Modeling Interpersonal Influence of Verbal Behavior in Couples Therapy Dyadic Interactions

Abstract: Dyadic interactions among humans are marked by speakers continuously influencing and reacting to each other in terms of responses and behaviors, among others. Understanding how interpersonal dynamics affect behavior is important for successful treatment in psychotherapy domains. Traditional schemes that automatically identify behavior for this purpose have often looked at only the target speaker. In this work, we propose a Markov model of how a target speaker's behavior is influenced by their own past behavior as well as their perception of their partner's behavior, based on lexical features. Apart from incorporating additional potentially useful information, our model can also control the degree to which the partner affects the target speaker. We evaluate our proposed model on the task of classifying Negative behavior in Couples Therapy and show that it is more accurate than the single-speaker model. Furthermore, we investigate the degree to which the optimal influence relates to how well a couple does on the long-term, via relating to relationship outcomes

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

Conversations in social settings are often marked by each person expressing behaviors that are not only driven by their own internal state of mind but also affected by how the other person responds to them \cite{mikulincer2002attachment}. The nature of this phenomenon, referred to as interpersonal influence, can vary significantly, depending on the individual traits of the speakers as well as the relationship between them. Even for the same speaker, the type of influence might be different with different people, causing their behavior to change differently. For example, a person might respond positively when their friend compliments them but might respond in a lukewarm manner when a stranger compliments them. Therefore, creating models that explicitly incorporate influence can provide new understanding of the longer-term dyad dynamics along with better behavioral estimation.

\panos{Need to be careful: entrainment is a dynamic/2-person feature; Matt's work included both interlocutors in model but lacked dynamics. Not all psychotherapy is couples... Tone claims and add non USC citations too....}
Observational studies in psychotherapy domains involve interactions that are observed and assessed by human annotators on certain behaviors of interest.
In Behavioral Signal Processing \cite{georgiou2011_behavioral-sign, narayanan2013_behavioral-sign} we employ automated scoring of these interactions using speech and language analysis with machine learning to quantify these same behaviors. There are multiple methods of doing this, but one very successful technique has been through analysis of the spoken language of the rated speaker.  Most work in this regard, however, either did not explicitly model the underlying states of the interlocutors \cite{black2010automatic,tseng2016couples} or completely ignored the rated speaker's partner \cite{chakravarthula2015language,xiao2015_rate-my-therapi}. These models lack explicit understanding of the interpersonal influence. While interlocutor influence models have been proposed in the past \cite{lee2009modeling,yang2015modeling}, they assume direct interaction between the latent states of the speakers which is not applicable for our problem. Outside of BSP, mutual influence models have been proposed, such as \cite{cook2005actor} which predicts \dq{attachment security} between mother and child based on their previous measures of security. However, these deal with fully observed processes which are different from the latent behavior we are interested in modeling.

Our proposed model, which we refer to as the influence model, describes how a speaker continuously perceives their partner's behavior based on their responses and how this perception, in addition to their own past behavior, affects their behavior over time. It also specifies parameters that determine the strength of the influence mechanisms. Thus, it provides a more complete understanding of how and why a person's behavior changes over time.

Additionally, we investigate if the interpersonal influence between the speakers of a couple during therapy relates to their relationship outcomes. It has been shown that interlocutor influence in couples dyadic interactions is important for relationship functioning \cite{baucom2015changes}, and therefore, outcomes. Empirical relations have also been found between outcomes and interaction-dependent measures such as vocal entrainment (through withdrawal behavior) \cite{lee2012using} and dyadic prosodic features \cite{nasir2017predicting}. Therefore, we want to examine whether our model parameters, that are designed to describe the characteristics of dyadic interactions, can also provide information about outcomes.

\section{Behavior Interaction Model}
\label{sec:model}

We first present our baseline model, proposed in \cite{chakravarthula2015language}, in Sec.~\ref{ssec:ldbm} and then present our proposed influence model in Sec.~\ref{ssec:inf}

\subsection{Likelihood-based Dynamic Behavior Model (LDBM)}
\label{ssec:ldbm}

The LDBM is a single-speaker model that characterizes a person expressing a certain \emph{class} of behavior (ex: \dq{High Anger} or \dq{Low Anger}) as an HMM-based generative process.
Specifically, in each turn, the target speaker occupies a latent behavior \emph{state}, generates an utterance with some emission probability, either remains in the same state or moves to a different one with some transition probability, generates a new utterance and repeats this until the end of the interaction.
The full behavior process is given by:
\vspace{-0.25cm}

\begin{flalign}
P(\bm{S_{s}},\bm{U_{s}})=P(\bm{S_{s}})P(\bm{U_{s}}|\bm{S_{s}})& \label{eq:ldbm_joint}
\end{flalign}

\begin{figure}[!t]
    \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{model.pdf}
    \caption{\it{Behavior generation process over 3 speaker turns in the Influence Model}}
    \label{fig:new_model}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}

where $\textbf{S}_{s}$ denotes the speaker states and $\textbf{U}_{s}$ denotes the utterances generated while in those states. Behavior classes in the LDBM share the same set of states but differ in their transition probabilities. For example, a \dq{High Anger} speaker might tend to stay in a particular state and not change whereas a \dq{Low Anger} speaker might frequently change states. The LDBM is the current best model in behavioral classification as it incorporates a more accurate model of time-varying behavior than then-existing methods. It does not however  take the partner's effect into account.
\vspace{-0.35cm}

\subsection{Influence Model}
\label{ssec:inf}

As an extension, our proposed model introduces an additional latent \dq{pseudo-state} that represents how the target speaker perceives their partner's behavior. Its purpose is to simulate the generation of the partner's utterance and affect the next state of the speaker. We do this to model the real-world scenario where a speaker does not know the state of mind of the partner they are interacting with \cite{mikulincer2002attachment} - the best they can do is to make an inference based on what they said. We call the partner's \emph{perceived-by-target-speaker} state a pseudo-state to distinguish it from a state which represents the partner's internal state of mind. We denote the target speaker, the one whose behavior we are interested in identifying, by $S_{s}$ and the partner, from whom we are obtaining supplementary information, by $\acute{S}_{p}$.

Furthermore, our influence model specifies parameters that control how much a speaker's behavior is influenced by their own past behavior versus their partner, motivated by the domain literature \cite{berns1999demand}. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively control how much the speaker's current utterance and partner explain their current behavior, relative to their previous state, which is always weighted by 1. Speakers who do not listen much to their partner and instead continually espouse only their point of view have $\beta \ll \alpha,1$. In contrast, speakers that strongly react to what their partners say during discussions have $\beta \geqslant \alpha,1$.

The behavior generation process is as follows: In a speaking turn $i$, the target speaker, who is currently in state $S_{s}^{i-1}$, observes the partner generated utterance $U_{p}^{i-1}$ and perceives their partner to be in pseudo-state $\acute{S}_{p}^{i-1}$. Then, based on $S_{s}^{i-1}$ and $\acute{S}_{p}^{i-1}$, the speaker transitions to state $S_{s}^i$ and generates $U_{s}^i$. As an illustration, Fig.~\ref{fig:new_model} depicts this process over 3 turns of an interaction.
In this model, while $S_{s}^i$ depends on $S_{s}^{i-1}$, $\acute{S}_{p}^i$ does not depend on $\acute{S}_{p}^{i-1}$.

For an interaction consisting of $M$ turns, the complete behavior generation process is given by:

\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:class_dec_cond}
  \begin{split}
    P(\bm{S_{s}},\bm{\acute{S}_{p}},& \bm{U_{s}},\bm{U_{p}};\alpha,\beta) =  \\
= & P(\bm{S_{s}},\bm{\acute{S}_{p}};\beta)P(\bm{U_{s}},\bm{U_{p}}|\bm{S_{s}},\bm{\acute{S}_{p}};\alpha,\beta)  \\
= & P(S_{s}^1) \cdot \prod\limits_{j=2}^M P(S_{s}^j|S_{s}^{j-1}) \cdot \prod\limits_{j=2}^{M-1} P(S_{s}^j|\acute{S}_{p}^{j-1})^\beta \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \cdot \prod\limits_{j=1}^M P(U_{s}^j|S_{s}^j)^\alpha \cdot \prod\limits_{j=1}^{M-1} P(U_{p}^j|\acute{S}_{p}^j)^\beta \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}

\noindent where \textbf{A} denotes the set $\{A^1,\ldots,A^M\}$ for target speaker and $\{A^1,\ldots,A^{M-1}\}$ for partner. $P(S_{s}^j|S_{s}^{j-1})$ and $P(S_{s}^j|\acute{S}_{p}^{j-1})$ are transition probabilities that denote how a speaker's previous state and their partner's previous pseudo-state are likely to affect the speaker's choice of next state. $P(U_{s}^j|S_{s}^j)$ is an emission probability describing the likelihood of the speaker saying something when occupying that state. $P(U_{p}^j|\acute{S}_{p}^j)$ describes the likelihood, according to the speaker, of the partner saying something in the perceived state. Since both emission probabilities deal with the speaker's perspective they are obtained from the same model.
\vspace{-0.125cm}

\section{Data}
\label{sec:data}

The Couples Therapy corpus \cite{christensen2004} contains audio, video recordings and manual transcriptions of conversations between 134 real-life couples attending marital therapy. In each session, one person selected a topic that was discussed over 10 minutes with the spouse. At the end of the session, both speakers were rated separately on 33 \dq{behavior codes} by multiple annotators based on the Couples Interaction \cite{heavey2002couples} and Social Support  \cite{Jones1998} Rating Systems. Each behavior was rated on a Likert scale from 1, indicating absence, to 9, indicating strong presence. A session-level rating was obtained for each speaker by averaging the annotator ratings. This process was repeated for the spouse, resulting in 2 sessions per couple at a time. The total number of sessions per couple varied between 2 and 6. Henceforth, for couples, we refer to the speaker whose behavior we want to classify as \dq{rated speaker} and their partner as \dq{spouse}.

For classifying Negative behavior, we used the binarized dataset where sessions with ratings in the top 20 percentile i.e. High Negative are assigned the class label $C_1$ while those in the bottom 20 percentile i.e. Low Negative are assigned $C_0$. There are 280 sessions in total with 140 in each class. In each session, we formatted the interaction to enforce the rated speaker to begin the conversation as well as end it as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:new_model}.

Each couple was also rated at the 26-week or the 2-year time period on its recovery since starting therapy, referred to as \dq{outcomes} \cite{baucom2011observed}. They were rated as follows - 1 indicating deterioration in relationship, 2 indicating no change, 3 indicating measurably better improvement and 4 indicating recovery. We use 2-year outcome ratings for 79 couples belonging to the Top/Bottom 20 percentile classes. These are the ones we are interesting in analyzing and their demographics are shown in Table \ref{tab:dem_out}.

\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{*5c}
\toprule
Outcome & Decline & No Change & Better & Recovery\\
\midrule
Rating & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4\\
No. Couples & 18 & 9 & 18 & 34 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Couples Therapy Outcome Demographics}
\label{tab:dem_out}
\vspace{-0.875cm}
\end{table}

\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}

In this section, we describe the classification experiment. We also describe in Sec.~\ref{ssec:exp_out} how we can employ the optimized model parameters, $\alpha, \beta$, as indicators of influence or inertia and how these can be related to  outcomes.\vspace{-0.25cm}

\subsection{Behavior Classification}
\label{ssec:exp_class}

We use a full leave-one-couple-out train-dev-test scheme in order to account for the small number of samples and to prevent over-fitting to the speaking styles or interaction topics of the test couple. Model parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are tuned on the dev set. We evaluate our model against the LDBM with 1-gram, 2-gram and 3-gram LMs to examine the effect of longer context. We also modify the LDBM process described in Eqn.~\ref{eq:ldbm_joint} to allow scaling of the emission probabilities with the same $\alpha$ used in our model. This allows for a fairer comparison of the two models.\vspace{-0.25cm}

\subsubsection{Training}
\label{sssec:class_train}
\vspace{-0.125cm}
The core training methodology is similar to that of the LDBM in our previous work \cite{chakravarthula2015language}. We use two states $S_0$ and $S_1$ which are represented by statistical language models that we term language-to-behavior (L2B) models. In this case L2B employs an ARPA format as in \cite{georgiou2011thats-aggravati,chakravarthula2015language}. Both classes $C_0$ and $C_1$ use the same states but through different state transition probabilities. The state models, along with the transition probabilities, are trained using the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm.

In this first attempt at creating the influence model, our focus was on establishing its benefits. Thus, rather than risk overfitting through optimization, we decided to explore a range of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in logarithmic steps of 10 from $10^{-3}$ to $10^3$, resulting in a search space of 49 points. The main idea is to get a general sense of the importance of the information streams. For example, $\alpha$$=$$1$, $\beta$$=$$1$ implies that \dq{the rated speaker is affected as much by their own past behavior as their spouse's}.

The training procedure is as follows:

\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=-0.5mm]
\item In a test fold, pick parameter configuration $\alpha,\beta$
\item Initialize and iteratively train state models with $\alpha,\beta$ using the LDBM training described in \cite{chakravarthula2015assessing}
\item Estimate state transition probabilities per class, classify dev couple sessions and repeat for all dev sessions
\item Pick best configuration $\alpha,\beta$ based on dev accuracy
\item Use this $\alpha, \beta$, train class and state models to evaluate on the test session and repeat for all test folds
\end{enumerate}

We avoided estimating the transition probabilities at each iteration since they tended to skew towards not changing states as a result of the turns initially having the same label. Also, at the end of the training stage, we would normally end up with only one model. In this case, though, we have a set of models, one for each test couple, because of the specific train-dev-test setup used. The training procedure for the modified LDBM is similar with only $\alpha$ being optimized over the dev set. For baseline comparison, we also trained LDBM with fixed $\alpha=1$
\vspace{-0.25cm}

\subsubsection{Testing and Evaluation}
\label{sssec:class_test}
Given a session consisting of $M$ rated speaker turns $\textbf{U}_{s}$ and $M$$-$$1$ spouse turns $\textbf{U}_{p}$, the goal is to classify the rated speaker as either $C_0$ or $C_1$. For each class, we get decoded state sequences, that best explain the observed utterances, along with its probability. The class that is most likely to have generated the utterances is then picked as the label of the rated speaker as denoted below:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_i&=&\argmax\limits_{C_j}P(\bm{S_{s}^j},\bm{\acute{S}_{p}^j}|\bm{U_{s}}\bm{U_{p}};\alpha,\beta)\label{eq:class_dec} \\
&=&\argmax\limits_{C_j}P(\bm{S_{s}^j},\bm{\acute{S}_{p}^j},\bm{U_{s}},\bm{U_{p}};\alpha,\beta) \label{eq:class_dec_joint}
\end{eqnarray}

where
$\bm{S_{s}}^j$ is the speaker state sequence decoded by model of $C_j$ for $\bm{U_{s}}$,
$\bm{\acute{S}_{p}^j}$ is the perceived partner state sequence decoded by model of $C_j$ for $\bm{U_{p}}$,
and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the optimized parameters used to train final model

The joint probability in Eqn.~\ref{eq:class_dec_joint} reduces to the conditionally independent probabilities in Eqn.~\ref{eq:class_dec_cond}. Using this scheme, we classify all test couples with their corresponding fold models trained in Sec.~\ref{sssec:class_train} and compute the classification accuracy. The same scheme is also used to test the LDBM and obtain its classification accuracy. The two models, along with the baseline, are then compared in Sec.~\ref{ssec:res_class}.\vspace{-0.25cm}

\subsection{Mapping Parameters to Outcomes}
\label{ssec:exp_out}

We investigated whether our model parameters contain information about couples outcomes using the following procedure: For an outcome rating, select couples with this rating. Select a couple and obtain its average dev classification accuracy over all test folds for each parameter configuration $\alpha$, $\beta$. Pick the parameter configuration with the highest accuracy and add 1 count to its bin; equal fractional counts if there are multiple configurations. Repeat for all couples and normalize the counts to get a 2-D histogram. Convert 2-D histogram into a 1-D histogram with new axis $\gamma=log10(1/\beta)$ and repeat for all outcomes. The results of this analysis are discussed in Sec.~\ref{ssec:res_out}.\vspace{-0.125cm}

\section{Results \& Discussion}
\label{sec:results}

\subsection{Behavior Classification}
\label{ssec:res_class}

The test results comparison betwen the baseline LDBM ($\alpha$$=$$1$), LDBM and influence model is shown in Table.~\ref{tab:res_class}.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{*4c}
\toprule
Model & LDBM ($\alpha$$=$$1$) & LDBM & Influence Model\\
\midrule
1-gram & 84.64 & 82.86 & \textbf{85.00}\\
2-gram & 86.78 & 86.43 & \textbf{88.93}\\
3-gram & 85.71 & 87.86 & \textbf{88.21}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of Test Classification Accuracy \% with best performing model indicated in \textbf{bold}}
\label{tab:res_class}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}

\begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{ldbm_dev}
        \caption{{LDBM 1,2,3-gram}}
        \label{fig:old}
    \end{subfigure}
	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{inf1_dev}
        \caption{{Influence 1-gram}}
        \label{fig:new1}
    \end{subfigure}
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{inf2_dev}
        \caption{{Influence 2-gram}}
        \label{fig:new2}
    \end{subfigure}
	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\	\
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
        \includegraphics[width=1.1\textwidth]{inf3_dev}
        \caption{{Influence 3-gram}}
        \label{fig:new3}
    \end{subfigure}
    \caption{Histogram of best parameter configurations for 1,2,3-gram LDBM and Influence models}\label{fig:visualization}
\end{figure*}

We see that our proposed model improves upon the existing one and the baseline in every context scenario. This indicates that the partner's responses do provide supplementary information about why the speaker behaves in a certain way. We also see that while the LDBM gets better with more context, the influence model improves from 1-gram to 2-gram but slightly drops in accuracy from 2-gram to 3-gram. One reason for this could be the coarse sampling of control parameters while another could simply be the sparsity in learning 3-grams in bigger models. We note that our best performing model matches the best RNN-based accuracy obtained by Tseng et al in \cite{tseng2016couples}. This points to complementary gains from improved L2B models \cite{tseng2016couples} and from incorporating interlocutor dynamics as in this work.

We also examined which $(\alpha,\beta)$ configuration in the influence model and $\alpha$ in the LDBM performed best in different test folds. This can provide insight into how relevant each stream of information is, on average. The histogram of best configurations for both models is shown in \cref{fig:old,fig:new1,fig:new2,fig:new3}. It is interesting to note that the best performing model, the 2-gram influence model, overwhelmingly picked $\alpha$$=$$\beta$$=$$1$, implying equal importance of all the information streams. This too stresses the importance of incorporating the spouse's feedback when studying a rated speaker's Negative behavior.\vspace{-0.125cm}

\subsection{Mapping Parameters to Outcomes}
\label{ssec:res_out}

The 1-D histogram relates to interpersonal influence in the following way: $\gamma=0$ denotes equal contribution of the rated speaker's past behavior as the spouse.
$\gamma>0$ corresponds to the speaker's past behavior being more dominant than the spouse whereas $\gamma<0$ denotes the reverse.

In order to check if the outcome histograms are generated from different distributions, we fit a Gaussian distribution to each of them.
The resulting distributions have high variance and the following mean $\mu$ values: 0.20, 0.16, -0.18 and 0.05 for outcomes 1,2,3 and 4 respectively.
We see that the worst outcome, 1, has its $\mu$ farthest from $0$ while the best outcome, 4, has its $\mu$ closest to $0$. Thus, we see a link between the best/worst outcomes and the model parameters. These are inconclusive results but they are encouraging enough to warrant further investigation in future.
    \vspace{-0.35cm}

\section{Conclusions \& Future Work}
\label{sec:confut}

In this work, we proposed a model of how a speaker's behavior changes over time as a result of interacting with their partner. Our approach described a generative process of how one person is perceived based on what they said and how this perception relatively affects the other in conjunction with their own past behavior. By achieving higher accuracy over a single-speaker model on the task of classifying Negative behavior for Couples Therapy, we demonstrated the effectiveness of incorporating information from both participants in a conversation.

In addition, we investigated if our model could provide insights into how interaction dynamics relate to the long-term quality of a couple's relationship. We found that some outcomes tend to be associated with how proportionately a speaker is affected by their partner's perceived behavior with respect to their own past behavior.

As part of future work, we will implement comprehensive optimization of the model while also jointly training all components in it. We also plan on investigating which behaviors benefit from influence modeling and which ones don't and why. Another area where our model can potentially be improved is in replacing discrete behavior states with continuous ones such as in the Kalman filter or recursive neural networks. We will also investigate incorporating our more recent advances in language-to-behavior mapping as in \cite{tseng2016couples}.

We also plan on further investigating the relation between influence parameters and outcomes with the help of the extensions mentioned above - refined estimation of parameters and for all behaviors - as well as by jointly analyzing the influence parameters and states.
    \vspace{-0.25cm}

\section{Acknowledgments}
\footnotesize
The U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, 820 Chandler Street, Fort Detrick MD 21702-5014 is the awarding and administering acquisition office. This work was supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Research Program under Award No. W81XWH-15-1-0632. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense

\newpage

\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}


Mixtape Application: Last.fm Data Characterization

Abstract: This report analyses data collected fromthis http URLand used to create a real-time recommendation system. We collected over 2M songs and 1M tags and 372K user's listening habits. We characterize users' profiles: age, playcount, friends, gender and country. We characterized song, artist and tag popularity, genres of songs. Additionally we evaluated the co-occurrence of songs in users' histories, which can be used to compute similarity between songs.

\chapter{User profile}\label{sec:user}

We collected a total of 372,899 users from 237 countries. Table~\ref{tab:topUsersCountry}
shows the countries with most users we have collected.

\begin{table}[th]
\centering
  \begin{tabular}{lc}
  \hline
    Country & \# of users \\
  \hline
  US & 54248 \\
	BR & 31230 \\
	PL & 25882 \\
	RU & 22979 \\
	UK & 22515 \\
	DE & 18314 \\
	NL & 7237 \\
	CA & 6931 \\
	FI & 6356 \\
	FR & 6139 \\
  \hline
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Top countries with most users}
\label{tab:topUsersCountry}
\end{table}

Many users did not declare their gender.  Of those who did, 201,096 said they
were male and 108,034 said they were female. Table~\ref{tab:genderPlaycount}
shows the number of average playcounts per gender. We can see that the average
number of playcounts of male users is bigger than that of female users. Users
that have not declared their gender have the smallest average playcount number.

\begin{table}
\centering
  \begin{tabular}{lc}
  \hline
    Gender & Average playcounts \\
  \hline
	Female & 82907.0770 \\
	Male & 113573.4874 \\
	Not informed & 56797.2135 \\
  \hline
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Average playcount per gender}
\label{tab:genderPlaycount}
\end{table}

The age range reported by the users ranges from 0 to 115 years.
Figure~\ref{fig:userage} shows the distribution of users' ages.  We can see
that the great majority of Last.fm users are from 18 to 30 years old. Over
113,000 users did not report their age.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figs/lastfm_user_age.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: Users' age distribution.}
\label{fig:userage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figs/user_playcount.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of users' playcounts.}
\label{fig:userplaycount}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The Figure~\ref{fig:userplaycount} shows that approximately 27\% of the users
have listened to less than 10,000 songs, whereas 62\% of the users have
listened to 10,000 to 100,000 songs. In general users listen to a large amount
of songs, making a vast listening history, showing that their engagement with Last.fm
service lasts for a significant period of time.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figs/lastfm_user_friends_cdf.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of users' friends.}
\label{fig:userfriends}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:userfriends} shows the CDF of users' friends. Approximately 5\%
of the users have zero friends in Last.fm, and 50\% of the users have at most
25 friends. We have only collected a maximum of 50 friends of each user, explaining
the peak in the 50 number of friends point in the plot. Approximately 30\% of
the users have 50 friends or more.

\chapter{Introduction}

There is a never-ending debate about music and what happened to it after the dawn of the
streaming age. A few very quick revolutions happened between the first appearance of
MP3 files and illegal downloads and the current scenario, where most artists have their
full catalog on at least one free streaming service, and many questions regarding
the consequences of that process are left without answers.

Back in the day, the only ways for people to listen to music were to turn on the radio
or, when choice was important, to buy large vinyl records that would eventually be stored
somewhere in the house, waiting to be chosen to leave the comfort of their thick sleeves
for a spin on the turntable. These records had two sides, and required an inevitable pause
between the first and the second half of every record, since someone would have to go
there and flip the record. This single fact, for instance, had a strong influence on how
records were planned and how the sequence of songs was laid out.

Music albums were also a notable case of product tying, since they were a way for record
companies to sell a large number of songs at once even though many customers only wanted
a couple songs off each album. This situation started to change with the release of
singles, which were cheaper, smaller vinyl records containing only a couple of songs,
and, a little later, by the introduction of portable cassette tape machines, which allowed
people to copy songs from different sources (radio, records or other tapes) to magnetic
tapes, which were cheap, small and practical.

This was the birth of the personal playlist. Tapes were the first time people could piece
together whatever tracks they wanted to listen to in whatever order they wanted and
then effectively listen to them, regardless of the popularity of the artists involved,
their likeliness to appear on the radio or the price of their LPs. The CD came as a more
practical alternative to that system, but, down deep, the album mentality was the same.

Of course, these are baby steps when compared to the flexibility and speed of the current
music industry. Many people don't even store music on their own computers anymore and,
in their cloud profiles, have access to music collections so large that they would
probably take up the space of a modern house in terms of physical records.
Entire albums can be bought, leased, shared or ``stolen'' in a few minutes over broadband
connection, and crafting and delivering a mixed tape to a friend only takes a few clicks.

This abundance of material creates a very urgent need for services that somehow make
it easier to find music that is interesting and relevant. There are many recommendation
services that try to address this problem in different ways. Some systems are able
make taste-based recommendations based on usage patterns, after a user has used them
for long enough. Other systems are based on curated lists of newly released and trending
items or artists, such as the user-made playlists on mixcloud\footnote{\url{www.mixcloud.com}}
or the professional dj-curated streams on 22tracks\footnote{\url{22tracks.com}}.
Otherwise, the typically available navigation functions in media players and online
streaming services are mostly based on filtering by attributes, like title, artist
or genre, or return a list of similar items, computed using collaborative filtering techniques.

Now that we're witnessing the consolidation of these streaming services, it is more important
than ever to have a better understanding of how people listen to music. This is crucial
for the success of any music-related service, especially the ones that intend to somehow
recommend new music, or create sequences or playlists for different people to listen to.

One of the simplest ways to do that is to look at how people behave in the internet
- more specifically, on Online Social Networks (OSNs).
These websites are meant to extend the individual experience of society by bringing social
activities to the internet, allowing people to discuss their favorite subjects and share
their thoughts, opinions and feelings in a distributed and independent way, making them
an interesting source of many different kinds of information.

Some of these networks carry information that is particularly valuable because it does not
require active behavior to gather itself. This way, it reflects true habit
and behavior that would otherwise have to be observed in an intrusive way. A great
example of an ingenious way to collect such information is Last.Fm\footnote{\url{www.last.fm}}:

Last.Fm is an online social network for music fans. It has a very ingenious way of
operating: Users deliberately install a lightweight crawler on their personal computers
to keep track of what they are listening to. That is called \textit{scrobbling}.
Once users have their musical history up on the website, they can interact with
other users, make virtual ``friends'' (or find real ones that have profiles)
and add them to their own profiles, leave messages, navigate through other users'
profiles to see what they listen to, among other things. It even integrates with
streaming services such as Spotify\footnote{\url{www.spotify.com}}, allowing users
to upload their streaming histories directly to last.fm and listen to songs.

Even though the way people listen to music has changed drastically over the last few
years, there is still little research characterizing these phenomena.
In this work, we focus our attention on analyzing how people share their music
listening habits with other people via the internet. In particular, we analyze
\textit{last.fm}: We seek to characterize last.fm user behavior using our analysis to shed
light on how users interact in this Online Social Network (OSN), how their
preferences and activities may affect and be affected by content popularity
dynamics and, especially, how they listen to music.

We seek to answer the following key questions:
\begin{itemize}
  \item What is the Last.fm user profile, age, gender, location?
  \item How is user activity distributed among content?
  \item How is the distribution of tags associated with songs?
  \item How can we use the knowledge of our data collection to improve the
    similarity measures we intend to derive from it?
\end{itemize}

Our analysis reveals interesting details about the operation of last.fm.
In Particular, we show that users are young, and most are located in the United States.
We also learn that there is a large difference between the amount of people
who listen to popular songs and obscure songs, and that popularity should be taken
into account to build concepts of similarity between songs, for recommendation purposes.
And finally, we notice that users explore the tag functionality of the network quite
heavily, and that important information can be derived from these tags and used for
similarity and recommendation purposes.

The report is structured as follows. We discuss related work about music similarity
and recommendation in chapter~\ref{sec:related}. In chapter~\ref{sec:dataset} we present
detailed information about the dataset used for this study. In chapter~\ref{sec:user}
we describe our detailed analysis of the user-related information in the dataset. In
chapter~\ref{sec:tracksandartists} we present our analysis of artists and tracks. In
chapter~\ref{sec:tags} we describe the analysis of tags. Finally, in chapter~\ref{sec:conclusions},
we present our conclusions.

\chapter{Related Work}\label{sec:related}

The most relevant aspects of recommendation systems are the premises they
are based on, and how they build upon them. One of the most common premises
is content similarity, and that it would be desirable to recommend content
that is somehow similar to content that a given user enjoys. So, We present
a small compilation of related works in the area of Media Similarity,
Music Recommendation and Playlist Generation.

\textbf{Media item-to-item similarity computation:}
Several research studies offer technical solutions to define similarity between a given pair of items, and they divide themselves among two schools. Some studies develop similarity measures that are based solely on content (objective approach), being that audio or video information — for instance, the spectral or rhythmic content of songs.
On the other hand, other studies develop similarity measures that are based on user-generated
data and tags, also known as collaborative filtering (subjective approach). In the context of music,
different approaches to define item-to-item similarity have been studied extensively, such as
content-based measures~\cite{mcfee2012learning, cano2005content, logan2001music,
flexer2014inter, aucouturier2005way, van2013deep},
that analyze spectral or rhythmic properties of songs, and user-based
measures~\cite{minsu2015, konstas2009social, shepitsen2008personalized,
goussevskaia2008web, farrahi2014impact, kuhn2010social}, that
analyze user listening habits in online social networks or user-generated
tags~\cite{shepitsen2008personalized}.
Many of these studies aim at building recommendation
systems~\cite{mcfee2012learning, cano2005content,
van2013deep, farrahi2014impact, turnbull2014using, shepitsen2008personalized}.

\textbf{Music playlist generation:}  Another related line of research to music
navigation systems is \textit{playlist generation}. Several people have
addressed this problem from different perspectives. There are techniques that
use statistical analysis of radio streams~\cite{MailletEtAl_2009,
turnbull2014using, chen2013multi, chen2012playlist}, are based on
multidimensional metric spaces~\cite{chen2012playlist, goussevskaia2008web,
moore2013taste, moore2012learning, kuhn2010social}, explore audio
content~\cite{logan2002content},
and user skipping behavior~\cite{pampalk2005dynamic}.

In particular, authors in~\cite{pampalk2005dynamic} create playlists
based on audio music similarity and skipping behavior, while authors in
\cite{fields2008} use network flow analysis to generate playlists from a
friendship graph of artists on MySpace. Maillet et al~\cite{MailletEtAl_2009},
in turn, present an approach to generating steerable playlists from tags linked
to songs played in professional radio station playlists, and Chen et al~\cite{chen2012playlist}
model playlists as Markov chains, which are generated through the Latent Markov
Embedding machine learning algorithm. The heuristics in~\cite{pampalk2005dynamic}
use acoustic similarity and present linear complexity to return the \textit{next}
item to the user, which is feasible to navigate in a collection of 2,500 items,
as the authors did, but does not scale to larger collections, which is not only
desirable but necessary for modern standards.

\begin{comment}

We go beyond playlist generation, providing a real-time
flexible navigation interface that receives immediate user feedback through skipping behavior
to guide the user within the music collection towards directions chosen on-the-fly.
Similarly
to the framework in~\cite{pampalk2005dynamic}, our
approach explores skipping patterns.
Nevertheless,

\textbf{Large-scale information network embedding:}
Dimensionality reduction is the transformation of high dimensional data into a
meaningful representation of reduced dimensionality, normally it is used to visualize
and analyze this data in a low-dimensional space and to avoid
undesirable effects of high dimensionality \cite{van2009dimensionality}.
The use of dimensionality reduction techniques can be applied to embed graphs and several classical methods of graph embedding and dimensionality reduction in general
can be found in literature, such as Multidimensional
Scaling (MDS) \cite{cox}, IsoMap \cite{TenenbaumEtAl2000} and Laplacian Eigenmap
\cite{Belkin:2003}, which time complexities are at least quadratic to the number
of vertices, which is too expensive for networks with millions
of nodes.  Some recent  studies describe techniques that aim to reduce computational complexity when considering very large information sets \cite{Ahmed:2013,Perozzi:2014,tang2015line}.
In our proposed framework, the embedding  step can be performed by any technique found in literature. Here, we run Isomap with MDS without any approximations in order to guarantee minimal distortion, which is more appropriate for the purpose of the analysis we performed.

Our approach is similar to that in~\cite{kuhn2010social, goussevskaia2008web},
because it builds upon a multidimensional metric space to represent global
similarity, but is also different, since we enhance the navigability of the
space by introducing linked lists connecting possibly distant/dissimilar items that appear together in radio
streams. Our approach is similar
to that in~\cite{chen2013multi, chen2012playlist}, because we use radio
streams collected from \url{Rew.FM} and build a metric space. However, we go beyond sequencing information provided by the radio streams, by crossing data from different domains and building a data
structure comprised of significantly more items.

\textbf{Content-similarity.} Many different research studies offer technical
solutions to define similarity between a given pair of items, and they divide
themselves among two schools. Some studies develop similarity measures that are
based solely on content, being that audio or video information - for instance,
the spectral or rhythmic content of songs - to define how similar they are.
\cite{logan2001music,mcfee2012learning,cano2005content}. On the other hand,
other studies develop similarity measures that are based on User data and human
tags \cite{konstas2009social,shepitsen2008personalized,kuhn2010social}.

\textbf{Music Navigation.} There is  an active community conducting a large amount
of work on music navigation throughout automatic playlist generation, mainly motivated by
the large music collections people have nowadays.
Playlist generation relies on several methods, which are based on song similarities,
measured by using acoustic~\cite{logan2001music, flexer2014inter,
aucouturier2005way}, radio station co-occurrence
~\cite{logan2002content,MailletEtAl_2009,turnbull2014using}, collaborative
filtering~\cite{fields2008, goussevskaia2008web} and user
preference~\cite{van2013deep} (and references therein) features, listening
behavior~\cite{pampalk2005dynamic,farrahi2014impact}, and embeddings in
multidimensional spaces~\cite{chen2012playlist,goussevskaia2008web,moore2013taste,moore2012learning}. Next, we briefly describe the works more related with ours.

Authors in~\cite{pampalk2005dynamic} adapt playlist automatically basing on user feedback and audio-based music similarity and  \cite{fields2008} uses network flow analysis to generate playlists from a friendship graph for MySpace artists.
Maillet et al~\cite{MailletEtAl_2009}, in turn, present an approach to generating steerable playlist from tags linked to songs played in professional radio station playlists.
Chen et al~\cite{chen2012playlist} treat playlists as Markov chains in latent space, which are generated through the Latent Markov Embedding machine learning algorithm.

Our approach differs from the aforementioned ones in
several points: (i) song similarity is defined using collaborative filtering
based on \url{Last.fm} data; (ii) we treat the well-know cold starting problem
in playlist generation based on collaborative filtering\cite{van2013deep} by
using \url{Rew.FM} data, which provides the playlists of thousands of radio
stations in the United States; TODO: COMPLETAR CARACTERISTICAS DO NOSSO NAVIGATOR.

TODO: (check bibliografiaJP.bib) Playlists, Markov chain, last.fm, radio
streams, embedding, metrics, similarity.

\textit{Music similarity: acoustic~\cite{logan2001music,
flexer2014inter, aucouturier2005way}, \cite{van2013deep, mcfee2012learning}?,
collaborative filtering, mixed~\cite{li2007probabilistic, turnbull2009combining}, etc.}

\textit{Playlist generation: skipping~\cite{pampalk2005dynamic, }, markov
chains~\cite{chen2012playlist}, radio streams, acoustic,
etc.\cite{logan2002content}}

\textit{Last.fm, Yes.com dataset characterization?}

\textit{Embedding techniques: Isomap (global) nonlinear dimensionality
reduction~\cite{tenenbaum_global_2000}, LLE (local)~\cite{silva2002global}, LME (non-metric?), TSNE (long tail?)}

\textit{Evaluation techniques}

\textit{small world and local navigability}

TODO: include ICWE, SBRC, WI, ACM MM refs?
\end{comment}
\chapter{Songs and Artists}\label{sec:tracksandartists}

Sometimes, Last.fm registers different items which are actually the same song,
written in different ways. So, For this part of the analysis, we only took
into account the songs we could match with Musicbrainz IDs, in order to avoid
the risk of considering multiple issues related to track or artist name mismatch or repetition.

Figures \ref{fig:poptracklisteners} and \ref{fig:poptrackplaycount} show the Cumulative
Density Function (CDF) of the popularity of songs by listeners and playcount.
We can observe that, in our dataset, 50\% of songs were listened to by at most
1,280 unique users (0.3\%); 10\%, in turn, attracted attention of more than 22,685
unique users (5.9\%). The most popular songs (top 1\%) were listened to by more than
155,468 users (41\%). The top 10 songs by number of listeners can be seen in
Table~\ref{table:songs}, each of them with more than 1.4M listeners.

In Figure~\ref{fig:poptrackplaycount} we can see that 10\% of the tracks have
1,000 playcounts or less and more than 50\% have more than 10,000 playcounts.

\begin{table}[h]
  \centering
\footnotesize
  \begin{tabular}{lll}
  \hline
  Track name & Artist & Number of listeners \\
  \hline
  Smells Like Teen Spirit & Nirvana         & 1,806,180 \\
  Mr. Brightside           & The Killers     & 1,716,969 \\
  Wonderwall              & Oasis           & 1,685,703 \\
  Come as You Are         & Nirvana         & 1,597,611 \\
  Clocks                  & Coldplay        & 1,507,981 \\
  Somebody Told Me        & The Killers     & 1,490,787 \\
  Take Me Out             & Franz Ferdinand & 1,462,621 \\
  Karma Police            & Radiohead       & 1,431,055 \\
  Viva la Vida            & Coldplay        & 1,431,034 \\
  The Scientist           & Coldplay        & 1,404,877 \\
   \hline
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Top 10 songs}\label{table:songs}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/listeners_track.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of song popularity by listeners.}
\label{fig:poptracklisteners}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/track_playcount.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of song popularity by playcount.}
\label{fig:poptrackplaycount}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:popartistlist} shows the Cumulative Density Function (CDF) of
the popularity of artists by their total listeners, retrieved from Last.fm.  The top 1\%
most popular artists ($\approx$ 3,577) were listened to by more than 764,000
users, while approximately 20\% of the artists were listened to by only 10 users.

Figure~\ref{fig:popartist} shows the Artist CDF by the number of users that
contain that artist in their top 25, in the users' history collected by us.
More than 35\% of the artists appear in only one user's top 25 songs, while 1\%
appear in more than 600 user's top 25 history.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/listeners_artist.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of artist popularity by number of total listeners.}
\label{fig:popartistlist}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/cdf_artist.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of artist popularity by users' top 25.}
\label{fig:popartist}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/coo_track_cdf.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of song co-occurrence.}
\label{fig:coocc_cdf}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/cdf_coo_artist.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of artist co-occurrence.}
\label{fig:coocc_artist}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:coocc_cdf} shows the co-occurrence CDF between songs that co-occurred at least
once. We define as a co-occurring relationship only the pair of songs that
appear in at least one user's top 25 listened songs.  We can see that more than
90\% of the co-occurrences happen in only one user listening history, while
only 1\% of the relationships co-occur 10 or more times.
If we consider all the NxN pairs of all songs, most of the songs don't even
co-occur in any user's top 25 songs. Therefore, initially, we can only infer
the similarity between a small percentage of the songs we have collected, and have
to infer similarity of the other songs from those similarities.

Figure~\ref{fig:coocc_artist} shows the co-occurrence CDF between artists
that co-occurred at least once. We define as a co-occurring relationship only
the pair of artists that appear in at least one user top 25 listened songs. We
can see that 75\% of the artists co-occur only in one user's top 25 songs, whereas
approximately 1\% of the artists co-occur in 22 users' top 25.

\chapter{Data collection} \label{sec:dataset}

Last.fm provides a public API for collecting
information about songs, artists, albums and tags that have been
contributed by millions of users.

The collection of Last.fm was comprised of 2 steps: First we collected 0.28\%
of all songs from the Last.fm service (around 100 thousand songs) and their top
fans, and then we continued collecting the top songs of these fans and their
friends. We collected the top-25 most listened to songs of each user.

Our dataset was collected from November,
2014 to July, 2015, and contains 372,899 users (with their respective top-25
song lists), 2,060,173 songs, and 374,402 artists. Moreover, we also collected a
total of 1,006,236 user-generated tags, associated with songs. In particular, 47\% of songs have
had at least one associated tag in our dataset.

From a total of 2,060,173 songs in our database, 983,010 have MusicBrainz
Identifiers (MBID)\footnote{MBID is a reliable and unambiguous form of music
identification (\url{musicbrainz.org}).}. This is an important source of
reliability, since these entries are guaranteed to be unique, which eliminates
duplicate problems, and refer to the correct media items, which avoids
the occasional mismatch between the name of a song or artist in a user's
computer and the actual correct name of the item, not to mention non-released
live versions, non-official covers and so on.

\chapter{Tags}\label{sec:tags}

Last.fm allows users to create and associate tags with the songs they listen
to. One tag can be associated to one song from one to 100 times,
allowing the users to show their agreement of a certain tag association
by adding to it. We collected a total of 1,006,236 user-generated tags,
associated with songs. 47\% of the songs have had at least one associated
tag in our dataset and considering only the songs with MusicBrainz ID,
75\% of the songs were associated with at least one tag.

The top 5 most popular tags (rock, alternative, pop, indie and electronic) were
associated with 541,527 songs. Table~\ref{table:tags} shows the most popular
tags and the number of songs associated with them.

\begin{table}[h]
  \centering
\footnotesize
  \begin{tabular}{ll}
  \hline
  Tag name & Tag count \\
  \hline
  rock & 167,610 \\
  alternative & 101,061 \\
  pop & 96,654 \\
  indie & 88,786 \\
  electronic & 87,416 \\
  alternative rock & 56,643 \\
  favorites & 56,508 \\
  beautiful & 51,870 \\
  love & 50,918 \\
  awesome & 42,364 \\

   \hline
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Top 10 tags}\label{table:tags}
\end{table}

Figure \ref{fig:poptag} shows the Cumulative Density Function (CDF) of tag
popularity using the number of songs associated with the tag: 62\% of tags have
been associated with only one song. In contrast, the top 5 most popular tags
were associated with more than 87,000 songs each.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figs/cdf_tag.eps}
\caption{Last.fm: CDF of tag popularity.}
\label{fig:poptag}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\chapter{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}

In this technical report we presented a broad characterization of Last.fm, an
Online Social Network (OSN) for music fans. From that characterization we
understood more about the profile of Last.fm users and how they listen to music
and interact with the OSN. We also collected insights about the data we have
collected, which is a small fraction of the information available in Last.fm
database.

We learned that the majority of the users we have collected are young, from 18
to 30 years old, and from various countries, but the majority of users are still
in the US. This will probably impact our similarity measures, which will be
more accurate for the songs that appeal to this young audience and that are
popular in the US, because we will have more co-occurrence data about these
songs. If we want to have better similarity metrics for a specific country or
region, it is fair to assume that it will be beneficial to collect more data
from users from that region as a priority.

We discovered that there are songs that are listened by only a handful of users,
while the top songs are listened by thousands users. This means that we will
probably achieve better similarity measures for the most popular songs. Based on
that information, we could develop new methods to gather more data about the
less popular songs. For instance, we could collect those songs top fans
histories, in order to gather more co-occurrence data from these songs. Or, in
the future, we could try to ally our similarity measures based on social data to
other techniques, for example, techniques that use the analysis of the content
of the songs, to derive similarity measures for new or unknown songs we want to
recommend.

Users also heavily used tags to classify the songs they listen to. From tags we
learned that the most common genre of song in Last.fm is rock, the tag
associated with the most songs in the social network. Since tags are present in
most of the songs that contain a MusicBrainz ID, we can take advantage of tags
to improve our similarity metrics, for instance, using tags to derive
similarity of songs with zero co-occurrences to other songs. Or we can develop
navigation techniques that take advantage of tags. Finally, we can even use
tags to evaluate our similarity metrics and Euclidean space, by analyzing if
songs with a given tag tend to be close together or spread around the map.


Study of The Abundance Patterns in The Metal-Poor Stellar Stream

Abstract: The chemical abundances of the metal-poor stars in the stellar stream provide important information for setting constraints on models of neutron-capture processes. The study of these stars could give us a better understanding of r-process nucleosynthesis and chemical composition of the early Galaxy. Using the updated main r-process and weak r-process patterns, we fit abundances in the stellar stream stars. The weak r-process component coefficients are almost constant for the sample stars, including r-rich stars, which means that both weak r-process and Fe are produced as primary elements from SNeII and their yields have nearly a constant mass fraction. The difference between the stream stars and r-rich stars is obvious. For the stream stars, that the increase trend in the main r-process component coefficients as metallicity increases means the gradual increase in the production of main r-process elements relative to iron. This behavior implies that the masses of progenitors for the main r-process are smaller than those of the weak r-process. Furthermore, we find metal-poor stream star HD 237846 is a weak r-process star.

\section{Introduction}

The formation and evolution of Galaxy have not been fully
understood, although many studies have explored the problems for
several decade years. Early studies thought that our Galaxy formed
through isolated collapse \citep{egg62}. The idea that the halo of
the Galaxy may have formed partly by accreting some small fragments
was proposed by \cite{sea78}. The stars related to these fragments
could be recognizable as kinematic substructures and chemical
composition among the Galactic halo stars. They should be
concentrated into a number of coherent ``streams" in velocity space.
\cite{hel99} discovered a stellar steam in the solar neighborhood by
detecting the distribution of angular momentum components. They
estimated that about ten per cent metal-poor halo stars came from
the stellar stream whose progenitor system was disrupted during the
formation of the Galaxy. Because the abundance ratios of
[$\alpha$/Fe] in the stream are similar to those of other halo
stars, \cite{kep07} suggested that the abundances of these stream
stars are mostly enriched by Type II supernovae. The stellar stream
provides an excellent test bed for understanding the formation of
our Galaxy. In this aspect, a detail study of elemental abundances,
including the abundances of neutron-capture elements, in the stream
is important.

The elements heavier than the iron-peak elements can be made through
two neutron-capture processes: the r-process and the s-process
\citep{bur57}. The s-process is further divided into two components,
i.e., the main s-component and the weak s-component. The sites of
main s-component are thought to be in low- to intermediate-mass
stars in the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) \citep{bus99}. The most
likely sites for the weak s-component are in core helium burning and
shell carbon burning in massive stars. The r-process sites are
associated with Type II supernovae (SNe) from massive stars, but it
is not fully confirmed \citep{cow91,sne08}. Observations of the very
metal-poor halo stars CS 22892-052 \citep{sne03,cow05} and CS
31082-001 \citep{hil02,hon04} have revealed that their heavier
neutron-capture elements (Z $\geq 56$) are in remarkable agreement
with the scaled solar-system r-process pattern produced by the main
r-process \citep{cow99,tru02,wan06}, but their lighter
neutron-capture elements ($37\leq Z\leq47$) seemed to be deficient
\citep{sne00,hil02}. This means that the r-process abundance pattern
in solar-system material can not be explained by a single process.
Based on the calculation of Galactic chemical evolution,
\cite{tra04} concluded that another component from massive stars is
needed to explain the solar abundance of Sr, Y and Zr. The
corresponding process has the primary nature and is called as
``lighter element primary process" (``LEPP", see \cite{tra04} and
\cite{ser09}) or ``weak r-process component''
\citep{ish05,cow05,cow06,mon07,izu09}. \cite{zha10} analyzed the
abundances of 14 metal-poor stars with the metallicities
[Fe/H]$<-2.0$ and found that the abundance patterns of both
neutron-capture elements and light elements could be best explained
by having a star form in a molecular cloud polluted by weak r- and
main r-process material.

A quantitative understanding of the origins of r-process elements in
the metal-poor stars is still difficult. In this aspect, the stream
stars are optimum sites for the study of r-process because most
stream stars have not been polluted by the s-process material.
Recently, \cite{roe10} observed the abundances of 12 metal-poor
stream stars. Their angular momentum components clumped together far
more than the random distribution of halo stars, which was first
reported by \cite{hel99}. All of 12 members have angular momentum
components with 500$<L_{z}<1500$ kpc km $s^{-1}$ and
$L_{\bot}\sim2000$ kpc km $s^{-1}$, where $L_{z}$ is the angular
momentum component of rotation for a given star's orbit and
$L_{\bot}$ is the combination of the other two angular momentum
components ($L_{\bot}=\sqrt{L_{x}^{2}+L_{y}^{2}}$). Based on
observations of metal-poor stream stars, \cite{roe10} concluded that
the observed abundance of the heavy elements in most stream stars
cannot be well fitted by the abundances from a single r-process,
especially for the lighter neutron-capture elements Sr, Y and Zr. In
order to better understand the origins of neutron-capture elements
in the stellar stream, one must consider the contribution of weak
r-process. In order to make progress in our understanding of the
neutron-capture processes, we study the element abundance patterns
of the metal-poor stream stars, in which light elements, iron group
elements, lighter and heavier neutron-capture elements are observed.

In this paper, we calculate the relative contributions from the
individual neutron-capture process to the elemental abundances of 9
stream stars in which elemental abundances of Eu have been observed.
In Section 2, we obtain the two r-process components and extend the
two abundance patterns to light elements. Using the updated weak
r-component and main r-component, we calculate the relative
contributions from the individual neutron-capture process to the
elemental abundances in the stream stars. The calculated results are
presented in Section 3. Our conclusions are given in Section 4.

\section{The Weak r-process and Main r-process Components}

Observational abundances in metal-poor stars show that sites
producing the heavy r-nuclei do not produce iron group elements or
the other light elements heavier than N \citep{qia07}. In this
fact, the ``main r-process stars" CS 22892-052 and CS 31082-001
could have abundances that mainly reflect results of the main
r-process nucleosynthesis of a few SNe. On the other hand, the
``weak r-process stars", i.e. HD 122563 and HD 88609, play an
essential role in constraining the weak r-process, since they have
the smallest contribution from the main r-process. Adopting the
abundances of CS 22892-052 as main r-process pattern, \cite{zha10}
found that, although the pattern of heavier neutron-capture
elements are very similar to those main r-process pattern, the
light-element abundance patterns of r-rich stars are close to
those of weak r-process stars. In this study, based on the detail
abundance analysis of main r-process stars and weak r-process
stars, we find that the abundances of light and iron group
elements in main r-process stars do not come from main r-process
events. We subtract the average abundances of main r-process stars
from the average abundance of weak r-process stars, normalized to
Eu. And then subtract the obtained result from the average
abundance of main r-process stars, normalized to Fe. Repeat the
processes above, we can obtain the pure weak r- and main
r-components, which had been scaled to the solar r-process
abundances given by \cite{arl99} and the values of Sr-Nb updated
from \cite{tra04}.

\section{Results and Discussions}

\subsection{Fitted Results}

The observed abundances of nine stream stars are taken from
\cite{roe10}. We will explore the origin of the neutron-capture
elements in the stars, by comparing the observed abundances with
predicted results. The $i^{th}$ element abundance in a star can be
calculated as
\begin{equation}
N_{i}(Z)=(C_{r,m}N_{i,r,m}+C_{r,w}N_{i,r,w})\times10^{[Fe/H]}
\end{equation}
where $N_{i,r,m}$, $N_{i,r,w}$ are the scaled abundances of the
$i^{th}$ element produced by the main r-process and weak r-process,
respectively; $C_{r,m}$ and $C_{r,w}$ are the component coefficients
corresponding to relative contributions from the main r-process and
weak r-process to the elemental abundances, respectively. Based on
equation (1), using the observed data of stream stars \citep{roe10},
we can obtain the best-fit $C_{r,m}$ and $C_{r,w}$ by looking for
the minimum $\chi^2$. The component coefficients and $\chi^2$ are
listed in Table \ref{table1}. Fig. \ref{fig1} shows an example of
our calculated best-fit results for the stream stars. The observed
elemental abundances marked by filled circles are also shown to
facilitate comparison. For most stars, there is good agreement
between the predictions and the data for most elements starting with
O to Pb in consideration of the observational errors. \cite{roe10}
have suggested that the abundances of the stream stars do not
contain the contribution of s-process, except for s-rich star CS
29513-032. Furthermore, because of the effect of the secondary-like
nature of the major neutron source in massive stars, no weak
s-contribution is expected in halo stars \citep{tra04}. As a test,
adding the main s-process component and weak s-process component to
equation (1), we use four components to fit the abundances of
metal-poor stars BD+29 2356 ([Fe/H]=-1.59) and BD+30 2611
([Fe/H]=-1.50). The main s-process pattern is taken from the result
with [Fe/H]=-2.0 calculated by \cite{bus01} and weak s-process
pattern is taken from the result presented by \cite{rai93}. The
components coefficients deduced for BD+29 2356 are $C_{r,m}$=3.85,
$C_{r,w}$=4.14, $C_{s,m}$=0 and $C_{s,w}$=0; for BD+30 2611,
$C_{r,m}$=4.49, $C_{r,w}$=2.82, $C_{s,m}$=0 and $C_{s,w}$=0.11. We
can see that the component coefficients of main s-process and weak
s-process are smaller by one order of magnitude than those of main
r- and weak r-process. Our results are consistent with suggestion
presented by \cite{roe10} and \cite{tra04}.

In the stream stars, CS 29513-032 shows clear enrichment by the
s-process. \cite{roe10} have speculated that the s-process material
observed in CS 29513-032 is accreted from another low-metallicity
AGB star. If it is the case, the s-process abundance in the envelope
of the stars could be expected to be lower than the abundance
produced by the s-process in AGB star because the material is mixed
with the envelopes of the primary (former AGB star) and secondary
stars. \cite{roe10} found that the observed abundances could not be
fitted by the scaled solar system r-process pattern nor by the
s-process pattern. We explore the origin of the neutron-capture
elements in the s-rich stars by comparing the observed abundances
with predicted s- and r-process contribution. After considering
s-process contribution, the $i^{th}$ element abundance in the
envelope of the star can be calculated as follows:
\begin{equation}
N_{i}(Z)=(C_{s}N_{i,s}+C_{r,m}N_{i,r,m}+C_{r,w}N_{i,r,w})\times10^{[Fe/H]}
\end{equation}
where $C_{s}$ is the component coefficients that correspond to
s-process and $N_{i,s}$ is the abundance produced by the s-process
in AGB star, which has been normalized to the s-process abundance of
Ba in the solar system \citep{arl99}. The adopted abundance pattern
$N_{i,s}$ in equation (2) is taken from the main s-process abundance
with [Fe/H]=-3.0 for 1.5$M_{\odot}$ given by \cite{bus01} (see their
Fig. 2). The fitted result (Case A) is presented in the left panel
of Fig. \ref{fig2}. We can see that, for most observed
neutron-capture elements, their abundances can be fitted within the
observational uncertainty. This means that the s-process elements in
CS 29513-032 come from the dredged-up material in the former
low-mass AGB star. The r-process coefficients and $\chi^{2}$ are
$C_{r,m}$=3.75, $C_{r,w}$=3.91 and $\chi^{2}$=1.3. We can see that
its r-process coefficients are close to those of other stream stars
with similar metallicity. It is interesting to adopt the parametric
model presented by \cite{aok01} and developed by \cite{zha06} for
s-rich stars to study the physical parameters which could reproduce
the observed abundances. There are five parameters in the parametric
model. They are the neutron exposure $\tau$ , the overlap factor
$r$, the component coefficient of the s-process $C_{s}$ and the
component coefficients of the two r-processes $C_{r,w}$, $C_{r,m}$.
Using the parametric approach, we can carry out s-process
nucleosynthesis calculation to fit the abundance profile observed in
the s-rich stars by look for the minimum $\chi^{2}$ in the
five-parameter space formed by $\tau$ , $r$, $C_{s}$, $C_{r,w}$ and
$C_{r,m}$. The right panel (Case B) in Fig. \ref{fig2} shows our
best-fit result. Because the parametric model contains more
parameters, the $\chi^{2}$ is smaller than that of Case A.

In the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig3}, we show individual relative
offsets ($\Delta\log\varepsilon$) for the sample stars with respect
to the predictions. Typical observational uncertainties in
$\log\varepsilon$ are $\sim0.2-0.3$ dex (dotted lines). The
root-mean-square offsets (RMS) of these elements in
$\log\varepsilon$ shown in the bottom panel are mostly smaller than
0.30 dex for the comparison with the calculated results. These
values are consistent with zero, given by the combined uncertainties
in stellar abundances and predicted abundances, which confirm the
validity of the approach adopted in this work. From Fig. \ref{fig1}
to Fig. \ref{fig3} we can see that the agreement are obtained for
both light elements, iron group elements and neutron-capture
elements.

\subsection{The Two r-process Component Coefficients}

The component coefficients as a function of metallicity, illustrated
in Fig. \ref{fig4}, contain some important information about the
polluted history of the stellar stream. The trend of coefficients
$C_{r,w}$ is almost constant for the stream stars, which is clearly
different from that of $C_{r,m}$. The calculated results that
$C_{r,w}$ is nearly constant suggest that the elements produced by
weak r-process have increased along with Fe over the polluted
history of the stellar stream. This means that both weak r-process
elements and Fe are produced as primary elements from SNe II and
their yields have nearly a constant mass fraction. \cite{roe10} have
found that most of $\alpha$-elements and iron group elements have
small or moderate dispersions, and show no evolution with
metallicity. This also means that both light elements and iron group
elements are produced as primary elements from SNe II in which weak
r-process occur, and their yields have nearly a constant mass
fraction. On the other hand, they found that most of neutron-capture
elements follow similarly increasing trends of [element/Fe] ratios
with increasing [Fe/H]. Obviously, the increase trend in $C_{r,m}$
as [Fe/H] increases is a consequence of the gradual increase in the
production of main r-process elements relative to iron. The rise
means that the main r-process contribution may begin slightly later
than the contribution from weak r-process producing in conjunction
with the Fe. This behavior supports the idea that the masses of
progenitors for the main r-process are smaller than those of the
weak r-process (or LEPP)
\citep{tra99,tra01,tra04,wan06,qia07,izu09}. The main r-process
coefficient $C_{r,m}$ is close to the weak r-process coefficient
$C_{r,w}$ as the metallicity approaches [Fe/H]$\sim-2.2$.

For ease of comparison, the recalculated coefficients of 12 r-rich
stars and two weak r-process stars (HD122563 and HD 88609) studied
in \cite{zha10} are marked by triangles in Fig. \ref{fig4}. We
find that their weak r-process component coefficients are close to
those of the stream stars. However, for main r-process components,
the difference between the stream stars with [Fe/H]$<-2.2$ and
r-rich stars is obvious. As seen from Fig. \ref{fig4}, the sample
stars are separated into two branches clearly by $C_{r,m}$, i.e.,
r-rich stars having coefficient $C_{r,m}$ larger than 3.0 and
``$low-C_{r,m}$'' stars with coefficient $C_{r,m}$ less than 3.0.
All metal-poor stream stars ([Fe/H]$<-2.2$) and two weak r-process
stars (HD 122563 and HD 88609) belong to ``$low-C_{r,m}$'' stars.

\subsection{Discussion of The Abundance Decomposition}

As the abundances of the stream stars can be used as a probe of
the origin of the neutron-capture elements in their progenitor
system, it is important to determine the relative contributions
from the individual neutron-capture processes to the abundances of
heavy elements in the stars. It was possible to isolate the
contributions corresponding to the weak r- and main r-processes
using our approach. Taking the values of $C_{r,m}$ and $C_{r,w}$
into equation (1), the decomposed results of sample stars can be
derived. In Fig. \ref{fig5} (a)-(h), the component fractions
$f_{i,r,m}$
\begin{math}
(f_{i,r,m}=\frac{C_{r,m}N_{i,r,m}}{C_{r,m}N_{i,r,m}+C_{r,w}N_{i,r,w}})
\end{math}
and $f_{i,r,w}$
\begin{math}
(f_{i,r,w}=\frac{C_{r,w}N_{i,r,w}}{C_{r,m}N_{i,r,m}+C_{r,w}N_{i,r,w}})
\end{math}
as function of [Fe/H] are given by the filed circles (main
r-process) and open circles (weak r-process), respectively. The
abundances of Sr, Y and Zr in the stream stars are a mixture of two
r-process components. We can see that, for the sample star with the
lowest metallicity, i.e. [Fe/H]=-3.29, the weak r-processes are
dominantly responsible for abundances of the lighter neutron-capture
elements Sr, Y and Zr. Although the contributions from weak
r-processes are larger than those of main r-process to the lighter
neutron-capture elements of the stream stars, the contributions from
the main r-process to lighter neutron-capture elements, such as Sr,
Y and Zr, increase with increasing metallicity.

In order to study the origins of neutron-capture elements, the
variation of the logarithmic ratio [element/Fe] with metallicity is
particularly useful. The component ratios of the individual
neutron-capture process, i.e., [element/Fe]$_{i}$ (i =r,w; r,m) are
derived and shown in Fig. \ref{fig6}. The filled circles and open
circles respectively represent the main r- and weak r-component
ratios. The trend of ratios [element/Fe]$_{r,w}$ is almost constant
for the stream stars, which is clearly different from that of
[element/Fe]$_{r,m}$. In particular, we focus on the ratios of Sr,
Y, Zr, which are partly produced by weak r-process nucleosynthesis.
We can see that, for the sample star, the contributions from weak
r-processes are higher than those of main r-process for abundances
of the lighter neutron-capture elements Sr, Y and Zr. The calculated
results that the [Sr,Y,Zr/Fe]$_{r,w}$ is nearly constant suggest
that the elements produced by weak r-process have increased along
with Fe. This also means that both weak r-process and Fe are
produced as primary elements from SNe II and their yields have
nearly a constant mass fraction. From Fig. \ref{fig6}(a) we find
that the ratios [Sr/Fe]$_{r,w}$ are nearly -0.3. For the other
lighter neutron-capture elements Y and Zr, the similar results can
be obtained. To investigate the contribution of the main r-process
in [element/Fe] for heavier neutron-capture elements Ba, La and Eu,
the variations of the logarithmic ratios [element/Fe]$_{i}$ are
shown in Fig. \ref{fig6}(d)-(f). For the heavier neutron-capture
elements, the figures show that the main r-process contribution is
dominant. We find that a increase trend in the [element/Fe]$_{r,m}$
as [Fe/H] increases. This would mean a consequence of the gradual
increase in the production rate of main r-process relative to iron
due to the increased contribution of SNe II in which main r-process
events occur. Our calculated results could be used as the
constraints on the chemical characteristics of progenitor system
from which the stream stars originated.

Up to now, the metal-poor stars HD 122563 and HD 88609 are only two
stars having extremely excesses of lighter neutron-capture elements
and are called as ``weak r-process stars". Their overall abundance
pattern could represent the yields of the weak r-process. In order
to investigate the robustness of weak r-process pattern, it is very
important to find the more weak r-process stars. The component
coefficients can be used to select special stars. If one component
coefficient is much larger than others, the abundances of this star
may be dominantly produced by the corresponding process. Based on
our results shown in Fig. \ref{fig4} and Table \ref{table1}, we can
find that the metal-poor stars, HD 237846 with $C_{r,m}=0.42$,
$C_{r,w}=3.84$ could be one weak r-process star. In order to test
this finding, Fig. \ref{fig7} shows the abundance comparisons on the
logarithmic scale between HD 237846 and HD 122563 as a function of
atomic number, which have been normalized to Fe abundance of HD
122563. Our conclusion here is that, except element O, the abundance
patterns of HD 237846 and HD 122563 are quite similar. The
metallicity of HD 237846 ([Fe/H]=-3.29) is even lower than that of
HD 88609. Our present study reveals that HD 237846 is another weak
r-process star.

\section{Conclusions}

In our Galaxy, nearly all chemical evolution and nucleosynthetic
information is in the form of elemental abundances of stars with
various metallicities. In this aspect, the stellar abundances
polluted by only a few processes, such as main r-process stars and
weak r-process stars, are very significant, because their abundances
can be directly compared with model prediction. However, such stars
are very rare. The chemical abundances of the metal-poor stars in
the stellar stream are excellent information for setting constraints
on models of r-processes. Our results can be summarized:

1. The observed abundances of the heavy elements in the stream stars
cannot be well fitted by the abundances of the main r-process
\citep{roe10}. After adding the contribution of weak r-process and
its accompaniment, the abundances of most metal-poor stream stars,
including light elements, iron group elements and neutron-capture
elements, can be fitted. For lighter neutron-capture elements Sr, Y
and Zr, the contributions from weak r-process are larger than those
of main r-process.

2. The weak r-process coefficients are almost constant for the
sample stars, including r-rich stars. This means that the elements
produced by weak r-process have increased along with Fe over the
polluted history of the stellar stream. Both weak r-process and Fe
are produced as primary elements from SNeII and their yields have
nearly a constant mass fraction.

3. The increase trend in the [element/Fe]$_{r,m}$ as [Fe/H]
increases means the gradual increase in the production rate of
main r-process relative to iron. This behavior is due to the
increased contribution of SNe II in which main r-process events
occur and would imply that the masses of progenitors for the main
r-process are smaller than those of the weak r-process.

4. The difference between the stream stars and r-rich stars is
obvious. The r-rich stars and the stream stars are separated into
two branches clearly, with a systematic different in main
r-process component $C_{r,m}$ at a given metallicity. All
metal-poor stream stars ([Fe/H]$<-2.2$) belong to
``$low-C_{r,m}$'' stars. Moreover, the weak r-process stars HD
122563 and HD 88609 also belong to ``$low-C_{r,m}$'' stars.

5. Although large number of metal-poor stars have been studied
over the past few decades, there are only two weak r-process
stars, HD 122563 ([Fe/H]=-2.77) and HD 88609 ([Fe/H]=-3.07), have
been found. Using the component coefficients, chemical specific
stars can be selected. We find that the metal-poor star HD 237846
is another weak r-process star. The metallicity of HD 237846 is
[Fe/H]=-3.29, which means that abundance pattern produced by weak
r-process is stable from star to star for a wider range of
metallicity. This result would give stronger constraint on the
models of the weak r-process in the very early Galaxy.

6. The calculated results imply that the relative contribution
from the individual neutron-capture process to the heavy element
abundances is not usually in the solar proportion, for most stream
stars. The contributions of the weak r-process are larger than
those of the main r-processes to lighter neutron-capture elements
Sr, Y and Zr. The main r-process coefficient $C_{r,m}$ close to
the weak r-process coefficient $C_{r,w}$ as the metallicity
approaches [Fe/H]$\sim-2.2$, which implies that both the weak
r-process and the main r-process component fractions reach their
solar-system values as the metallicity approaches
[Fe/H]$\sim-2.2$.

7. CS 29513-032 is an only s-rich star in the stellar stream.
Considering the contribution of s-process, its abundances can be
fitted. The s-process elements in CS 29513-032 are a result of
pollution from the dredged-up material in the former low mass AGB
star (e.g. 1.5M$_\odot$). Base on the analysis of angular momentum
components, \cite{roe10} suggested s-rich star CS 29513-032 is a
member of the stream stars. We find that its r-process
coefficients are close to other stream stars with similar
metallicity, which means that the initial abundance (i.e. before
polluted by the AGB star) of CS 29513-032 is similar to the
abundances of the other stream stars. This implies that the
astrophysical origin of CS 29513-032 and other stream stars is
similar. Our result supports the suggestion by \cite{roe10}. CS
29513-032 should belong to wide binary system which form in a
molecular cloud that have been polluted by both weak and main
r-process material.

Clearly, it is important for future studies to determine the
relation between metal-poor halo stars and metal-poor stellar stream
stars. More theoretical and observational studies of stream stars
will reveal the characteristics of the r-process at low metallicity
and the history of the enrichment of neutron-capture elements in the
early Galaxy.

\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.5, angle=0]{figure1.eps}
\caption{An example for the best-fit results of stream stars. In the
top panel, the solid line presents our calculated result. The filled
circles are observed elemental abundances. In the bottom panel, the
open stars are individual relative offsets
($\Delta\log\varepsilon(X)\equiv \log\varepsilon(X)_{cal}
-\log\varepsilon(X)_{obs}$). The error bars are the observational
errors.}\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.1, angle=0]{figure2.eps}
\caption{The best-fit results for CS 29513-032. The left panel shows
our result by adopting the result of AGB model with [Fe/H]=-3 given
by \cite{bus01}. The right panel shows our result by adopting the
parametric approach. The symbols are the same as in Fig.
\ref{fig1}.}\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1, angle=0]{figure3.eps}
\caption{Top panel: individual relative offsets
($\Delta\log\varepsilon(X)$, $\Delta\log\varepsilon(X)\equiv
\log\varepsilon(X)_{cal} -\log\varepsilon(X)_{obs}$) for the sample
stars with respect to the predictions from the abundance model
(stars). Typical observational uncertainties in $\log\varepsilon$
are $\sim0.2-0.3$ dex (dotted lines). Bottom panel: The
root-mean-square offsets of these elements in $\log\varepsilon$.
Filled circles are average stellar abundance offsets.}\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.5, angle=0]{figure4.eps}
\caption{The component coefficients as a function of metallicity.
Symbols: filled circles and open circles are the main r-process
coefficients and the weak r-process coefficients of 8 stream
stars, respectively. Filled squares, open squares and open squares
with across are the component coefficients responsible for the
maim r-process, weak r-process, and the main s-process in s-rich
star CS 29513-032, respectively. Filled triangles and open
triangles are the main r-component coefficients and the weak
r-component coefficients of 14 metal-poor halo stars studied in
\citep{zha10}, respectively. Their abundances are observed by
\cite{wes00,cow02,hil02,sne03,hon04,hon06,hon07,bar05,iva06,chr08,hay09,mas10,roe10b}.}\label{fig4}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.5, angle=0]{figure5.eps}
\caption{The component fractions of 8 stream stars as function of
[Fe/H]. Symbols: filled circles and open circles are the fractions
of main r-component and the weak r-component,
respectively.}\label{fig5}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.5, angle=0]{figure6.eps}
\caption{The logarithmic component ratios vary with metallicity for
8 stream stars. Symbols: filled circles and open circles are the
main r-component ratios and the weak r-component ratios,
respectively.}\label{fig6}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.5, angle=0]{figure7.eps}
\caption{The abundance comparisons on the logarithmic scale between
HD 237846 and HD 122563 as a function of atomic number. Symbols: the
open circles and filled circles present the observed abundances in
HD 122563 and HD 237846, respectively.}\label{fig7}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{The component coefficients and $\chi^2$ for 8 stars of the
stellar stream.}\label{table1}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline Star & [Fe/H] & $C_{r,m}$ & $C_{r,w}$ & $\chi^2$ \\
\hline BD+10 2495  &   -2.31   &   1.81    &   3.77    &   0.99    \\
BD+29 2356  &   -1.59   &   3.86    &   4.06    &   0.47    \\
BD+30 2611  &   -1.50   &   4.49    &   2.83    &   0.61    \\
CD-36 1052  &   -1.79   &   4.89    &   4.58    &   1.44    \\
HD 119516   &   -2.26   &   3.09    &   3.24    &   1.52    \\
HD 128279   &   -2.51   &   0.86    &   3.86    &   3.01    \\
HD 175305   &   -1.73   &   3.42    &   4.41    &   0.82    \\
HD 237846   &   -3.29   &   0.42    &   3.84    &   2.41    \\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip\\
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section*{Acknowledgments}

We are grateful to the referee for very valuable comments and
suggestions that improved this paper greatly. This work has been
supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
under 10673002, 11273011, 10847119, 10778616, 10973006 and
11003002, the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Provincial
Education Department under grant 2008127, the Science Foundation
of Hebei Normal University under Grant L2007B07, L2009Z04, the
Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province under Grant
A2009000251, A2011205102, and the Program for Excellent Innovative
Talents in University of Hebei Province under Grant CPRC034.

Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR); Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA)


Study of B+ to p Lambdabar gamma, p Lambdabar pi0 and B0 to p Lambdabar pi-

Abstract: We study the charmless baryonic three-body decays of B mesons: B+ to p Lambdabar gamma, B+ to p Lambdabar pi0 and B0 to p Lambdabar pi-. The partial branching fractions as a function of the baryon-antibaryon mass and the polar angle distributions of the proton in the baryon-antibaryon system are presented. This study includes the first observation of B+ to p Lambdabar pi0, which is measured to have a branching fraction of (3.00^{+0.61}_{-0.53}\pm 0.33) times 10^{-6}. We also set upper limits on branching fractions of the two-body decays B0 to p Sigmabar^{*-}, B0 to Delta^0 Lambdabar, B+ to p Sigmabar^{*0}, and B+ to Delta^+ Lambdabar at the 90% confidence level. These results are obtained from a 414fb^{-1} data sample collected near the Upsilon(4S) resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy e+ e- collider.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the
accelerator, the KEK cryogenics group for the efficient
operation of the solenoid, and the KEK computer group and
the National Institute of Informatics for valuable computing
and Super-SINET network support. We acknowledge support from
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science; the Australian Research Council and the
Australian Department of Education, Science and Training;
the National Science Foundation of China and the Knowledge
Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under
contract No.~10575109 and IHEP-U-503; the Department of
Science and Technology of India;
the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea,
the CHEP SRC program and Basic Research program
(grant No.~R01-2005-000-10089-0) of the Korea Science and
Engineering Foundation, and the Pure Basic Research Group
program of the Korea Research Foundation;
the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research;
the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian
Federation and the Russian Federal Agency for Atomic Energy;
the Slovenian Research Agency;  the Swiss
National Science Foundation; the National Science Council
and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S.\
Department of Energy.

High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex)