ composed edge _ value @xmath42 by @xmath43 , with @xmath44 . by telescoping , the average value of a composed edge @xmath27 only depends on its endpoints , i.e. , @xmath45=\sum_{(k , l)\in\pi_{ij}}\mathbb{e}\left[e^{kl}\right ] = \sum_{(k , l)\in\pi_{ij}}\left(r_{l}-r_{k}\right ) = r_{j}-r_{i},\ ] ] independent of @xmath41 . similarly , define @xmath37 to be the time-@xmath13 realization of the composed edge random variable @xmath42 when we pull once all the edges along the path @xmath41 joining @xmath1 to @xmath2 . a schematic illustration of the the gb setup is presented in figure 1 . the algorithms we present in the next sections hinge on constructing reliable estimates of edge reward differences , and then combining them into a suitable node selection procedure . this procedure heavily depends on the graph topology . in a tree - like ( i.e. , acyclic ) structure no inconsistencies can arise due to the noise in the edge estimators . hence the node selection procedure just aims at identifying the node with the largest reward gap to a given reference node . on the other hand , if the graph has cycles , we have to rely on a more robust node elimination procedure , akin to the one investigated in @xcite ( see also the more recent @xcite ) . in this work we use hoeffding s maximal inequality ( e.g. , @xcite ) .    [ l : hoeff ] [ lem : hoeffding_maximal]let @xmath46 be independent random variables with zero mean satisfying @xmath47 w.p . 1 . let @xmath48 . then , @xmath49 as a warm - up , we start by considering the gb setup in the case of a linear graph , i.e. , @xmath50 . we call it the _ linear setup_. the algorithm for finding the highest node in the linear setup is presented in algorithm [ alg : algorithm - linear ] . the algorithm samples all the edges , computes for each edge its empirical mean , and based on these statistics finds the highest edge . algorithm [ alg : algorithm - linear ] will also serve as a subroutine for the tree - topology discussed in section [ s : tree ] . the following proposition gives the sample complexity of algorithm [ alg : algorithm - linear ] in the case when the edges are bounded . [ prop : linear_pac_bounded ] if @xmath51 holds , then algorithm [ alg : algorithm - linear ] operating on a linear graph with reward gap @xmath26 is an @xmath17-pac algorithm when the @xmath52 satisfy @xmath53 if @xmath54 then the sample complexity of each edge is @xmath55hence the sample complexity of the algorithm is @xmath56    let @xmath57 each @xmath58 has zero mean with @xmath59 . hence @xmath60 is a sequence of @xmath61 zero - mean and independent random variables . set for brevity @xmath62 , and suppose , without lost of generality , that some node @xmath2 has the highest value . the probability that algorithm [ alg : algorithm - linear ] fails , i.e. , returns a node whose value is @xmath3 below the optimal value is bounded by @xmath63 we can write @xmath64 where in the last inequality we used lemma [ lem : hoeffding_maximal ] . requiring this probability to be bounded by @xmath4 yields the claimed inequality . the sample sizes @xmath52 in proposition [ prop : linear_pac_bounded ] encode constraints on the number of times the edges @xmath65 can be sampled . notice that the statement therein implies @xmath66 for all @xmath1 , i.e. , we can not afford in a line graph to undersample any edge . this is because every edge in a line graph is a _ , hence a poor estimation of any such edge would affect the differential reward estimation throughout the graph . in this respect , this proposition only allows for a partial tradeoff among these numbers .    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *    as in the proof of proposition [ prop : linear_pac_bounded ] , suppose that @xmath67 for @xmath68 . the random variable @xmath69 is a gaussian random variable with mean @xmath70 and variance @xmath71 . now @xmath72 where in the third inequality we use [ lem : bernstein_like ] . going on similar lines as in proposition [ prop : linear_pac_bounded ] we get@xmath73 the result for the case @xmath74 and @xmath75 is straight forward .    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * in this section we investigate pac algorithms for finding the best node in a tree . let then @xmath19 be an @xmath76-node tree with diameter @xmath77 and a set of leaves @xmath78 . without loss of generality we can assume that the tree is rooted at node 1 and that all edges are directed downwards to the leaves . algorithm [ alg : algorithm - tree ] considers all possible paths from the root to the leaves and treats each one of them as a line graph to be processed as in algorithm [ alg : algorithm - linear ] . we have the following proposition where , for simplicity of presentation , we do no longer differentiate among the sample sizes @xmath79 associated with edges @xmath5 . [ prop : tree_pac_bounded ] if @xmath80 holds , then algorithm [ alg : algorithm - tree ] operating on a tree graph with reward gap @xmath26 is an @xmath17-pac algorithm when the sample complexity @xmath18 of each edge satisfies @xmath81hence the sample complexity of the algorithm is @xmath82    the probability that algorithm [ alg : algorithm - tree ] returns a node whose average reward is @xmath3 below the optimal one coincides with the probability that there exists a leaf @xmath83 such that algorithm [ alg : algorithm - linear ] operating on the linear graph @xmath84 singles out a node @xmath85 whose average reward is more than @xmath3 from the optimal one within @xmath84 . setting @xmath86 , with @xmath62 , ensures that the above happens with probability at most @xmath87 . hence each edge is sampled at most @xmath88 times and the claim follows by a standard union bound over @xmath89 . in this section we deal with the problem of finding the optimal reward in a general connected and undirected graph @xmath19 , being @xmath90 . we describe a node elimination algorithm that works in phases , sketch an efficient implementation and provide a sample complexity . the following ancillary definitions will be useful . we say that a node is a _ local maximum _ in a graph if all its neighboring nodes do not have higher expected reward than the node itself . the distance between node @xmath1 and node @xmath2 is the length of the shortest path between the two nodes . finally , the diameter @xmath91 of a graph @xmath40 is the largest distance between any pair of nodes . our suggested algorithm operates in @xmath92 phases . for notational simplicity , it will be convenient to use subscripts to denote the phase number . we begin with phase 1 , where the graph @xmath93 is the original graph , i.e. , at the beginning all nodes are participating , and @xmath94 we then find a subgraph of @xmath95 , which we call _ sampled graph _ denoted by @xmath96 , that includes all the edges involved in shortest paths between all nodes in @xmath97 . we sample each edge in subgraph @xmath96 for @xmath98-times , and compute the corresponding sample averages . based on these averages , we find the local maxima of @xmath96 . the key observation is that there can be at most @xmath99 maxima . denote this set of maxima by @xmath100 . now , define a subgraph , denoted by @xmath101 , whose nodes are @xmath100 . we repeat the process of getting a sampled graph , denoted by @xmath102 . we sample the edges of the sampled graph @xmath102 for @xmath103-times and define , based on its maxima , a new subgraph . denote the set of maxima by @xmath104 , and the process continues until only one node is left . we call this algorithm nne ( _ network node elimination _ ) , which is similar to the action elimination procedure of @xcite ( see also @xcite ) . the algorithm is summarized in algorithm [ alg : network ] . two points should be made regarding the nne algorithm . first , as will be observed below , the sequence @xmath105 of diameters is nonincreasing . second , from the implementation viewpoint , a data - structure maintaining all shortest paths between nodes is crucial , in order to efficiently eliminate nodes while tracking the shortest paths between the surviving nodes of the graph . in fact , this data structure might just be a collection of @xmath76 breadth - first spanning trees rooted at each node , that encode the shortest path between the root and any other node in the graph . when node @xmath1 gets eliminated , we first eliminate the spanning tree rooted at @xmath1 , but also prune all the other spanning trees where node @xmath1 occurs as a leaf . if @xmath1 is a ( non - root ) internal node of another tree , then @xmath1 should not be eliminated from this tree since @xmath1 certainly belongs to the shortest path between another pair of surviving nodes . note that connectivity is maintained through the process . the following result gives a pac bound for algorithm [ alg : network ] in the case when the @xmath106 are bounded . [ lem : network ] suppose that @xmath107 for every @xmath108 . then algorithm [ alg : network ] operating on a general graph @xmath40 with diameter @xmath77 and reward gap @xmath26 is an @xmath17-pac algorithm with edge sample complexity @xmath109    in each phase we have at most half the nodes of the previous phase , i.e. , @xmath110 . therefore , the algorithm stops after at most @xmath92 phases . also , because we retain shortest path between the surviving nodes , we also have @xmath111 . at each phase , similar to the previous sections , we make sure that it is at most @xmath112 the probability of identifying an @xmath113-optimal node . therefore , it suffices to pull the edges in each sampled graph @xmath114 for @xmath115 times . hence the overall sample complexity for an @xmath17-pac bound is at most @xmath116 , as claimed . the last inequality just follows from @xmath110 and @xmath117 for all @xmath1 . being more general , the bound contained in proposition [ lem : network ] is weaker than the ones in previous sections when specialized to line graphs or trees . in fact , one is left wondering whether it is always convenient to reduce the identification problem on a general graph @xmath40 to the identification problem on trees by , say , extracting a suitable spanning tree of @xmath40 and then invoking algorithm [ alg : algorithm - tree ] on it . the answer is actually negative , as the set of simulations reported in the next section show . in this section we briefly investigate the role of the graph topology in the sample complexity .    in our simple experiment we compare algorithm [ alg : algorithm - tree ] ( with two types of spanning trees ) to algorithm [ alg : network ] over the  spider web graph `` illustrated in figure [ fig : linear ] ( a ) . this graph is made up of 15 nodes arranged in 3 concentric circles ( 5 nodes each ) , where the circles are connected so as to resemble a spider web . node rewards are independently generated from the uniform distribution on [ 0,1 ] , edge rewards are just uniform in [ -1,+1 ] . the two mentioned spanning trees are the longest diameter spanning tree ( diameter 14 ) and the shortest diameter spanning tree ( diameter 5 ) . as we see from figure [ fig : linear ] ( b ) , the latter tends to outperform the former . however , both spanning tree - based algorithms are eventually outperformed by nne on this graph . this is because in later stages nne tends to handle smaller subgraphs , hence it needs only compare subsets of ' ' good nodes " .    [ cols="^,^,^ " , ] we now sketch an extension of our framework to the case when the algorithm receives contextual information in the form of feature vectors before sampling the edges . this is intended to model a more practical setting where , say , a web system has preliminary access to a set of user profile features . this extension is reminiscent of the so - called _ contextual bandit _ learning setting ( e.g. , @xcite ) , also called _ bandits with covariates _ ( e.g. , @xcite ) . in such a setting , it is reasonable to assume that different users @xmath118 have different preferences ( i.e. , different best nodes associated with ) , but also that similar users tend to have similar preferences . a simple learning model that accommodates the above ( and is also amenable to theoretical analysis ) is to assume each node @xmath1 of @xmath40 to host a linear function @xmath119 where , for simplicity , @xmath120 for all @xmath1 and @xmath121 . the optimal node @xmath122 corresponding to vector @xmath121 is @xmath123 . our goal is to identify , for the given @xmath121 at hand , an @xmath3-optimal node @xmath2 such that @xmath124 . again , we do not directly observe node rewards , but only the differential rewards provided by edges . when we operate on input @xmath121 and pull edge @xmath5 , we receive an independent observation of random variable @xmath125 such that @xmath126 = { \boldsymbol{u}}_j^{\top}{\boldsymbol{x}}- { \boldsymbol{u}}_i^{\top}{\boldsymbol{x}}$ ] . learning proceeds in a sequence of _ stages _ @xmath127 , each stage being in turn a sequence of time steps corresponding to the edge pulls taking place in that stage . in stage 1 the algorithm gets input @xmath128 , is allowed to pull ( several times ) the graph edges @xmath129 , and is required to output an @xmath3-optimal node for @xmath128 . let @xmath130 be the sample complexity of this stage . in stage 2 , we retain the information gathered in stage 1 , receive a new vector @xmath131 ( possibly close to @xmath128 ) and repeat the same kind of inference , with sample complexity @xmath132 . the game continues until @xmath133 stages have been completed .    for any given sequence @xmath128 , @xmath131 , @xmath134 , @xmath135 , one expects the cumulative sample size @xmath136 to grow _ less than linearly _ in @xmath133 . in other words , the additional effort the algorithm makes in the identification problem diminishes with time , as more and more users are interacting with the system , especially when these users are similar to each other , or even occur more than once in the sequence @xmath128 , @xmath131 , @xmath134 , @xmath135 . in fact , we can prove stronger results of the following kind . notice that the bound does not depend on the number @xmath133 of stages , but only on the dimension of the input space . , @xmath131 , @xmath134 , @xmath135 are close to each other . details are omitted due to lack of space . ]    under the above assumptions , if @xmath19 is a connected and undirected graph , with @xmath76 nodes and diameter @xmath77 , and @xmath128 , @xmath131 , @xmath134 , @xmath137 is any sequence of unit - norm feature vectors , then with probability at least @xmath0 a version of the nne algorithm exists which outputs at each stage @xmath138 an @xmath3-optimal node for @xmath118 , and achieves the following cumulative sample size @xmath139 where @xmath140    the algorithm achieving this bound combines linear - regression - like estimators with nne . in particular , every edge of @xmath40 maintains a linear estimator @xmath141 intended to approximate the difference @xmath142 over both stages and sampling times within each stage . at stage @xmath138 and sampling time @xmath13 within stage @xmath138 , the vector @xmath143 suitably stores all past feature vectors @xmath144 observed so far , along with the corresponding edge reward observations . by using tools from ridge regression in adversarial settings ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , one can show high - probability approximation results of the form @xmath145 being @xmath146 , and @xmath147 the matrix @xmath148 in stage @xmath138 , nne is able to output an @xmath3-optimal node for input @xmath118 as soon as the rhs of ( [ e : approx ] ) is as small as @xmath149 , for a suitable constant @xmath150 depending on the current graph topology nne is operating on . then the key observation is that in stage @xmath138 the number of times we sample an edge @xmath5 such that the above is false can not be larger than @xmath151 where @xmath152 is the determinant of the matrix at argument . this follows from standard inequalities of the form @xmath153 . this paper falls in the research thread of analyzing online decision problems where the information that is obtained is comparative between arms . we analyzed a simple setup where the structure of comparisons is provided by a given graph which , unlike previous works on this subject @xcite , lead us focus on the notion of finding an @xmath3-optimal arm with high probability . we then described an extension to the important contextual setup . there are several issues that call for further research that we outline below . first , we only addressed the exploratory bandit problem . it would be interesting to consider the regret minimization version of the problem . while naively one can think of it as a problem with an arm per edge of the graph , this may not be a very effective model because the number of arms may go as @xmath154 but the number of parameters grows like @xmath76 . on top of this , definining a meaningful notion of regret may not be trivial ( see the discussion in the introductory section ) . second , we only considered graphs as opposed to hypergraphs . considering comparisons of more than two nodes raises interesting modeling issues and well as computational issues . third , we assumed that all samples are equivalent in the sense that all the pairs we can compare have the same cost . this is not a realistic assumption in many applications . an approach akin to budgeted learning @xcite would be interesting here . fourth , we focused on upper bounds and constructive algorithms . obtaining lower bounds that depend on the network topology would be interesting . the upper bounds we have provided are certainly loose for the case of a general network . furthermore , more refined upper bounds are likely to exist which take into account the distance on the graph between the good nodes ( e.g. , between the best and the second best ones ) . in any event , the algorithms we developed for the network case are certainly not optimal . there is room for improvement by reusing information better and by adaptively selecting which portions of the network to focus on . this is especially interesting under smoothness assumptions on the expected rewards . relevant references in the mab setting to start off with include @xcite . e. even - dar , s. mannor , y. mansour ( 2006 ) . action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi - armed bandit and reinforcement learning problems . _ journal of machine learning research _ ( jmlr ) , * 7 * : 10791105 , mit press          t. joachims , f. radlinski ( 2005 ) . query chains : learning to rank from implicit feedback . _ proceedings of the eleventh acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery in data mining _ ( acm kdd ) , pp .
Abstract:

Answer: we consider a bandit problem over a graph where the rewards are not directly observed . instead , the decision maker can compare two nodes and receive ( stochastic ) information pertaining to the difference in their value . the graph structure describes the set of possible comparisons . consequently , comparing between two nodes that are relatively far requires estimating the difference between every pair of nodes on the path between them . we analyze this problem from the perspective of sample complexity : how many queries are needed to find an approximately optimal node with probability more than @xmath0 in the pac setup ? we show that the topology of the graph plays a crucial in defining the sample complexity : graphs with a low diameter have a much better sample complexity .