Computing the Conditioning of the Components of a Linear Least Squares Solution

Abstract: In this paper, we address the accuracy of the results for the overdetermined full rank linear least squares problem. We recall theoretical results obtained in Arioli, Baboulin and Gratton, SIMAX 29(2):413--433, 2007, on conditioning of the least squares solution and the components of the solution when the matrix perturbations are measured in Frobenius or spectral norms. Then we define computable estimates for these condition numbers and we interpret them in terms of statistical quantities. In particular, we show that, in the classical linear statistical model, the ratio of the variance of one component of the solution by the variance of the right-hand side is exactly the condition number of this solution component when perturbations on the right-hand side are considered. We also provide fragment codes using LAPACK routines to compute the variance-covariance matrix and the least squares conditioning and we give the corresponding computational cost. Finally we present a small historical numerical example that was used by Laplace in Theorie Analytique des Probabilites, 1820, for computing the mass of Jupiter and experiments from the space industry with real physical data.

\section{Introduction}

We consider the linear least squares problem (LLSP)
$\min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^n}\|Ax-b\|_2$, where $b \in \mathbb{R}^m$
and $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ is a matrix of full column rank $n$.\\
Our concern comes from the following observation: in many parameter estimation
problems, there may be random errors in the observation vector $b$ due to
instrumental measurements as well as roundoff errors in the algorithms.
The matrix $A$ may be subject to errors in its computation
(approximation and/or roundoff errors).
In such cases, while the condition number of the matrix
$A$ provides some information
about the sensitivity of the LLSP to perturbations, a single global
conditioning quantity is often not relevant enough since we may have
significant disparity between the errors in the solution components.
We refer to the last section of the manuscript for
illustrative examples.\\
There are several results for analyzing
the accuracy of the LLSP by components.
For linear systems $Ax=b$ and for LLSP,
~\cite{CHA.IPS.95} defines so called componentwise condition numbers that correspond
to amplification factors of the relative errors in solution components due to
perturbations in data $A$ or $b$ and explains how to estimate them.
For LLSP,~\cite{KEN.LAU.98} proposes to estimate componentwise condition
numbers by a statistical method. More recently,~\cite{ABG.07} developed
theoretical results on conditioning of linear functionals of
LLSP solutions.\\
The main objective of our paper is to provide computable quantities of these
theoretical values in order to assess the accuracy of an LLSP solution or some
of its components.  To achieve this goal, traditional tools for the numerical
linear algebra practitioner are condition numbers or backward errors whereas
the statistician usually refers to variance or covariance.  Our purpose here is
to show that these mathematical quantities coming either from numerical
analysis or statistics are closely related.  In particular, we will show in
Equation~(\ref{eq:1}) that, in the classical linear statistical model, the
ratio of the variance of one component of the solution by the variance of the
right-hand side is exactly the condition number of this component
when perturbations on the right-hand side are considered.  In that
sense, we attempt to clarify, similarly to~\cite{HIGH.STEW.87}, the analogy
between quantities handled by the linear algebra and the statistical approaches
in linear least squares.  Then we define computable estimates for these
quantities and explain how they can be computed using the standard libraries
LAPACK or ScaLAPACK.

This paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:theoback}, we recall and exploit some results of practical interest
coming from~\cite{ABG.07}. We also define the condition
numbers of an LLSP solution or one component of it.
In Section~\ref{sec:link}, we recall some definitions and results related to
the linear statistical model for LLSP, and we interpret
the condition numbers in terms of statistical quantities.
In Section~\ref{sec:lapack} we provide practical formulas and
FORTRAN code fragments for computing
the variance-covariance matrix and LLSP condition numbers using LAPACK.
In Section~\ref{sec:numerics}, we propose two numerical examples
that show the relevance of the proposed quantities and their practical
computation. The first test case is a historical example from Laplace
and the second example is related to gravity field computations.
Finally some concluding remarks are given in Section~\ref{sec:concl}.\\

Throughout this paper we will use the following notations.
We use the Frobenius norm $\nfro{.}$
and the spectral norm $\neuc{.}$ on matrices
and the usual Euclidean norm $\neuc{.}$ on vectors.
$A^{\dagger}$ denotes the Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse of $A$,
the matrix $I$ is the identity matrix and $e_i$ is the $i$-th canonical vector.
\section{Theoretical background for linear least squares conditioning}\label{sec:theoback}
Following the notations in~\cite{ABG.07}, we consider the function
\begin{equation}
\label{funct}
\begin{array}{c c c c}
g\ : &
\mathbb{R} ^{m \times n} \times \mathbb{R} ^m &  \longrightarrow &  \mathbb{R} ^k
\\
 &  A,b & \longmapsto &  g(A,b)=L^{T}x(A,b)=L^T(A^TA)^{-1}A^Tb,\\
 \end{array}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is an $n \times k$ matrix, with $k \leq n$.
Since $A$ has full rank $n$, $g$ is continuously F-differentiable in a
neighbourhood of $(A,b)$ and we
denote by $g'$ its F-derivative.\\
Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be two positive real numbers.
In the present paper we consider
the Euclidean norm for the solution space $\mathbb{R}^k$.
For the data space $\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\times \mathbb{R}^m$,
we use the product norms defined by
$$\norm{(A,b)}_{\rm{F~or~2}}=
\sqrt{\alpha^2\norm{A}_{\rm{F~or~2}}^2+\beta^2\neuc{b}^2},~\alpha,\beta>0.$$
Following~\cite{GEURTS}, the absolute condition number of $g$ at the point
$(A,b)$ using the product norm defined above is given by:
$$\kappa_{g,{\rm{F~or~2}}}(A,b)
=\max_{(\Delta A,\Delta b)}
\frac{\neuc{g'(A,b).(\Delta A,\Delta b)}}{\norm{(\Delta A,\Delta b)}_{\rm{F~or~2}}}.$$
The corresponding relative condition number of $g$ at $(A,b)$ is expressed by
$$\kappa_{g,{\rm{F~or~2}}}^{(rel)}(A,b)=
\frac{\kappa_{g,F}(A,b)~\norm{(A,b)}_{\rm{F~or~2}}}{\neuc{g(A,b)}}.$$
To address the special cases where only $A$ (resp. $b$) is perturbed,
we also define the quantities
$\kappa_{g,{\rm{F~or~2}}}(A)
=\max_{\Delta A}
\frac{\neuc{\frac{\partial g}{\partial A}(A,b).\Delta A}}{\norm{\Delta A}_{\rm{F~or~2}}}$
(resp. $\kappa_{g,2}(b)
=\max_{\Delta b}
\frac{\neuc{\frac{\partial g}{\partial b}(A,b).\Delta b}}{\norm{\Delta b}_2}$).
\begin{Remark}
{\em
The product norm for the data space is very flexible;
the coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ allow us to monitor
the perturbations on $A$ and $b$.
For instance, large values of $\alpha$ (resp. $\beta$ ) enable us to obtain
condition number problems where mainly $b$ (resp. $A$) are perturbed.
In particular, we will address the special cases where
only $b$ (resp. $A$) is perturbed by choosing the $\alpha$ and $\beta$
parameters as
$\alpha=+\infty~{\rm and}~\beta=1$
(resp. $\alpha=1~{\rm and}~\beta=+\infty$) since we have
$$\lim_{\alpha \rightarrow +\infty}\kappa_{g,\rm{F~or~2}}(A,b)
=\frac{1}{\beta}\kappa_{g,2}(b)
~{\rm and}~
\lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty}\kappa_{g,\rm{F~or~2}}(A,b)
=\frac{1}{\alpha}\kappa_{g,\rm{F~or~2}}(A).
$$
This can be justified as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\kappa_{g,\rm{F~or~2}}(A,b) & = &
\max_{(\Delta A,\Delta b)}
\frac{\neuc{\frac{\partial g}{\partial A}(A,b).\Delta A
+\frac{\partial g}{\partial b}(A,b).\Delta b}}
{\sqrt{\alpha^2\norm{\Delta A}_{\rm{F~or~2}}^2+\beta^2\neuc{\Delta b}^2}}\\
 & = &
\max_{(\Delta A,\Delta b)}
\frac{\neuc{\frac{\partial g}{\partial A}(A,b).\frac{\Delta A}{\alpha}
+\frac{\partial g}{\partial b}(A,b).\frac{\Delta b}{\beta}}}
{\sqrt{\norm{\Delta A}_{\rm{F~or~2}}^2+\neuc{\Delta b}^2}}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
The above expression represents the operator norm of a linear functional
depending continuously on $\alpha$, and then we get
$$\lim_{\alpha \rightarrow +\infty}\kappa_{g,\rm{F~or~2}}(A,b)
=\max_{(\Delta A,\Delta b)}
\frac{\neuc{\frac{\partial g}{\partial b}(A,b).\frac{\Delta b}{\beta}}}
{\sqrt{\norm{\Delta A}_{\rm{F~or~2}}^2+\neuc{\Delta b}^2}}
=\max_{\Delta b}
\frac{\neuc{\frac{\partial g}{\partial b}(A,b).\frac{\Delta b}{\beta}}}
{\neuc{\Delta b}}
=\frac{1}{\beta}\kappa_{g,2}(b).
$$
The proof is the same for the case where $\beta=+\infty$.\\
}
\end{Remark}\\
The condition numbers related to $L^Tx(A,b)$ are referred to as {\bf partial condition
numbers} (PCN) of the LLSP with respect to the linear operator $L$
in~\cite{ABG.07}.\\
We are interested in computing the PCN for two special cases.
The first case is when $L$ is
the identity matrix (conditioning of the solution) and the second case is when $L$ is a canonical
vector $e_i$ (conditioning of a solution component).  We can extract
from~\cite{ABG.07} two theorems that can lead to computable quantities in these
two special cases.\\
\begin{theo} \label{theobound}
In the general case where~$(L \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times k})$, the absolute
condition numbers of $g(A,b)=L^Tx(A,b)$ in the Frobenius and spectral norms can
be respectively bounded as follows
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}f(A,b) \leq \kappa_{g,F}(A,b) \leq f(A,b)$$
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}f(A,b) \leq \kappa_{g,2}(A,b) \leq \sqrt{2} f(A,b)$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:equationforf(A,b)}
f(A,b)=
\left(\neuc{L^T(A^TA)^{-1}}^2 \frac{\neuc{r}^2}{\alpha^2}
+\neuc{L^T A^{\dagger}}^2 (\frac{\neuc{x}^2}{\alpha^2}
+\frac{1}{\beta^2})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theo}
\begin{theo}\label{corocond}
In the two particular cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is a vector ($L \in \mathbb{R}^n$), or
\item $L$ is the $n$-by-$n$ identity matrix ($L=I$)
\end{enumerate}
the absolute condition number of $g(A,b)=L^Tx(A,b)$ in the Frobenius norm is
given by the formula:
$$
\kappa_{g,F}(A,b)=\left(\neuc{L^T(A^TA)^{-1}}^2 \frac{\neuc{r}^2}{\alpha^2}
+\neuc{L^T A^{\dagger}}^2 (\frac{\neuc{x}^2}{\alpha^2}
+\frac{1}{\beta^2})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
$$
\end{theo}
Theorem~\ref{corocond} provides the exact value for the condition number in the
Frobenius norm for our two cases of interest ($L=e_i$ and $L=I$).  From
Theorem~\ref{theobound}, we observe that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condfrob_or_condspec}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \kappa_{g,F}(A,b)
\leq
\kappa_{g,2}(A,b)
\leq
\sqrt{6}\kappa_{g,F}(A,b).
\end{equation}
which states that the partial condition number in spectral norm is of the same
order of magnitude as the one in Frobenius norm. In the remainder of the
paper, the focus is given to the partial condition number in Frobenius norm only.\\
For the case $L=I$, the result of Theorem~\ref{corocond} is similar
to~\cite{GR.96} and~\cite[p. 92]{GEURTS}.  The upper bound for
$\kappa_{2,F}(A,b)$ that can be derived from
Equation~(\ref{eq:condfrob_or_condspec}) is also the one obtained by~\cite{GEURTS}
when we consider pertubations in $A$.\\
Let us denote by $\kappa_i(A,b)$ the condition number related to the component
$x_i$ in Frobenius norm (i.e $\kappa_i(A,b)=\kappa_{g,F}(A,b)$ where
$g(A,b)=e_i^Tx(A,b)=x_i(A,b)$).  Then replacing $L$ by $e_i$ in
Theorem~\ref{corocond} provides us with an exact expression for computing
$\kappa_i(A,b)$, this gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:componentwise_formula}
\kappa_i(A,b)=\left(\neuc{e_i^T(A^TA)^{-1}}^2 \frac{\neuc{r}^2}{\alpha^2}
+\neuc{e_i^T A^{\dagger}}^2 (\frac{\neuc{x}^2}{\alpha^2}
+\frac{1}{\beta^2})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
$\kappa_i(A,b)$ will be referred to as {\bf the condition number of the
solution component $x_i$}.\\
Let us denote by $\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$ the condition number related to the
solution $x$ in Frobenius norm (i.e $\kappa_{LS}(A,b)=\kappa_{g,F}(A,b)$ where
$g(A,b)=x(A,b)$).  Then Theorem~\ref{corocond} provides us with an exact
expression for computing $\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$, that is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normwise_formula}
\kappa_{LS}(A,b)=
   \neuc{(A^TA)^{-1}}^{1/2}
   \left(
      \frac{
         \neuc{(A^TA)^{-1}} \neuc{r}^2 + \neuc{x}^2
      }
      {
         \alpha^2
      }
      + \frac{1}{\beta^2}
   \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
where we have used the fact that $\neuc{ (A^T A )^{-1}} = \neuc{ A^\dagger }^2$.\\
$\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$ will be referred to as {\bf the condition number of the
least squares solution}.\\
Note that~\cite{IRLLS.07} defines condition numbers for both $x$ and $r$
in order to derive error bounds for $x$ and $r$ but uses infinity-norm
to measure perturbations.\\
In this paper, we will also be interested in the special case where only
$b$ is perturbed ($\alpha=+\infty$ and $\beta=1$). In this case, we
will call $\kappa_i(b)$ the condition number of the solution component $x_i$,
and $\kappa_{LS}(b)$ the condition number of the least squares solution.
When we restrict the perturbations to be on $b$,
Equation~(\ref{eq:componentwise_formula}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:justb_componentwise}
\kappa_i(b)=\neuc{e_i^T A^{\dagger}},
\end{equation}
and Equation~(\ref{eq:normwise_formula}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:justb_normwise}
\kappa_{LS}(b)= \neuc{A^{\dagger}}.
\end{equation}
This latter formula is standard and is in accordance with
~\cite[p. 29]{BJORCK}.
\section{Condition numbers and statistical quantities}\label{sec:link}
\subsection{Background for the linear statistical model}\label{sec:cov}
We consider here the classical linear statistical model
$$
b = Ax +\epsilon,
~A \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n},
~b \in \mathbb{R}^m,
{\rm rank}(A)=n,
$$
where $\epsilon$ is a vector of random errors having expected value
$E(\epsilon)=0$ and variance-covariance $V(\epsilon)=\sigma_b^2I$.
In statistical language, the matrix $A$ is referred to as the regression matrix
and the unknown vector $x$ is called the vector of regression coefficients.\\
Following the Gauss-Markov theorem~\cite{ZELEN},
the least squares estimates $\hat{x}$ is the linear unbiased estimator
of $x$ satisfying
$$\|A\hat{x}-b\|_2=\min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^n}\|Ax-b\|_2,$$
with minimum variance-covariance equal to
\begin{equation}\label{eq;variance-covariance}
   C=\sigma_b^2 (A^TA)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Moreover $\frac{1}{m-n}\neuc{b-A\hat{x}}^2$ is an unbiased estimate
of $\sigma_b^2$. This quantity is sometimes called the mean squared error (MSE).\\
The diagonal elements $c_{ii}$ of $C$ give the variance of each component
$\hat{x}_i$ of the solution. The off-diagonal elements $c_{ij},~i \neq j$
give the covariance between $\hat{x}_i$ and $\hat{x}_j$.\\
We define $\sigma_{\hat x_i}$ as the standard deviation of the solution component
$\hat x_i$ and we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:654}
   \sigma_{\hat x_i} = \sqrt{c_{ii}}.
\end{equation}
In the next section, we will prove that the condition numbers $\kappa_{i}(A,b)$ and
$\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$ can be related to the statistical
quantities $\sigma_{\hat x_i}$ and $\sigma_b$.
\subsection{Perturbation on $b$ only}
Using Equation~(\ref{eq;variance-covariance}), the variance $c_{ii}$ of the
solution component $\hat x_i$ can be expressed as
$$
   c_{ii} = e_i^T C e_i = \sigma_b^2 e_i^T ( A^{T} A )^{-1} e_i.
$$
We note that $ ( A^TA ) ^{-1} =  A^{\dagger}A^{\dagger T}$ so that
$$
    c_{ii}
  = \sigma_b^2 e_i^T ( A^{\dagger}A^{\dagger T} )  e_i
  = \sigma_b^2 \neuc{e_i^T A^{\dagger}}^2.
$$
Using Equation~(\ref{eq:654}), we get
$$
   \sigma_{\hat x_i} = \sqrt{c_{ii}} = \sigma_b \neuc{e_i^T A^{\dagger}}.
$$
Finally from Equation~(\ref{eq:justb_componentwise}), we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
   \sigma_{\hat x_i} = \sigma_b \kappa_i(b).
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{eq:1}) shows that the condition number $\kappa_i(b)$
relates linearly the standard deviation of $\sigma_b$ with the
standard deviation of $\sigma_{\hat x_i}$.\\
Now if we consider the constant vector $\ell$ of size $n$, we have~(see \cite{ZELEN})
$$ {\rm variance}( \ell^T \hat x) = \ell^T C \ell. $$
Since $C$ is symmetric, we can write
$$
\max_{\| \ell \|_2=1} {\rm variance}(\ell^T \hat x) =  \neuc{C}.
$$
Using the fact that $\| C \|_2 =\sigma_b^2 \neuc{ (A^TA)^{-1}}=\sigma_b^2 \neuc{ A^{\dagger} }^2 $, and
Equation~(\ref{eq:justb_normwise}), we get
$$
\max_{\| \ell \|_2=1} {\rm variance}(\ell^T \hat x) =  \sigma_b^2 \kappa_{LS}(b)^2
$$
or, if we call $\sigma( \ell^T \hat x ) $ the standard deviation of $\ell^T \hat x$,
$$
\max_{\| \ell \|_2=1} \sigma(\ell^T \hat x) =  \sigma_b \kappa_{LS}(b).
$$
Note that
$\sigma_b = \max_{\| \ell \|_2=1} \sigma(\ell^T \epsilon) $ since
 $V(\epsilon)=\sigma_b^2I$.
\begin{Remark}
{\em
Matlab proposes a routine LSCOV that computes the quantities $\sqrt{c_{ii}}$
in a vector STDX and the mean squared error MSE using the syntax [X,STDX,MSE] = LSCOV(A,B).\\
Then the condition numbers $\kappa_i(b)$
can be computed by the matlab expression
STDX/sqrt(MSE).
}
\end{Remark}

\subsection{Perturbation on $A$ and $b$}
We now provide the expression of the condition number provided
in Equation~(\ref{eq:componentwise_formula}) and in
Equation~(\ref{eq:normwise_formula}) in term of statistical quantities.\\
Observing the following relations
$$
C_i = \sigma_b^2 e_i^T(A^TA)^{-1} \quad {\rm and} \quad
c_{ii} = \sigma_b^2 \neuc{e_i^T A^{\dagger}}^2,
$$
where $C_i$ is the $i$-th column of the variance-covariance matrix,
the condition number of $x_i$ given in Formula~(\ref{eq:componentwise_formula})
can expressed as
$$
\kappa_i(A,b)=\frac{1}{\sigma_b}\left(
\frac{\neuc{C_i}^2}{\sigma_b^2}
\frac{\neuc{r}^2}{\alpha^2}
+c_{ii}(\frac{\neuc{x}^2}{\alpha^2}
+\frac{1}{\beta^2})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
$$
The quantity $\sigma_b^2$ will often be estimated by $\frac{1}{m-n}\neuc{r}^2$
in which case the expression can be simplified
\begin{equation} \label{form:cii2}
\kappa_i(A,b)=\frac{1}{\sigma_b}\left(
\frac{1}{\alpha^2} \frac{\neuc{C_i}^2}{(m-n)}
+ \frac{c_{ii}\neuc{x}^2}{\alpha^2}
+ \frac{c_{ii}}{\beta^2})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
From Equation~(\ref{eq:normwise_formula}), we obtain
$$
\kappa_{LS}(A,b)=
   \frac{\neuc{C}^{1/2}}{\sigma_b}
   \left(
      \frac{
         \neuc{C} \neuc{r}^2
      }
      { \alpha^2 \sigma_b^2 }
	  + \frac{\neuc{x}^2}{\alpha^2}
      + \frac{1}{\beta^2}
   \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
$$
The quantity $\sigma_b^2$ will often be estimated by $\frac{1}{m-n}\neuc{r}^2$
in which case the expression can be simplified
$$
\kappa_{LS}(A,b)=
   \frac{\neuc{C}^{1/2}}{\sigma_b}
   \left(
      \frac{ 1 } { \alpha^2 }
      \frac{ \neuc{C} } {  (m-n) }
	  + \frac{\neuc{x}^2}{\alpha^2}
      + \frac{1}{\beta^2}
   \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
$$
\section{Computation with LAPACK}\label{sec:lapack}
Section~\ref{sec:theoback} provides us with formulas to
compute the condition numbers $\kappa_i$ and $\kappa_{LS}$.  As explained in
Section~\ref{sec:link}, those quantities are intimately interrelated with the
entries of the variance-covariance matrix.  The goal of this section is to
present practical methods and codes to compute those quantities
efficiently with LAPACK.
The assumption made is that the LLSP has already been
solved with either the normal equations method or a QR factorization approach. Therefore
the solution vector $\hat x$, the norm of the residual $\| \hat r \|_2$, and
the R-factor $R$ of the QR factorization of $A$ are readily available (we recall
that the Cholesky factor of the normal equations is the R-factor of the QR
factorization up to some signs). In the example codes, we have used the
LAPACK routine DGELS
that solves the LLSP using QR factorization of A. Note that
it is possible to have a more accurate solution using extra-precise
iterative refinement~\cite{IRLLS.07}.
\subsection{Variance-covariance computation}
We will use the fact that $\frac{1}{m-n}\neuc{b-A\hat{x}}^2$ is an unbiased estimate
of $\sigma_b^2$. We wish to compute
the following quantities related to the variance-covariance matrix $C$
\begin{itemize}
\item the $i$-th column $ C_i  =\sigma_b^2 e_i^T ( A^T A )^{-1}  $
\item the $i$-th diagonal element $c_{ii} =\sigma_b^2 \| e_i ^T A^\dagger \|_2^2 $
\item the whole matrix $ C $
\end{itemize}
We note that the quantities $ C_i $, $c_{ii}$, and $C$ are of interest
for statisticians. The NAG routine F04YAF~\cite{nag} is indeed an example
of tool to compute these three quantities.\\
For the two first quantities of interest, we note that
$$
\neuc{e_i^T A^{\dagger}}^2=\neuc{R^{-T}e_i}^2
~{\rm and}~
\neuc{e_i^T(A^TA)^{-1}}=\neuc{R^{-1}(R^{-T}e_i)}.
$$
\subsubsection{Computation of the $i$-th column $ C_i $}
$C_i$ can be computed with two $n$--by--$n$ triangular solves
\begin{equation}\label{form:trsys}
R^Ty=e_i~{\rm and}~ Rz=y.
\end{equation}
The $i$-th column of $C$ can be computed by
the following code fragment.\\
\\
{\bf
Code 1:\\
CALL DGELS(~'N',~M,~N,~1,~A,~LDA,~B,~LDB,~WORK,~LWORK,~INFO~)\\
RESNORM = DNRM2(~(M-N),~B(N+1),~1)\\
SIGMA2 = RESNORM**2/DBLE(M-N)\\
E(1:N) = 0.D0\\
E(I) = 1.D0\\
CALL DTRSV(~'U',~'T',~'N',~N-I+1,~A(I,I),~LDA,~E(I),~1)\\
CALL DTRSV(~'U',~'N',~'N',~N,~A,~LDA,~E,~1)\\
CALL DSCAL(~N,~SIGMA2,~E,~1)\\
}
\\
This requires about $2n^2$ flops (in addition to the cost of solving
the linear least squares problem using DGELS).\\
$c_{ii}$ can be computed by one $n$--by--$n$ triangular solve and taking the
square of the norm of the solution which involves about $(n-i+1)^2$ flops. It is
important to note that the larger $i$, the less expensive to obtain $c_{ii}$. In
particular if $i=n$ then only one operation is needed: $c_{nn} = R_{nn}^{-2}$.
This suggests that a correct ordering of the variables can save some
computation.\\
\\
\subsubsection{Computation of the $i$-th diagonal element $ c_{ii} $}
From $c_{ii} = \sigma_b^2 \neuc{e_i^TR^{-1}}^2$, it comes that each $ c_{ii} $
corresponds to the $i$-th row of $R^{-1}$.
Then the diagonal elements of $C$ can be computed by the
following code fragment.\\
\\
{\bf
Code 2:\\
CALL DGELS(~'N',~M,~N,~1,~A,~LDA,~B,~LDB,~WORK,~LWORK,~INFO~)\\
RESNORM~=~DNRM2((M-N), B(N+1), 1)\\
SIGMA2~=~RESNORM**2/DBLE(M-N)\\
CALL DTRTRI(~'U',~'N',~N,~A,~LDA,~INFO)\\
DO~I=1,N \\
\hspace*{0.5cm} CDIAG(I)~=~DNRM2(~N-I+1,~A(I,I),~LDA)\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} CDIAG(I)~=~SIGMA2~*~CDIAG(I)**2\\
END DO\\
}
\\
This requires about $n^3/3$ flops (plus the cost of DGELS).\\
\\
\subsubsection{Computation of the whole matrix $C$}
In order to compute explicity all the coefficients of the matrix $C$, one can
use the routine DPOTRI which computes the inverse of a matrix from its Cholesky
factorization. First the routine computes the inverse of $R$ using DTRTRI
and then performs the triangular matrix-matrix multiply $R^{-1}R^{-T}$ by
DLAUUM. This requires about $2n^3/3$ flops.
We can also compute the variance-covariance matrix without inverting $R$
using for instance the algorithm given in~\cite[p. 119]{BJORCK} but the
computational cost remains $2n^3/3$ (plus the cost of DGELS).\\
\\
We can obtain the upper triangular part of $C$
by the following code fragment.\\
\\
{\bf
Code 3:\\
CALL DGELS(~'N',~M,~N,~1,~A,~LDA,~B,~LDB,~WORK,~LWORK,~INFO~)\\
RESNORM~=~DNRM2((M-N), B(N+1), 1)\\
SIGMA2~=~RESNORM**2/DBLE(M-N)\\
CALL DPOTRI(~'U',~N,~A,~LDA,~INFO)\\
CALL DLASCL(~'U',~0,~0,~N,~N,~1.D0,~SIGMA2,~N,~N,~A,~LDA,~INFO)\\
}
\\
\subsection{Condition numbers computation}
For computing $\kappa_i(A,b)$, we need to compute both
the $i$-th diagonal element and the norm of the $i$-th column
of the variance-covariance matrix and we cannot use direcly Code 1 but the
following code fragment\\
\\
{\bf
Code 4:\\
ALPHA2 = ALPHA**2\\
BETA2 = BETA**2\\
CALL DGELS(~'N',~M,~N,~1,~A,~LDA,~B,~LDB,~WORK,~LWORK,~INFO~)\\
XNORM = DNRM2(N,~B(1),~1)\\
RESNORM = DNRM2((M-N), B(N+1), 1)\\
CALL DTRSV(~'U',~'T',~'N',~N-I+1,~A(I,I),~LDA,~E(I),~1~)\\
ENORM = DNRM2(N, E, 1)\\
K = (ENORM**2)*(XNORM**2/ALPHA2+1.d0/BETA2)\\
CALL DTRSV(~'U',~'N',~'N',~N,~A,~LDA,~E,~1~)\\
ENORM = DNRM2(N, E, 1)\\
K = SQRT((ENORM*RESNORM)**2/ALPHA2 + K)\\
}
\\
For computing all the $\kappa_i(A,b)$,
we need to compute the columns $C_i$ and the diagonal elements $c_{ii}$
using Formula~(\ref{form:cii2}) and then we have to compute
the whole variance-covariance matrix. This can be
performed by a slight modification of Code 3.\\
When only $b$ is perturbed, then we have to invert $R$ and we can use
a modification of Code 2 (see numerical example in Section~\ref{sec:cnes}).\\
\\
For estimating $\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$, we need to have an estimate of
$\neuc{R^{-1}}$.
The computation of $\neuc{R^{-1}}$ requires to compute the minimum singular value of the
matrix $A$ (or $R$).
One way is to compute the full SVD of $A$ (or $R$) which requires $\mathcal{O}  (n^3)$ flops.
As an alternative,
$\neuc{R^{-1}}$ can be estimated for instance by considering
other matrix norms through the following inequalities
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\nfro{R^{-1}} & \leq \neuc{R^{-1}} \leq & \nfro{R^{-1}}, \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\|R^{-1}\|_{\infty} & \leq \neuc{R^{-1}} \leq & \sqrt{n} \|R^{-1}\|_{\infty},\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\|R^{-1}\|_1 & \leq \neuc{R^{-1}} \leq & \sqrt{n} \|R^{-1}\|_1.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
$\|R^{-1}\|_1$ or $\|R^{-1}\|_{\infty}$ can be estimated using
Higham modification~\cite[p. 293]{HIGHAM} of Hager's~\cite{HAGER}
method as it is implemented in LAPACK~\cite{LAPACK} DTRCON routine
(see Code 5). The cost is $\mathcal{O} ( n^2 )$.\\
\\
{\bf
Code 5:\\
CALL DTRCON(~'I',~'U',~'N',~N,~A,~LDA,~RCOND,~WORK,~IWORK,~INFO)\\
RNORM~=~DLANTR(~'I',~'U',~'N',~N,~N,~A,~LDA,~WORK)\\
RINVNORM~=~(1.D0/RNORM)/RCOND\\
}
\\
We can also evaluate $\neuc{R^{-1}}$ by considering
$\nfro{R^{-1}}$ since we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nfro{R^{-1}}^2 & = & \nfro{R^{-T}}^2\\
& = & {\rm tr}(R^{-1}R^{-T})\\
& = & \frac{1}{\sigma_b^2} {\rm tr}(C),\\
\end{eqnarray*}
where tr($C$) denotes the trace of the matrix $C$, i.e
$\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_{ii}$.
Hence the condition number of the
least-squares solution can be approximated by
\begin{equation} \label{form:trace}
\kappa_{LS}(A,b) \simeq
\left( \frac{{\rm tr}(C)}{\sigma_b^2} \left(\frac{{\rm tr}(C)
\neuc{r}^2+\sigma_b^2 \neuc{x}^2}
{\sigma_b^2 \alpha^2}+\frac{1}{\beta^2}\right) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
Then we can estimate $\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$ by computing and summing
the diagonal elements of $C$ using Code 2.\\

When only $b$ is perturbed ($\alpha = +\infty~{\rm and}~\beta=1$),
then we get
$$\kappa_{LS}(b) \simeq \frac{\sqrt{{\rm tr}(C)}}{\sigma_b}.$$
This result relates to~\cite[p. 167]{FAREBROTHER} where
${\rm tr}(C)$ measures the squared effect on the
LLSP solution $x$ to small changes in $b$.\\
\\
We give in Table~\ref{TabCompar} the LAPACK routines used for
computing the condition numbers of an LLSP solution or
its components and the corresponding number of floating-point operations
per second. Since the LAPACK routines involved in the covariance and/or
LLSP condition numbers have their equivalent in the parallel
library ScaLAPACK~\cite{SCALAPACK}, then this table is also available
when using ScaLAPACK.
This enables us to easily compute these quantities for larger LLSP.

\begin{table}[hbtp!]
\centering
\caption{Computation of least squares conditioning with (Sca)LAPACK}
\vspace{0.4cm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
condition number&linear algebra operation&LAPACK routines&flops count\\
&&&\\
\hline
$\kappa_i(A,b)$&$R^Ty=e_i~{\rm and}~ Rz=y$& 2 calls to (P)DTRSV&$2n^2$\\
&&&\\
\hline
all $\kappa_i(A,b),~i=1,n$&$RY=I~{\rm and~compute}~YY^T$&(P)DPOTRI&$2n^3/3$\\
&&&\\
\hline
all $\kappa_i(b),~i=1,n$&invert $R$&(P)DTRTRI&$n^3/3$\\
&&&\\
\hline
$\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$&estimate $\|R^{-1}\|_{1~{\rm or}~\infty}$&(P)DTRCON&${\cal O}(n^2)$\\
&compute $\nfro{R^{-1}}$&(P)DTRTRI&$n^3/3$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{TabCompar}
\end{table}
\begin{Remark}
{\em
The cost for computing all the $\kappa_i(A,b)$ or estimating
$\kappa_{LS}(A,b)$ is always ${\cal O}(n^3)$.
This seems affordable when we compare it to the cost of the
least squares solution using Householder QR factorization ($2mn^2-2n^3/3$)
or the normal equations ($mn^2+n^3/3$) because we have in general $m \gg n$.\\
}
\end{Remark}
\section{Numerical experiments}\label{sec:numerics}
\subsection{Laplace's computation of the mass of Jupiter and assessment of
the validity of its results}
In~\cite{LAPLACE}, Laplace computes the mass of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus
and provides the variances associated with those variables in order to
assess the quality of the results. The data comes from the French
astronomer Bouvart in the form of the normal equations given in
Equation~(\ref{eq:laplace}).
\begin{equation}\label{eq:laplace}
\begin{array}{rcl}
    795938 z_0 -  12729398 z_1 +   6788.2 z_2 -  1959.0 z_3 + 696.13 z_4 +
2602 z_5 & = &    7212.600 \\
 -12729398 z_0 + 424865729 z_1 - 153106.5 z_2 - 39749.1 z_3 -   5459 z_4 +
5722 z_5 & = & -738297.800 \\
    6788.2 z_0 -  153106.5 z_1 +  71.8720 z_2 -  3.2252 z_3 + 1.2484 z_4 +
1.3371 z_5 & = &     237.782 \\
   -1959.0 z_0 -   39749.1 z_1 -   3.2252 z_2 + 57.1911 z_3 + 3.6213 z_4 +
1.1128 z_5 & = &     -40.335 \\
    696.13 z_0 -      5459 z_1 +   1.2484 z_2 +  3.6213 z_3 + 21.543 z_4 +
46.310 z_5 & = &    -343.455 \\
      2602 z_0 +      5722 z_1 +   1.3371 z_2 +  1.1128 z_3 + 46.310 z_4 +
129 z_5 & = &   -1002.900 \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
For computing the mass of Jupiter, we know that Bouvart performed $ m =
129 $ observations and there are $n=6$ variables in the system. The
residual of the solution $\| b - A\hat x \|_2^2$ is also given by Bouvart
and is $31096$.  On the $6$ unknowns, Laplace only seeks one, the second
variable $z_1$.  The mass of Jupiter in term of the mass of the Sun is
given by $z_1$ and the formula:
$$ \textmd{mass of Jupiter} = \frac{1+z_1}{1067.09}.$$
It turns out that the first variable $z_0$
represents the mass of Uranus through the formula
$$ \textmd{mass of Uranus} = \frac{1+z_0}{19504}.$$
If we solve the system~(\ref{eq:laplace}), we obtain the solution vector\\
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{10cm}
Solution vector\\
0.08954  -0.00304 -11.53658  -0.51492   5.19460 -11.18638
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
From $z_1$, we can compute the mass of Jupiter as a fraction of the mass of the Sun
and we obtain $1070$.
This value is indeed accurate since the correct value according to NASA is
$1048$. From $z_0$, we can compute the mass of Uranus as a fraction of the mass of the Sun and we obtain
$17918$. This value is inaccurate since the correct value according to NASA is
$22992$.\\
Laplace has computed the variance of $z_0$ and $z_1$ to assess the fact that
$z_1$ was probably correct and $z_0$ probably inaccurate. To compute those
variances, Laplace first performed a Cholesky factorization from right to left of
the system~(\ref{eq:laplace}), then, since the variables were correctly ordered
the number of operations involved in the computation of the variances of $z_0$ and $z_1$
were minimized. The variance-covariance matrix for Laplace's system is:
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0.005245 & -0.000004 & -0.499200 &  0.137212 &   0.235241 &  -0.186069 \\
\cdot    &  0.000004 &  0.009873 &  0.003302 &   0.002779 &  -0.001235 \\
\cdot    & \cdot     & 71.466023 & -5.441882 & -16.672689 &  14.922752 \\
\cdot    & \cdot     & \cdot     & 10.860492 &   5.418506 &  -4.896579 \\
\cdot    & \cdot     & \cdot     & \cdot     &  66.088476 & -28.467391 \\
\cdot    & \cdot     & \cdot     & \cdot     &  \cdot     &  15.874809 \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$

Our computation gives us that the variance for the mass of Jupiter is
$4.383233\cdot10^{-6}$. For reference, Laplace in 1820 computed
$4.383209\cdot10^{-6}$. (We deduce the variance from Laplace's value 5.0778624.
To get what we now call the variance, one needs to compute the quantity:
$ 1/(2*10**5.0778624)*m/(m-n)$.)

From the variance-covariance matrix, one can assess that the computation
of the mass of Jupiter (second variable) is extremely reliable while the
computation of the mass of Uranus (first variable) is not.
For more details, we recommend to read \cite{langoureview2007}.

\subsection{Gravity field computation}\label{sec:cnes}
A classical example of parameter estimation problem is the computation of the
Earth's gravity field coefficients. More specifically, we estimate the
parameters of the gravitational potential that can be expressed in spherical
coordinates $(r,\theta,\lambda)$ by~\cite{BALMINO}
\begin{equation} \label{potential}
V(r,\theta,\lambda)=\frac{GM}{R}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\ell_{max}}\left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^{\ell+1}
\sum_{m=0}^{\ell}\overline{P}_{\ell m}(\cos{\theta})\left[\overline{C}_{\ell m}
\cos{m\lambda}+\overline{S}_{\ell m}\sin{m\lambda}\right]
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the Earth's mass,
$R$ is the Earth's reference radius,
the $\overline{P}_{\ell m}$ represent the fully normalized Legendre
functions of degree $\ell$ and
order $m$ and $\overline{C}_{\ell m}$,$\overline{S}_{\ell m}$
are the corresponding normalized harmonic coefficients.
The objective here is to compute the harmonic coefficients $\overline{C}_{\ell m}$ and
$\overline{S}_{\ell m}$ the most accurately as possible.
The number of unknown parameters is expressed by $n=(\ell_{max}+1)^2.$
These coefficients are computed by solving a linear least squares
problem that may involve millions of observations and tens of thousands of variables.
More details about the physical problem and the resolution methods can be found in
\cite{PHD.MB}.
The data used in the following experiments were provided by
CNES\footnote{Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, Toulouse, France}
and they correspond to 10 days of observations
using GRACE\footnote{Gravity Recovery and
Climate Experiment, NASA, launched March 2002} measurements
(about $166,000$ observations).
We compute the spherical harmonic coefficients
$\overline{C}_{\ell m}$ and $\overline{S}_{\ell m}$ up to a degree
$\ell_{max}=50$; except the coefficients
$\overline{C}_{11}, \overline{S}_{11}, \overline{C}_{00}, \overline{C}_{10}$
that are a priori known.
Then we have $n=2,597$ unknowns in the corresponding least squares problems
(note that the GRACE satellite enables us to compute
a gravity field model up to degree 150).
The problem is solved using the normal equations method and we have the Cholesky
decomposition $A^TA=U^TU$.\\
We compute the relative condition numbers of each coefficient $x_i$
using the formula
$$\kappa^{(rel)}_i(b)=\neuc{e_i^TU^{-1}} \neuc{b}/|x_i|,$$
and the following code fragment, derived from Code 2, in which
the array $D$ contains the normal equations $A^TA$ and the vector $X$
contains the right-hand side $A^Tb$.\\
\\
{\bf CALL DPOSV(~'U',~N,~1,~D,~LDD,~X,~LDX,~INFO)\\
CALL DTRTRI(~'U',~'N',~N,~D,~LDD,~INFO)\\
DO~I=1,N \\
\hspace*{0.5cm} KAPPA(I)~=~DNRM2(~N-I+1,~D(I,I),~LDD)~*~BNORM/ABS(X(I)) \\
END DO}\\
\\
Figure~\ref{plotcond} represents the relative condition numbers of all the $n$
coefficients. We observe the disparity between the condition numbers
(between $10^2$ and $10^8$).
To be able to give a physical interpretation, we need first to sort the coefficients
by degrees and orders as given in the development of $V(r,\theta,\lambda)$
in Expression~(\ref{potential}).\\
In Figure~\ref{plotcos}, we plot the coefficients $\overline{C}_{\ell m}$ as
a function of the degrees and orders (the curve with the $\overline{S}_{\ell m}$
is similar). We notice that for a given order, the condition number increases
with the degree and that, for a given degree, the variation of the sensitivity
with the order is less significant.\\
We can also study the effect of regularization on the conditioning.
The physicists use in general a Kaula~\cite{KAULA} regularization technique
that consists of adding to $A^TA$ a diagonal matrix
$D=diag(0,\cdots,0,\delta,\cdots,\delta)$
where $\delta$ is a constant that is proportional to
$\frac{10^{-5}}{\ell_{max}^2}$ and
the nonzero terms in $D$ correspond to the variables
that need to be regularized. An example of the effect of Kaula regularization
is shown in Figure~\ref{zonaux} where we consider
the coefficients of order $0$ also called zonal coefficients.
We compute here the absolute condition numbers of these coefficients
using the formula $\kappa_i(b)=\neuc{e_i^TU^{-1}}$.
Note that the $\kappa_i(b)$ are much lower that 1. This is not surprising
because typically in our application $\neuc{b} \sim 10^5$/ and $|x_i| \sim 10^{-12}$
which would make the associated relative condition numbers greater than 1.
We observe that the regularization
is effective on coefficients of highest degree that are in general more sensitive
to perturbations.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
      \begin{center}
      {\epsfig{file=condpar.eps,width=0.7 \textwidth}} \\
      \caption{\label{plotcond}
        Amplitude of the relative condition numbers for the gravity field coefficients.
      }
     \end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
      \begin{center}
      {\epsfig{file=cosinus.eps,width=0.7 \textwidth}} \\
      \caption{\label{plotcos}
        Conditioning of spherical harmonic coefficients $\overline{C}_{\ell m}~(2 \leq \ell \leq 50~,~1 \leq m\leq 50)$.
      }
     \end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
      \begin{center}
      {\epsfig{file=zonaux.eps,width=0.7 \textwidth}} \\
      \caption{\label{zonaux}
Effect of regularization on zonal coefficients $\overline{C}_{{\ell} 0}~(2 \leq {\ell} \leq 50)$
      }
     \end{center}
\end{figure}

\newpage

\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:concl}
To assess the accuracy of a linear least squares solution, the practitioner of
numerical linear algebra uses generally quantities like condition
numbers or backward errors when the statistician is more interested in
covariance analysis.
In this paper we proposed quantities that talk to both communities
and that can assess the quality of the solution of a least squares problem
or one of its component. We provided pratical ways to compute these quantities
using (Sca)LAPACK and we experimented these computations
on pratical examples including a real physical application in the area of space geodesy.
\bibliographystyle{siam}

Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Statistics Theory (math.ST)


Minimal universality criterion sets on the representations of quadratic forms

Abstract: For a set $S$ of (positive definite and integral) quadratic forms with bounded rank, a quadratic form $f$ is called $S$-universal if it represents all quadratic forms in $S$. A subset $S_0$ of $S$ is called an $S$-universality criterion set if any $S_0$-universal quadratic form is $S$-universal. We say $S_0$ is minimal if there does not exist a proper subset of $S_0$ that is an $S$-universality criterion set. In this article, we study various properties of minimal universality criterion sets. In particular, we show that for `most' binary quadratic forms $f$, minimal $S$-universality criterion sets are unique in the case when $S$ is the set of all subforms of the binary form $f$.

\section{Introduction}
Let $S$ be a set of (positive definite integral) quadratic forms with bounded rank. A  quadratic form $f$ is called {\it $S$-universal} if it represents all quadratic forms in the set $S$. A subset $S_0$ of $S$ is called {\it an $S$-universality criterion set}  if any $S_0$-universal quadratic form  is $S$-universal. Conway and Schneeberger's 15-theorem \cite{c} says that the set $\{1,2,3,5,6,7,10,14,15\}$ is an $S$-universality criterion set, where $S$ is the set of all positive integers (see also \cite{b}). Note that any positive integer $a$ corresponds to the unary quadratic form $ax^2$. For an arbitrary set $S$ of quadratic forms with bounded rank, the existence of a finite $S$-universality criterion set was proved by the third author and his collaborators in \cite{kko}.

An $S$-universality criterion set $S_0$ is called {\it minimal} if any proper subset of $S_0$ is not an $S$-universality criterion set. In \cite{kko}, the authors proposed the following two questions on the minimal universality criterion sets: Let $\Gamma(S)$ be the set of all $S$-universality criterion sets.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] For which $S$ is there a unique minimal $S_0 \in \Gamma(S)$?
\item [(ii)] Is $\vert S_0\vert=\gamma(S)$ for every minimal $S_0 \in \Gamma(S)$? If not, when?
\end{itemize}
For the question (i), when $S$ is the set of all quadratic forms of rank $k$, the uniqueness of the minimal $S$-universality criterion set was proved by Bhargava \cite{b} for the case when $k=1$, and by Kominers
\cite{kom1}, \cite{kom2} for the cases when $k=2$, $k=8$, respectively (see also \cite{k}, \cite{kko0}, and \cite{o1}).

For the question (ii), Elkies, Kane, and Kominers \cite{ekk} answered  in the negative for some special set $S$ of quadratic forms.  In fact, they considered the set $S_f$ of all subforms of the quadratic form $f(x,y,z)= x^2+y^2+2z^2$. Clearly, the set $\{f\}$ itself is a minimal $S_f$-universality criterion set. They proved that any quadratic form that represents both subforms $x^2+y^2+8z^2$ and $2x^2+2y^2+2z^2$ of $f$ also represents $f$ itself.  Therefore the set $\{x^2+y^2+8z^2, 2x^2+2y^2+2z^2\}$ is also a minimal $S_f$-universality criterion set.

In this article, we prove that  the question (i) is true if $S$ is any set of positive integers, that is, any set of unary quadratic forms.  We also prove that minimal $\Phi_n$-universality criterion sets are not unique when $\Phi_n$ is the set of all quadratic forms of rank $n$ for any $n\ge 9$. To analyze the example given by Elkies, Kane, and Kominers more closely, we introduce the notion of a {\it recoverable} quadratic form.   A quadratic form $f$ is called recoverable if  minimal $S_f$-universality criterion sets are not unique in the case when $S_f$ is the set of all subforms of $f$.  The third author and his collaborators proved in \cite{jko} that any unary quadratic form is not recoverable.  In this article, we show that `most' binary quadratic forms are not recoverable, and in fact, there are infinitely many recoverable binary quadratic forms up to isometry.

The subsequent discussion will be conducted in the better adapted geometric language of quadratic spaces and lattices.  Throughout this article, we always assume that every ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L={\mathbb Z} x_1+{\mathbb Z} x_2+\dots+{\mathbb Z} x_k$ is {\it positive definite and integral}, that is,  the corresponding symmetric matrix
$$
M_L=(B(x_i,x_j)) \in M_{k\times k}({\mathbb Z})
$$
is positive definite and  the scale $\mathfrak s(L)$ of the ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ is ${\mathbb Z}$. The corresponding quadratic map $Q: L \to {\mathbb Z}$  will be defined by $Q(x)=B(x,x)$ for any $x\in L$.  For any positive integer $a$,  the ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice obtained from $L$ by scaling $a$ will be denoted by $L^a$. Hence we have $M_{L^a}=a\cdot M_L$.
The discriminant $dL$ of the ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ will be defined by $dL=\det(M_L)$. We call $L$ is diagonal if $B(x_i,x_j)=0$ for any $i$ and $j$ with $i\ne j$. If $L$ is diagonal, then we simply write
$$
L=\langle Q(x_1),\dots,Q(x_k)\rangle.
$$
We say $L$ is even if $Q(x)$ is even for any $x \in L$.

 If an integer $n$ is represented by $L$ over ${\mathbb Z}_p$ for any prime $p$ including infinite prime, then we say that $n$ is represented by the genus of $L$, and we write $n  {\ \rightarrow\ }  \text{gen}(L)$.  Note that $n$ is represented by the genus of $L$ if and only if $n$ is represented by a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice in the genus of $L$.
When $n$ is represented by the ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ itself, then we write $n{\ \rightarrow\ } L$.   We define
$$
Q(L)=\{ n \in {\mathbb Z} : n {\ \rightarrow\ } L\}.
$$
For any positive integer $n$, The cubic ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $I_n={\mathbb Z} e_1+{\mathbb Z} e_2+\dots+{\mathbb Z} e_n$ is the ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice satisfying  $B(e_i,e_j)=\delta_{ij}$.

Any unexplained notation and terminology can be found in \cite{ki} or  \cite{om}.

\section{Uniqueness of the minimal universality criterion set}
 In  general, minimal $S$-universality criterion sets are not unique for an arbitrary set $S$ of quadratic forms with bounded rank.
 In this section, we prove that the minimal $S$-universality criterion set is unique if $S$ is any subset of positive integers.

Let $\mathbb N$ be the set of positive integers. For a positive integer $k$ and a nonnegative integer $\alpha$, we define the set of arithmetic progressions
$$
A_{k,\alpha}=\{kn+\alpha : n\in \mathbb N \cup \{0\}\}.
$$
If a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ represents all elements in $A_{k,\alpha}$, we simply write $A_{k,\alpha} {\ \rightarrow\ } L$.

\begin{prop} \label{keyp}
Let $S=\{ s_0,s_1,s_2,\dots\}$ be a subset of ${\mathbb N}$ such that $s_i < s_{i+1}$ for any nonnegative integer $i$, and let $k$ be a positive integer. If there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell$  such that
$$
s_0,s_1,\dots,s_{k-1} \in Q(\ell) \quad \text{and} \quad s_k \not \in Q(\ell),
$$
then there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ such that $Q(L)\cap S=S-\{s_k\}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First, we define
$$
\mathfrak C=\{ 0 \le u \le s_{k+1}-1 : A_{s_{k+1},u} \cap \{s_{k+1},s_{k+2},\dots\} \ne \emptyset\}=\{ c_1,c_2,\dots,c_v\},
$$
and for each $c \in \mathfrak C$, let $s(c)=\min(A_{s_{k+1},c} \cap \{s_{k+1},s_{k+2},\dots\})$.
We define
$$
L=\ell \perp s_{k+1} I_4 \perp \langle s(c_1),s(c_2),\cdots,s(c_v) \rangle.
$$
Since $s_{k+1} >s_k$ and $s(c_j) > s_k$ for any $j=1,2,\dots,v$, we see that $s_k$ is not represented by $L$. Furthermore, for any integer
$a \in \{s_{k+1},s_{k+2},\dots\}$, there is a nonnegative integer $M$ and an integer $j$ with $1\le j \le v$ such that $a=s_{k+1}M+s(c_j)$. Since $M$ is represented by $I_4$,  the integer $a$ is represented by $L$. The proposition follows directly from this.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}
For any set $S=\{s_0,s_1,s_2,\dots\}$ of positive integers, the minimal $S$-universality criterion set is unique.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $s_i < s_{i+1}$ for any nonnegative integer $i$. A positive integer $s_i \in S$ is called a truant of $S$ if there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ such that $L$ represents all integers in the set $\{s_0,s_1,\dots,s_{i-1}\}$, whereas $L$ does not represent $s_i$. Clearly, $s_0$ is a truant of $S$. Let $T(S)$ be the set of truants of $S$. Then, by Proposition \ref{keyp}, any $S$-universality criterion set should contain $T(S)$. Hence it suffices to show that $T(S)$ itself is an $S$-universality criterion set. Let $L$ be a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice that represents all integers in $T(S)$. Suppose that $L$ is not $S$-universal. Let $m$ be the smallest integer such that $s_m$ is not represented by $L$. Then, clearly, $s_m$ is a truant of $S$, and hence $s_m \in T(S)$. This is a contradiction. Therefore, $T(S)$ is the unique minimal $S$-universality criterion set.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk} {\rm As pointed out by \cite{h},  Bhargava also proved the above result.  However,  no proof of this has appeared in the literature to the author's knowledge.}
\end{rmk}

Let $L$ be a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice of rank $m$. For any positive integer $j$ less than or equal to  $m$, the $j$-th successive minimum of $L$ will be denoted by $\mu_j(L)$ ( for the definition of the successive minimum, see Chapter 12 of \cite{ca}). It is well-known that there is a constant $\gamma_m$, which is called the Hermite constant, such that  $$
dL\le  \mu_1(L)\mu_2(L)\cdots \mu_m(L) \le \gamma_m^mdL
$$
(for the proof, see Proposition 2.3 of \cite{ea}). We define $\min(L)=\min\{ Q(x)\mid x \in L-\{0\}\}$. Note that $\min(L)=\mu_1(L)$.

\begin{thm}
For any positive integer $k$, there is a subset $S$ of positive integers such that the cardinality of its minimal universality criterion set is exactly $k$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $L= {\mathbb Z} x_{1} + {\mathbb Z} x_{2} + \cdots + {\mathbb Z} x_{k}$ be a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice such that $Q(x_{i}) = k+i$ for any $i$ with $1 \le i \le k$.
If $m$ is  the rank of $L$, then we have $m \le k$ and $\mu_{m}(L) \le 2k$.
It follows from $\mu_{1}(L) \le \mu_{2}(L) \le \dots \le \mu_{m}(L)$ that
$$
dL \le \mu_{1}(L) \mu_{2}(L) \cdots \mu_{m}(L) \le (2k)^{k}.
$$
Hence there are only finitely many candidates for $L$ up to isometry since the discriminant and the rank of $L$ are bounded.
Let $\{ L_{1}, L_{2}, \dots, L_{t} \}$ be the set of all possible candidates for $L$. We define
$$
S = \cap_{i=1}^{t} Q(L_{i}).
$$
Then from the definition of $S$, it is obvious that $\{k+1, k+2, \dots, 2k\}$ is an $S$-universality criterion set.

Put $M_{1} = \langle k+2 \rangle$.
Since $k+1$ is not represented by $M_{1}$,  there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $N_{1}$ such that $Q(N_{1}) \cap S = S-\{k+1\}$  by Proposition \ref{keyp}.
For each $i=2,3, \dots, k$, put
$$
M_{i} = \langle k+1, \dots, k+i-1 \rangle.
$$
Then, one may easily show that $k+j  {\ \rightarrow\ }  M_{i}$ for any $j = 1, \dots, i-1$, whereas $k+i$ is not represented by $M_{i}$.
Then, by Proposition \ref{keyp} again, there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $N_{i}$ such that $Q(N_{i}) \cap S = S-\{k+i\}$.
This implies that $\{k+1, k+2, \dots, 2k\}$ is the minimal $S$-universality criterion set.
\end{proof}

Let $\Phi_n$ be the set of all ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices of rank $n$. As explained in the introduction, it is known that the minimal $\Phi_n$-universality criterion set is unique if $n=1,2$, or $8$. For all the other positive integers $n$, the explicit minimal $\Phi_n$-universality criterion set is not known yet.

\begin{prop}
For any integer $n$ with $n \ge 9$, there are infinitely many minimal $\Phi_n$-universality criterion sets.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}  Let $\Phi_n^0=\{L_1,L_2,\dots,L_s\}$ be a minimal $\Phi_n$-universality criterion set. Assume that $L_i=I_{k_i} \perp \ell_i$, where $\min(\ell_i)\ge 2$.
If $n_0=\max\{k_i\}<n$, then $I_{n_0} \perp \ell_1\perp\dots\perp\ell_s$   represents all ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices in $\Phi_n^0$, but it does not represent $I_n$. This is a contradiction. Therefore $n_0=n$, that is, $I_n \in \Phi_n^0$. Similarly, one may easily show that  there is an integer $j$ such that $L_j$ represents $D_m[1]$ for some integer $m \equiv 0 \Mod 4$ with $n-4\le m<n$.  Note that $L_j=D_m[1]\perp M$ for some ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $M$ with rank less than or equal to $4$. Without loss of generality, assume that $L_1=I_n$ and $L_2=D_m[1]\perp M$. Note that any ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice that represents both $L_1$ and $L_2$ should represent $I_n\perp D_m[1]$. Furthermore, since  $I_n$ is $4$-universal, $L_j$ cannot represent $D_m[1]$ for any $j\ge 3$.
Now we show that for any ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $N$ with rank $n-m$,
$$
\Phi_n^0(N)=\{I_n, D_m[1]\perp N,L_3,\dots, L_s\}
$$
is also a minimal $\Phi_n$-universality criterion set.  Assume that a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\mathcal L$ represents all ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices in $\Phi_n^0(N)$.
Since $I_n\perp D_m[1]$ is represented by $\mathcal L$, $L_2=D_m[1]\perp M$ is also represented by $\mathcal L$. Therefore, $\mathcal L$ is $n$-universal from the assumption that $\Phi_n^0$ is a  $\Phi_n$-universality criterion set. By using similar argument, one may easily show that $\Phi_n^0(N)$ is, in fact,  minimal.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}{\rm
We conjecture that
$$
\left\lbrace I_4, A_4, A_2\perp A_2, A_2\perp \begin{pmatrix} 2&1\\1&3\end{pmatrix}\right\rbrace
$$
is the unique minimal $\Phi_{4}$-universality criterion set. Here, $A_m={\mathbb Z}(e_1-e_2)+{\mathbb Z}(e_2-e_3)+\dots+{\mathbb Z}(e_m-e_{m+1})$ is a root ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice, where $\{e_i\}$ is the standard orthonormal basis of the cubic ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $I_n$.}
\end{rmk}

\section{Recoverable ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices}
In this section, we introduce the notion of {\it recoverable} $\mathbb{Z}$-lattices and give some properties on those $\mathbb{Z}$-lattices, and we show some necessary conditions and some sufficient conditions for ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices to be recoverable.

In \cite{ekk}, Elkies and his collaborators gave an example of a set $S$ of ternary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices such that the sizes of minimal $S$-universality criterion sets vary. To explain their example more precisely, let $T$ be the set of all ternary sublattices of $\langle 1,1,2\rangle$. Then, clearly, $T_0=\{\langle1,1,2\rangle\}$ is a minimal $T$-universality criterion set.
Furthermore, they proved that
$$
T_1=\{ \langle 1,1,8\rangle, \langle 2,2,2\rangle\}
$$
is also a minimal $T$-universality criterion set. The point is that any ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice that represents both $\langle 1,1,8\rangle$ and $\langle 2,2,2\rangle$, which are  sublattices of $\langle1,1,2\rangle$, also represents $\langle 1,1,2\rangle$ itself.
From this point of view, the following definition seems to be quite natural:

\begin{defn}
Let $\ell$ be a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice and let $S_0=\{\ell_1,\ell_2,\dots,\ell_t\}$ be the set of proper ${\mathbb Z}$-sublattices of $\ell$. We say $\ell$ is {\it recoverable by $S_0$} if any $S_0$-universal ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice represents $\ell$ itself.
\end{defn}

Note that the ternary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\langle 1,1,2 \rangle$ is recoverable by $T_{1}$.
We simply say $\ell$ is {\it recoverable} if there is a finite set of proper sublattices satisfying the above property. Note that if $\ell$ is recoverable, then there is a minimal $S$-universality criterion set whose cardinality is greater than $1$, where $S$ is the set of all sublattices of $\ell$.

\begin{lem} \label{not-recover}
A ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell$ is not recoverable  if and only if there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice that represents all proper sublattices of $\ell$, but not $\ell$ itself.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\ell$ is not recoverable. Let $S$ be the set of all proper sublattices of $\ell$ and let $S_{0}=\{\ell_1,\ell_2,\dots,\ell_t\}$ be a minimal $S$-universality criterion set. Since we are assuming that $\ell$ is not recoverable, there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ that represents all ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices in $S_0$, whereas $L$ does not represent $\ell$ itself.  Now, since the set $S_0$ is an $S$-universality criterion set, $L$ represents all proper sublattices of $\ell$, but not $\ell$ itself.  The converse is trivial.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}  \label{scaling}
Let $\ell$ be a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice and let $a$ be a positive integer. If $\ell^a$ is recoverable, then so is $\ell$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\ell^a$ is recoverable by $\{\ell^a_1,\ell^a_2,\dots,\ell^a_t\}$, where $\ell_i$ is a proper sublattice of $\ell$ for any $i=1,2,\dots,t$.  Let $M$ be any ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice that represents $\ell_i$ for any $i$. Then $\ell_i^a {\ \rightarrow\ } M^a$ for any $i$, and hence $\ell^a {\ \rightarrow\ } M^a$. Therefore $\ell {\ \rightarrow\ } M$ and $\ell$ is recoverable by $\{\ell_1,\ell_2,\dots,\ell_t\}$ .
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}{\rm
Any unary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell$ cannot be recoverable. Let $\ell=\langle 1 \rangle$. Note that $\langle 2,2,5 \rangle$ represents all squares of integers except for $1$ (see \cite{jko}). Hence $\langle 2,2,5 \rangle$ represents all proper sublattices of $\ell$, but not $\ell$ itself. Therefore $\ell$ is not recoverable by Lemma \ref{not-recover}. Moreover, since every unary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice can be obtained from $\ell$ by a suitable scaling, it is not recoverable by Lemma \ref{scaling}.}
\end{rmk}

\begin{rmk} {\rm
Note that the converse of the above lemma does not hold in general. Let $\ell=\langle1,4\rangle$ be the binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice. Let $L$ be any ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice representing both $\ell_1=\langle1,16\rangle$ and $\ell_2=\langle4,4\rangle$. Since $L$ represents $\ell_1$,   there is a vector $e_1 \in L$ and a ${\mathbb Z}$-sublattice $L_1$ of $L$ such that $L={\mathbb Z} e_1+L_1$, where $Q(e_1)=1$ and $B(e_1,L_1)=0$. Furthermore, since $L$ represents $\ell_2 = \langle4,4\rangle$, there are nonnegative integers $a,b$ and vectors $x,y \in L_1$ such that
$$
Q(ae_1+x)=a^{2}+Q(x)=Q(be_1+y)=4 \quad \text{and} \quad B(ae_1+x,be_1+y)=0.
$$
If $a=2$, then $x=0$ and $b=0$. Hence $\langle4\rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } L_1$.
If $a=1$, then
$$
b=0 \quad \text{and}\quad Q(y)=4  \quad\text{or}\quad
b=1, \ Q(x)=Q(y)=3, \ \text{and}\ B(x,y)=-1.
$$
For the latter case, we have $Q(x+y)=4$. Finally, if $a=0$, then $Q(x)=4$. Therefore $L_1$ represents $4$ in any case, which implies that $L$ represents $\ell$. Hence
$\ell$ is recoverable by $\{\ell_1,\ell_2\}$.

Now, we show that $\ell^2=\langle2,8\rangle$ is not recoverable. To show this, let $S$ be the set of all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices with minimum greater than or equal to $9$, and let $S_0=\{\mathfrak m_1,\dots,\mathfrak m_t\}$ be a finite minimal $S$-universality criterion set. Then $\mathfrak m_1\perp \cdots\perp \mathfrak m_t$ represents all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices with minimum greater than or equal to $9$.  Now, we define
$$
L=K \perp  \mathfrak m_1\perp \cdots\perp \mathfrak m_t,
\quad
\text{where}
\quad
K=\begin{pmatrix} 2&1&1&0\\1&8&0&0\\1&0&8&4\\0&0&4&10\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Clearly, $\ell^2=\langle2,8\rangle$ is not represented by $L$. We show that any proper sublattice of $\ell^2$ is represented by $L$.
Let $\ell_{3}$ be any proper sublattice of $\ell^2$. If $\min(\ell_3) \ge 9$, then $\ell_3$ is represented by $\mathfrak m_1\perp\cdots\perp \mathfrak m_t$. Hence we may assume that $\min(\ell_3)=2$ or $8$. For the former case, we have $\ell_3 \simeq \langle2,8m^2\rangle$ for some integer $m\ge2$. Since $\langle 8m^2\rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } \mathfrak m_1\perp \cdots\perp \mathfrak m_t$,  $L$ represents $\ell_3$. For the latter case, one may easily check that $\ell_3$ is isometric to one of the binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices
$$
\langle 8,2m^2\rangle \quad  \text{and} \quad \begin{pmatrix} 8&4\\4&2+8n^2\end{pmatrix},
$$
where $m\ge2$ and $n\ge1$. Note that $K$ represents the binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell_3$ for $m=2$ or  $n=1$. If $m\ge3$ or $n\ge2$, then one may easily show that
$$
\langle 8,2m^2\rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 8,8, 2m^2-8\rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } L \ \ \text{or} \ \ \begin{pmatrix} 8&4\\4&2+8n^2\end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } \begin{pmatrix}8&4\\4&10\end{pmatrix} \perp \langle 8n^2-8\rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } L.
$$
 Therefore $L$ represents all proper sublattices of $\ell^2$, but not $\ell^2$ itself. Consequently, $\ell^2$ is not recoverable.}
\end{rmk}

One may easily check that every additively indecomposable ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice is not recoverable.
We further prove that every indecomposable ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L$ with rank less than $4$ is not recoverable.

\begin{prop}\label{bin}
Any indecomposable binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice is not recoverable.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\ell$ be an indecomposable binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice. Let $\{x,y\}$ be a Minkowski-reduced (ordered) basis for $\ell$, that is, $0 \le 2\vert B(x,y)\vert \le Q(x) \le Q(y)$. Let $S$ be the set of all proper sublattices of $\ell$, and let $S_{0}=\{\ell_{1},\ell_{2},\dots,\ell_{t}\}$ be a minimal $S$-universality criterion set.
If we define $L=\ell_1\perp\dots\perp \ell_t$, then $L$ represents all proper sublattices of $\ell$.  Hence it suffices to show that $L$ does not represent $\ell$ itself. To do this, let $\ell_i={\mathbb Z} x_i+{\mathbb Z} y_i$, where $\{x_i,y_i\}$ is a Minkowski reduced basis for $\ell_i$ for any $i=1,2,\dots,t$.  Suppose on the contrary that there is a representation $\phi:\ell \rightarrow L$. Since $\ell_{i}$ is a sublattice of $\ell$ for any $i=1,2,\dots,t$, we may assume, without loss of generality, that $\phi(x)=x_{1}$.  Suppose that $\phi(y) = \alpha x_{1} + \beta y_{1} + z$, where $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathbb Z}$ and $z \in  ({\mathbb Z} x_{2}+{\mathbb Z} y_{2}) \perp \cdots \perp ({\mathbb Z} x_{t}+{\mathbb Z} y_{t})$.
Since $\ell$ is indecomposable, $\beta$ cannot be zero.
Then, we have
$$
d\ell=d(\phi(\ell)) = d({\mathbb Z} x_{1}+{\mathbb Z} (\alpha x_{1} + \beta y_{1} + z)) \ge d({\mathbb Z} x_{1}+{\mathbb Z} (\alpha x_{1} + \beta y_{1})) \ge d\ell_{1} > d\ell,
$$
which is a contradiction. Therefore $L$ does not represent $\ell$ and hence, by lemma \ref{not-recover}, the binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell$ is not recoverable.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
Any  indecomposable ternary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice is not recoverable.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that there is a ternary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice, say $L$, that is recoverable. Then there are proper sublattices $L_{1}, L_{2}, \dots, L_{t}$ of $L$ such that $L$ is represented by $L_{1} \perp L_{2} \perp \cdots \perp L_{t}$.
Without loss of generality,  we may assume that all $L_{i}$'s are of rank 3. Let
$$
\phi : L {\ \rightarrow\ } L_{1} \perp L_{2} \perp \cdots \perp L_{t}
$$
be a representation. Let $\{ u,v,w \}$ be a Minkowski reduced (ordered) basis for $L$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\phi(u)=x_{1} \in L_1$. Clearly, there exists a Minkowski reduced basis for $L_{1}$, say  $\{ x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3} \}$, containing $x_{1}$.
 Assume that
$$
\phi(v) = a_{1}x_{1}+x+y,
$$
where $a_1\in {\mathbb Z}$, $x \in {\mathbb Z} x_{2}+ {\mathbb Z} x_{3}$ and $y \in L_{2} \perp \cdots \perp L_{t}$.

First, assume that $x=0$.
Since
$$
2|a_{1}| Q(x_{1}) =2|B(x_{1}, a_{1}x_{1}+y)|=2\vert B(u,v)\vert\le Q(u)=Q(x_{1}),
$$
we have $a_{1}=0$.
Put
$$
\phi(w) = b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2}+b_{3}x_{3}+z,
$$
where $b_i\in {\mathbb Z}$ for any $i=1,2,3$ and $z \in L_{2} \perp \cdots \perp L_{t}$.
Then, we have
$$
\phi(L)= {\mathbb Z} x_1 +{\mathbb Z} y +{\mathbb Z} (b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2}+b_{3}x_{3}+z).
$$
If $b_{3} \ne 0$, then
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
\mu_{3}(L) = Q(b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2}+b_{3}x_{3}+z)\!\!\!&= Q(b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2}+b_{3}x_{3})+Q(z)\\[0.2cm]
                                                  \!\!\!&\ge \mu_{3}(L_{1}) +Q(z) \ge \mu_{3}(L)+Q(z),
\end{array}
$$
which implies that $z=0$.
Hence, $\phi(L)$ is decomposable, which is a contradiction.
Therefore, we have $b_{3}=0$.
Observe that
$$
L_{1} = {\mathbb Z} x_{1} + {\mathbb Z} x_{2} + {\mathbb Z} x_{3} \subseteq L={\mathbb Z} u +{\mathbb Z} v+{\mathbb Z} w \simeq \phi(L)
$$
Then, $b_{1}x_{1} + b_{2}x_{2} = \alpha u + \beta v + \gamma w$ for some integers $\alpha, \beta$ and $\gamma$.
If $\gamma \ne 0$, then
$$
\mu_{3}(L) = Q(b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2})+Q(z) \ge Q(w)+Q(z) = \mu_{3}(L)+Q(z).
$$
This implies that $z=0$, which is a contradiction.
Hence, $b_{1}x_{1} + b_{2}x_{2} = \alpha u + \beta v$.
Similarly, we have $x_{1} = \alpha_{1} u + \beta_{1} v$ for some integers $\alpha_1$ and $\beta_1$.
Since $Q(x_{1})=Q(u)$ and $B(u,v)=0$, we have $x_{1} = \pm u$ and $b_{1}x_{1} + b_{2}x_{2} = \beta v$  or $x_{1} = \pm v$ and $b_{1}x_{1} + b_{2}x_{2} = \alpha u$.
In any case, $\phi(L)$ is decomposable, which is a contradiction.

Finally, assume that $x \ne 0$.
Since
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
\mu_{2}(L) = Q(v)=Q(a_{1}x_{1}+x+y) \!\!\!&= Q(a_{1}x_{1}+x)+Q(y)\\[0.2cm]
                                    \!\!\!& \ge  \mu_{2}(L_{1}) +Q(y) \ge \mu_{2}(L) +Q(y),
\end{array}
$$
we have $y=0$.
Put
$$
\phi(v) = a_{1}x_{1}+a_{2}x_{2}+a_{3}x_{3} \quad \mbox{and}\quad \phi(w) = b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2}+b_{3}x_{3}+z
$$
where $a_i,b_i\in {\mathbb Z}$ for any $i=1,2,3$ and $z \in L_{2} \perp \cdots \perp L_{t}$.
If $b_{3} \ne 0$, then
$$
\mu_{3}(L) = Q(b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2}+b_{3}x_{3})+Q(z) \ge \mu_{3}(L_{1})+Q(z) \ge \mu_{3}(L)+Q(z).
$$
This implies that $z=0$. Then $\phi(L) \subseteq L_{1}$, which is a contradiction.
Hence, $b_{3}=0$.
Suppose that $a_{3} \ne 0$.
Since
$$
\mu_{2}(L)=Q(a_{1}x_{1}+a_{2}x_{2}+a_{3}x_{3}) \ge \mu_{3}(L_{1}) \ge \mu_{3}(L),$$
we have $\mu_{2}(L)= \mu_{3} (L) = \mu_{2}(L_{1}) = \mu_{3}(L_{1})$. Then, we have
$$
\mu_{2}(L) = \mu_{3} (L) = Q(b_{1}x_{1}+b_{2}x_{2}+z) \ge \mu_{2}(L_{1})+Q(z) = \mu_{2}(L)+Q(z).
$$
This implies that $z=0$, which is a contradiction.
Therefore $a_{3} = 0$. Since $a_{2} \ne 0$, we have
$$
\mu_{2}(L) = Q(a_{1}x_{1}+a_{2}x_{2}) \ge \mu_{2}(L_{1}) =Q(x_{2}) \ge \mu_{2}(L).
$$
This means that $Q(a_{1}x_{1}+a_{2}x_{2})=Q(x_{2})$.
Let
$$
{\mathbb Z} x_{1}+{\mathbb Z} x_{2} = \begin{pmatrix} s & r \\ r & t \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Then, we have
$$
t=a_{1}^{2}s+2a_{1}a_{2}r+a_{2}^{2}t=s \left( a_{1} + \frac{ra_{2}}{s} \right)^{2} +a_{2}^{2} \left( t-\frac{r^{2}}{s} \right)  \ge a_{2}^{2} \left( t-\frac{s}{4} \right).
$$
If $|a_{2}| \ge 2$, then $t \ge 4t-s>t$, which is a contradiction.
Hence, we have $a_{2} = \pm 1$. Then $\phi(L) = {\mathbb Z} x_{1}+{\mathbb Z} x_{2} +{\mathbb Z} z$ is decomposable, which is a contradiction. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Recoverable binary $\mathbb{Z}$-lattices}

In this section, we focus on recoverable binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices.
We find some necessary conditions and some sufficient conditions for binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices to be recoverable.

Let $n$ be a positive integer and let $S$ be the set of all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices with minimum greater than or equal to $n$. Then there is a finite minimal $S$-universality criterion set $S_{n}=\{m_{1},\dots,m_{t}\}$ by \cite{kko}.  If we define $M=m_{1}\perp \cdots\perp m_{t}$, then $M$ represents all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices with minimum greater than or equal to $n$.
In this section, $\MM{n}$ stands for a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice representing all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices with minimum greater than or equal to $n$ and $\min(\MM{n})=n$.
From the above argument, such a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice always exists.

\begin{prop}\label{2leab}
Let  $a$ and $b$ be positive integers such that $2 \le a < b$ and $a$ does not divide $b$.  Then the diagonal binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell=\langle a, b \rangle $ is not recoverable.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof} It suffices to show that there is a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice such that it represents all proper sublattices of $\ell$, whereas it does not represent $\ell$ itself.
Let $h$ be a  positive integer such that $h^{2}a < b < (h+1)^{2}a$.  For any $h \ge 2$, we define a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice
$$
K(h) =\perp_{\substack{2\le i\le h \\ 1 \le j \le [\frac{i}{2}]}}
\begin{pmatrix}i^{2}a&ija\\ija&j^{2}a+b\end{pmatrix}.
$$
 Now, we define
$$
L(h) =
\begin{cases}
\left( {\mathbb Z} x + {\mathbb Z} y \right) \perp  \MM{b+1}            & \text{if} \ h=1,\\
\left( {\mathbb Z} x + {\mathbb Z} y \right) \perp K(h) \perp  \MM{b+1} & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
$$
where ${\mathbb Z} x + {\mathbb Z} y  = \begin{pmatrix} a&1\\1&b \end{pmatrix}$.
We claim that $L(h)$ represents all proper sublattices of $\ell$, whereas it does not represent $\ell$ itself.

First, we will prove that $L(h)$ represents all proper sublattices of $\ell$.
Let $\ell'$ be a proper sublattice of $\ell$. If $\min(\ell') >b$, then $\MM{b+1}$ represents $\ell'$ and so does $L(h)$.  If $\min(\ell') =b$, then $\ell' \simeq \langle b, \alpha^{2}a \rangle$ for some integer $\alpha$ with $\alpha^{2}a  > b$.
Since $\alpha^{2}a$ is represented by $\MM{b+1}$, $L(h)$ represents $\ell'$. Now, assume that $a<\min(\ell')<b$.
Since $4a \le \min(\ell')$, we have $h \ge 2$. Furthermore, there are integers  $i,j$, and $\beta$ with $2 \le i \le h$, $0 \le j \le \left[\frac{i}{2}\right]$ and $\beta \ge 1$ such that
$$
\ell' \simeq \begin{pmatrix} i^{2}a & ija \\ ija & j^{2}a+\beta^{2}b \end{pmatrix}.
$$
If $\beta=1$, then clearly $\ell'  {\ \rightarrow\ } L(h)$.
Assume that $\beta \ge 2$.
Since $(\beta^{2}-1)b>b$, we have
$$
\ell' \simeq \begin{pmatrix} i^{2}a & ija \\ ija & j^{2}a+\beta^{2}b \end{pmatrix}
{\ \rightarrow\ } \begin{pmatrix} i^{2}a & ija \\ ija & j^{2}a+b \end{pmatrix} \perp \MM{b+1},
$$
which implies that $L(h)$ represents $\ell'$. Finally, if $\min(\ell') = a$, then $\ell' \simeq \langle a, \beta^{2}b \rangle$ for some integer $\beta  \ge 2$. Since $\beta^{2}b$ is represented by $\MM{b+1}$, $L(h)$ represents $\ell'$.

Next, we will show that $L(h)$ does not represent $\ell$.  Clearly, $L(1)$ does not represent $\ell$.  Assume $h \ge 2$. For any $i,j$ with $2 \le i \le h$ and $ 1 \le j  \le \left[ \frac{i}{2} \right]$, let
$$
K_{ij}={\mathbb Z} z + {\mathbb Z} w =\begin{pmatrix} i^{2}a&ija\\ija&j^{2}a+b \end{pmatrix}.
$$
 Since
$$
Q(sz+tw) = (si+tj)^{2}a + t^{2}b >a,
$$
for any integers $s$ and $t$, the binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $K_{ij}$ does not represent $a$. Suppose that $Q(sz+tw)=b$ for some integers $s$ and $t$. Since $a$ does not divide $b$,  we have $t^{2}=1$ and $si+tj=0$. Furthermore, since $j = |si| \le \left[ \frac{i}{2} \right]$,
we have $s=j=0$. This is a contradiction. Hence $K_{ij}$ does not represent $b$ for any possible integers $i$ and $j$.
Therefore we have
\begin{equation}\label{qvalue}
Q(K(h)) \subseteq (\left\{ ma+nb  \mid m,n \in {\mathbb N} \cup\{0\} \right\} \setminus \left\{ a, b \right\}).
\end{equation}
Suppose that $L(h)$ represents $\ell$.
Let $u \in L(h)$ be a vector with $Q(u) = b$. Then
$$
u=\alpha x  + \beta y + z + w,
$$
for some integers $\alpha, \beta$ and some vectors $z \in K(h)$ and $w \in \MM{b+1}$.
Since
$$
Q(u) = Q(\alpha x + \beta y) + Q(z) + Q(w)=b \quad \text{and}\quad Q(w) > b,
$$
we have $w=0$. By \eqref{qvalue}, we have $Q(z)=0$ or $Q(z) = \delta a$ for some integer $\delta \ge 2$.
If $|\beta| \ge 2$, then $Q(\alpha x  + \beta y) \ge \beta^{2}(b-1) >b $.
If $\beta=0$, then $Q(\alpha x)$ is a multiple of $a$, and so is $Q(u)$.
Hence, we have $|\beta|=1$. This implies that
$$
u=
\begin{cases}
 \pm (x-y) \ \text{or} \ \pm y    & \text{if} \ a=2,\\
 \pm y& \text{if} \ a \ge 3.
\end{cases}
$$
Let $v \in L(h)$ be a vector with $Q(v) = a$. Then $v=x$ or $v=-x$. Finally, we have $B(u, v) \ne 0$, which is a contradiction. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{odd}
For any positive odd integer $m$, the diagonal binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell=\langle 1, m \rangle$ is not recoverable.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
For a positive odd integer $m$, let $\ell=\langle 1, m \rangle$ be the diagonal ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice.
Since $\langle 1 \rangle \perp \MM{2}$ represents all proper sublattices of $\langle 1,1 \rangle$, but not $\langle 1,1 \rangle$ itself, the binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\langle 1, 1 \rangle$ is not recoverable.
Hence we may assume that $m \ge 3$.
Let $N$ be any quinary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice that represents all binary even ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices.
Note that such a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice exists, for example, the root lattice $D_{5}$ is one of such quinary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices (see \cite{jko2}). Define a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice
$$
L=\langle 1 \rangle \perp N \perp \MM{m+1}.
$$
It is obvious that $\langle 1, m \rangle$ is not represented by $L$.

Let $\ell_1$ be any proper ${\mathbb Z}$-sublattice of $\ell$.
First, suppose that $\min(\ell_1)=1$. Then $\ell_1 \simeq \langle 1, m\beta^{2} \rangle$ for some integer $\beta \ge 2$.
Since $\langle m\beta^{2} \rangle  {\ \rightarrow\ } \MM{m+1}$, we have $\ell  {\ \rightarrow\ }  L$.

Now, suppose that $\min(\ell_1)>1$. Then clearly, $\min(\ell_1) \ge 3$.
Choose a Minkowski reduced basis for $\ell_1$ so that for some integers $a,b$, and $c$ with $0 \le 2b \le a \le c$ such that
$$
\ell_1 \simeq \begin{pmatrix} a&b\\ b&c \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Note that we are assuming that $a\ge 3$.  If $a \equiv c \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$, then $\ell_1{\ \rightarrow\ } N$ and so $\ell_1 {\ \rightarrow\ } L$.  If $a \equiv c \equiv 1 \pmod{2}$, then we define a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice
$$
\ell_1' = \begin{pmatrix} a-1&b-1\\ b-1&c-1 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Since $d\ell_1' \ge \frac{3}{4}ac-c =\frac{3c}{4}(a-\frac43) > 0$, the even ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell_1'$ is positive definite.
Hence $\ell_1' {\ \rightarrow\ } N$ and therefore $\ell_1  {\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 1 \rangle \perp N {\ \rightarrow\ }  L$.  If $a \equiv 1 \pmod{2}$ and $c\equiv 0 \pmod{2}$, then we define a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice
$$
\ell_1'' = \begin{pmatrix} a-1&b\\ b&c \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Since $d\ell_1'' = \left( \frac{ac}{4}-b^{2} \right) +\frac{c}{4} \left( 3a-4 \right) >0$, the even ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell_1''$ is positive definite.
Hence $\ell_1''  {\ \rightarrow\ }  N$ and therefore $\ell_1  {\ \rightarrow\ }  \langle 1\rangle \perp \ell_1'' {\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 1\rangle \perp N {\ \rightarrow\ } L$.  Since the proof of the case when $a \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$ and $c\equiv 1 \pmod{2}$ is quite similar to this, the proof is left to the readers.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop} \label{2m4}
For any positive integer $m$ with $m \equiv 2 \pmod{4}$, the diagonal binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell=\langle 1, m \rangle$ is not recoverable.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
For a positive integer $m \equiv 2 \pmod{4}$, let $\ell=\langle 1,m \rangle$ be the diagonal ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice. Since $\langle 1,1 \rangle \perp \MM{3}$ represents all proper sublattices of $\langle 1,2 \rangle$, but it does not represent $\langle 1,2 \rangle$ itself, the binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\langle 1,2 \rangle$ is not recoverable.  If we define
$$
L=\langle 1 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 & 2 \\ 0 & 5 & 1 \\ 2 & 1 & 7 \end{pmatrix} \perp \MM{7},
$$
then one may check that $L$ represents all proper sublattices of $\langle 1, 6 \rangle$, but it does not represent $\langle 1, 6 \rangle$ itself.
From now on, we assume that $m \ge 10$.
Define
$$
L_m' = {\mathbb Z} x + {\mathbb Z} y + {\mathbb Z} z + {\mathbb Z} t = \langle 1,3,5,m-1 \rangle.
$$
Let $N$ be an even 2-universal quinary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice and let $\mathcal{N}$ be the ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice obtained from $N$ by scaling the quadratic space $\mathbb{Q} \otimes N$ by $2$. Hence $\mathcal N$ represents all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices whose norm is contained in $4{\mathbb Z}$.
Now, we define
$$
L_m = L_m' \perp \mathcal{N} \perp \MM{m+1}.
$$
We will show that any proper sublattice of $\ell=\langle 1, m \rangle$ is represented by $L_m$,
whereas $\ell$ itself is not represented by $L_m$. Suppose, on the contrary, that $\langle 1, m \rangle$ is represented by $L_m$.
Then, one may easily check that
$$
\langle m \rangle \longrightarrow \langle 3,5 \rangle \perp \mathcal{N}.
$$
Hence we have $m \equiv 3a^2+5b^2 \pmod{4}$ for some integers $a$ and $b$, which is a contradiction to the fact that $m \equiv 2 \pmod{4}$.

Let $\ell= {\mathbb Z} u +{\mathbb Z} v = \langle 1, m \rangle$ and let $\ell_1$ be any proper sublattice of $\ell$.  If $\min(\ell_1)=1$, then $\ell_1\simeq \langle1,m\beta^2 \rangle$ for some integer $\beta\ge2$. Clearly, $\ell_1 {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m$.  Assume that $1< \min(\ell_1)< m$. Then there are integers $a,b$, and $c$ such that $\ell_1= {\mathbb Z} (au) + {\mathbb Z} (bu+ cv)$. If $|c| \ge 2$, then we have $\ell_1 \subseteq {\mathbb Z} u  + {\mathbb Z} (cv) = \langle 1, c^{2}m \rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m$.
Hence we may assume that $\ell_1 = {\mathbb Z} (au)+{\mathbb Z} (bu+v)$, where the integers $a$ and $b$ satisfy $a \ge 2$ and $0 \le b < a$. Note that
$$
\ell_1 = \begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+m \end{pmatrix}.
$$
First, assume that $a \equiv b \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$.
Since
$$
\begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+m-6 \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } \mathcal{N},
$$
we have $\ell_1{\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 1,5 \rangle \perp \mathcal{N} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m$.  Now, assume that $a \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$ and $b\equiv 1 \pmod{2}$.
Since
$$
\begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+m-3 \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } \mathcal{N},
$$
we have $\ell_1 {\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 3 \rangle \perp \mathcal{N} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m$. Assume that $a \equiv b \equiv 1 \Mod{2}$. Let $w\in\mathcal{N}$ be a vector with $Q(w)=m-2$. Then, we have
$$
{\mathbb Z} (x+y+z)+{\mathbb Z}(y+w)=\begin{pmatrix} 9&3\\ 3&1+m \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m.
$$
Hence we may assume that $a \ge 5$. Consider the following ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice
$$
\ell_1' = \begin{pmatrix} a^{2}-9 & ab-3 \\ ab-3 & b^{2}+m-3 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Since $m > a^2$, we have $d (\ell_1')>0$. Hence $\ell_1' {\ \rightarrow\ } \mathcal{N}$.
Therefore there are vectors $w_{1}, w_{2} \in \mathcal{N}$ such that
$$
\ell_1' \simeq {\mathbb Z} w_{1}+{\mathbb Z} w_{2} \subseteq \mathcal{N}.
$$
Then, we have
$$
{\mathbb Z} (x+y+z+w_{1}) + {\mathbb Z} (y+w_{2})  = \begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+m \end{pmatrix}.
$$
This implies that $\ell_1$ is represented by $L_m$.

Finally, assume that $a \equiv 1 \pmod{2}$ and $b\equiv 0 \pmod{2}$.
If $a=3$, then $b=0$ or $2$. If $b=0$, then
$$
\ell_1 = \langle 9,m \rangle \longrightarrow \langle 1,5,m-1 \rangle \perp \mathcal{N} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m.
$$
If $b=2$, then we have
$$
\ell_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 9 & 6 \\ 6 & m+4 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 9 & 3 \\ 3 & 1+m \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m.
$$
Now, assume that $a \ge 5$. Consider the following ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice
$$
\ell_1'' = \begin{pmatrix} a^{2}-9 & ab-4 \\ ab-4 & b^{2}+m-6 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Since $d (\ell_1'')>0$, we have $\ell_1'' {\ \rightarrow\ } \mathcal{N}$.
Hence there are vectors $w'_{1}, w'_{2} \in \mathcal{N}$ such that
$$
\ell_1'' \simeq {\mathbb Z} w'_{1}+{\mathbb Z} w'_{2} \subseteq \mathcal{N}.
$$
Then, we have
$$
{\mathbb Z} (x+y+z+w'_{1}) + {\mathbb Z} (-x+z+w'_{2})  = \begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+m \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Therefore, we have $\ell_1 {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m$.

 If $\min(\ell_1)=m$, then $\ell_1 \simeq \langle \alpha^2,m \rangle$ for some integer $\alpha$ with $\alpha^2>m$. Hence, we have $\ell_1 {\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 1,m-1\rangle\perp \MM{m+1} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m$.  Finally, if $\min(\ell_1)>m$, then we have $\ell_1 {\ \rightarrow\ }  \MM{m+1} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Recoverable numbers}

From Propositions \ref{bin}, \ref{2leab}, \ref{odd}, and \ref{2m4},  one may conclude that if a binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell$ is recoverable, then $\ell = \langle a, 4ma \rangle$ for some positive integers $a$ and  $m$.
In this section, we focus on the case when $a=1$.  A positive integer $m$ is called \textit{recoverable} if the diagonal binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\langle 1,4m \rangle$ is recoverable. We prove that any square of an integer is a recoverable number. We also prove that there are infinitely many non square recoverable numbers.

\begin{prop}
Any square of an integer is recoverable, that is,  the diagonal binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\ell = \langle 1, 4m^{2} \rangle$ is recoverable for any integer $m$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\ell= \langle 1, 4m^{2} \rangle$ be the diagonal binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice.
Let $S$ be the set of all proper sublattices of $\ell$. By Lemma \ref{not-recover}, it suffices to show that any $S$-universal ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice represents $\ell$ itself.  Let $L$ be an $S$-universal ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice. Since $\langle 1, 16m^{2} \rangle  {\ \rightarrow\ }  L$, we have $L={\mathbb Z} e_{1} \perp L' =\langle 1 \rangle \perp L'$ for some ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L'$.
Since $\langle 4, 4m^{2} \rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } L$, one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item  there is a vector $y \in L'$ such that ${\mathbb Z} (2e_{1}) + {\mathbb Z} y = \langle 4, 4m^{2} \rangle$;
\item  there are vectors $x,y \in L'$ and an integer $a$ such that
$$
{\mathbb Z} (e_{1}+x) + {\mathbb Z} (ae_{1}+y) = \langle 4, 4m^{2} \rangle;
$$
\item  there are vectors $x,y \in L'$ and an integer $a$ such that
$$
{\mathbb Z} x + {\mathbb Z} (ae_{1}+y) = \langle 4, 4m^{2} \rangle.
$$
\end{enumerate}
If (1) holds, then $Q(y)=4m^{2}$. Hence $L$ represents $\ell$.   If (2) holds, then
$$
{\mathbb Z} x+{\mathbb Z} y = \begin{pmatrix} 3&-a\\ -a & 4m^{2}-a^{2}\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Hence we have $Q(ax+y)=4m^{2}$. Therefore $L$ represents $\ell$.   Finally, if (3) holds, then we have $Q(mx)=4m^{2}$. Therefore $L$ represents $\ell$.  This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Let $\mathscr{L}$ be the set of all isometry classes of binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices and let $\mathscr{L}_{13}$ be the set of all isometry classes of binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices whose  second successive minimum is greater than or equal to $13$.
We define a map $\phi_{9} : \mathscr{L}_{13}  {\ \rightarrow\ }  \mathscr{L}$ by
$$
\phi_{9} \left( \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c \end{pmatrix}  \right) = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c-9 \end{pmatrix},
$$
where $\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c \end{pmatrix}$ is a Minkowski-reduced form in the class so that $0 \le 2b \le a \le c$.
Since
$$
d(\phi_{9}(K))=ac-b^2-9a=\left(\frac {ac}4-b^2\right)+\frac{3a}4(c-12)>0,
$$
the above map $\phi_9$ is well-defined.

\begin{lem}\label{phi9}
Let $L$ be a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice and let $K$ be a binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice in $\mathscr{L}_{13}$.
If $\phi_{9}^{k}(K)$ is represented by $L$ for some nonnegative integer $k$,
then
$$
K \longrightarrow L \perp 9I_{5}.
$$
Here, $9I_{5}$ is the quinary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice obtained from the cubic lattice  $I_{5}$ by scaling the quadratic space $\mathbb{Q} \otimes I_{5}$ by $9$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $L$ be a ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice and let $K$ be a binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice in $\mathscr{L}_{13}$. Let $\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c \end{pmatrix}$ be the Minkowski-reduced form in the isometry class of $K$.
Note that $9I_{5}$ represents all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices whose scale is contained in $9{\mathbb Z}$. We use an induction on $k$. Suppose that $\phi_{9}(K)$ is represented by $L$.
Then, it is obvious that
$$
K= \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c-9 \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 9 \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ }  L \perp 9I_{5}.
$$
Suppose that the assertion is true for $k$. Assume that $\phi_{9}^{k+1}(K) {\ \rightarrow\ } L$.
Let $K'=\phi_{9}(K)$.
Then $\phi_{9}^{k}(K') = \phi_{9}^{k+1}(K) {\ \rightarrow\ } L$.
It follows from the induction hypothesis that $K' {\ \rightarrow\ }  L \perp 9I_{5}$.
This implies that
$$
K' =\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c-9 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}	\alpha_{1} & \beta_{1} \\ \beta_{1} & \gamma_{1} \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{2} & \beta_{2} \\ \beta_{2} & \gamma_{2} \end{pmatrix},
$$
where $\begin{pmatrix}	\alpha_{1} & \beta_{1} \\ \beta_{1} & \gamma_{1} \end{pmatrix}  {\ \rightarrow\ }  L$ and $\begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{2} & \beta_{2} \\ \beta_{2} & \gamma_{2} \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } 9I_{5}$.
Since
$
\begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{2} & \beta_{2} \\ \beta_{2} & \gamma_{2}+9 \end{pmatrix}  {\ \rightarrow\ }  9I_{5},
$
we have
$$
K  = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ b & c \end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}	\alpha_{1} & \beta_{1} \\ \beta_{1} & \gamma_{1} \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{2} & \beta_{2} \\ \beta_{2} & \gamma_{2}+9 \end{pmatrix}
{\ \rightarrow\ } L \perp 9I_{5}.
$$
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{ord3m}
Any proper sublattice of $\langle 1,1 \rangle$ is represented by both
$$
L_{1}= \langle 1,2,3 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5} \  \mbox{ and }\  L_{2}=\langle 1,2,6 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5}.
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since the proof is quite similar to each other, we only provide the proof of the first case.
Let $\ell$ be any proper sublattice of $\langle 1,1 \rangle$.

 One may directly check that the quinary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $\langle 1,2,3 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix}$ represents all binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices whose second successive minimum is less than or equal to $12$ except for the following $15$ binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices:

\begin{equation}\label{15lattices}
\begin{array}{ll}
&
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 6 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 2 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 3 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix},\\[0.3cm]

&
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 6 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 13 \end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 2 \\ 2 & 7 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 6 & 0 \\ 0 & 7 \end{pmatrix}, \\[0.3cm]

&
\begin{pmatrix} 6 & 0 \\ 0 & 10 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 6 & 3 \\ 3 & 7 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 6 & 3 \\ 3 & 10 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 7 & 1 \\ 1 & 10 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 10 & 2 \\ 2 & 10 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Note that the above $15$ binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices are not proper sublattices of $\langle 1,1 \rangle$.
Hence we may  assume that $\mu_2(\ell)\ge 13$. Since $\mu_{2}(\phi_{9}(\ell)) \le \max\{\mu_{1}(\ell), \mu_{2}(\ell)-9 \}$, there exists a positive integer $k$ such that $\phi_{9}^{k-1}(\ell) \in \mathscr{L}_{13}$ and $\mu_{2}(\phi_{9}^{k}(\ell)) \le 12$. When $k=1$, then we let $\phi_9^0(\ell)=\ell$. If
$$
\phi_{9}^{k}(\ell)  {\ \rightarrow\ }  \langle 1,2,3 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix},
$$
then, by Lemma \ref{phi9}, we have
$$
\ell  {\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 1,2,3 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5}.
$$
Hence, we may assume that $\phi_{9}^{k}(\ell)$ is isometric to one of 15 binary  ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices listed in \eqref{15lattices}.
Since $d\ell$ is a square of an integer and $d(\phi_{9}(\ell)) = d\ell -9\mu_{1}(\ell)$, we see that $\text{ord}_{3}(d(\phi_{9}^{k}(\ell)))$ cannot be one. Hence  $\phi_{9}^{k}(\ell)$ is isometric to one of the following ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices:
$$
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 3 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \text{and} \quad \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Since $\phi_{9}^{k-1}(\ell) \in \mathscr{L}_{13}$ and
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
&
\phi_{9}^{-1}\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\right)= \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 10 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 10 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 5 & 2 \\ 2 & 10 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 10 & 3 \\ 3 & 10 \end{pmatrix}\right\},\\[0.3cm]

&
\phi_{9}^{-1}\left(\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 3 \end{pmatrix}\right)= \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 12 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 3 & 1 \\ 1 & 11 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 7 & 3 \\ 3 & 11 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 10 & 5 \\ 5 & 12 \end{pmatrix} \right\},\\[0.3cm]

&
\phi_{9}^{-1}\left(\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix}\right)= \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 13 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 11 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 3 \\ 3 & 11 \end{pmatrix}\right\},
\end{array}
$$
we have
$$
\phi_{9}^{k}(\ell)\simeq \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix}\quad \text{and}\quad
\phi_{9}^{k-1}(\ell)\simeq \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 13 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
One may check that
$$
\phi_{9}^{k-1}(\ell)\simeq\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 13 \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 1,2,3 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Hence, by Lemma \ref{phi9}, we have
$$
\ell  \longrightarrow \langle 1,2,3 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5}.
$$
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
If $m$ is a positive integer with $\text{ord}_{3}(m)=1$, then $m$ is not a recoverable number.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $m$ be a positive integer with $\text{ord}_{3}(m)=1$. Then, we write $m=3m'$ with $m'\equiv 1$ or $2 \Mod 3$. We define
$$
L_m =
\begin{cases}
\langle 1,2,6,4m-1 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5}\perp \MM{4m+1} & \text{if $m'\equiv 1 \Mod 3$},\\[0.5cm]

\langle 1,2,3,4m-1 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5}\perp \MM{4m+1} & \text{if $m'\equiv 2 \Mod 3$}.
\end{cases}
$$
Clearly, $L_m$ does not represent $\langle 1, 4m \rangle$. As in the proof of Lemma \ref{2m4}, it is enough to show that $L_m$ represents every proper sublattice of $\langle 1,4m \rangle$, which is of the form $\begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+4m \end{pmatrix}$ for some integers $a$ and $b$ with $a \ge 2$ and $0\le 2b \le a$. By Lemma \ref{ord3m}, we have
$$
\begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+1 \end{pmatrix}
{\ \rightarrow\ } \langle 1,2,3 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5} \
\text{and} \ \langle 1,2,6 \rangle \perp \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 5 \end{pmatrix} \perp 9I_{5},
$$
which implies that
$$
\begin{pmatrix} a^{2} & ab \\ ab & b^{2}+4m \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } L_m.
$$
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{12lattices}
Any integer $m$ is a recoverable number if $4m$ is represented by all of the following binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
&\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 3 & 1  \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 4 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 5 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 6 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 7 \end{pmatrix},\\[0.3cm]

&\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 2 \\ 2 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 9 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 9 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \text{and}\quad
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 2 \\ 2 & 9 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{array}
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $L$ be any ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice that represents all proper sublattices of $\langle 1,4m \rangle$.
Since $\langle 1, 16m \rangle  {\ \rightarrow\ }  L$, we have  $L={\mathbb Z} e_1 \perp L'= \langle 1 \rangle \perp L'$ for some ${\mathbb Z}$-lattice $L'$. To prove the proposition, it suffices to show that $\langle 1,4m\rangle$ is represented by $L$, that is, $4m$ is represented by $L'$.

Since $\langle 4, 4m \rangle  {\ \rightarrow\ }  L$, one of the followings holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item there is a vector $y \in L'$ such that ${\mathbb Z} (2e_{1}) + {\mathbb Z} y = \langle 4, 4m \rangle$;
\item there are vectors $x,y \in L'$ and an integer $a$ such that
$$
{\mathbb Z} (e_{1}+x) + {\mathbb Z} (ae_{1}+y) = \langle 4, 4m \rangle;
$$
\item there are vectors $x,y \in L'$ and an integer $a$ such that
$$
{\mathbb Z} x + {\mathbb Z} (ae_{1}+y) = \langle 4, 4m \rangle.
$$
\end{enumerate}
If (1) or (2) holds, then $4m$ is represented by $L'$. Therefore we may assume that (3) holds. Hence $4$ is represented by $L'$.

Now, note that  $\langle 9,4m \rangle$ is also represented by $L$. Similarly to the above, one may easily show that $4m$ is represented by $L'$ or
one of binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices $\begin{pmatrix} 8 & -a \\ -a & 4m-a^2 \end{pmatrix}$ and $\langle 9, 4m-a^2\rangle$ is represented by $L'$. Hence  $8$ or $9$ is represented by $L'$.

Suppose that $L'$ represents 4 and 8. Then $L'$ represents at least one of the following binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices:
$$
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 2 \\ 2 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 3 \\ 3 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 4 \\ 4 & 8 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \text{and}\quad
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 5 \\ 5 & 8 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Here, we have
$$
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 3 \\ 3 & 8 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 6 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 4 \\ 4 & 8 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 4 \end{pmatrix},\quad \text{and}\quad
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 5 \\ 5 & 8 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix}.
$$

Finally, suppose that $L'$ represents 4 and 9.
Then $L'$ represents at least one of the following binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices:
$$
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 9 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 9 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 2 \\ 2 & 9 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 3 \\ 3 & 9 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 4 \\ 4 & 9 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\text{and}\quad
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 5 \\ 5 & 9 \end{pmatrix},
$$
Here, we have
$$
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 3 \\ 3 & 9 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 7 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 4 \\ 4 & 9 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 5 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\text{and}\quad
\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 5 \\ 5 & 9 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 3 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Therefore, if $4m$ is represented by all of the above $12$ binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices, then $4m$ is represented by $L'$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
Let $m \equiv 1 \pmod 8$ be a prime. If $m$ is a quadratic residue modulo $q$ for any prime $q\in\{3,5,7,11,23,31\}$, then $m$ is a recoverable number. In particular, any prime $m \equiv 5569 \pmod {3\cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 11\cdot 23\cdot 31}$ is a recoverable number. Therefore there are infinitely many non square recoverable numbers.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Note that $4m$ is represented by all of $12$ binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices in Proposition \ref{12lattices} if and only if $m$ is represented by all of the following binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices
\begin{equation}\label{9lattices}
\begin{array}{lll}
&\hspace{0.7cm}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0  \\ 0 & 2 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 2 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 3 \end{pmatrix},\\[0.3cm]
&
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 5 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 7 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 8 \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 9 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\text{and}\quad
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 9 \end{pmatrix},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and furthermore, $m$ is represented by both
\begin{equation}\label{2genera}
\text{gen}\left(
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 6 \end{pmatrix}\right) \quad \text{and} \quad \text{gen}\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 8 \end{pmatrix}\right).
\end{equation}
As a sample, assume that $4m$ is represented by $\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 6 \end{pmatrix}$. Then $2m$ is represented by $\begin{pmatrix} 2 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 3 \end{pmatrix}$. Assume that  $2x^2+xy+3y^2=2m$ for some integers $x$ and $y$. Then either $x+y$ or $y$ is even. If $x+y=2z$ for some integer $z$, then $2x^2-5xz+6z^2=m$. Hence $m$ is represented by $\begin{pmatrix} 2 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 3 \end{pmatrix}$. If $y=2z$, then $x^2+xz+6z^2=m$. Hence   $m$ is represented by $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 6 \end{pmatrix}$.
 Note that
$$
\text{gen}\left(\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 6 \end{pmatrix}\right)\big/\sim=\left\{ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 6 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 2 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 3 \end{pmatrix} \right\}.
$$
Conversely, assume that $m$ is represented by the genus of $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 6 \end{pmatrix}$. If $m$ is represented by $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 6 \end{pmatrix}$, then we have
$$
\langle 4m \rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } \begin{pmatrix} 4 &2 \\2 & 24 \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } \begin{pmatrix} 4 &1 \\1 & 6 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
 If $m$ is represented by $\begin{pmatrix} 2 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 3 \end{pmatrix}$, then we have
 $$
 \langle 4m \rangle {\ \rightarrow\ } \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 2 \\ 2 & 12 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 6 \\ 6 & 16 \end{pmatrix} {\ \rightarrow\ } \begin{pmatrix} 8 & 3 \\ 3 & 4 \end{pmatrix} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} 4 &1 \\1 & 6 \end{pmatrix}.
$$
Hence $4m$ is represented by \!$\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 1 \\ 1 & 6 \end{pmatrix}$ if and only if $m$ is represented by \!$\text{gen}\left(\!\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 \\ \frac12 & 6 \end{pmatrix}\!\right)$.

Note that 9 binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices in \eqref{9lattices} have class number $1$.
Therefore if $m\equiv 1 \pmod 8$ is prime, and  for any prime $q\in \{3,5,7,11,23,31\}$, $m$ is a quadratic residue modulo $q$, then one may easily check that $m$ is represented by $9$ binary ${\mathbb Z}$-lattices in \eqref{9lattices} and by both genera in \eqref{2genera}.
This implies   that $m$ is a recoverable number by Proposition \ref{12lattices}. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}{\rm We checked that any non square integer less than or equal to $35$ is not a recoverable number. }
\end{rmk}