A Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface Using Motor Imagery and SSVEP Based on Convolutional Neural Network

Abstract: The key to electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) lies in neural decoding, and its accuracy can be improved by using hybrid BCI paradigms, that is, fusing multiple paradigms. However, hybrid BCIs usually require separate processing processes for EEG signals in each paradigm, which greatly reduces the efficiency of EEG feature extraction and the generalizability of the model. Here, we propose a two-stream convolutional neural network (TSCNN) based hybrid brain-computer interface. It combines steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) and motor imagery (MI) paradigms. TSCNN automatically learns to extract EEG features in the two paradigms in the training process, and improves the decoding accuracy by 25.4% compared with the MI mode, and 2.6% compared with SSVEP mode in the test data. Moreover, the versatility of TSCNN is verified as it provides considerable performance in both single-mode (70.2% for MI, 93.0% for SSVEP) and hybrid-mode scenarios (95.6% for MI-SSVEP hybrid). Our work will facilitate the real-world applications of EEG-based BCI systems.

\section{Introduction}

\IEEEPARstart{B}{rain-computer} interface (BCI) decodes the brain signals (\eg EEG, fMRI, fNIRS) for establishing direct communication between the human brain and computer (or more generally, between brain and machine) to replace traditional brain signal output pathways, such as peripheral nerve and muscle tissues. In particular, EEG-based BCI is to detect EEG features related to mental states or intentions and translates these features into specific commands. A number of existing works have focused on improving EEG decoding performance in terms of accuracy~\cite{yin2022partial}, robustness~\cite{robust}, efficiency~\cite{efficiency}, and cross-subject reliability~\cite{subj}.

Typical EEG-based BCI paradigms include the motor imagery (MI)~\cite{mi1, mi2, yin2022partial}, P300~\cite{p3001, p3002}, and steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)~\cite{ssvep1, ssvep2, yin2022partial}.
During motor imagery, such as imagining limb movements without actual limb movements, the motor cortex is activated, producing neural patterns similar to those produced during actual motor execution~\cite{mi_mec1, mi_mec2}. These neural patterns can be captured with EEG recordings.
Traditional human-computer interaction methods, such as using a keyboard to interact with a computer, require the user to perform actual operations to control.
MI-based BCI provides a new mode of human-computer interaction for virtual reality and the manipulation of external devices without actual action execution. MI-based BCI also can control rehabilitation equipment such as wheelchairs and prosthetic devices for people with motor disabilities~\cite{mi_wheel, mi_prosthetic}.
SSVEP signals are the entrained neural response to visual stimuli at specific frequencies, which can be used for neural decoding.
As a widely-used BCI paradigm, SSVEP has the advantages of fast recognition speed, high accuracy, and extendable classes of commands for external device control and text spelling~\cite{ssvep_spell}.
However, almost all of these BCI paradigms have their own limitations. MI-based BCI suffers from its unsatisfactory decoding accuracy and few recognizable command classes. SSVEP-based BCI requires the subjects to stare at the monitor for a long time, and the flickering stimuli easily cause visual fatigue~\cite{bci_vr}. Therefore, a more reliable, efficient and comfortable BCI paradigm is urgently needed.

\begin{figure*}[!t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/mode.png}
    \caption{Three modes of BCI system. (left) MI mode, in which the subject imagines the left- or right-hand movement. (middle) SSVEP mode, in which the subject stares at the left or right flickering stimulus. (right) Hybrid mode, in which the subject stares at the left or right flickering stimulus while imagining the corresponding hand movement.}
    \label{mode}
\end{figure*}

Recently, fusing multiple BCI paradigms (\eg MI and SSVEP) and fusing multimodal neural signals have been proposed, called \textit{hybrid BCI}.
Some studies have recently reported using hybrid BCI can improve BCI performance, achieving better efficiency and accuracy compared to single mode BCI~\cite{yin2022partial, eeg-fnir, eeg-fmri}.
Moreover, inter-subject reliability is a major consideration in BCI real-world applications. The subjects not suitable for a certain BCI paradigm may fit well in other paradigms. For instance, Allison et al. \cite{Allison_2010} has reported that some subjects who fail to produce recognizable brain activity patterns in the MI-based BCI paradigm can perform well in SSVEP-based BCI, and vice versa.
Subjects even if unable to produce recognizable neural patterns in any single mode (either MI or SSVEP) may have recognizable neural patterns in hybrid mode.

Inspired by the recent advances in deep learning and their universality in computer vision and natural language processing, deep learning models have attracted more and more attention in neural signal processing and neural decoding~\cite{yu2022embedding, qu2022transfer}.
Deep learning to extract EEG features can naturally learn to combine and utilize complex information in SSVEP and MI modes, providing a general framework for multi-paradigm BCI.
Traditional neural decoding methods in BCI systems, such as canonical correlation analysis (CCA), common spatial patterns (CSP), and filter bank CSP (FBCSP), need to design different algorithms to process EEG signals in specific paradigms, and most traditional methods rely on prior information and are susceptible to noise interference.
In contrast, deep learning-based neural decoding can effectively extract EEG features in the time domain and frequency domain without the necessity of prior knowledge of EEG feature engineering.
More importantly, deep learning can utilize distributed and hierarchical features through multiple layers of nonlinear information processing, resulting in higher performance than traditional methods.
For instance, Kwon et al.\cite{subj} has proposed a subject-independent convolutional neural network (CNN) framework for an MI-based BCI system, achieving much higher accuracy compared to traditional methods.
Schirrmeister et al.\cite{Sch} has implemented a range of CNN architectures for decoding MI from raw EEG signals and visualized the extracted EEG features to study the latent information learned by CNNs and how feature representations facilitate neural decoding.

\begin{figure*}[!t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/flow.png}
    \caption{The TSCNN framework: \textbf{A}. EEG recording and preprocessing: the recorded EEG is filtered by $8\sim 30 Hz$ bandpass filter, and then segmented into 4s length.  \textbf{B}. Channel selection: select the specific channels of MI and SSVEP. \textbf{C}. Classification: classify the input EEG segments with TSCNN.}
    \label{flow}
\end{figure*}

In this study, we propose a hybrid BCI system based on MI and SSVEP, and a two-stream convolutional neural network (TSCNN) which is used to decode EEG. As shown in Fig. \ref{mode}, TSCNN can be used in three modes (\ie MI, SSVEP, and hybrid). The main contributions of this study can be summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
    \item TSCNN can automatically learn to extract the EEG features in the two BCI paradigms during the training process, avoiding the limitation of the traditional methods to design specific algorithms to extract features in different paradigms.

    \item We present a novel training strategy that enables TSCNN to achieve high decoding accuracy in hybrid mode while maximally reserving performance in MI mode and SSVEP mode.
    \item Through the training strategy and the two-stream architecture, TSCNN is more versatile as it provides considerable performance in both single-mode and hybrid-mode scenarios.
\end{itemize}

\section{Materials and Methods}

\subsection{Dataset Description}
The EEG dataset used in our study was collected by the Department of Brain and Cognitive Engineering at Korea University. It includes data from 54 subjects performing a binary-class MI task and a four-class SSVEP task. The dataset consists of two sessions, each of which includes an offline training phase and an online testing phase. For this study, we use the training phase of session$_1$.
The EEG signals were recorded at a sampling rate of 1,000 Hz using 62 Ag/AgCl electrodes and a BrainAmp amplifier (Brain Products; Munich, Germany).

In the MI task, a trial starts with a black fixation cross displayed in the center of the screen, which lasts for 3 seconds, followed by a left or right arrow as a visual cue, lasting for 4 seconds during which the subject imagine a grasping movement with the corresponding hand. In the end of each trial, the screen remains blank for 6s ($\pm$1.5s). The MI paradigm consists of 100 trials, including 50 left MI trials and 50 right MI trials. In the SSVEP task, four target SSVEP stimuli flickering at 5.45Hz, 6.67Hz, 8.57Hz, and 12Hz are presented at four locations (down, right, left, and up, respectively) on the monitor. Participants are instructed to fixate at the center of the black screen and then gaze in the direction where the target stimulus is highlighted in different colors. In each trial, SSVEP stimulus is presented for 4s followed by a 2s rest. The SSVEP paradigm consists of 100 trials, including 25 trials of each frequency.

The preprocessing and channel selection of EEG data are shown in Fig. \ref{flow}. In this study, we aim to combine MI and SSVEP to achieve left-right binary classification, so the frequencies representing left-right classes ($6.67\mathrm{Hz}$ and $8.57\mathrm{Hz}$) in the SSVEP task are used. In addition, 20 electrodes in the motor cortex region (FC-5/3/1/2/4/6, C-5/3/1/z/2/4/6, and CP-5/3/1/z/2/4/6) and 10 electrodes in the occipital region (P-7/3/z/4/8, PO-9/10, and O-1/z/2) are selected for MI and SSVEP tasks, respectively.
The MI signals are band-pass filtered between $8 \sim 30$ Hz with a 5th-order Butterworth digital filter. Both MI and SSVEP signals are segmented from $0 \sim 4,000$ms.

\subsection{Model Architecture}
TSCNN consists of three main blocks: the MI block, SSVEP block, and Fusion block. Fig. \ref{flow}C illustrates the TSCNN architecture in this study. The MI block and the SSVEP block share a similar architecture adopted from the single-stream CNN (SCNN)~\cite{ssvep1}.

The MI block and the SSVEP block have two main layers: a spatial convolutional layer and a temporal convolutional layer.
EEG channels are selected for MI and SSVEP tasks specifically, and these channels are input into the corresponding blocks, as shown in Fig.~\ref{flow}B.
The input dimension is $N_{ch}\times N_{t}$, where $N_{ch}$ is the number of channels and $N_{t}$ is the number of time components.
The spatial convolutional layer that performs 1D convolutions across the channel dimension with the kernel dimension of $20 \times 1$ and $10 \times 1$ corresponding to MI and SSVEP.
The temporal convolutional layer operates on the spectral representation of the input with a kernel dimension of $1\times 10$.
After the spatial and temporal convolution, the feature map dimension of MI and SSVEP blocks are both $1\times (N_{t}-10+1)$.
Then the feature maps of MI and SSVEP blocks are concatenated in the fusion block.
Afterward, the concatenated feature maps are connected to a fully connected layer for classification, followed by batch normalization and dropout. Specifically, batch normalization is used to accelerate training and improve the generation performance by reducing the internal covariance shift in the input, turning it into a standard normal distribution $\sim N(0, 1)$\cite{bn}. Dropout is used to avoid overfitting and improve generalizability~\cite{drop1, drop2, dropout}.
Finally, the decision of TSCNN is made by a sigmoid function.

\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Decoding performance (mean±std) of three models}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6mm}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
Model & Paradigm & Accuracy & Sensitivity & Specificity & MSE\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SCNN} & $MI$ & 0.704 $\pm$ 0.008 & 0.703 $\pm$ 0.020 & 0.706 $\pm$ 0.023 & 0.575 $\pm$ 0.003\\
& $SSVEP$ & 0.937 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.931 $\pm$ 0.010 & 0.944 $\pm$ 0.009 & 0.119 $\pm$ 0.00\\
\hline
 & $MI$ & 0.678 $\pm$ 0.017 & 0.764 $\pm$ 0.078 & 0.591 $\pm$ 0.099 & 0.609 $\pm$ 0.019\\
TSCNN$_1$ & $SSVEP$ & 0.934 $\pm$ 0.004 & 0.937 $\pm$ 0.018 & 0.931 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.126 $\pm$ 0.004\\
 & $Hybrid$ & 0.956 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.961 $\pm$ 0.011 & \textbf{0.952 $\pm$ 0.018} & \textbf{0.100 $\pm$ 0.005}\\
 \hline
 & $MI$ & 0.702 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.709 $\pm$ 0.028 & 0.695 $\pm$ 0.024 & 0.583 $\pm$ 0.006\\
TSCNN$_2$ & $SSVEP$ & 0.930 $\pm$ 0.006 & 0.943 $\pm$ 0.013 & 0.916 $\pm$ 0.020 & 0.134 $\pm$ 0.005\\
 & $Hybrid$ & \textbf{0.956 $\pm$ 0.006} & \textbf{0.964 $\pm$ 0.007} & 0.948 $\pm$ 0.013 & 0.110 $\pm$ 0.004\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{met}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Feature Representation in TSCNN}
We denote $\textbf{X}=\{ \textbf{\textit{x}}_i\}_{i=1}^n \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{ch}\times N_{t}}$ as a set of preprocessed single trial EEG, and let $\textbf{Y}=\{ \textbf{y}_i\}_{i=1}^n$ be the matching class labels, where n is the number of trials, $\textbf{x}_i$ is the single-trial EEG, and $\textbf{\textit{y}}_i$ is the class label of the single trial.
The selected MI channels and SSVEP channels from 64-channel EEGs of a subject $\textbf{X}$ are selected (Fig. \ref{flow}B), denoted as $\textbf{X}_M$ and $\textbf{X}_S$, respectively. We denote $\textbf{X}_M$ and $\textbf{X}_S$ as the inputs of the MI block and SSVEP block, respectively.
Given inputs $\textbf{X}_M$ and $\textbf{X}_S$, the output of TSCNN is denoted as $\textbf{Y}=f_{T}(\textbf{X}_M, \textbf{X}_S)$, where $f_{T}$ refers to the TSCNN network.

\subsection{Division of Data}
Data from forty subjects are used to train the TSCNN model. We propose two training strategies: using only the hybrid-mode EEG (TSCNN$_1$), and using both the single-mode EEG and hybrid-mode EEG (TSCNN$_2$).

The first strategy is to train the model using only hybrid-mode EEG. We denote the TSCNN trained in this strategy as TSCNN$_1$. The inputs are presented as:
$$
\textbf{X}_M=
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{\textit{x}}_{M1} & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{M2} &\cdots & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{Mn}
\end{bmatrix}
^T
$$
$$
\textbf{X}_S=
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{\textit{x}}_{S1} & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{S2} & \cdots & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{Sn}
\end{bmatrix}
^T
$$
A total number of 2000 samples (40 subjects $\times$ 50 trials) for each paradigm are utilized as inputs for TSCNN$_1$. 10-fold cross-validation is performed in the training session.

The second strategy uses a combination of the single-mode and hybrid-mode EEG data to train the model. We denote the TSCNN trained in this strategy as TSCNN$_2$. The inputs are presented as:
$$
\textbf{X}_M=
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{\textit{x}}_{M1} & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{M2} & \cdots & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{Mn} & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{Mn+1} & \cdots & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{M2n}
\end{bmatrix}
^T
$$
$$
\textbf{X}_S=
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{\textit{x}}_{S1} & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{S2} & \cdots & \textbf{\textit{x}}_{Sn} & \textbf{0} & \cdots & \textbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}
^T
$$
A total number of 4000 samples (40 subjects $\times$ 100 trials) for each paradigm are utilized as inputs for the TSCNN$_2$. 10-fold cross-validation is performed.

\subsection{Training Parameters}
The weights of the TSCNNs are initialized with a Gaussian distribution $\sim N(0, 0.01)$. The network is trained using backpropagation to minimize the binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss function:
\begin{equation*}
   BCE(y, \hat{y}) = -(y\log (\hat{y})+(1-y)\log(1-\hat{y})),
\end{equation*}
where $y$ denotes the true label and $\hat{y}$ denotes the predicted label.
All models are trained using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.00025~\cite{adam1}.
The dropout rate and the batch size are set to 50\% and 64, respectively. All the experiments are conducted on a laptop with AMD-Ryzen 7-5800H 3.20-GHz and 16-GB memory.

\subsection{Evaluation}
EEG data from the rest 14 subjects are used as the test dataset.
The performance of TSCNN is quantified with the decoding accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and mean square error (MSE).
A modified SCNN is used as a competing model, whose great performance in single-paradigm classification has been previously reported ~\cite{ssvep1}.

\section{Results}
\subsection{Decoding performance}
Table \ref{met} shows the decoding performance of SCNN, TSCNN$_1$, and TSCNN$_2$.
Obviously, TSCNN$_2$ achieves the best decoding accuracy in the hybrid mode and maintains satisfactory performance in the single mode of MI and SSVEP.
Specifically, the averaged decoding accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and MSE from TSCNN$_2$ are $70.2\% (\pm 0.7)$, $70.9\% (\pm 2.8)$, $69.5\% (\pm 2.4)$ and $0.583 (\pm 0.006)$ in MI mode, $93.0\% (\pm 0.6)$, $94.3\% (\pm 1.3)$, $91.6\% (\pm 2.0)$ and $0.134 (\pm 0.005)$ in SSVEP mode, and $95.6\% (\pm 0.6)$, $96.4\% (\pm 0.7)$, $94.8\% (\pm 1.3)$ and $0.11 (\pm 0.004)$ in hybrid mode.

\begin{figure*}[!t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/drop.png}
    \caption{Impact of TSCNN architecture design choices on decoding accuracy in MI mode (left), SSVEP mode (middle), and hybrid mode (right) with different dropout rates. The horizontal axis is the different dropout rates, and the vertical axis is the decoding accuracy. }
    \label{dropout}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[!t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/act.png}
    \caption{Impact of TSCNN architecture design choices on decoding accuracy in MI mode (left), SSVEP mode (middle), and hybrid mode (right) with different activations. The horizontal axis is the different dropout rates, and the vertical axis is the decoding accuracy.}
    \label{act}
\end{figure*}

Table \ref{fc} shows the performance changes of TSCNN$_2$ in three modes according to the dimension of the fully-connected layer. For MI mode, the decoding accuracies with the change of dimension of the fully-connected layer are $65.1\%$ and $70.4\%$ for no fully connected layer and 16-dimension fully connected layer. For SSVEP mode, they are $93.6\%$ and $93.7\%$ respectively. For hybrid mode, they have the same performance on decoding accuracy, which is $95.6\%$. The model with 16-dimension fully-connected layer performed better overall.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Decoding accuracy of TSCNN$_2$ according to the fully connected number}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Mode & $MI$ & $SSVEP$ & $Hybrid$ \\
\hline
without fully-connected layer & 0.651 & 0.936 & 0.956\\
\hline
16-dimension fully-connected layer & \textbf{0.704} & \textbf{0.937} & \textbf{0.956} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{fc}
\end{table}

Table \ref{fm} illustrates the performance changes of TSCNN$_2$ under three modes according to the number of convolution kernels.
In order to study the effect of the number of convolution kernels, the performance of the TSCNN under different numbers of convolution kernels was tested.
Convolution kernels of $(i, j)$ represent that the spatial convolutional layer and temporal convolutional layer in MI and SSVEP block have $i$ and $j$ convolutional kernels, respectively.
The MI block and SSVEP block have the same structure, and the different numbers of kernels for spatial and temporal convolution are compared to evaluate the performance.
The decoding accuracies for MI mode are $70.4\%$, $66.3\%$, $66.2\%$, $64.6\%$ when the kernel number is (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 2), (8, 8) respectively.
For SSVEP mode, the decoding accuracies are $93.7\% $, $93.5\% $, $93.3\%$, $93.0\%$ when the kernel number is (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 2), (8, 8) respectively.
For hybrid mode, the decoding accuracies are $95.6\% $, $95.7\% $, $95.4\%$, $94.7\%$ when the kernel number is (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 2), (8, 8) respectively. The model with kernel number (1, 1) had the best performance overall.

\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\caption{Decoding accuracy of TSCNN$_2$ according to the number of convolution kernels}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Convolution kernels & (1, 1) & (1, 2) & (2, 2) & (8, 8)\\
\hline
$MI$ & \textbf{0.704} & 0.663 & 0.662 & 0.646\\
\hline
$SSVEP$ & \textbf{0.937} &	0.935 &	0.933 &	0.930\\
\hline
$Hybrid$ & 0.956 & \textbf{0.957} & 0.954 & 0.947\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{fm}
\end{table}

Fig. \ref{dropout} shows the decoding accuracy of TSCNN$_1$ in three modes with 0\%, 25\%, and 50\% dropout rate respectively. From the results, the 50\% dropout rate has a significant improvement in decoding accuracy for the MI mode, while there is no obvious difference in decoding accuracies between different dropout rates in SSVEP and MI modes.

The decoding accuracy of TSCNN$_1$ using different non-linear activation functions are compared. Fig. \ref{act} shows the decoding accuracies of TSCNN$_1$ in the three modes with ReLU~\cite{relu}, ELU\cite{elu}, Softplus\cite{relu}, and LeakyReLU\cite{leakyrelu} activation functions. There is no significant difference in the performance of different activation functions in the three modes.

Fig. \ref{tsne} visualized the features at different layers of TSCNN$_2$ in hybrid mode by t-SNE. Fig. \ref{tsne} (a)-(c) are visualization results in the MI block, Fig. \ref{tsne} (d)-(f) are visualization results in the SSVEP block, and Fig. \ref{tsne} (g) is the visualization result in the fusion block. To achieve this, the data of subject 20$\sim$40 is input into pre-trained TSCNN$_2$, and the features were extracted at each layer. Each point in the figure represents a single trial, and the color represents its category (blue represents left and red represents right). The results show that the MI block features are less distinct than the SSVEP block. The features are the most obvious and can be distinguished well after the fusion.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/tsne.png}
    \caption{Visualization of features for subjects 20-30 in 2 dimensions using t-SNE$--$TSCNN$_2$. (a)-(c) are the visualization results in MI block. (a) MI input features. (b) Features of spatial convolutional layer in MI block. (c) Features of the temporal convolutional layer in MI block. (d)-(e) are the visualization results in SSVEP block. (d) SSVEP input features. (e) Features of the spatial convolutional layer in SSVEP block.  (f) Features of the temporal convolutional layer in SSVEP block.  (g) is the visualization result of fully-connected layer.}
    \label{tsne}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Statistical Analysis}
We performed a paired sample t-test on the experimental results, and the null hypothesis in this study is that the two samples have the same mean values. We computed the statistical significance tests for TSCNN$_1$ and TSCNN$_2$ in each mode. In MI mode, the results showed a significant difference ($p=2.94\times10^{-4}$), while in SSVEP mode and hybrid mode, the results did not perform a significant difference ($p=0.048$ and $p=0.561$, respectively). This shows that TSCNN$_2$ retains most of the performance on SSVEP and Hybrid mode while significantly improving the decoding accuracy on MI. In addition, we also calculated the significant difference between TSCNN$_2$ and SCNN. Neither of them showed significant differences in MI nor SSVEP ($p=0.598$ and $p=0.008$, respectively). This proves that the decoding performance of TSCNN$_2$ in MI mode and SSVEP mode is similar to that of SCNN, which illustrates that TSCNN can maintain most of the performance in MI and SSVEP modes while having high decoding accuracy in hybrid mode.

For parameter choice, we also calculated the statistical significance of different dropout rates and activations.
Different dropout rates did not show significant differences in SSVEP and hybrid modes. There were significant differences between dropout of 50\% and 25\% ($p=0.004$) and dropout rate of 50\% and 0\% ($p=0.001$) in MI mode.
Therefore, dropout rate of 50\% is adopted in TSCNN$_2$.
The choice of activation is also critical to the performance of the model~\cite{act2, act1}.
Different from dropout rate, none of the four different activations (ReLU, ELU, Softplus, LeakyReLU) show significant differences in the three modes ($p>0.2$).

\subsection{Interpretation of Connection Weights}
The results clearly indicate that TSCNN$_2$ has better performance than TSCNN$_1$ in MI mode.
We hypothesize that the features of SSVEP are more obvious and cover up some MI features, resulting in a more prominent representation of SSVEP after fusion of two modes in TSCNN$_1$.
When trained with MI mode, the layers in the SSVEP block will not be activated, so the model will only fine-tune the kernel weights based on the results of the MI, thereby improving the representation of MI.

To verify our hypothesis, we need to compare the differences between the representations of MI and SSVEP in TSCNN$_1$ and TSCNN$_2$.
The concatenation layer connected to the fully connected layer has two feature maps, one of which is the output of the MI block and the other is the output of the SSVEP block.
We extracted the weights of the fully connected layer learned by TSCNN$_1$ and TSCNN$_2$, and use the weights from each feature map to the fully connected layer to quantify the corresponding representation. We set some thresholds and counted the number of connection weights that are higher than the specified threshold.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{The number of weights that are greater than the threshold}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Model & Threshold & 0.0025 & 0.005 & 0.0075 & 0.01 & 0.0125\\
\hline
& $N_M$ & 29713 & 9699 & 2374 & 407 & 64\\
TSCNN$_1$ & $N_S$ & 30870 & 10674 & 2747 & 569 & 96\\
& $Ratio$ & 0.963 & 0.909 & 0.864 & 0.715 & 0.667\\
\hline
& $N_M$ & 30121 & 10219 & 2665 & 534 & 82\\
TSCNN$_2$ & $N_S$ & 30510 & 10089 & 2375 & 386 & 57\\
& $Ratio$ & 0.987 & 1.013 & 1.122 & 1.383 & 1.439\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{thr}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figures/conn.png}
    \caption{The ratio according to different thresholds. The thresholds are the weights of connections that are relatively high. The vertical axis is the ratio of the number of connections exceeding the threshold in TSCNN$_1$ to the number in TSCNN$_2$. The blue curve is the ratio in TSCNN$_1$, and the red curve is the ratio in TSCNN$_2$.}
    \label{con}
\end{figure}

The number of connections that are higher than the threshold of MI is denoted as $N_M$ and for SSVEP it is $N_S$. We compute the ratio of $N_M$ and $N_S$ to reflect the representation ability of the concatenation layer for MI.
$$ratio = \frac{N_M}{N_S}$$
The larger the ratio, the stronger the representation ability of the model for MI. Fig. \ref{con} illustrates the ratio change according to the increased threshold. As the threshold increases, the ratio of TSCNN$_1$ decreases while that of TSCNN$_2$ increases.

\section{Discussion}
In this study, we proposed a deep learning model called TSCNN$_2$, which can provide considerable decoding performance in both single-mode and hybrid-mode scenarios.

\subsection{From Methodology Perspective}
Universality and high-precision decoding performance are crucial for BCI systems.
However, previous hybrid BCI methods, such as linear discriminant analysis (LDA), CCA, and CSP, have unsatisfactory decoding accuracy and universality\cite{ko, Allison_2010}. As a deep learning model, TSCNN can achieve favorable performance in both single-mode and hybrid-mode scenarios, serving as a universal hybrid BCI framework.

Theoretically, TSCNN can be thought of as a combination of feature extraction and classification of the input. Compared with previous methods, the nonlinearity of TSCNN contributes to learning more complex latent representations and therefore higher performance of decoding. Moreover, TSCNN is well suited to both single-mode and hybrid-mode scenarios, while previous methods can only work in single-mode scenarios.

Another advantage of TSCNN is its interpretability, compared with other two-stream CNNs. We analyzed the connection weights in Section III-C. Table~\ref{thr} and Fig.~\ref{con} indicate that the fusion block has different representation abilities for the features of each stream,
and the differences can be adjusted by applying designed the training strategy, allowing the model to learn the feature of each stream more evenly. The two-stream architecture and the proposed training strategy together achieve satisfactory decoding accuracy and universality for hybrid BCI.

\subsection{From Application Perspective}
Compared to previous hybrid BCI methods,
TSCNN can achieve satisfactory decoding performance in both single-mode and hybrid-mode scenarios. This flexibility makes TSCNN a promising choice for use in hybrid BCI systems.
Subjects with damage to their motor or visual cortex may not be able to generate MI or SSVEP activity, respectively. However, these subjects can still use BCIs by utilizing the available mode. For instance, a subject with motor cortex damage can use the SSVEP mode to control the BCI, while a subject with visual cortex damage can use the MI mode. Additionally, subjects who are proficient in using both modes can generate MI and SSVEP activity simultaneously, allowing for high decoding accuracy. This demonstrates the versatility and adaptability of BCIs for a range of subjects and brain activity patterns.
Training and testing TSCNN on a variety of subjects allows for subject-independence, meaning that it is able to overcome inter-subject variability in EEG signals. This makes TSCNN a useful tool for addressing the challenges posed by individual differences in brain activity. Its ability to adapt to a range of subjects demonstrates its potential for use in a variety of contexts.

\subsection{Limitations and Future Works}
There are still some limitations to our work.
First,
The ability to achieve high decoding accuracy of EEG signals with short epoch lengths is essential for the development of effective BCI systems. A shorter epoch length allows for higher temporal resolution, enabling the detection of changes in brain activity at a faster rate. However, in this study, our proposed TSCNN method was trained and tested with 4-second EEG. Further research is needed to investigate the potential of methods that can achieve high decoding accuracy with even shorter epoch lengths.
Second, TSCNN is a fully supervised deep learning model, and thus, its training process requires a large amount of labeled data. Supervised deep learning models are highly dependent on the quality and relevance of the training data, and may not generalize well to unseen data. In order to further verify the effectiveness of our proposed method, it is important to conduct additional experiments using expert-annotated datasets. In the future, we also plan to explore unsupervised, semi-supervised, and domain generalization methods as potential avenues for improving the performance of our model.
Finally, in our proposed TSCNN model, the MI block and SSVEP block used the same architecture, allowing them to learn the features of their respective modalities. However, there are already many deep learning models that have demonstrated the performance in single-mode MI and SSVEP decoding~\cite{subj,Sch, Chiang_2021}. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate fusion frameworks that can achieve higher performance by using these high-performing models architecture in a fusion context.

\section{Conclusion}
We proposed a TSCNN framework using SSVEP and MI for a hybrid BCI system to achieve high versatility and generalization. TSCNN can automatically extract EEG features in both paradigms. We presented a new training strategy for hybrid BCI models, which achieve superior performance in both uni-mode and hybrid-mode scenarios.

\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
  \newpage
\fi


Association of Plages With Sunspots: A multi wavelength Study Using Kodaikanal Ca $\scriptsize{\textrm{II}}$ K and Greenwich sunspot area Data

Abstract: Plages are the magnetically active chromospheric structures prominently visible in Ca $\scriptsize{\textrm{II}}$ K line (3933.67 Å). A plage may or may not be associated with a sunspot which is a magnetic structure visible in the solar photosphere. In this study we explore this aspect of association of plages with sunspots using the newly digitized Kodaikanal Ca $\scriptsize{\textrm{II}}$ K plage data and the Greenwich sunspot area data. Instead of using the plage index or fractional plage area and their comparison with the sunspot number, we use, to our knowledge for the first time, the individual plage areas and compared it with the sunspot area time series. Our analysis shows that these two structures formed at two different layers are highly correlated with each other on a time scale comparable to the solar cycle. The area and the latitudinal distributions of plages are also similar to that of the sunspots. Different area thresholdings on the `Butterfly diagram' reveal that plages with area $\geq$4 arcmin$^2$ are mostly associated with a sunspot in the photosphere. Apart from this, we found that the cyclic properties change when different sized plages are considered separately. These results may help us to better understand the generation and the evolution of the magnetic structures in different layers of the solar atmosphere.

\section{Introduction}

Sun is a magnetically active star with a dynamic atmosphere which varies on a time scale from seconds to years. Different solar features are basically the manifestations of the solar magnetic concentraions in different layers of the Sun. Plages are the chromospheric features which appear as bright patches on the solar disc when seen through Ca $\scriptsize{{\textrm{II}}}$ K line (3933.67~\r{A}) images, whereas sunspots are the dark photospheric features prominently visible in white light images. Sunspots and plages both vary periodically in a 11 year time scale known as `solar cycle'. Apart from that plages are found to be highly correlated with the location of the magnetic field concentrations \citep{2011ApJ...730...51S,2016ApJ...827...87C}, very similar to sunspots.

Satellite measurements over the past few decade revealed that the changes in solar irradiance happen over various time scales and it has a strong dependence on the various solar features present on the solar disc \citep{2004A&ARv..12..273F,2004ApJ...611L..57F}.
 It has been found that the total solar irradiance  is highly correlated with the fractional plage area or the plage index \citep{2010SoPh..264...31B}. Recently, \citet{2016SoPh..tmp..121B} found a strong correlation between the sunspot number and the Ca $\scriptsize{{\textrm{II}}}$ K emission index. Thus the study of long term plage data is not only of importance in connection to the solar irradiation variation study but also with the evolution of the solar magnetic fields and its cyclic changes.\\

Different observatories around the globe has been taking routine observations of the plages in Ca $\scriptsize{{\textrm{II}}}$ K line. Mount Wilson data series is one of such plage index time series in the world \citep{2010SoPh..264...31B}. Kodaikanal observatory in India has obtained daily photoheliograms of the Sun since 1904 to till 2007. This century long data has been recently digitized  \citep{2014SoPh..289..137P}. \citet{2016ApJ...827...87C} used this digitized data to identify the plages using an automated algorithm and generated a plage area time series.\\

In this paper, we use this data to find an association of the plages with the sunspots. We also use this data to find different distributions in the plage sizes and their latitudinal locations.\\

\section{Data Description }
In this study we have used the plage area time series obtained from the newly digitized Kodaikanal Ca $\scriptsize{{\textrm{II}}}$ K data. The complete time series covers more than 100 years of data (1904 -- 2007). Due to issues with the conditions of the photographic plates and also large number of missing days in the later half of the data [see Fig.~1b and Fig.~4 of \citet{2016ApJ...827...87C}], we chose to limit our analysis between the period of 1907 to 1965 which covers from cycle 14 (descending phase only) to cycle 19. For every detected plage form the daily Ca $\scriptsize{{\textrm{II}}}$ K images, we have the heliographic latitude, longitude (in degrees) and the area (in arcmin$^2$) information.\\

 For the sunspot area data we have used the Greenwich daily sunspot record, for the same duration, available in the website \url{https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml}.

\section{Results}
\subsection{Yearly Averaged data and The Hemispheric Asymmetry}

We generate the yearly averaged data from the daily plage observations and plotted it (black solid line) in panel (a) of Figure~\ref{yearly_comp} along with the sunspot area data (red solid line).
Since we are interested in the association of the two structures, we plot the normalized values of the yearly averaged data. From the figure we readily see that the two time series show a good match with each other. Every feature, including the double peaks seen in the sunspot data are also present in the plage area time series. To estimate this association quantitatively we plot the scatter diagram as shown in panel (b) of Figure~\ref{yearly_comp}. A correlation coefficient of 0.97 again confirms the close association of these two solar features which have formed in two different layers in the solar atmosphere. Though we must emphasize that this high correlation in the yearly data does not imply the same for the smaller time scales (in months or days). This is because when a sunspot decays away, the remnant small magnetic field may still continue to show itself as a plage in the higher atmosphere. Also the small scale magnetic fields, which lives in the order of days or less, do not always develop as a sunspot.\\
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{plage_sunspot_area-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{plage_sunspot_ns_area-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{ Panel (a) shows the comparison plot of the yearly averaged sunspot and the plage area data. Scatter plot between the two area data is shown in panel (b). Panels (c - d) show the   North (South)  hemispheric yearly averaged plage area as marked.
}
\label{yearly_comp}
\end{figure}

Now the hemispheric asymmetry in the sunspot area is a well known phenomena. We investigate the same from the plage area time series by computing the yearly data separately for the two hemispheres. Panels (c-d) in Figure~\ref{yearly_comp} show the yearly averaged plage area data in the northern and southern hemispheres (plotted in red and green solid line) respectively. The sunspot area data, for the corresponding hemispheres, is also overplotted in the panels as shown in the black dotted lines. Hemispheric plage area series shows a very good match with the sunspot area data. Similar to the sunspots, in this case too we find that the double peaks near the cycle maximum is not a persistent feature in both of the hemispheres. For an example, cycle 16$^{th}$ is a double peaked cycle (see Figure~\ref{yearly_comp}a) but from Figure~\ref{yearly_comp}(c-d) we see that in this case only northern hemisphere shows a double peak signature. In the case of 19$^{th}$ cycle, there is no such double peak seen in the overall case but both the hemispheres have prominent double peak signatures.\\
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{plage_sunspot_ns_coeff-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{ Normalized plage area asymmetry is plotted in panel (a). Comparison of the same with the sunspot area asymmetry is shown in panel (b). Correlation value between these two are printed in the panel.}
\label{plage_corr}
\end{figure}

 Next we compute the normalized asymmetry coefficient, defined as (A$_{pn}$-A$_{ps}$)/(A$_{pn}$+A$_{ps}$), as a measure of the hemispheric asymmetry in the plage area (A$_{pn}$,A$_{ps}$ are the yearly averaged plage area values in the northern and the southern hemispheres). The evolution of this asymmetry coefficient is plotted in panel (a) of Figure~\ref{plage_corr}. There are quite a few distinct features readily noticeable from the plot. During the minima of cycles 14, 15 and 16, we see that the northern hemisphere dominates whereas for the later cycles, i.e cycles 17, 18 and 19, the southern hemisphere dominates over the north. This behavior is highlighted in the plot (Figure~\ref{plage_corr}a) by using red arrows. It is also interesting to note that during the progression of a cycle the asymmetry coefficient changes its sign quite a few times and this does not show any meaningful correlation with the cycle amplitude or any other properties of that particular cycle. We also notice that on an average the northern hemisphere dominates over the south for the six cycles analyzed here. We again revisited this northern hemispheric dominance in the following section.\\

Since we are interested in the plage-sunspot association, we look for the same in the asymmetry coefficient also. In panel (b) in Figure~\ref{plage_corr} we plot the scatter diagram between the asymmetry coefficients obtained from hemispheric plage area and the same computed for sunspot area. We find a very good match between these two coefficients with a correlation value of 0.90. Though we found some outliers also which probably have occurred during the cycle minima during which the asymmetry coefficient is prone to large departures.
\subsection{Plage Distributions}
\subsubsection{Size Distribution}
Individual plage area values are considered for the size distribution analysis. In panel (a) of Figure~\ref{area_dist} we show the plage area (sizes) distribution for the whole time period i.e from 1907 to 1965. The distribution pattern look similar to an exponentially decaying function. We fit the histogram with a decaying exponential function of the form, Y=A$_0\exp^{-(\frac{X}{B})}$, as shown by the red dashed line in Figure~\ref{area_dist}a. From the fit we notice that though the initial part of the histogram gets a good fit but the fitted function drops very rapidly in the wing and leaves a large deviation around that region.\\

To get a better fit, we consider the lognormal function next. This is inspired from that fact the sunspots are known to have a lognormal size distribution \citep{1988ApJ...327..451B,2005A&A...443.1061B, 2016arXiv160804665M}. Thus a lognormal function of the form,
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma x}\exp{-\frac{[\ln(x)-\mu]^2}{2\sigma^2}}
\end{equation*}
is considered and fitted the histogram as shown with the black dotted curve in Figure~\ref{area_dist}a. In this case we notice that the full histogram along with the tail gets a very good fit. Thus the individual size distribution of the plages also follow the same `lognormal distribution' as we find for the sunspots. Here we must highlight the fact that the good match of the two functions (exponential and the lognormal) at the core of the histogram (near to the origin, 1 arcmin$^{2}$) is due to the use of a rigid cutoff of 1 arcmin$^{2}$ as the minimum detectable plage area. Thus the initial increment of the lognormal distribution got suppressed and the function decays exponentially thereafter.\\
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{plage_distribution_plot-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{ Panels (a) and (b) show the area and the latitudinal distributions of the plages. Corresponding fits to these distributions are also overplotted in these panels. Panels (c) and (d)  show (with solid black and red circles for the northern and southern hemisphere) the evolution of the fitted Gaussian parameters (C and $\sigma$) with the cycle number. We also overplot the same for the sunspots in open circles.}
\label{area_dist}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Latitudinal Distribution}
  In the beginning of a cycle, plages occur at higher latitudes and progressively move towards the equator as the cycle progresses. We plot the distribution of the number of plages with their latitudes, for the full time span (1907-1695), in panel (b) of Figure~\ref{area_dist} (we also analyzed same for the individual cycles also). It shows two bell-shaped distributions corresponding to the two hemispheres which are then fitted with two separate Gaussian functions. From the plot (panel b) we notice that the peak height of the northern hemisphere is greater than that of southern hemisphere. This compliments our findings in the section 3.1, where we obtained a similar result from the area asymmetry analysis. To make a comparison, we repeat the same procedure for the Greenwich sunspots area data. From every Gaussian fit we note down two parameters: center (C) and the sigma ($\sigma$) values. In panels (c-d) in Figure~\ref{area_dist}, we plot the evolution of these parameters for the plages and the sunspots simultaneously (solid red and black circles represent the southern and northern hemispheric values for the plages whereas the open circles corresponds to sunspots).\\

In the case of the center (C) plot (panel c) we see that the the centers of the plage distributions, for the two hemispheres, is always higher than that of the sunspots, although the trends remain the same. At the same time we notice that the differences is more for the southern hemisphere. We also observe that the center of the southern hemisphere for the 16$^{th}$ cycle is higher than that of the 19$^{th}$ cycle though the cycle amplitude of the 19$^{th}$ cycle is much higher than that of the 16$^{th}$ cycle. In panel (d) we plot the evolution of the sigma parameters. Overall the evolution of this parameter for both the indices i.e for sunspots and the plages follow the same pattern. Again we find that there is a noticeable difference in the southern hemisphere. The maximum sigma value occurs for the 17$^{th}$ cycle whereas for the sunspot it occurs at 16$^{th}$ cycle. Currently there is a very little theoretical understanding on the relation of these parameters in connection to the solar dynamo. Recently \citet{2016A&A...591A..46C} found a connection of the parameter $\sigma$ with the diffusivity ($\eta$) parameter used in the dynamo theory.

\subsection{Correspondence Between Plage and Sunspot Locations}

Plages may be or may not be always associated with a sunspot due to the reasons mentioned in section 3.1. To probe this into depth, we divide the plages into four classes according to their individual sizes (A$_{p}$) and make use of the `Butterfly diagram' for our further analysis. In different panels in Figure~\ref{butter_plot} we plot the time-latitude diagram for the individually detected plages with black circles whereas the green circles represent the locations of the sunspots. In the first size class (where A$_{p}\geq$1 arcmin$^{2}$), we notice that there are substantially large number of plages which do not have any sunspots associated with them. Also we notice that at the end of every cycle (or may be from the next cycle due to the overlapping period) large number of plages appear at high latitudes ($\approx$60$^\circ$) and this is much more prominent in the southern hemisphere.\\
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\hbox{
      \includegraphics[width=11.5cm,height=15cm]{plage_butterfly_diff_area_plot.pdf}
      \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=15cm]{plage_lon_1_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
     }
\caption{[Top to bottom]: Comparison of the `butterfly diagram' for the plages (black circles) and the sunspots (green circles). The longitudinal scatter diagram between the two are shown in the side panels. Different plage sizes (A$_{p}$) are mentioned in the title of the panels. An animated GIF of the above figure is available at \url{ftp://ftp.iiap.res.in/dipu/plage\_sunspot.gif}.}
\label{butter_plot}
\end{figure*}
Now as we progressively go towards higher size thresholds (A$_{p}\geq$2 arcmin$^{2}$, A$_{p}\geq$3 arcmin$^{2}$, A$_{p}\geq$4 arcmin$^{2}$) we see that the two butterfly diagrams (one for the sunspots and the other for the plages) show progressively better match with each other. Thus, we conclude that the latitudinal locations of the plages with an area $\geq$4 arcmin$^{2}$ is showing a very good match with the sunspot latitudes.

A latitudinal match does not necessarily imply an one-to-one correspondence between the two. This is because these features can be at same latitudes but in different longitudes implying the two of them not connected at all. To better establish the association of plage sizes with the sunspot locations, we plot the longitudinal scatter diagrams for every plage size range as shown in the side panels in Figure~\ref{butter_plot}. We record the area weighted average longitudes for both the plages and the sunspots respectively during the simultaneous observing days. A careful analysis reveals that the scatter plots between the plage and the sunspot longitudes become progressively linear as we consider higher plage areas. Thus, in combination with our previous results from the `butterfly diagram' analysis, we conclude that plages with area $\geq$4arcmin$^{2}$ have better one to one correspondence with the sunspot locations. We must again remind the reader that the decay of a sunspot does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the associated plage.\\

 \subsection{Plage Sizes and The 11-Year Cycle}

Different long-term and short-term properties of the sunspot cycle show a strong size dependence \citep{2016ApJ...830L..33M}. Inspired by the findings of the plage size dependence on the plage-sunspot association in the previous section, we look for different signatures in the cycle properties when the plages are considered according to their sizes. In panel (a) of Figure~\ref{size_plot} we plot the `no thresholding' case whereas in panels (b-d) we plot the yearly averaged plage area variations for different size thresholds.

For the smallest sized plages (1arcmin$^{2}\leq$A$_{p}$$<$2 arcmin$^{2}$) we do not see much differences from the overall cycle characteristics (as found in panel \ref{size_plot}a), except for the double peak behavior for certain cycles. For an example, the double peaks of cycle 16 and cycle 18 become less prominent or weaker. Also the overall strength of the cycle do not change much for the smallest plage size range i.e the 19$^{th}$ cycle is still the strongest during the analyzed time span. The scenario almost remains the same for the medium plage size range (panel c). As we move towards the biggest plage sizes (panel d, we notice that the double peaks near the cycle maxima appear almost for every cycle. This is consistent with the behavior of biggest sized sunspots found by \citet{2016ApJ...830L..33M}. Apart from that we also note an interesting behavior i.e the presence of a weaker peak near the cycle minima. This is highlighted in the panel by red arrows. The location of this peak from the cycle maxima seems to move inwards as we move from cycle 14 to cycle 19. This trend is though not prominently visible for the 19$^{th}$ cycle as we see a double peak late after the cycle maxima.

Next, we investigate the `odd-even rule' or the `G-O rule' which states that the odd numbered cycles are stronger than the preceding even numbered one \citep{1948..Astron..Zh..25..18G}. This is well established for the sunspot area and the sunspot number data. From Figure~\ref{size_plot} we notice that this rule is also valid for plage area time series for all the size ranges. Still it should me mentioned here that the relative heights of the cycles change slightly when one considers different size ranges (panels (b-d) of Figure~\ref{size_plot}).
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{plage_size_plot_yearly_plot-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Different panels showing the yearly averaged plage area time series as obtained using different plage size criteria. Individual size ranges are printed
on every panel.}
\label{size_plot}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary And Conclusion}
Long term multi wavelength study of different solar features help us to better understand the magnetic field evolution in different layers of the solar atmosphere in different time scales. Sunspot and plages, though formed at different heights in the solar atmospheres, show a good correlation with each other at the time scales comparable to the solar cycle. In shorter time scales of months or days, we  find certain differences though. Such differences can be explained by considering the complex evolution of the magnetic fields associated with sunspots. When a sunspot decay the fields get fragmented and this progress results in disappearance of the same from the white light images. The left over small scale fields still live for quite a few days and continue to appear as plages in the subsequent Ca $\scriptsize{{\textrm{II}}}$ K images.

Analyzing the individual plages area we find that they follow a lognormal distribution similar to the sunspots. We also obtain a Gaussian distribution, in each of the hemispheres, of their latitudinal appearances. Some of the properties of the fitted Gaussian parameters show different evolution with the solar cycle as compared to the sunspots. Though not well understood but this hints towards a small scale component of the solar dynamo which is responsible for the evolution of the small scale fields. This aspect is explored further by implementing different size criteria on the individual plages and considering their time evolution. We find that different properties of the cycle change with the plage sizes which again points towards a complex dynamo operating into the Sun. Finally we use the `butterfly diagram' along with longitudinal scatter plots to show that the plages with sizes $\geq$ 4 arcmin$^{2}$ are always associated with a sunspot.\\

To conclude, we have analyzed the newly digitized Ca $\scriptsize{{\textrm{II}}}$ K data from Kodaikanal observatory to investigate the association of the plages, a chromospheric structure, with the sunspots which are the photospheric structures. To our knowledge, for the first time, individual plage sizes are considered and compared with the sunspot area data. Our analysis shows that the two layers (chromosphere and the photosphere) are magnetically coupled and the dynamo responsible for the magnetic fields in the Sun may have a complex action (generation of large scale and small scale fields).

\section{Acknowledgment}
{ We would like to thank the Kodaikanal facility of Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore, India for providing the data. This data is now available for public use at \url{http://kso.iiap. res.in/data}.}\\

 \bibliographystyle{apj}

Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR)


High-fidelity laser-free universal control of two trapped ion qubits

Abstract: Universal control of multiple qubits -- the ability to entangle qubits and to perform arbitrary individual qubit operations -- is a fundamental resource for quantum computation, simulation, and networking. Here, we implement a new laser-free scheme for universal control of trapped ion qubits based on microwave magnetic fields and radiofrequency magnetic field gradients. We demonstrate high-fidelity entanglement and individual control by creating symmetric and antisymmetric two-qubit maximally entangled states with fidelities in the intervals [0.9983, 1] and [0.9964, 0.9988], respectively, at 68% confidence, corrected for state initialization error. This technique is robust against multiple sources of decoherence, usable with essentially any trapped ion species, and has the potential to perform simultaneous entangling operations on many pairs of ions without increasing control signal power or complexity.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, J. P. Gaebler, S. B. Libby, D. M. Lucas, V.~M.~Sch{\"a}fer, and T. R. Tan for helpful discussions. We thank M. Affolter and A.~L.~Collopy for helpful and insightful comments on the manuscript. At the time the work was performed, R.S., S.C.B., H.M.K., A.K., and D.T.C.A. were supported as Associates in the Professional Research Experience Program (PREP) operated jointly by NIST and the University of Colorado Boulder under Award No.\,70NANB18H006 from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
{\bf Funding:} This work was supported by the NIST Quantum Information Program and ONR.
{\bf Author contributions:} R.S. and H.M.K. carried out the experiments, assisted by S.C.B., D.T.C.A, and D.H.S.; D.H.S., R.S., H.M.K., A.K., and R.T.S. analyzed the data and performed numerical simulations, with support from E.K. and S.G.; D.T.C.A., D.H.S., R.S., S.C.B., and H.M.K. built and maintained the experimental apparatus; R.S. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors; A.C.W., D.L., D.H.S., and D.J.W. secured funding for the work; and D.H.S. and D.T.C.A. supervised the work with support from A.C.W., D.L., S.G., E.K., and D.J.W.
{\bf Competing interests:} The authors declare no competing interests.

\noindent$^{\dagger}$Current address: Department  of  Physics,  University  of  Oxford,  Clarendon  Laboratory, Parks  Road,  Oxford  OX1  3PU,  U.K.\\
\noindent$^{\xi}$Current address: Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
\bibliographystyle{Science}

\section*{Introduction}

In this file, we present some tips and sample mark-up to assure your
\LaTeX\ file of the smoothest possible journey from review manuscript
to published {\it Science\/} paper.  We focus here particularly on
issues related to style files, citation, and math, tables, and
figures, as those tend to be the biggest sticking points.  Please use
the source file for this document, \texttt{scifile.tex}, as a template
for your manuscript, cutting and pasting your content into the file at
the appropriate places.

{\it Science\/}'s publication workflow relies on Microsoft Word.  To
translate \LaTeX\ files into Word, we use an intermediate MS-DOS
routine \cite{tth} that converts the \TeX\ source into HTML\@.  The
routine is generally robust, but it works best if the source document
is clean \LaTeX\ without a significant freight of local macros or
\texttt{.sty} files.  Use of the source file \texttt{scifile.tex} as a
template, and calling {\it only\/} the \texttt{.sty} and \texttt{.bst}
files specifically mentioned here, will generate a manuscript that
should be eminently reviewable, and yet will allow your paper to
proceed quickly into our production flow upon acceptance \cite{use2e}.

\section*{Formatting Citations}

Citations can be handled in one of three ways.  The most
straightforward (albeit labor-intensive) would be to hardwire your
citations into your \LaTeX\ source, as you would if you were using an
ordinary word processor.  Thus, your code might look something like
this:

\begin{quote}
\begin{verbatim}
However, this record of the solar nebula may have been
partly erased by the complex history of the meteorite
parent bodies, which includes collision-induced shock,
thermal metamorphism, and aqueous alteration
({\it 1, 2, 5--7\/}).
\end{verbatim}
\end{quote}

\noindent Compiled, the last two lines of the code above, of course, would give notecalls in {\it Science\/} style:

\begin{quote}
\ldots thermal metamorphism, and aqueous alteration ({\it 1, 2, 5--7\/}).
\end{quote}

Under the same logic, the author could set up his or her reference list as a simple enumeration,

\begin{quote}
\begin{verbatim}
{\bf References and Notes}

\begin{enumerate}
\item G. Gamow, {\it The Constitution of Atomic Nuclei
and Radioactivity\/} (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1931).
\item W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli, {\it Zeitschr.\ f.\
Physik\/} {\bf 56}, 1 (1929).
\end{enumerate}
\end{verbatim}
\end{quote}

\noindent yielding

\begin{quote}
{\bf References and Notes}

\begin{enumerate}
\item G. Gamow, {\it The Constitution of Atomic Nuclei and
Radioactivity\/} (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1931).
\item W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli, {\it Zeitschr.\ f.\ Physik} {\bf 56},
1 (1929).
\end{enumerate}
\end{quote}

That's not a solution that's likely to appeal to everyone, however ---
especially not to users of B{\small{IB}}\TeX\ \cite{inclme}.  If you
are a B{\small{IB}}\TeX\ user, we suggest that you use the
\texttt{Science.bst} bibliography style file and the
\texttt{scicite.sty} package, both of which are downloadable from our author help site.
{\bf While you can use B{\small{IB}}\TeX\ to generate the reference list, please don't submit
your .bib and .bbl files; instead, paste the generated .bbl file into the .tex file, creating
 \texttt{\{thebibliography\}} environment.}
 You can also
generate your reference lists directly by using
\texttt{\{thebibliography\}} at the end of your source document; here
again, you may find the \texttt{scicite.sty} file useful.

Whatever you use, be
very careful about how you set up your in-text reference calls and
notecalls.  In particular, observe the following requirements:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Please follow the style for references outlined at our author
  help site and embodied in recent issues of {\it Science}.  Each
  citation number should refer to a single reference; please do not
  concatenate several references under a single number.
\item The reference numbering  continues from the
main text to the Supplementary Materials (e.g. this main
text has references 1-3; the numbering of references in the
Supplementary Materials should start with 4).
\item Please cite your references and notes in text {\it only\/} using
  the standard \LaTeX\ \verb+\cite+ command, not another command
  driven by outside macros.
\item Please separate multiple citations within a single \verb+\cite+
  command using commas only; there should be {\it no space\/}
  between reference keynames.  That is, if you are citing two
  papers whose bibliography keys are \texttt{keyname1} and
  \texttt{keyname2}, the in-text cite should read
  \verb+\cite{keyname1,keyname2}+, {\it not\/}
  \verb+\cite{keyname1, keyname2}+.
\end{enumerate}

\noindent Failure to follow these guidelines could lead
to the omission of the references in an accepted paper when the source
file is translated to Word via HTML.

\section*{Handling Math, Tables, and Figures}

Following are a few things to keep in mind in coding equations,
tables, and figures for submission to {\it Science}.

\paragraph*{In-line math.}  The utility that we use for converting
from \LaTeX\ to HTML handles in-line math relatively well.  It is best
to avoid using built-up fractions in in-line equations, and going for
the more boring ``slash'' presentation whenever possible --- that is,
for \verb+$a/b$+ (which comes out as $a/b$) rather than
\verb+$\frac{a}{b}$+ (which compiles as $\frac{a}{b}$).
 Please do not code arrays or matrices as
in-line math; display them instead.  And please keep your coding as
\TeX-y as possible --- avoid using specialized math macro packages
like \texttt{amstex.sty}.

\paragraph*{Tables.}  The HTML converter that we use seems to handle
reasonably well simple tables generated using the \LaTeX\
\texttt{\{tabular\}} environment.  For very complicated tables, you
may want to consider generating them in a word processing program and
including them as a separate file.

\paragraph*{Figures.}  Figure callouts within the text should not be
in the form of \LaTeX\ references, but should simply be typed in ---
that is, \verb+(Fig. 1)+ rather than \verb+\ref{fig1}+.  For the
figures themselves, treatment can differ depending on whether the
manuscript is an initial submission or a final revision for acceptance
and publication.  For an initial submission and review copy, you can
use the \LaTeX\ \verb+{figure}+ environment and the
\verb+\includegraphics+ command to include your PostScript figures at
the end of the compiled file.  For the final revision,
however, the \verb+{figure}+ environment should {\it not\/} be used;
instead, the figure captions themselves should be typed in as regular
text at the end of the source file (an example is included here), and
the figures should be uploaded separately according to the Art
Department's instructions.

\section*{What to Send In}

What you should send to {\it Science\/} will depend on the stage your manuscript is in:

\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Important:} If you're sending in the initial submission of
  your manuscript (that is, the copy for evaluation and peer review),
  please send in {\it only\/} a PDF version of the
  compiled file (including figures).  Please do not send in the \TeX\
  source, \texttt{.sty}, \texttt{.bbl}, or other associated files with
  your initial submission.  (For more information, please see the
  instructions at our Web submission site.)
\item When the time comes for you to send in your revised final
  manuscript (i.e., after peer review), we require that you include
   source files and generated files in your upload. {\bf The .tex file should include
the reference list as an itemized list (see "Formatting citations"  for the various options). The bibliography should not be in a separate file.}
  Thus, if the
  name of your main source document is \texttt{ltxfile.tex}, you
  need to include:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{ltxfile.tex}.
\item \texttt{ltxfile.aux}, the auxilliary file generated by the
  compilation.
\item A PDF file generated from
  \texttt{ltxfile.tex}.

\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}

Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Atomic Physics (physics.atom-ph)


Hadron Spectroscopy in Double Pomeron Exchange Experiments

Abstract: Central exclusive production in hadron-hadron collisions at high energies, for example p + p -> p + X + p, where the "+" represents a large rapidity gap, is a valuable process for spectroscopy of mesonic states X. At collider energies the gaps can be large enough to be dominated by pomeron exchange, and then the quantum numbers of the state X are restricted. Isoscalar JPC = 0++ and 2++ mesons are selected, and our understanding of these spectra is incomplete. In particular, soft pomeron exchanges favor gluon-dominated states such as glueballs, which are expected in QCD but not yet well established. I will review some published data.

\section{Scalar mesons and glueballs}

I quote from the 2010 Particle Data Group \citep{Nakamura:2010zzi} Note on Scalar Mesons: ``The scalar mesons are especially important to
understand because they have the same quantum numbers as the vacuum ($J^{PC} = 0^{++}$). Therefore they can condense into the
vacuum and break a symmetry such as a global chiral $U(N_f) \times U(N_f)$. The details of how this symmetry breaking is implemented
in Nature is one of the most profound problems in particle physics." But the identification of the scalar mesons is ``a
long-standing puzzle".

All hadrons are composite, either \emph{baryons} with half-integral spin (fermions) or \emph{mesons} with integral spin (bosons).
Baryons have a $qqq$ valence structure, with sea quark pairs and gluons evolving in with increasing $Q^2$. Mesons have a valence $q\bar{q}$, or in
some cases $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$, structure, again with a sea of $q\bar{q}$ and $g$ at $Q^2 \neq$ 0. Hybrid mesons are described as having a valence gluon
in addition, such as $q\bar{q}g$, allowing quantum numbers that cannot be just $q\bar{q}$. Fritzch and Gell-Mann already in 1972 \citep{Fritzsch:1972jv} speculated that
there may be meson states that ``would appear to act as if they were made of gluons rather than $q\bar{q}$ pairs". While this can be considered
the first reference to \emph{glueballs}, their paper emphasizes that the authors considered these constituents to be \emph{fictitious}. (This was
about three years \emph{after}
 the deep-inelastic scattering experiments at SLAC and the parton and scaling ideas of Feynman and Bjorken!)
 Probably this was Gell-Mann's wording; in 1975 Fritzsch and Minkowski published an article \citep{Fritzsch:1975tx} referring to Ref.~\citep{Fritzsch:1972jv} in which they say:
 ``Such states are by definition glue states and constitute a new type of matter. The existence of glue states is a direct consequence
 of the quark-gluon field theory."
The first paper (in the SLAC data base) with ``Glueball" in the title (now there are 1420) was by D.Robson \citep{Robson:1977pm} in 1977, with ``A Basic Guide for the
Glueball Spotter". He claimed that the scalar mesons form an ideally mixed nonet, ``with an additional scalar, the S$^*$ (now $f_0(980)$) with the
expected properties of a scalar glueball". He also said that the $J^{PC} = 0^{-+}$ $\eta'$(958) contains a large gluon fraction. I cannot possibly do
justice to the many model calculations of glueballs and their properties over the nearly 40 years since then, with still no clear understanding.
Note that the term \emph{gluonium} is  sometimes used to refer to a \emph{gg} state, while glueball is more general.

\subsection{Bag models and strings}

Bag Models \citep{Konoplich:1981ed,DeTar:1983rw} treat hadrons as bound states of quarks and gluons confined in a fm-size bag with a pressure and surface tension.
Outside the bag is the ``true vacuum", while inside is the ``perturbative vacuum"; a different phase in which quarks and gluons are free.
There are several forms: the MIT bag model, the SLAC bag model, the soliton bag model, etc.
Jaffe and Johnson \citep{Jaffe:1975fd} discussed hadrons with unconventional quantum numbers in the bag model, and claimed that the known $J^{PC} =
0^{++}$ mesons in the mass range 600 - 1600 MeV may be members of a nonet of $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ rather than P-wave $q\bar{q}$ states.
In 1983 Jezabek and Szwed \citep{Jezabek:1982ic} argued that for glueballs the bag surface fields should be ``TE" (transverse electric, in QCD) which suggests that
the bags have a toroidal topology (one cannot have a transverse field everywhere on the surface of a sphere without sources).
Interestingly (but I do not know whether the connection is more than a coincidence) in the string models of hadrons glueballs are closed loops of
string, i.e. toroids. In string models quarks and antiquarks are the open ends of directed strings, with the form of an ``I" for a meson and a
``Y" with a three-string junction for a baryon or antibaryon. As glueballs are strings without ends, they have the
form of an ``O". Their decay occurs by the string-loop
breaking to generate new ends ($q\bar{q}$) as an excited meson ``I", which in turn breaks to a pair of mesons. The Regge trajectory
$\alpha(t)$ for normal $q\bar{q}$ mesons has a slope $\alpha'$ of order 1 GeV$^{-2}$ linking excited mesons with the same quantum numbers apart from spin.
It is not unnatural for a closed loop of string to have a trajectory with a smaller slope, like that of the pomeron, e.g.
$\alpha(t) = 1.081 + 0.25$ GeV$^{-2}t$~\citep{Donnachie:1992ny}. A spin $J$ = 2 state would lie on this trajectory (if it is linear) at $M_G(2^{++}) \sim$ 2000 MeV;
that would be the tensor glueball.
The scalar glueball cannot lie on the pomeron trajectory.
In this model a barred loop like
$\theta$ would be allowed as a topologically different glueball. Having two three-string junctions this would decay to a baryon-antibaryon pair
(assuming it is not too light, in which case it could be stable).
 Barnes, Close and Monaghan \citep{Barnes:1981kq} calculated order-$\alpha_S$ hyperfine splitting
in the spherical cavity approximation to the MIT bag.
They concluded that the $0^{-+}$ and $2^{++}$ glueball states could be identified with the $\iota$(1440) (now $\eta(1405)$) and $\theta$(1640) (now
$f_2(1640)$, omitted from the PDG summary tables) states, implying that
the lightest scalar $0^{++}$ is around 1000 MeV. This ``may mix with the $S^*(980)$" (now $f_0(980)$).

\subsection{Lattice QCD}

In 1997 Morningstar and Peardon \citep{Morningstar:1999rf} calculated the masses of pure glueballs (in pure SU(3) gauge theory)
in lattice QCD, in which space and time are treated as discrete. If the lattice spacing is much smaller than the size of a
hadron ($\sim$ 1 fm) this approximation allows (computer-intensive) calculations of hadron masses in terms of one
parameter (a scale with dimension ``mass"). Usually this is done with different lattice spacings $a_s$ and extrapolated to $a_s$ = 0.
Recent developments \citep{Morningstar:1998du} predict the lightest glueballs to have $M_G(0^{++}) = 1710$ MeV and
$M_G(2^{++}) = 2390$ MeV, with uncertainties of about 100 MeV and 125 MeV respectively. Mixing with $q\bar{q}$ states can
affect these masses.

Table I lists all the established $I$ = 0 and $J^{PC}$ = $0^{++},2^{++}$, and $4^{++}$ states in the 2016 PDG Summary tables \citep{Olive:2016xmw}. These can, in principle, be
produced in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ , which is a \emph{quantum number filter} when the 4-momentum transfers $t_1$ and $t_2$ are small. (At larger
$|t|$ other $J^{PC}$  are allowed, but are suppressed.)

There is a rather narrow $f'_2(1525)$ state, which decays mostly to $K^+K^-$
and is therefore not a good glueball candidate. For all the states with higher mass the information on the decay modes is very sparse.
The $f_0(1710)$ has only one \emph{established} decay, to
$\eta\eta$; we need to establish its other decays in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ production. The nearby $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ - allowed scalar is $f_0(1500)$,
and possibly both these resonances are mixtures of $q\bar{q}$ and $gg$ states \citep{Ochs:2013vxa,Janowski:2014ppa}. The same lattice QCD calculations predict a
whole spectrum of glueball states with $PC = -+, +-, --$, as well as $M_G(3^{++}) \sim 3600$ MeV, that are not easily
produced singly in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ but can be produced in pairs. Some have masses as high as 4000 MeV, where we do not expect any $q\bar{q}$
mesons. It would clearly be useful to have predictions for the decay modes and widths of these states. Perhaps pair production in
$\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ , and radiative $\Upsilon$ decays, are the best windows on this spectroscopy.

 It is a challenge to measure all these
(sometimes overlapping) states with their decay modes, and partial wave analysis to distinguish $J = 0$ and $J=2$.
The most favored states for the lightest glueball, albeit mixed with $q\bar{q}$ states, are the scalar $f_0(1500)$ \citep{Ochs:2013vxa} and $f_0(1710)$ \citep{Janowski:2014ppa}.

\begin{table}
\caption{Light meson states allowed in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$. Branching fractions are in \%. (PDG 2016)}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline
Name & M(MeV) & $\Gamma$(MeV) & $I^GJ^{PC}$ & $\pi\pi$ & $K\bar{K}$ & Other modes \\
\hline
$f_0(500)/\sigma$  & 400-550   &  400-700  & $0^+0^{++}$  & $\sim$100 & -  & - \\
$f_0(980)$  & 990$\pm$20 &  10-100  & $0^+0^{++}$  & dominant & seen  & $\gamma\gamma$ seen \\
$f_2(1270)$  & 1275.5$\pm$0.8 &  186.7$^{+2.2}_{-2.5}$3  & $0^+2^{++}$  & $84.2^{+2.9}_{-0.9}$ & $4.6^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$  &
$4 \pi \sim$ 10\% \\
$f_0(1370)$  & 1200-1500 &  200-500  & $0^+0^{++}$  & seen & seen  & $\rho\rho$ dominant \\

$f_0(1500)$  & 1504$\pm$6 &  109$\pm$7  & $0^+0^{++}$ & 34.9$\pm$2.3 & 8.6$\pm$1.0 & $4\pi$ 49.5$\pm$3.3 \\
$f'_2(1525)$  & 1525$\pm$5 &  73$^{+6}_{-5}$  & $0^+2^{++}$ & 0.8$\pm$0.2 & 88.7$\pm$2.2 & $\eta\eta$ 10.4$\pm$2.2 \\
$f_0(1710)$  & 1723$^{+6}_{-5}$ &  139$\pm$8  & $0^+0^{++}$ & seen & seen & $\eta\eta$ seen \\
$f_2(1950)$  & 1944$\pm$12 &  472$\pm$18  & $0^+2^{++}$ & seen & seen & $\eta\eta$ seen \\
$f_2(2010)$  & 2011$^{+60}_{-80}$  &  202$\pm 60$  & $0^+2^{++}$ & - & seen & $\phi\phi$ seen \\
$f_4(2050)$  & 2018$\pm$11  &  237$\pm 18$  & $0^+4^{++}$ & 17\% & $\sim$0.7\% & $\eta\eta$ 0.2\%  \\
$f_2(2300)$  & 2297$\pm$28 &  149$\pm$40  & $0^+2^{++}$  & - & seen & $\phi\phi$ seen \\
$f_2(2340)$  & 2345$^{+50}_{-40}$ &  322$^{+70}_{-60}$  & $0^+2^{++}$  & -           & - & $\phi\phi, \eta\eta$ seen \\

\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Double pomeron exchange: history}

Low and Nussinov proposed in 1975 \citep{Low:1975sv,Nussinov:1975mw} that to lowest order the pomeron, $\mathrm{I\!P} \;$ , is a pair of gluons in a color singlet.
This is still considered a very good approximation, and means that double pomeron exchange would be a good reaction to produce glueballs.
Experimental searches for $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ started already in 1969 \citep{Lipes:1969ed} in the Brookhaven 80" bubble chamber with 25 GeV/$c$ pions: $\pi^- p \rightarrow \pi^- +
(\pi^+\pi^-) + p$. The centre-of-mass energy was very low, $\sqrt{s}$ = 6.9 GeV, and the full rapidity span between the
protons is $\Delta y_{pp} = 2 \times$ ln$\sqrt{s}/M_p$ = 4.0, so it was kinematically impossible to have
two large rapidity gaps. They found 250 events with the two pions between the protons (in rapidity), but they had the characteristics
of reggeon exchange, not $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$$\!\!$;
$\rho$- and $\omega$-reggeon exchanges dominated.
Later bubble chamber searches~\citep{Derrick:1974fj}, with higher energy beams (205 GeV/$c$), also did not succeed in making an observation of $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$$\!\!$.
In 50,000 pictures 191 $ p + p \rightarrow p + (\pi^+\pi^-) + p$ events were selected, showed no evidence for $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ , and gave an
upper limit on the cross sections $\sigma_{DPE} < 44 \; \mu$b. In 1975 a France-Soviet Union collaboration ~\citep{Denegri:1975pb} used a 69 GeV/$c$ beam
on a liquid hydrogen target. The events were all compatible with single diffractive dissociation (one large rapidity gap, not two),
and they quoted an upper limit $\sigma$($\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ ) $<$ 20 $\mu$b.

The first observations of $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ came in 1976 at the CERN ISR, but before discussing those we should mention the last ``heroic"
attempt to do this physics with a hydrogen bubble chamber. In 1980 Brick \emph{et al.}~\citep{Brick:1980jf} took 500,000 photographs with 147 GeV/$c$ $\pi$, K, and p beams,
finding just 47 $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ candidates corresponding to a cross section $\sigma \sim$ 20 - 50 $\mu$b. The conclusion is that the study of $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ requires the higher
$\sqrt{s}$ of colliding beams, and electronic detectors, not bubble chambers. However at the CERN Omega-spectrometer, a major fixed target facility,
many studies were done with beams up to 450 GeV/$c$, $\sqrt{s}$ = 29 GeV. The full rapidity span between target and beam is
$\Delta y = 2 \times$ ln$\sqrt{s}/M_p$ = 6.86, which is on the threshold of allowing two rapidity gaps of 3 units with a central low-mass state.
I return to the Omega experiments, after discussing the CERN Intersecting Storage Rings, ISR.

The ISR started producing $pp$ collisions in 1971 at much higher energies than any fixed target
experiments (even today, being equivalent to 2.1 TeV/$c$ protons on a hydrogen target).
The first ``evidence paper" for $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ by Baksay \emph{et al.} \citep{Baksay:1975dc} was from a relatively simple experiment with no magnetic field.
Small-angle protons above and below the outgoing
beam pipes were tracked in proportional chambers, a cylindrical scintillator hodoscope covered the central region and two counter hits were required, and in-between veto counters
established pseudorapidity ($\eta$) gaps of at least 2 units. To avoid elastic scatters the protons were in the same azimuthal direction, ``UP + UP" or ``DOWN + DOWN".
Data were taken at several ISR beam energies from 15 + 15 GeV to 31 + 31 GeV; $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ cross sections were in the range 16 - 28 $\mu$b, less than $10^{-3} \times
\sigma_{inel}$. Although the proton momenta were not measured, assuming they had the beam momentum (a good approximation)
the $t$-slope is $b = -9.9 \pm$ 1.8 GeV$^{-2}$, compatible with half the elastic slope as expected.

The only attempt at a large solid angle detector with tracking in the early days at the ISR was the Split Field Magnet (SFM) facility.
This had a dipole field in the forward directions,
  but in the central region the acceptance and the magnetic field were complicated.
  Leading protons could be well measured, a fact exploited by experiment R407/408, which also observed $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ in 1976~\citep{DellaNegra:1976coo}.
  Figure 1(left) shows cross sections vs. $s$, fit \citep{Desai:1978rh} to a falling reggeon, $\mathrm{I\!R} \;$, component and a rising $\mathrm{I\!P} \;$ component, which
dominates only for $\sqrt{s} \gtrsim$ 50 GeV.
If one fixes the central state to have $|y(\pi\pi)| < 1$, as $\sqrt{s}$ increases the gaps get bigger and the cross section decreases.
If one instead fixes two rapidity gaps between the protons and the central pions $\Delta y \geq$ 3, the central region expands with $\sqrt{s}$ and the cross section rises.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{diff2016a.pdf}
\caption{Left: Experimental results on $\sigma_{DPE}$ up to ISR energies, with Regge fits \citep{Desai:1978rh}.
The full circles and the rising solid line are for two gaps with $\Delta y > 3$. The dashed line is for $|y_\pi| <$ 1.0 and the dotted line
for $|y_\pi| <$ 1.6.
Right: The central exclusive $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass distribution at $\sqrt{s}$ = 62 GeV (SFM \citep{Breakstone:1986xd}).}
\end{figure}

  After the ISR was shut down in 1984 Breakstone \emph{et al.}~\citep{Breakstone:1986xd,Breakstone:1986mz,Fischer:2014eta} published a more detailed SFM study of a 4-C fit to
  $p + \; \pi^+\pi^- + p$ with $x_F(p) >$ 0.9 (protons and pions are assumed, but not identified).
  They found $t_1$ and $t_2$ to be uncorrelated, and to have an exponential slope $b$ = $-$6.1 GeV$^{-2}$, half the elastic slope, for both $t_1, t_2$, and $(t_1+t_2)$,
  as expected for $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$$\!\!$. The cross section is about 10 $\mu$b, showing some rise through this energy range~\citep{Albrow:2010yb}. The $M(\pi\pi)$ spectrum rises from threshold
  up to 1000 MeV, with no sign of a $\rho$-meson (forbidden in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$$\!\!$), and then drops rapidly, see Figure 1(right). This behavior is called a ``cusp", occuring when the $K\bar{K}$
  threshold opens, but the narrow $f_0(980)$ meson occurs at nearly the same mass. A bump in the cross section looks like the $f_0(1270)$ state, but a partial wave
  analysis showed that the $J = 2$ D-wave is dominated there by $J = 0$ S-wave. This raised the suggestion \citep{Minkowski:2002nf} that the data all the way up to 1500 MeV, where there is a
  break, may be dominated by the $f_0(500)$/$\sigma$, a very broad ($\Gamma$ = (400 - 700) MeV) $I^G J^{PC} = 0^+0^{++}$ (poorly understood) state, destructively
  interfering with the $f_0(980)$ to form a dip.

  The Axial Field Spectrometer, AFS, was designed for high-$E_T$ jet physics, with a uranium-scintillator calorimeter covering $\Delta \phi = 2 \pi$.
  To search for glueballs in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$$\!\!$, sets of drift chambers for proton tracking were added~\citep{Akesson:1983jz,Akesson:1985rn} along the beam pipes,
  with veto counters covering $1.5 < |\eta| < 3$. Events kinematically compatible with $p + h^+h^- + p$ with $x_p >$ 0.95 were selected, and the central hadrons were
  identified at low momenta by ionization, $dE/dx$. At $\sqrt{s}$ = 63 GeV there were 87,000 $\pi^+\pi^-$, 523 $K^+K^-$, and 64 $p\bar{p}$ events, with a small amount
  of data also at $\sqrt{s}$ = 45 GeV. The general features are similar to those in Figure 1(right), including S-wave dominance up to about 1500 MeV,
  apart from a small $f_0(1270)$. The only established~\citep{Agashe:2014kda} scalar meson in this region is the broad $f_0(1370)$. The data extend to 3500
  MeV, showing a broad bump from 1500 to 2500 MeV.

 The ISR also provided $\alpha-\alpha$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 126 GeV, and both the AFS~\citep{Akesson:1985rn} and the CERN-Naples-Pisa-Stony
 Brook experiment~\citep{Cavasinni:1985bi} measured $\alpha + \pi^+\pi^- + \alpha$ events, clearly coherent, as the $\alpha$ stay intact while pions are created. The mass spectrum has the
  same shape as in $pp$, within the large statistical uncertainty, the $t$-slope is about half that of elastic $\alpha\alpha$ scattering, and $\sigma$($\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$$\!\!$) is
  about a factor of two higher than in $pp$ collisions.

 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth,angle=270]{MassLog1960.pdf}
 \caption{The cross section for exclusive $\pi^+\pi^-$ vs $M(\pi\pi)$ for all $p_T(\pi\pi)$, assuming the hadrons to be pions,
 at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1960 GeV, above the rapid drop at 1000 MeV/$c^2$. The data are compared to the \textsc{dime} Monte
 Carlo~\citep{Harland-Lang:2013dia}. Figure from Ref~\citep{Albrow:2014ita}.}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

In the post-ISR years many excellent studies of central exclusive hadron production on a fixed target
were done with $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 - 29 GeV using the Omega-spectrometer at CERN, with many different central states~\citep{Kirk:2014nwa}.
But some $\mathrm{I\!R} \;$ + $\mathrm{I\!P} \;$ backgrounds were always present. The last fixed target $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ experiment
was E690~\citep{Gutierrez:2014yqa} at the Fermilab Tevatron with an 800 GeV/$c$ proton beam ($\sqrt{s} =$ 40 GeV). Exclusive $X = \pi^+\pi^-, K^0_s K^0_s,
K^0_s K^\pm \pi^\mp$ and $\phi\phi$ channels were studied. The slow recoil proton was inferred from the missing-mass-squared of the event ($M^2_{miss}
\sim m_p^2$). A partial wave analysis (PWA) was made to select $S$-wave ($J$ = 0) and $D$-wave ($J$ = 2) intensities. The S-wave $\pi^+\pi^-$ spectrum
shape up to 2000 MeV is essentially identical to that measured earlier at the ISR, with only a small D-wave $f_2(1270)$. However, if the
fast proton has $p_T >$ 1 GeV/$c$ the $f_2(1270)$ becomes more prominent.

Very little $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ data was taken at the CERN $Sp\bar{p}S$, but papers from experiments UA1~\citep{Joyce:1993ru} and UA8~\citep{Brandt:2002qr} are
discussed in Ref.~\citep{Albrow:2014ita}.

The Tevatron $p\bar{p}$ collider with $\sqrt{s}$ = 1960 GeV was the perfect machine for $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ ; at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1960 GeV we have $y_{BEAM}$ = 7.64.
With a good solenoidal central detector, with charged hadron identification by time-of-flight, as in CDF, one can have
rapidity gaps $>$ 5 units adjacent to the central hadron-pair, providing
essentially pure pomeron exchange. (Photon exchange can also give such large gaps, and both $\gamma$ $\mathrm{I\!P} \;$ and $\gamma\gamma$ events were observed when the central
state is forbidden in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$, as for $e^+e^-$\citep{Abulencia:2006nb}, $\mu^+\mu^-$\citep{Aaltonen:2009kg, Aaltonen:2009cj},
and $J/\psi$\citep{Aaltonen:2009kg}). Unfortunately an early installation of Roman pots to measure elastic scattering and single
diffraction was not retained long enough to study $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ with both protons detected. However sets of scintillator paddles (Beam Shower Counters, BSC) were installed around the beam pipes,
and could be used as rapidity gap detectors and also for triggering. In the last months before the Tevatron shut down (30 September 2011) CDF recorded 10$^8$
events with two forward rapidity gaps, and two or more charged particles in the central region~\citep{Albrow:2014ita}. Of these, 127,340 events had a pair of
hadrons with $Q$ = 0, $p_T >$ 0.4 GeV/$c$, and $|\eta| < 1.0$
and nothing else detected in $|\eta| <$ 5.9. When the $p_T$ of the pair is large enough to have acceptance for low-mass pairs,
the $f_0(980)$ is seen as a small peak followed by a sharp
drop, as typical in these spectra, and it is followed by a large peak, see Figure 2, which is probably both $f_2(1270)$ and $f_0(1370)$, although unfortunately the spin states
could not be separated. (The $X \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ decay is consistent with being isotropic up to 1500 MeV, within the limited angular coverage.)

In the last two years new results on spectroscopy in $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ have come from RHIC ($pp$-collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV) and
CMS at the LHC ($pp$-collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV). These are
reported at this workshop by Sikora
and Khakzad \citep{Khakzad:2016avq}, and I shall not discuss them here. Both experiments have a great
deal more data already recorded, and we can look forward to seeing the spectra with higher statistics. There are also data from CDF on channels other than the
published $\pi^+\pi^-$ that are still being analysed. Some recent theoretical calculations for these processes can be found in Refs.\citep{Harland-Lang:2013dia}
and \citep{Lebiedowicz:2016ioh}.

What is really needed to make a leap forward is
 high statistics (e.g. 10$^6$ events/channel)
   with both protons measured at high $\sqrt{s}$, at RHIC or the LHC, and in many channels with identified hadrons including (but
   not only) $K^+K^-$, $K^0_S K^0_S$, $\phi \phi$, $\eta \eta, \eta \eta', \eta' \eta', K^0_S K^\pm \pi^\mp,$ and $ \pi\pi KK$.
   It may be that the $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ spectra are different when the protons are detected at
small $|t|$ than when only gaps are required; this could now be tested directly in CMS-TOTEM low-pileup runs at the LHC, by comparing central states
with leading protons and with leading showers in the Forward Shower Counters, FSC.
   This could actually be done in a few days of low pileup running at the LHC with special triggers.
   If there is, as expected in QCD,  a scalar glueball with mass $>$ 1000 MeV it will probably be quite wide and therefore
   have such a short lifetime that if produced \emph{inclusively} it will decay within the hadron formation region, $\sim$ 1 fm.  It will not be an
   isolated hadron, but live and die in a ``messy" environment. Only in direct $\mathrm{D I\!P E}\;$ production (or perhaps also
   in $e^+e^- \rightarrow \Upsilon \rightarrow \gamma + X$) can single glueballs be alone, in a clean
   (in fact, vacuum) environment. More than 40 years after glueballs were proposed it is high time we understood the
   isoscalar $J^{PC} = 0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ spectra, and the QCD vacuum at distance scales $\sim$ 1 fm.

\medskip

High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)