Network Tomography: Identifiability and Fourier Domain Estimation

Abstract: The statistical problem for network tomography is to infer the distribution of $\mathbf{X}$, with mutually independent components, from a measurement model $\mathbf{Y}=A\mathbf{X}$, where $A$ is a given binary matrix representing the routing topology of a network under consideration. The challenge is that the dimension of $\mathbf{X}$ is much larger than that of $\mathbf{Y}$ and thus the problem is often called ill-posed. This paper studies some statistical aspects of network tomography. We first address the identifiability issue and prove that the $\mathbf{X}$ distribution is identifiable up to a shift parameter under mild conditions. We then use a mixture model of characteristic functions to derive a fast algorithm for estimating the distribution of $\mathbf{X}$ based on the General method of Moments. Through extensive model simulation and real Internet trace driven simulation, the proposed approach is shown to be favorable comparing to previous methods using simple discretization for inferring link delays in a heterogeneous network.

\section*{Appendix: A counter example}

Based on the proof of Lemma 1, we can construct a counter example
that the distributions of $\{ X_1,X_2,X_3\}$ are not identifiable. Let $c(t;a,\lambda)=e^{-\lambda|t|}I(|t|\leq a)+\lambda e^{-\lambda a}(a+\frac{1}{\lambda}-|t|)I(a<|t|\leq a+\frac{1}{\lambda})$
be a continuous function defined for $t\in\mathcal{R}$. It is easy
to check using Polya's condition (\cite{lukacs:1970}) that for any $a\geq0,\lambda>0$, $c(t;a,\lambda)$ is a
characteristic function corresponding to a symmetric, non-vanishing,
bounded continuous density function. Let $\phi_{X_1}(t)=c(t;2,1)$,
$\phi_{X'_1}(t)=c(t;3,1)$,
$\phi_{X_2}(t)=\phi_{X'_2}(t)=\phi_{X_3}(t)=\phi_{X'_3}(t)=c(t;0,1)$.
Both groups of distributions corresponding to characteristic functions
$\{\phi_{X_k}\}$  and $\{\phi_{X'_k}\}$ for $\{ X_{k}\}$ respectively can
generate the same joint
distribution of $(Y_{1},Y_{2})$. Figure \ref{fig:counter} shows both
their characteristic
functions and probability density functions on a two-leaf tree:
$\phi_{X_1}$ and $\phi_{X_1'}$ are the two curves in the first box of
the second row, and $\phi_{X_2}$ and $\phi_{X_3}$ are in the second
and third box of the second row respectively, with corresponding
density functions plotted in the first row. Notice that
these distributions cannot be used for link delays which do
not permit negative values. It is an open question whether there
exist link delays whose distribution shapes are
not identifiable even for the simple two-leaf tree tomography.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.6in]{counterexample1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{A counter example of identifiability for the two-leaf tree
  model where $(X_1+X_2,X_1+X_3)$ and $(X_1'+X_2',X_1'+X_3')$ have the same
  joint distribution: The bottom three figures plot the characteristic
  functions: the first one for $\phi_{X_1}$ and $\phi_{X_1'}$, and
  the second and third ones for
  $\phi_{X_2}=\phi_{X_2'}$ and $\phi_{X_3}=\phi_{X_3'}$
  respectively; The top three figures plot the
  corresponding probability density functions.}
\label{fig:counter}
\end{figure}

\section{Fast algorithms derived from the General Method of
  Moments}\label{sec:algorithm}

In this section, we discuss how to estimate the
parameters of mixture coefficients. It is worth pointing out that by
Theorem \ref{thm:delayiden} the parameter of the link delay mixture models
defined above is identifiable when link delays have positive probabilities
at zero, which is usually true.

\subsection{The General Method of Moments}\label{sec:estimation}

Following \cite{bu:2002}, it is not hard to show that the
computational complexity of MLE using an EM algorithm for the
above flexible mixture model is of order $O(\max_jn_j^J)$, which is
too expensive.
In this section, we present an estimation approach for network
tomography using Fourier transform, following the pioneering work of
\cite{feuerverger:1977}. The estimators using this approach can be
computed easily as shown below and also exhibit good statistical properties.
The motivation is that the characteristic function of $\mathbf{Y}$ is
simply the {\em product} of the characteristic function of components
of $\mathbf{X}$ as shown in Equation (\ref{eq:CFY}), though the
distribution function is a high order convolution of those of $X_j$s.
We derive the estimator from the General Method of Moments formally described
in \cite{hansen:1982} and \cite{carrasco.florens.2000}. To be
self-contained, we give a formal description of our estimator for the
tomography model below and discuss its advantages over previous
approaches.

Suppose that each $X_{j}$ is modeled by a probability density function
$f_{X_{j}}(x_j;\theta_{j})$ with an unknown parameter $\theta_j$.
Let $\theta=\{\theta_j: j=1,\ldots,J\}$.
By Equation~(\ref{eq:CFY}), the joint characteristic function of
$\mathbf{Y}$ is
\[
\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t};\theta)=\prod_{j=1}^J\phi_{X_j}(t_j;\theta_j)
\]
where $\phi_{X_j}$ is the characteristic function with respect to $f_{X_j}$.
Let $\{ \mathbf{Y}(n):1\leq n\leq N\}$ be the independent measurements of $\mathbf{Y}$. The empirical characteristic function of $\mathbf{Y}$ is
\[
\hat{\phi}_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t})=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\exp(i\mathbf{t}^{T}\mathbf{Y}(n)).
\]
Similar to the maximum likelihood estimate which is derived by
minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the empirical
distribution and the model distribution of $\mathbf{Y}$, an estimate
of $\theta$ can
be obtained
by minimizing an $L_2$ distance between the empirical
characteristic function and the model characteristic function of
$\mathbf{Y}$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray} \hat{\theta} & = &
\arg\min\int\left|\epsilon_{N}(\mathbf{t};\theta)\right|^{2}d\mu(\mathbf{t}),\label{eq:estimator}\end{eqnarray}
where
\[
\epsilon_{N}(\mathbf{t};\theta)=\sqrt{N}(\hat{\phi}_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t})-\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t};\theta)),
\]
and $\mu(\mathbf{t})$ is a specified probability distribution
function on $\mathcal{R}^{I}$ (we use the sub script $N$ to show the
dependence on the sample size $N$).

For a continuous measure $\mu$, the right hand side of
(\ref{eq:estimator}) does not have a closed form in general. To
evaluate the integral, a Monte Carlo approximation can be used:
first randomly draw $K$ samples from $\mu(\mathbf{t})$, say
$\{\mathbf{t}_{k}:k=1,2,\cdots, K\}$, and then replace $\mu(\mathbf{t})$ by
its empirical distribution based on these samples.

Let $\epsilon_{N}(\theta)\equiv(\epsilon_{N}(\mathbf{t}_{k};\theta), k=1,\cdots,K)^T$
be a column vector. We can rewrite (\ref{eq:estimator}) as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:CF}
\hat{\theta}  =
\arg\min_{\theta}\epsilon_{N}^{T}(\theta)\epsilon_{N}^{*}(\theta),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{N}^*(\theta)$ is the conjugate of
$\epsilon_{N}(\theta)$.  We call it the {\em CF-estimator}, since it
is based on characteristic function.

The CF-estimator can be considered as a least square estimator based
on the residuals evaluated at $\mathbf{t}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{t}_K$,
which are obviously correlated. Let $W$ be the covariance matrix of $\epsilon_N(\theta)$, it is easy to show that
\[
W_{jk}
=\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t}_{j}-\mathbf{t}_{k};\theta)-\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t}_{j};\theta)\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}^{*}(\mathbf{t}_{k};\theta).
\]
This motivates a weighted version of the CF-estimator, called {\em WCF},
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\theta}^{(W)} & = &
\arg\min_{\theta}\varepsilon_{N}^{T}(\theta)(W+\delta_N I_{K})^{-1}\varepsilon_{N}^{*}(\theta),\label{eq:WCF}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_{K}$ is the $K\times K$ identity matrix and $\delta_N$, a
tuning parameter, is used to make sure the inversion is well defined.
$\delta$ should be small and we typically choose $\delta_N$ of order
$N^{-1/2}$.  In practice $W$ cannot be calculated precisely since
$\theta$ is unknown.  We can either use a $W$ estimated from an
initial estimate of $\theta$ such as the CF-estimator, or iterate this
process using an iteratively reweighed least squares, which is a
common technique used in generalized linear models.

{\em 1) Statistical properties}.
The characteristic-function based estimators presented in this section
fall into the class of Generalized Methods of Moment (GMM)
estimators. There is a considerable body of work on their statistical
properties, see \cite{feuerverger:1977} and
\cite{carrasco.florens.2000}, from which the consistency and
asymptotic normality of
both CF-estimator \eqref{eq:CF} and WCF-estimator \eqref{eq:WCF}, can
be established. In addition, it has been
proved by \cite{carrasco.florens.2000} that when the probability
measure $\mu$ in
Equation~(\ref{eq:estimator}) has a density all over $\mathcal{R}^{I}$, the
WCF estimator is asymptotically as efficient as MLE with $K=\infty$
and an appropriate choice of $\delta_N$.

{\em 2) Sampling of $\mathbf{t}$}. For both the CF and WCF estimators, the
points $\mathbf{t}_k,k=1,\ldots,K$ are sampled based on a probability
measure $\mu$. In general, how to choose $\mu$ or sample $\mathbf{t}$
efficiently is a hard problem (\cite{feuerverger:1977}).
In the following, we suggest the choice of $\mu$ based
on our simulation experiences.

Since the scales of components of $\mathbf{Y}$ may be different,
we normalize $\mathbf{Y}$ by its empirical covariance
matrix and use an elliptic distribution for $\mu$, such as Gaussian.
From simulations we notice that sampling $\mathbf{t}$
directly from a probability measure in $\mathcal{R}^I$ does not easily
yield good results. This is due to the sparsity of $\mathbf{t}$ in the
high dimensional space so that the characteristic functions
$\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t})$ evaluated at most of the points are
close to zero. Since the variance of the residual
$\epsilon_N(\mathbf{t};\theta)$ is equal to
$1-|\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t})|^2$, the closer to zero of the
characteristic function $|\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t})|^2$, the
larger the variance, and the less the information.
Although it may lose some efficiency,  simulations suggest that better
performance can be achieved by sampling
$\mathbf{t}$ from lower dimension subspace,
for example 2-dim
subspaces.  When we draw $\mathbf{t}$ from a lower dimensional
subspace, it implies that we minimize the residuals (difference
between model and empirical characteristic function) only for these
subspaces. This may be viewed as a counterpart of the pseudo likelihood
approach for network tomography proposed by \cite{liang:2003} but in
the Fourier domain.

\subsection{A Fast Algorithm by Quadratic Programming} \label{sec:fastalg}
With the mixture model described in Section \ref{sec:mixture}, the
unknown parameter for the model is
$\theta=\{\theta_{j}:j=1,\cdots,J\}$, the mixture coefficients. Now we
describe how to estimate $\theta$
iteratively using the approach developed in Section
\ref{sec:estimation}.

By Equation (\ref{eq:CFY}) and (\ref{eq:cf-mixture}), the model
characteristic function of $\mathbf{Y}$ is
\[
\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t};\theta) =
\prod_{j=1}^J\theta_{j}^{T}\Phi_{j}(\mathbf{t}^TA^j),
\]
where
$\Phi_j(t)=(\phi_{j1}(t),\cdots,\phi_{jn_j}(t))^T$.
The objective function in obtaining the CF estimate defined in
Equation (\ref{eq:CF}) can then be written as
\[
\sum_{k=1}^K|\epsilon_N(\mathbf{t}_k;\theta)|^2 =
\sum_{k=1}^K\left|\hat{\phi}_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t}_k)-\prod_{j=1}^{J}\left(\theta_j^{T}\Phi_{j}(\mathbf{t}_k^TA^j)\right)\right|^{2}.
\]
It is easy to see that for each $\theta_j$, if the rest of the
parameters are known, the optimization function is a quadratic
function of $\theta_j$. Specifically, given all other parameters
$\{\theta_l:l=1,\cdots,J,l\neq j\}$, the optimal $\theta_j$
can be obtained by minimizing
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:quadprog}
C(\theta_j)
& = &
\theta_j^{T}D_j\theta_j-2\theta_j^{T}\mathbf{d}_j,
\end{eqnarray}
where \begin{eqnarray*}
D_j & = & \sum_{k=1}^K \left|\prod_{l\neq
j}\phi_{X_{l}}(\mathbf{t}_k^{T}A^{l})\right|^{2}Re\{\Phi_{j}^{*}(\mathbf{t}_k^TA^j)\Phi_{j}^T(\mathbf{t}_k^TA^j)\}
\end{eqnarray*} is an $n_{j}\times n_{j}$ matrix, and
\begin{eqnarray*} \mathbf{d}_j & = & \sum_{k=1}^K
Re\{\hat{\phi}_{\mathbf{Y}}^{*}(\mathbf{t}_k)\prod_{l\neq
j}\phi_{X_{l}}(\mathbf{t}_k^{T}A^{l})\Phi_{j}(\mathbf{t}_k^TA^j)\}
\end{eqnarray*}
is an $n_{j}$-dim column vector.
This is a standard quadratic programming problem and can be solved
quickly.
Therefore, estimation of $\theta$ can be obtained by an iterative algorithm as follows.
\begin{alg} Iterative quadratic programming\label{alg:quadprog}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] Choose an initial value for $\theta_j$, $j=1,\ldots, J$.
\item[(2)] For each $j=1,\ldots, J$,
  estimate $\theta_j$ by minimizing (\ref{eq:quadprog})
  using quadratic programming.
\item[(3)] Repeat Step 2 until convergence.
\end{itemize}
\end{alg}

A nice property of Algorithm \ref{alg:quadprog} is that it
always converges to a local solution
because the objective function never increases after each iteration
and is bounded below by 0. This is similar to EM algorithms, but care
is needed in order to obtain the global minimal. Simulations show that
$\{ p_{jk}=1/n_{j}\}$ can serve as a good starting value.

The computational complexity of each iteration in Algorithm
\ref{alg:quadprog} is
$O(KIJ\max_j(n_{j})^{3})$ for the {\em CF-estimator}. For the {\em
  WCF-estimator}, a similar iterative algorithm by quadratic
programming can be obtained. Due to the weight matrix, the complexity
of each iteration becomes $O(K^3IJ\max_j(n_j)^3)$.

\section{Identifiability}

In this section, we study the identifiability issue for model
 \eqref{eq:tomo1} and prove that the distribution of $\mathbf{X}$ is
 identifiable up to a shift parameter under mild conditions. The main
 tool we use is characteristic function whose basic properties are
 reviewed below.

\subsection{Characteristic Function}
A characteristic function of a univariate random variable $Z$ is defined by
\[
\phi_{Z}(t)=E[e^{itZ}]=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{itz}f_{Z}(z)dz,\,\,\,\,
t\in\mathcal{R},\] where $E[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation with
respect to $Z$ and
$f_{Z}(\cdot)$ is the probability density function of $Z$. By
convention, $\phi_Z$ and $f_Z$ denote the characteristic function and
probability density function of $Z$, respectively.
The characteristic function for a random vector
$\mathbf{Z}\in\mathcal{R}^D$ can be defined in a similar
manner by considering $\mathbf{t}\in \mathcal{R}^D$ instead of
$\mathcal{R}$. It is well known that a probability distribution can be
uniquely specified by its characteristic function and vise versa.

Suppose $Z_{1}$ and
$Z_{2}$ are two independent random variables. Then the joint
characteristic function of $\mathbf{Z}=(Z_1,Z_2)$ is
\[
\phi_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{t}) = \phi_{Z_1}(t_1) \phi_{Z_2}(t_2), \ \
\mathbf{t}=(t_1,t_2),
\]
which is a product of the marginal characteristic functions of $\mathbf{Z}$. Let
$V=Z_1+Z_2$, then the characteristic function of $V$ is simply a
product of the characteristic functions of $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$, i.e.,
\[
\phi_{V}(t)=\phi_{Z_{1}}(t)\phi_{Z_{2}}(t).
\]
This is much easier to compute than the density function
of $V$, say $f_{V}(\cdot)$, which is
a convolution of densities of $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$, i.e.,
\[
f_{V}(v)=\int_{z_{1}\in\mathcal{R}}f_{Z_{1}}(z_{1})f_{Z_{2}}(v-z_{1})dz_{1}.
\]
For the tomography model \eqref{eq:tomo1}, since the components of
$\mathbf{X}$ are mutually independent,
it is easy to evaluate the characteristic function of $\mathbf{Y}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:CFY}
\phi_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{t}) = E[e^{i\mathbf{t}^{T}\mathbf{Y}}]  =
E[e^{i(\mathbf{t}^{T}A)\mathbf{X}}] =
\prod_{j=1}^{J}\phi_{X_{j}}(\mathbf{t}^{T}A^{j}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $A^j$ is the $j$th column of $A$. However, it is in general
difficult to evaluate the distribution of $\mathbf{Y}$ because it is a
high order convolution in terms of the distribution of $\mathbf{X}$.
Below we will use the formula \eqref{eq:CFY} for both the identifiability
proof and estimation in network tomography.

\subsection{Identifiability}
By identifiability, we mean that the distribution of $\mathbf{X}$ can be
uniquely determined by the distribution of $\mathbf{Y}$. It is
important to establish the identifiability. Otherwise, the distribution
of $\mathbf{X}$ may not be estimable from the distribution of
$\mathbf{Y}$.  In the following, we present our general theorems for
identifiability and discuss related issues.

We assume that $E|X_j|<\infty$, $j=1,\cdots,J$ and that the distribution of $\mathbf{X}$ satisfies one of the
 two conditions, namely C1 and C2, defined below.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C1)] the characteristic function of each $X_j$  is analytic \footnote{An analytic characteristic function corresponds to a distribution function which has moments $m_k$ of all orders $k$ and
$\lim\sup_{k\rightarrow\infty}[|m_{k}|/k!]^{1/k}$ is finite};
\item[(C2)] the characteristic function of each $X_j$ has no zeros in $\mathcal{R}$.
\end{itemize}

We first address the identifiability issue in Lemma 1 for the
simple two-leaf
tree tomography model described earlier with Figure
\ref{fig:twoleaf}. The result will serve as the basis for Theorem 1
and 2 below where the routing topology is not a simple two-leaf tree.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:lemma}
If  \(Y_{1}=X_{1}+X_{2}\) and \(Y_{2}=X_{1}+X_{3}\), then the distributions of $X_1,X_2,X_3$ can be identified up to a shift parameter.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Suppose there exist both $\mathbf{X}=(X_1,X_2,X_3)^T$ and $\mathbf{X}'=(X_1',X_2',X_3')^T$ with mutually independent
components that give rise to the same distribution $\mathbf{Y}=(Y_1,Y_2)$, then we show
that distributions of $X_j$ and $X_j'$, $j=1,2,3$, are the same up to a shift parameter.
By (\ref{eq:CFY}), we have for $t,s\in\mathcal{R}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pf}
\phi_{X_{1}}(t+s)\phi_{X_{2}}(t)\phi_{X_{3}}(s)=\phi_{X_{1}'}(t+s)\phi_{X_{2}'}(t)\phi_{X_{3}'}(s).
\end{equation}
Notice that $\varphi_{j}(t)\equiv\log\phi_{X_{j}}(t)/\phi_{X_{j}'}(t)$
is well defined in a neighborhood of the origin with $\varphi_{j}(0)=0$,
$j=1,2,3$. Thus  for $t$ and $s$ in a neighborhood of zero, \begin{eqnarray*}
\varphi_{1}(t+s)+\varphi_{2}(t)+\varphi_{3}(s) & \equiv & 0.\end{eqnarray*}
 By using the argument of finite differences (c.f. Lemma 1.5.1 of
\cite{kagan:1973}), each $\varphi_{j}$ is a linear complex function
in a neighborhood of zero and thus in $\mathcal{R}$ with the given condition.
That is, there exist complex
numbers $a_{j},b_{j}$ such that
$\phi_{X_{j}}(t)=\phi_{X_{j}'}(t)e^{a_{j}+ib_{j}t}$
for any $t\in\mathcal{R}$. By evaluating both sides at $t=0$,
$a_{k}=0$.
By taking the first order derivative on both sides
at zero, $iE[X_{j}]=iE[X_{j}']+ib_{j}$ and thus $b_{j}\in\mathcal{R}$,
due to $X_{j},X_{j}'\in\mathcal{R}$. Hence $X_{j}$ and $X_{j}'+b_{j}$
have the same distribution. Further, $AE[\mathbf{X}]=AE[\mathbf{X}']$ implies $b_{2}=b_{3}=-b_{1}$
\end{proof}

For network delay tomography, as a generalization of the simple
two-leaf tree model, let $A$ correspond to a routing matrix
derived from a multicast tree (\cite{presti:2002}), where each node,
except for the root and leaves, must have at least two
children. Let us take the four-leaf tree in Figure \ref{fig:4leaf} as
an example of a
multicast tree, which will be used for simulation purposes later. Let
$X_1,\cdots, X_7$ denote the link delays on the edges from top to
bottom and from left to right in the tree, i.e., the link delay on the
edge with end node $j$ is denoted by $X_j$. Let $Y_1,\cdots, Y_4$
denote the end-to-end delays from the root node 0 to end node 4, 5, 6 and 7,
respectively. Then each element of $\mathbf{Y}=(Y_1,\cdots,Y_4)^T$ is
a partial sum of $\mathbf{X}=(X_1,\cdots,X_7)^T$, for example,
$Y_1=X_1+X_2+X_4$. This can be written in the form of
\eqref{eq:tomo1}, where $A$ is a $4\times 7$ binary matrix and can be derived
from the linear equations. From Lemma \ref{lemma:lemma}, the
distributions of $X_4,X_5$ are determined up to a
shift parameter by the joint distribution of
$(Y_1,Y_2)$, so are the distributions of $X_6,X_7$. Using a bottom-up
induction on the tree, it follows that the distributions of all
components of $\mathbf{X}$
are determined by that of $\mathbf{Y}$ up to shift ambiguity. The same
arguments leads to the following theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:delayiden}
Let \(A\) be the routing matrix derived from a multicast tree, then
the distribution of $\mathbf{X}$ is identifiable up to shift
ambiguity.
\end{thm}

Theorem \ref{thm:iden} below provides a general identifiability result for the
traffic demand tomography model, where the routing topology is more
general than a multicast tree, as studied in \cite{cao:2000a}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:iden}
Let \(B\) be the \([I(I+1)/2]\times J\) matrix whose rows consist of
the rows of \(A\) and the component-wise products of each different
pair of rows from \(A\). If \(B\) has full column rank, then the
distributions of \(\mathbf{X}\) are identifiable up to shift ambiguity. The
shift ambiguity satisfies the constraint \(E[\mathbf{Y}]=AE[\mathbf{X}]\).
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
For the convenience of expression, ignore the shift ambiguity. Let
$A_iA_k$ be the element-wise product of $A_i$ and $A_k$. Notice
that $(A_{i}A_{k})\mathbf{X}$ denotes the common part of
$(A_{i}\mathbf{X},A_{k}\mathbf{X})$,
i.e. $(Y_{i},Y_{k})$. Since $\{ X_{j}\}$ are mutually independent,
by Lemma 1, the distribution of $(A_{i}A_{k})\mathbf{X}$ is identifiable.
Thus the distribution of each component of $B\mathbf{X}$ is identifiable.
Let $\psi_{k}$ denote the characteristic function of $B_{k}\mathbf{X}$,
where $B_{k}$ is the $k$th row of $B$. Then for $k=1,\cdots,I(I+1)/2$
and for $t$ in a neighborhood of zero,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log\psi_{k}(t) & = & \sum_{j}B_{kj}\log\phi_{X_{j}}(t),\end{eqnarray*}
where $B_{kj}\in\{0,1\}$ is the $(k,j)$th element of $B$. Since
$B$ has full column rank, $\{\log\phi_{X_{j}}(t):j=1,\cdots,J\}$
can be uniquely solved from the above linear equations.
Then under either (C1) or (C2), $\phi_{X_j}$ is uniquely decided.
That is, the
distribution of each $X_{j}$ can be uniquely identified.
\end{proof}

We now discuss three issues related to the above identifiability results.

{\em 1) Location ambiguity}.
The location ambiguity of the tomography problem has been recognized
in previous works. To avoid such ambiguity, \cite{vardi:1996}
assumed a Poisson distribution whose mean is the same as its variance,
\cite{cao:2000a} used a power relation between mean and
variance, and all previous discrete link delay models assume
probabilities starting from zero delay. The important message here is
that, despite the location ambiguity, Theorem 1 and 2 state that the
distributional shape of each $X_j$ can be determined, for example, all
orders of central moments that exist are uniquely identified. In
practice, to completely identify the distribution including the
location, one can bring in some additional information such as the
achievable lower bounds of $\mathbf{X}$ for example in delay
tomography, and relationship between mean and variance for example in
traffic demand estimation.

{\em 2) Conditions on the $\mathbf{X}$ distribution}.
The distributional assumption on $\mathbf{X}$ is very
weak. A lot of well known distributions have analytic characteristic
functions, such as Poisson, Gaussian and discrete distributions, which
have been used in the literature.  A
mixture distribution that we later use to model the link delays in
Section 4 has an analytic characteristic function. Although, the
heavy-tailed distributions do not
satisfy (C1), some heavy-tailed distributions such as $\alpha$-stable
distributions satisfy (C2). Despite the generality of our conditions,
we do note that they are not necessary ones.  For theoretical
interest, we have constructed a counter example of a distribution
$\mathbf{X}=(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ that cannot be identified from
$\mathbf{Y}=(Y_1,Y_2)$ for the simple two-leaf tree model $Y_1=X_1+X_2$
and $Y_2=X_1+X_3$, as in the Appendix.

{\em 3) Condition on the routing matrix $A$}.  \cite{cao:2000a} has
shown that the full rank condition
in Theorem \ref{thm:iden} is necessary in the context of traffic
demand tomography when $\mathbf{X}$ is Gaussian.
In practice, such a condition is easily
satisfied for routing matrices derived from realistic network
topologies.  A more general condition of $A$ has been developed to prove
the identifiability for Poisson distributions in the context of
traffic demand estimation \cite{vardi:1996}. We conjecture that under
Vardi's more general condition of $A$, the distribution of
$\mathbf{X}$ is identifiable up to mean and variance ambiguity under
condition (C1), but we leave the investigation for future work.

\section{Introduction}

Network performance monitoring and diagnosis is challenging due to the
size and decentralized nature of the Internet.
The service providers may collect their link level
statistics using tools such as Cisco Netflow, whereas the end users
can obtain the end-to-end performance by probing the
network. Unfortunately, none of them has a global view of the
Internet. For instance, when an end-to-end measurement indicates the
performance degradation of an Internet path, the exact cause is hard
to be uncovered because the path may traverse several autonomous
systems (AS) that are often owned by different entities and the
service providers generally do not share
their internal performance.  Even if they do, there is no scalable way to
correlate the link level measurements to end-to-end performance in a
large network like the Internet. Similarly, the service providers may
be interested in the end-to-end path characteristics that they can not
observe directly.
Network tomography is a technology addressing these issues that infers
unobservable characteristics from easily available measurements.
There have been two forms of network tomography being studied in the
literature. One, called {\it network delay tomography},
estimates the link-level characteristics based on
end-to-end measurements,
and the other, called {\it traffic demand tomography}, predicts
end-to-end path-level traffic intensities based on link-level traffic
measurements.
The key advantage of network tomography is that it does not require
the collaboration between network internal elements and end users.
See \cite{castro:2004}, \cite{denby:2007} and references
therein for an excellent review.
We focus on network delay tomography in this paper, while the proposed
approach may also be applied to traffic demand tomography.

Network delay tomography aims to estimating network internal
characteristics such as loss and delay\footnote{To be precise, the
  delay here is the queuing delay that excludes the constant link
  propagation delay, we omit queuing when context is clear}, from
end-to-end measurements by exploiting the inherent correlation in
performance.  Considering a tree spanning a source of probes (root)
and a set of receivers (leaves), the packets are potentially subject
to queuing delay and loss at each link.
The end-to-end (source-to-receiver) measurements may be made passively
or actively. The
probes for the active measurements can be sent using either multicast
or unicast routing\footnote{With multicast, a packet is sent from a
  source to multiple destinations simultaneously; with unicast, a
  packet is sent to different destinations separately}. See
\cite{lawrence.et.al.2006} and \cite{denby:2007} for examples of how
unicast and multicast
probes can be designed and sent. Because only
one copy of a probe is transmitted
on the common links, multicast probing based tomography has the
advantage of perfect correlation on the common links, less
overhead, and better scalability. Following \cite{presti:2002} and
\cite{liang:2003}, we assume that
measurements are collected from multicast probes, although the multicast
routing is not widely enabled in today's Internet. It has been shown in
\cite{bu:2002} on how to apply the tomography algorithms developed for
multicast measurements when only unicast measurements are available.

The statistical models for both types of network tomography can be
unified as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tomo1}
\mathbf{Y}=A\mathbf{X},
\end{equation}
where
$\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{J})^T$ is a $J$-dimensional vector of
network dynamic parameters, and $\mathbf{Y}=(Y_{1},\ldots,Y_{I})^T$ is
an $I$-dimensional vector of measurements and $A$ is an $I\times J$
matrix with elements 0 or 1 which represents the routing topology of
the network under
consideration. Here we use the superscript $T$
to denote the transpose. In most network tomography scenarios, the
components of $\mathbf{X}$ are assumed independent but
unobservable. Usually $I$ can be as large as $J^2$ for network demand
tomography and as large as $2J-1$ for network delay tomography. In
network delay tomography, each component of $\mathbf{X}$ represents an
internal link delay and each component of $\mathbf{Y}$ represents a
delay measurement from a source to a destination.
The objective of network tomography is to estimate the distribution of
$\mathbf{X}$ given independent observations from the distribution of
$\mathbf{Y}$.

As a simple example,
Figure \ref{fig:twoleaf} shows a two-leaf tree topology, on which a
probing packet is sent from the root node 0 (source) to leaf nodes 2
and 3 (receivers). When the packet arrives at node 1 from the source, it is
replicated and transmitted to node 2 and 3
simultaneously as the red arrows show. Let $X_1$ denote the link delay
from node 0 to node 1 and
let $X_i$ denote the link delay from node 1 to node $i$, $i=2,3$
respectively. Let $Y_1, Y_2$ be the end-to-end delays from node 0 to
node 2 and 3 respectively. Then $Y_1=X_1+X_2$ and $Y_2=X_1+X_3$, which
can be written in the form of \eqref{eq:tomo1} with $A$ a $2\times 3$
binary matrix, i.e. $A=[1,1,0;1,0,1]$.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{.42\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=twoleaf1.eps, scale=0.35}
\caption{Two-leaf tree}
\label{fig:twoleaf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.42\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=tree41.eps, scale=0.3}
\caption{Four-leaf tree}
\label{fig:4leaf}
\end{center}
\end{minipage
\end{figure}

There have been significant amount of works on network tomography in
recent years. Network tomography was first proposed by
\cite{vardi:1996} and then followed by remarkably \cite{tebaldi:1998},
\cite{cao:2000a} and \cite{liang:2003}
for traffic matrix estimation, i.e. traffic demand tomography.
\cite{caceresIT:1999}, \cite{zhu.geng.2005} and \cite{Xi.et.al.2006} among others
studied it for inferring network internal loss.
Network delay tomography has also been studied
extensively. \cite{presti:2002} developed a fast algebraic
algorithm but it is quite inefficient. \cite{bu:2002} showed that
the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) requires exponential computational
complexity. \cite{tsang:2003} proposed a penalized maximum
likelihood method.  \cite{liang:2003} proposed a pseudo-likelihood method with
multicast measurements, and recently \cite{lawrence.et.al.2006} proposed
local likelihood method with both unicast and multicast measurements,
both of which were shown to be fast and quite efficient compared with the MLE.
These studies are based on a discrete distribution with equally
spaced bins for modeling link delays, where the {\it same}
bin width is used for all the links for the ease of
computation.

\cite{duffield:2001b} pointed out that, however, a single fixed bin
 width is not appropriate for heterogeneous networks such as the
 Internet because it does not scale well between both fast links and
 slow links.
They proposed a varying-bin discrete model for estimating link delay
distributions based on unicast measurements. Their estimation idea is to use
structured bins such that they can iteratively estimate a segment
of delay distributions by truncating the delays from both sides,
i.e. rounding the left of the segment to zero and the right to
infinity. However,
the performance of their estimation approach is not better than that
using an equal-bin discrete model with an appropriate bin width
as they reported, probably due to the
bias introduced by their brute-force truncation. Our approach is
also based on varying-bin type models but does not suffer from such bias.
\cite{shih.hero.2001} proposed to estimate cumulative
generating functions (similar to characteristic functions used in this
paper) of link delays, but
they did not estimate link delay distributions.  \cite{shih.hero:2003}
also proposed finite mixture models with Gaussian components for link delay
distributions based on unicast measurements.

There are several previous works that have considered the identifiability issue
for the network tomography problem, for example \cite{vardi:1996},
\cite{cao:2000a} and \cite{presti:2002}. These authors considered
instances of the tomography problem by assuming specific parametric
(such as Poisson and Gaussian) or discrete distributions.
We will unify these results and extend the identifiability
condition to general distributions under mild assumptions.

The contributions of this paper are as follows.
First, we prove that the
distribution of $\mathbf{X}$ is identifiable up to a shift parameter
under general conditions.
Second, we
propose flexible mixture models of characteristic
functions for network delay
tomography and develop a fast algorithm
for estimation based on the General Method of Moments (GMM).
The new approach allows one to model continuous
delays on {\it heterogeneous} network links conveniently, where delays
may not have the same scale across all network links.
Extensive model simulation and real Internet trace-driven
simulation suggest that our new approach can yield more accurate
estimates of link delay distributions yet is computationally less
expensive than previous approaches.

The remaining sections of the paper are structured as follows.
In Section 2, we address the
identifiability issue. We describe the mixture models for link delays
in Section 3 and develop a fast algorithm for estimating the delay
distributions in Section 4.  In Section 5, we present
extensive experimental studies for evaluating the proposed method.  Section 6
concludes the paper.

\section{Network delay tomography using mixture modeling} \label{sec:mixture}
Below we focus on network delay tomography and describe a
class of flexible mixture models for modeling link delays.
It is well known that there does not exist a standard parametric model
that can sufficiently
model the distributions of network link delays (see
\cite{duffield:2001b} and \cite{tsang:2003} among others). But it is
possible to define a mixture model which is flexible enough for link
delay distributions.

Assume that for each link $j$, the link delay $X_j$ follows a mixture density
function with $n_j$ components, $X_j \sim f_{X_j}$, defined by :
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{X_j}(x;\theta_j)  =  \sum_{l=1}^{n_j} p_{jl}\kappa_{jl}(x), \ \ x>0\label{eq:mixture}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_j\equiv (p_{jl},\cdots,p_{jn_j})^T$ contains the mixing
probabilities
with constraint $p_{jl}\geq 0$, $\sum_{l}p_{jl}=1$, and
$\{\kappa_{jl}\}$ are some basis density functions.
There is another practical reason that we use a mixture model for
link delays:
The characteristic function of a mixture distribution is a mixture of
characteristic functions of the basis distributions and thus can be
computed conveniently once the basis distributions are chosen
appropriately, as shown later. In
this case, the characteristic function of $X_j$
can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray} \phi_{X_j}(t;\theta_j) & = &
\sum_{l=1}^{n_j}p_{jl}\phi_{jl}(t),
\label{eq:cf-mixture}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_{jl}$ is the characteristic function of the basis function
$\kappa_{jl}$.

The basis functions are chosen as follows for modeling link
delays. For $j=1,\cdots,J$, let
$0=b_{j1}<b_{j2}<\ldots<b_{j(n_j-1)}<\infty$. Define the basis
function as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:kernel}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\kappa_{j1}(x) \ = & \mbox{point mass at zero (for zero)}\\
\kappa_{jk}(x) \ = & \mbox{uniform on $[b_{j(k-1)}, b_{jk}]$} \\
  & \hspace*{0in} \mbox{$\ 2 \leq k \leq n_j-1$ (for body)}\\
\kappa_{jn_{j}}(x) \ = & \mbox{exponential with scale $\alpha_j$}\\
  & \hspace*{0.1in}\mbox{on $[b_{j(n_j-1)}, \infty]$ (for tail)}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
The point mass at zero link delay is used here because it is well
known that for a FIFO queue (First In, First Out), the steady state
queuing distribution has
zero delay with probability one minus the utilization of the queue.
For the body of the distribution, we choose the piecewise uniform
model because of its simplicity and flexibility. Finally, an
exponential distribution is used to model the tail because it is the
right model for the short range dependent traffic model, and for
long-range dependent model it represents a trade-off between accuracy
and simplicity.

In order to reduce the computational complexity, we choose the bin
endpoints $\{b_{jk}\}$ in advance. The parameter of interest is
composed of the mixture coefficients, denoted as
$\theta={\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_J}$. To our advantage, we do not
require
the bins to be equally spaced. In fact, it is important to choose the
bins that are adaptive to individual link delay distributions in order
to obtain accurate estimates.  Such a varying bin strategy is
especially important for a heterogeneous network environment whose
link delay distributions vary widely across links, because a single
bin width value could be at the same time too coarse grained for a
high bandwidth link with small delays but too fine-grained to
efficiently capture the essential characteristics of the delay along a
low bandwidth link (\cite{presti:2002}). In addition, since a typical
delay distribution may have a density varying a lot at different
areas, it is important to be able to place more bins in the high
density area and fewer bins in the low density area.

Note that the equal-bin distribution used by most previous
researchers is also a mixture model. Figure \ref{fig:delaypdf} shows
two link delay distributions (in solid lines) where one ranges from
0 to 12 (top) and the other from 0 to 240 (bottom). The slashed lines
are fitted
curves using a equal-bin model with bin-width 1 which accomodates the
scales of both links, but with 12 bins for the slow link and as many
as 240 bins for
the fast link. The dotted lines are fitted curves using
varying-bin models where only 10 bins are used for both links. It is
clear that the equal-bin model fits the slow link very well, but not
the fast link, while the varying-bin model with a small number of bins
fits both links well. It is possible to use a very small bin-width for
the equal-bin model, but it would require too many bins for the slow
link. The varying bins here are chosen based on quantiles of the delay
distribution, which works very well in general from our
simulation experiences.
In reality the quantiles are unknown and
we can only obtain an approximation using an initial estimate of the
link delay distribution. This process can be iterated until we get a
good estimate.

The scale parameter $\alpha_j$ for the tail basis in
Equation~(\ref{eq:kernel}) is unknown and needs to be estimated.
However, the accuracy of the scale estimate is less important if the
endpoint $b_{j(n_j-1)}$ of the last bin can be placed at the far end of the
tail. For a further simplification, we can fix the tail basis
with a crude estimate of $\alpha_j$ for each link $j$ and  only
estimate the mixing probabilities $\{p_{jk}\}$, which is described next.

\begin{figure}[h]\begin{center}
\psfig{figure=compevbin.eps,width=3in}
\caption{Fitting two link delay distributions using an equal-bin
  model and a varying-bin model, where the delay on the slow link
  (bottom) is 20 times in average of that on the fast link (top): the
  solid lines are for the link delay density functions, slashed lines
  for the estimated densities using bin-with equal to 1 (12 bins for the fast
  link and 240 bins for the slow one), and the dotted lines for the
  estimated densities using varying bin-widths (only 10 bins for each).}
\label{fig:delaypdf}\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Simulation and Experimental Studies}
\label{sec:simulation}
In Section \ref{sec:algorithm}, we have developed simple and fast
algorithms using a flexible mixture model for network delay tomography.
In this section, we evaluate the performance of
the proposed algorithms in terms of statistical efficiency and
accuracy.
To measure the accuracy of the estimation as compared to
the true distributions, we use a $L_1$-distance for discrete link
delay distributions and a normalized Mallows distance for continuous
link delay distributions.

Our evaluation is divided into three pieces.
First, we study the efficiency of our estimates by comparing them
with that of MLE for a discrete link delay distribution with equally
spaced bins. We show that our estimators have comparable efficiency to
that of MLE which is statistically efficient and also computable in
this setting.
Second, we examine the performance of our estimators using model
simulations for continuous link delays in an ideal scenario where both
temporal and spatial independence hold. Model simulations
demonstrate the importance of varying bins selection that should adapt
to not only delay distributions of individual links but the different
scales of delays across links in order to achieve satisfactory estimates.
Finally, we use real trace driven simulations to
examine the accuracy of our estimators under more realistic scenarios
where the independence assumptions may not be strictly true as
appeared in the Internet. Results from our trace driven simulations
demonstrate that the estimates made by our algorithms closely match
the real distributions.

\subsection{Efficiency Evaluation}
We study the efficiency of our estimators using a discrete link delay
distribution with equally spaced bins on a four-leaf tree
(Figure~\ref{fig:4leaf}).  For link $j, j=1,\ldots,7$, the link delay
has a discrete distribution at $\{0,1,\cdots,5\}$ with probabilities
generated uniformly from the space $\sum_{k=1}^6 p_{jk}=1$
with constraints $0<p_{jk}<1$.  A total of 500 delay samples
are generated for each link from its specified delay distribution and
the end-to-end delays are computed according to the model
\eqref{eq:tomo1}. The delay distributions of all
seven links are estimated using the MLE, the CF-estimator, and the
WCF-estimator.

We repeat the experiment 100 times with different random seeds. Both
the MLE and the CF-estimator use the uniform distribution as
starting values whereas WCF uses the CF estimates as starting
values. The weight matrix $W$ for WCF is also derived from the CF
estimates. For both the CF and WCF estimators, a total of 3000 samples of
$\mathbf{t}$ are drawn randomly from the 2-dim subspaces of $I$-dimensional
end-to-end delays using a Gaussian distribution with a scale parameter of
5 after normalizing $\mathbf{Y}$. We have
also run the recursive algorithm developed in \cite{presti:2002}, but
we do not report the result here except to state that it often yields
much poorer estimates (similar to observations made by
\cite{liang:2003}).

Figure~\ref{fig:mn_pdf} shows both the estimated and the simulated
seven link delay density functions in one simulation
experiment. We observe that all methods give reasonably accurate estimates. To
compare errors of the different estimators, we calculate the $L_{1}$
distances between the estimated link delay density functions and the
ground truth for each of the 100 experiments. Figure~\ref{fig:mnL1err} reports
the 25\%, 75\% quantiles of the $L_{1}$ errors for each link in
vertical line segments, whose middle points represent median errors.
MLE has the smallest median error, and the median errors of CF and WCF
are 50\% and 22\% higher than that of MLE.
The results suggest that both CF and WCF are somewhat worse than as
expected but comparable to MLE.

\subsection{Accuracy Evaluation Using Model Simulation}
In this subsection, we investigate the performance of the estimators
for continuous delay distributions, which are more realistic than
discrete ones since network delays are essentially continuous except at zero.
Delay tomography in a heterogeneous network is intrinsically more
challenging than in a homogeneous network because links
with small delays are not equally represented as links with large
delays in the end-to-end delay measurements. In addition, the
heterogeneous environment also represents a situation where most of
the existing methods such as MLE do not work well because they rely on
simple discretization. After all, the real Internet is a heterogeneous
network. Thus we report model simulations on a four-leaf tree that resemble a
heterogeneous network environment. For simplicity, we do not consider
the point mass at zero for model simulations, but we will treat this
in later real trace driven simulations.

To conduct a comprehensive evaluation, we run simulations for the link
delay distributions of different shapes. Due to the space limit, we
only report the results for two representative distributions that are
i) exponential (uni-modal) and ii) a mixture of an exponential and a
Gamma with shape parameter 2
(multi-modal). In
both cases, the average link delays on the four-leaf tree are 3, 1, 5,
10, 6, 4 and 20 respectively for link 1 to 7 assigned from top to
bottom and left to right,  which resembles a heterogeneous network
with the average link delays varying by a factor of 20.  We generate
2000 delay samples for each link from the specified delay
distributions, and we estimate the seven link delay
density functions from the resulting end-to-end delays.

We use four different estimates of link delay distributions: {\em
CF\_equal\_bin, WCF\_equal\_bin, CF\_varying\_bin,
WCF\_varying\_bin}. All four estimates are obtained using a mixture
model for the link delays of the same form as \eqref{eq:kernel} with
$n_j=12$ except removing the point mass at 0.
The difference in the mixture model
for the estimates lies in the bin placement.  For both {\em
CF\_equal\_bin} and {\em WCF\_equal\_bin}, the 12 bins are equally
spaced using a bin width selected for each link based on variance
estimates, which are
obtained by solving systems of linear equations, following
\cite{duffield:2004}. For both {\em CF\_varying\_bin} and {\em
WCF\_varying\_bin}, the bins are located at the quantiles of
the delay distributions that corresponds to probabilities $i/13,
i=1,\ldots, 12$.

Figure \ref{fig:expcdf} and \ref{fig:expgamcdf} plot the estimated
cumulative distribution functions for each link delay for case i) and
ii) respectively, along with the ground truth in one simulation run.
From the figures, we observe that the estimates
using varying bins are almost identical to the true distributions. The
estimates using equal bins give satisfactory
estimates for case i) but not quite as good for the more complex case ii).

To measure the accuracy of the estimates, we use the  Mallows
distance defined for a cumulative distribution $F$ and its estimate
$\hat{F}$ by
\[
M(F,\hat{F}) = \int_{0}^1 \left|F^{-1}(p) - \hat{F}^{-1}(p)\right| dp,
\]
where $F^{-1}$ and $\hat{F}^{-1}$ are the inverse cumulative
distributions.  The Mallows distance can be viewed as the average of
absolute difference in quantiles between two distributions. Because
the Mallows distance is linear to the scale of distributions, we use
$M(F,\hat{F})/\sigma_F$, the normalized Mallows distance, to measure
the difference between $F$ and $\hat{F}$, where
$\sigma_F$ is the standard deviation of $F$.

We repeat the simulation 100 times and compute the normalized Mallows
distance between the estimated and true distributions as the error
metric for all
links. Figure~\ref{fig:expmallow} and \ref{fig:expgammallow} report,
corresponding to
case i) and ii) respectively, the first and third quartiles of
the errors as well as median errors for each link, similar to Figure
\ref{fig:mnL1err}.
It is clear that the varying bins improve the
quality of estimates significantly over equal bins. (Note that the
difference between CF and WCF are not significant though.)
This suggests that
selecting bins based on characteristics of the underlying density
distributions is important in improve the accuracy in a heterogeneous
network.

\subsection{Accuracy Evaluation Using Real Internet Traces}
We next investigate how the algorithms perform in a realistic network
environment
where some of the assumptions may not hold completely.
For instance, due to the closed-loop control
nature of the TCP protocol, the packets within the same TCP connection
have strong temporal dependency. Although the dependency is weakened
when many TCP connections are multiplexed as they arrive to a link,
the dependency may not be completely gone. We approximate a real
scenario by simulating the behavior of a link using the real traces
collected from the Internet. Since the traces include the arrival time
and the size of each packet, the simulation sees the exact link
behaviors as what the original link where the trace collected from
seen if we set the bandwidth and the buffers the same as the original
link.

We use traces from the NLANR web site
\footnote{http://pma.nlanr.net/Traces/} that archives packet header
traces collected from about ten links at different locations of the
Internet. The links differ in both bandwidth and traffic. A 90-second
trace is recorded every one (two) hours for each of the links. In our
experiment, we first assign traces collected from different sites to
the links of the simulated network. We then simulate the
links using
the assigned traces as input using the standard network simulator tool
\cite{ns}.  Moreover, we superpose the probes to
the traces and record their per-link queuing delays as well as
end-to-end delays where the latter is used as input for the estimation
whereas the prior is for comparison with the estimates.

Notice that the delays on
the edge links in a real network may vary more than the core
links due to its low
bandwidth. In addition, the average delay may also differ dramatically
for different links. We resemble a real network in a symmetric binary
8-leaf tree by
assuming that both the root and the leaves of the tree are on the edge
of the network whereas the interior links are in the core. We assign
traces of high rates to links in the core and traces of low rates to
the edge links.

Figure~\ref{fig:8leaf_cdf} shows both CF and WCF estimate of the delay
distribution using a varying bin strategy laid out in
Section~\ref{sec:mixture}, along with the simulated distribution. The
throughputs across different links vary by a factor of 40. It is
easy to see that the estimates are extremely good for most links,
except for link 9 that has the smallest average link delay where it
shows some marginal error. The average normalized Mallows distance
over all links is 0.065 which also suggests a good match between the
estimates and simulated results. We have also simulated the four-leaf
tree network and a
symmetric binary 16-leaf tree network respecitvley, using different
traces, and the proposed algorithms give satisfactory results.

In addition, our real trace driven simulations suggest that the link
delay distributions excluding the tail can be well approximated by a
Weibull distribution with a shape parameter slightly smaller than
1. This is not surprising because it has been shown that the queuing
delay for a FIFO queue with a Fractional Brownian Motion traffic input
has a Weibullian tail. The Weibullian form is also consistent with the
finding in \cite{cao:2004}.

\section{Conclusion}
This paper has presented a general identifiability result and
introduced a general estimation approach for the network
tomography problem. For network delay tomography, a fast algorithm
based on GMM has been developed for estimating the link delay
distributions using mixture models of characteristic functions.
In comparison with likelihood based approaches, the most significant
nature of the new method is that it affords the choice of varying
bin widths which adapts to delay variabilities of individual links and
has low computational complexity. The new approach can be applied to
traffic demand estimation as well.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Gang Liang for sharing his simulation codes and
Michael Greenwald for helpful discussions. A conference version of the
main results has appeared in the Proceeding of IEEE INFOCOM
(\cite{chen.et.al.2007}).

\input{appendix}

\bibliographystyle{Chicago}

Methodology (stat.ME); Statistics Theory (math.ST); Applications (stat.AP); Computation (stat.CO)


Steiner's formula and a variational proof of the isoperimetric inequality

Abstract: We give a new proof of the isoperimetric inequality in the plane, based on Steiner's formula for the area of a convex neighborhood. This proof establishes the isoperimetric inequality directly, without requiring that we separately establish the existence of an optimal domain. In doing so, this proof bypasses the main difficulty in all of the proofs Steiner outlined for the plane isoperimetric inequality.

\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}

The classical isoperimetric inequality states that among all simple closed curves of length $L$ in the plane, the unique curve enclosing the largest area is the circle of circumference $L$:
\smallskip

\begin{theorem}[The Isoperimetric Inequality]
\label{ie}

Let $\gamma$ be a simple closed curve in the plane of length $L$, enclosing a domain $D$ of area $A$.
\medskip

Then $L^{2} \geq 4\pi A$, with equality precisely if $\gamma$ is a circle.

\end{theorem}
\smallskip

This paper gives a proof of the isoperimetric inequality based on Steiner's formula, which describes the area of a neighborhood of a convex domain in $\R^{2}$:
\smallskip

\begin{theorem}[Steiner's Formula, \cite{St}]
\label{sf}

Let $D$ be a bounded, convex domain in $\R^{2}$, of area $A$ and perimeter $L$, and let $D_{r}$ be the $r$-neighborhood of $D$, i.e. the points in $\R^{2}$ whose distance from $D$ is $r$ or less.  Then:
\smallskip
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf A.}] $Area(D_{r}) = \pi r^{2} + L r + A$,
\medskip
\item[{\bf B.}] $Length(\partial D_{r}) = 2\pi r + L$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\smallskip

Jakob Steiner (March $18^{th}$, 1796 - April $1^{st}$, 1863) proved Theorem \ref{sf} for convex polygons and a similar formula for convex polyhedra in $\R^{3}$.  By polygonal approximation, Theorem \ref{sf} then follows for any compact, convex set in $\R^{2}$, and in fact a version of Theorem \ref{sf} holds in much greater generality -- for more about Steiner's formula, see \cite{Gr,Sc}.  Steiner was fascinated by the isoperimetric inequality, and he sketched several ideas for proving it -- cf. \cite{Tr,Bl}.  The isoperimetric problem was already ancient when Steiner considered it in the nineteenth century, but Theorem \ref{ie} had never been proven rigorously.  It remained unproven in Steiner's lifetime, and all of Steiner's ideas for proving the isoperimetric inequality required the same additional step, which he never provided:  one must show that the isoperimetric problem has a solution. \\

More precisely, we define the {\bf isoperimetric ratio} of a domain $D$ with area $A$ and perimeter $L$ to be:

\begin{equation}
\label{ir}
\displaystyle {\Huge \frac{L^{2}}{4\pi A}}.
\end{equation}
\medskip

The isoperimetric ratio is scale-invariant -- we formulate the isoperimetric inequality in terms of $L^{2}$ and $A$, as in Theorem \ref{ie}, because $L^{2}$ and $A$ transform the same under rescalings.  The isoperimetric inequality then states that the isoperimetric ratio of any plane domain is greater than or equal to $1$, with equality precisely for disks.  Steiner developed many proofs that no domain other than a disk could minimize the isoperimetric ratio, but he didn't establish the existence of a domain that minimizes (\ref{ir}). \\

The first proof of the existence of a domain minimizing the isoperimetric ratio seems to have been in unpublished lecture notes of Weierstrass in 1879, cf. \cite{Bl}.  The existence of an optimal isoperimetric domain in the plane is now known to be a consequence of several compactness theorems in metric geometry and geometric measure theory, however the proof below does not require that we establish the existence of a minimizer for the isoperimetric ratio -- we show directly that no domain can have an isoperimetric ratio less than $1$.  We believe part of the significance of our proof is that it shows how one of Steiner's ideas from convex geometry can be used to prove the isoperimetric inequality without separately establishing the existence of an optimal domain. \\

The basic observation for our proof is the following:  if $D$ is a bounded convex domain in $\R^{2}$, we can use Theorem \ref{sf} to calculate the isoperimetric ratio $\mathcal{I}(r)$ of the $r$-neighborhood of $D$ as a function of $r$.  Letting $A$ be the area of $D$ and $L$ its perimeter, we have:

\begin{equation}
\label{sfir}
\displaystyle \mathcal{I}(r) = \frac{\left( 2\pi r + L \right)^{2}}{4\pi \left( \pi r^{2} + Lr + A \right)} = \frac{4\pi^{2} r^{2} + 4\pi L r + L^{2}}{4\pi^{2} r^{2} + 4\pi L r + 4\pi A} .
\end{equation}
\medskip

Differentiating with respect to $r$, we have:

\begin{equation}
\label{sfird}
\displaystyle \mathcal{I}'(r) = \frac{\left( 4\pi A - L^{2} \right) \left( 8\pi^{2} r + 4\pi L \right)}{\left( 4\pi^{2} r^{2} + 4\pi L r + 4\pi A \right)^{2}} = \frac{\left( 4\pi A - L^{2} \right) \left( \pi r + L \right)}{4\pi \left( \pi r^{2} + L r + A \right)^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\medskip

This implies that $\mathcal{I}(r)$ is a monotone function of $r$, decreasing if the isoperimetric ratio of $D$ is greater than $1$ and constant if the isoperimetric ratio of $D$ is equal to $1$.  If $D$ were a convex domain with an isoperimetric ratio less than $1$, $\mathcal{I}(r)$ would increase monotonically to $1$, the isoperimetric ratio of the disk, as $r$ goes to infinity.  As $r$ goes to infinity, the $r$-neighborhoods of any convex domain $D$, when rescaled to have constant area, converge to a disk -- see Proposition \ref{goodvar}.  We will see that this gives a variation of the disk, as an argument for the functional on plane domains given by the isoperimetric ratio.  We will use Steiner's formula to find its first and second variations -- in particular, we will relate them to the isoperimetric ratio of the domain $D$ in question.  We will then be able to deduce Theorem \ref{ie} from the fact that the disk is a critical point,  with non-negative second variation, for the isoperimetric ratio on plane domains.  For later reference, the quantity $L^{2} - 4\pi A$ whose negative appears in (\ref{sfird}) is called the {\bf isoperimetric deficit} of a domain. \\

It will be important in our proof that, in the plane, the convex hull $conv(D)$ of a non-convex domain $D$ always has a smaller isoperimetric ratio than $D$ itself: $conv(D)$ encloses a larger area than $D$ with a smaller perimeter.  Therefore, to prove Theorem \ref{ie}, it is enough to show that the isoperimetric inequality holds for convex domains.  Steiner was aware of this fact and used it in several of his ideas for proving the isoperimetric inequality.  In dimensions greater than $2$, this is no longer true: the isoperimetric ratio of a $3$-dimensional domain with volume $V$ and surface area $A$ is defined to be $\frac{A^{3}}{36 \pi V^{2}}$.  Like (\ref{ir}) for plane domains, the isoperimetric ratio of a domain in $\R^{3}$ is scale-invariant and the ball has isoperimetric ratio equal to $1$.  The isoperimetric inequality in $\R^{3}$ states that the isoperimetric ratio of any domain is greater than or equal to $1$, with the ball being the unique minimizer.  For a ball with a long spike in $\R^{3}$, both the volume and surface area, and thus the isoperimetric ratio, can be made arbitrarily close to that of the ball by making the spike narrow enough.  On the other hand, the convex hull of such a domain will be approximately a cone with a hemispherical cap, with an isoperimetric ratio significantly greater than $1$:  for a spike of length $\eta$ on the unit ball, the isoperimetric ratio of its convex hull will be approximately $\frac{\eta + 3}{4}$ for $\eta$ very large. \\

The outline of this paper and our proof of the isoperimetric inequality is as follows: \\

In Section \ref{variations}, we will calculate the first and second variations of the isoperimetric ratio of the disk.  We will show that the disk is a stable critical point of the isoperimetric ratio and that any variation has positive second variation unless, to first order, the variation is the sum of a translation and a rescaling of the disk. \\

In Section \ref{monotonicity}, we will use the $r$-neighborhoods of a compact, convex domain $D$ in the plane to construct a variation of the disk of the type analyzed in Section \ref{variations}.  We will use Steiner's formula to relate its first and second variations to the isoperimetric deficit of $D$, and in doing so, we will show that the isoperimetric deficit of $D$ is non-negative. \\

Once we know that the isoperimetric inequality $L^{2} - 4\pi A \geq 0$ holds, any of Steiner's arguments then prove that the disk is the only domain for which equality holds.  However, we will show in Section \ref{uniqueness} that the uniqueness of the disk as a minimizing domain also follows from our proof. \\

We will prove that the perimeter $L$ and area $A$ of a plane domain $D$ satisfy $L^{2} \geq 4\pi A$ under the assumption that its boundary $\partial D$ is smooth, and we will make the further simplifying assumption that the curvature of $\partial D$ is strictly positive -- that is, the curvature vector of $\partial D$ always points into $D$ and never vanishes.  However by approximation (and the reduction to the convex case) this inequality then follows immediately for any plane domain with a rectifiable boundary.  The corresponding issue is more difficult in higher dimensions -- this is discussed in Section 2 of \cite{Os}.  In all dimensions, however, the boundary of a compact, convex domain can be realized as the Lipschitz image of a round sphere and is therefore rectifiable. \\

Throughout the paper, we will discuss the relationship between this proof and other known proofs of the isoperimetric inequality.  Robert Osserman's article \cite{Os} gives an overview of the isoperimetric inequality, its generalizations and their significance in mathematics.  Isaac Chavel's \cite{Ch} and Luis Santal\'o's \cite{San} books both discuss many results and questions in geometry and analysis which are based on the isoperimetric inequality and give several proofs of the classical isoperimetric inequality.  Bl\r{a}sj\"o discusses the history of the isoperimetric inequality in \cite{Bl}, and Howards, Hutchings and Morgan in \cite{HHM} and Andrejs Treibergs in \cite{Tr} present several proofs of the classical isoperimetric inequality. \\

{\bf Acknowledgments:} I am very happy to thank Christopher Croke, Joseph H.G. Fu and Peter McGrath for their feedback about this work and Isaac Chavel, Frank Morgan and Franz Schuster for their input about the history of the isoperimetric inequality.

\section{The First and Second Variations of the Isoperimetric Ratio}
\label{variations}

We will calculate the first and second variations of the isoperimetric ratio of the disk for variations through families of convex domains -- in particular, we will see that the disk is a critical point of the isoperimetric ratio and, infinitesimally, a minimizer. \\

A compact, convex domain $D$ can be described by its {\bf support function} $p(\theta) : S^{1} \rightarrow \R$, defined as follows:

\begin{align*}
\displaystyle p(\theta) = \text{max} \left(\lbrace h_{\theta}(x) := x_0 \cos(\theta) + x_1 \sin(\theta) \ | \ x = (x_0, x_1) \in D \rbrace \right).
\end{align*}
\smallskip

If the boundary $\partial D$ of $D$ is smooth and has strictly positive curvature, then $p(\theta) + p''(\theta)$ is its radius of curvature.  In this case, the area $A$ and perimeter $l$ of $D$ are given by:

\begin{equation}
\label{sup_area}
\displaystyle A = (\frac{1}{2})\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} p(\theta) \left( p(\theta) + p''(\theta) \right) d\theta = (\frac{1}{2})\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} p(\theta)^{2} - p'(\theta)^{2}  d\theta,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{sup_perim}
\displaystyle l = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} p(\theta)d\theta.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

This is described in Chapter 1 of \cite{San}.  A variation of the unit disk $\mathcal{D}_{0}$ through a family of such domains $\lbrace \mathcal{D}_{t} \rbrace_{t \geq 0}$ can therefore be described by a smooth function $p(\theta, t)$, with $p(\theta, t)$ the support function of the domain $\mathcal{D}_{t}$.  In particular, $p(\theta, 0) \equiv 1$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{12var}

Let $\mathcal{D}_{t}$ be a family of compact, convex domains in the plane, with the boundary $\partial \mathcal{D}_{t}$ of each domain smooth and with positive curvature, which give a variation of the disk $\mathcal{D}_{0}$ as above.  Let $I(t)$ be the isoperimetric ratio of the domain $\mathcal{D}_{t}$.
\medskip

Then $I'(0) = 0$ and $I''(0) \geq 0$, with equality if and only if, to first order, the family of domains coincides with a rescaling and translation of the disk.

\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} Let $p(\theta,t)$ be the support function of $\mathcal{D}_{t}$ as above.  Then letting $A(t)$ be the area and $l(t)$ the perimeter of $\mathcal{D}_{t}$, by (\ref{sup_area}) and (\ref{sup_perim}) we have:

\begin{equation}
\label{var_area}
\displaystyle A(t) = (\frac{1}{2})\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} p(\theta, t)^{2} - \frac{\partial p}{\partial \theta} (\theta, t)^{2}  d\theta,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{var_perim}
\displaystyle l(t) = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} p(\theta, t) d\theta.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

Because $p(\theta, 0) \equiv 1$ and $\frac{\partial p}{\partial \theta}(\theta, 0) \equiv 0$, $A'(0)$ and $l'(0)$ are both equal to $\int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0) d\theta$. \\

We then have that $I'(0) = \frac{2A(0)  l(0)  l'(0) - A'(0) l(0)^{2}}{4 \pi A(0)^{2}} $ is equal to:

\begin{align*}
\displaystyle \frac{2 \times \pi \times 2\pi \left( \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0) d\theta \right) - 2\pi \times 2\pi \left( \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0) d\theta\right)}{4\pi^{3}} = 0.
\end{align*}
\smallskip

$l''(0)$ is equal to $\int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial t^{2}}(\theta, 0) d\theta$ and, using again that $p(\theta, 0) \equiv 1$ and $\frac{\partial p}{\partial \theta}(\theta, 0) \equiv 0$, we have:

\begin{equation}
\label{area_second_derivative}
\displaystyle A''(0) = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \left[ \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0)^{2} + \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial t^{2}}(\theta, 0) - \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial t \partial \theta}(\theta, 0)^{2} \right] d\theta.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

We then have that $I''(0) = \frac{ \left(2 A'(0) - l'(0) \right)^{2} + 2\pi \left(l''(0) - A''(0) \right)}{2 \pi^{2}}$ is equal to:

\begin{equation}
\label{wi}
\displaystyle \frac{\left(\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0) d\theta \right)^{2} + 2\pi \left(\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial \theta \partial t}(\theta, 0)^{2} - \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0)^{2} d\theta \right)}{2 \pi^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

{\bf Wirtinger's inequality} states that if $\varphi(\theta)$ is a $2\pi$-periodic, continuously differentiable function with $\int_{0}^{2\pi} \varphi(\theta) d\theta = 0$, then:

\begin{align*}
\displaystyle \text{\Large $\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}$}\varphi'(\theta)^{2} d\theta \geq \text{\Large $\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}$} \varphi(\theta)^{2} d\theta.
\end{align*}
\smallskip

Equality holds precisely if $\varphi(\theta) = a_{0}\cos(\theta) + a_{1}\sin(\theta)$ for some constants $a_{0}, a_{1}$.  Wirtinger's inequality thus implies by (\ref{wi}) that $I''(0) \geq 0$ and is strictly positive unless $\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0) = a_{0}\cos(\theta) + a_{1}\sin(\theta) + 2\pi \widehat{p}$, where $\widehat{p} = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, 0) d\theta$.  The variation corresponding to $a_{0}\cos(\theta) + a_{1}\sin(\theta)$ gives a translation of the disk, in the direction whose argument is $\arctan(\frac{a_{1}}{a_{0}})$ at speed $\sqrt{a_{0}^{2} + a_{1}^{2}}$, and the variation corresponding to $2\pi \widehat{p}$ rescales the disk, by a factor $1 + t_{0} 2\pi \widehat{p}$ when $t = t_{0}$. \end{proof}

Wirtinger's inequality can be proved by comparing the Fourier series of a $2\pi$-periodic function with that of its derivative, cf. \cite{Fo}.  Wirtinger's inequality also implies the isoperimetric inequality directly.  This was discovered by Hurwitz, who gave the first proof of the isoperimetric inequality based on Fourier analysis and Wirtinger's inequality in \cite{Hu}.  A variant of this proof, in which the role of Wirtinger's inequality is made explicit, can be found in \cite{Os} and \cite{BG}.  As with our proof, Hurwitz's proof of the isoperimetric inequality does not require that one separately establish the existence of a minimizing domain -- his argument shows directly that $l^{2} \geq 4\pi A$ for any plane domain, with equality precisely when the domain is a disk.

\section{Steiner's Formula and the Monotonicity of the Isoperimetric Ratio}
\label{monotonicity}

To prove Theorem \ref{ie}, we begin by confirming that the $r$-neighborhoods of a bounded, convex domain $D$, when rescaled to have constant area, give a variation of the disk of the type considered in Proposition \ref{12var}:

\begin{proposition}
\label{goodvar}

Let $D$ be a compact, convex domain in the plane whose boundary is smooth and has positive curvature.  For $t > 0$, let $\mathcal{D}_{t}$ be the $r = \frac{1}{t}$-neighborhood of $D$, rescaled to have the same area as $D$, and let $\mathcal{D}_{0}$ be a disk with the same area as $D$.
\medskip

Then $\lbrace \mathcal{D}_{t} \rbrace_{t \geq 0}$ gives a variation of the disk $\mathcal{D}_{0}$, as in Proposition \ref{12var}.  More precisely, if $q(\theta)$ is the support function of $D$, this variation is described by:

\begin{equation}
\label{var_function}
\displaystyle p(\theta, t) = \text{\footnotesize $\sqrt{\frac{A}{A t^{2} + lt + \pi}}$} \left(q(\theta) t + 1 \right),
\end{equation}
\smallskip

where $A$ is the area and $l$ is the perimeter of $D$.

\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}

Let $D$ be as above -- without loss of generality, suppose $D$ has area $\pi$.  Note first that each $r$-neighborhood of $D$ is also convex, cf. Remark \ref{ms} below, so that the variation in question is through a family of convex sets.  If $q(\theta)$ is the support function of $D$, then $q(\theta) + r$ is the support function of $D_{r}$ and, by Theorem \ref{sf}, $\scriptstyle \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\pi r^{2} + lr + \pi}}$$(q(\theta) + r)$ is the support function of the rescaling of $D_{r}$ whose area is equal to that of $D$.  Rewriting this in terms of $t = \frac{1}{r}$ for $r > 0$, we have:

\begin{equation}
\label{good_var_eqn}
\displaystyle p(\theta, t) = \text{\footnotesize $\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\pi (\frac{1}{t})^{2} + l\frac{1}{t} + \pi}}$} \left( q(\theta) + \frac{1}{t} \right) = \text{\footnotesize $\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\pi t^{2} + lt + \pi}}$} \left(q(\theta) t + 1 \right).
\end{equation}
\smallskip

We then have:

\begin{equation*}
\displaystyle p(\theta,t) + \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial \theta^{2}}(\theta,t) = \text{\footnotesize $\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\pi t^{2} + lt + \pi}}$} \left(t(q(\theta) + q''(\theta)) + 1 \right).
\end{equation*}
\smallskip

Since the curvature of $\partial D$ is positive, $q(\theta) + q''(\theta) > 0$, so for all $t > 0$ we also have that $p(\theta,t) + \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial \theta^{2}}(\theta,t) > 0$, and that $\partial \mathcal{D}_{t}$ has positive curvature.  $p(\theta,t)$ extends smoothly to $t=0$, where it is equal to the support function of the unit disk, and gives a variation of the disk as in Proposition \ref{12var}. \end{proof}

\begin{remark}
\label{ms}

The $r$-neighborhood $D_{r}$ of a compact, convex set $D$ is the {\bf Minkowski sum} of $D$ with a disk of radius $r$ in $\R^{2}$.  Minkowski summation of convex sets is discussed extensively in \cite{Sc} and many other texts on convex and integral geometry.
\end{remark}

We now prove the inequality in Theorem \ref{ie} -- that for a compact domain in $\R^{2}$ with perimeter $l$ and area $A$, $l^{2} \geq 4\pi A$.  We will then address the characterization of the equality case in Section \ref{uniqueness}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ie}, Part 1]

Let $D$ be a compact, convex domain in the plane with area $A$ and boundary length $l$, and suppose $\partial D$ is smooth and has positive curvature as above.  By (\ref{sfir}), for $t > 0$, the isoperimetric ratio $I(t)$ of the $(\frac{1}{t})$-neighborhood of $D$ is:

\begin{equation}
\label{sfir2}
\displaystyle I(t) = \frac{l^{2}t^{2} + 4\pi l t + 4\pi^{2}}{4\pi A t^{2} + 4\pi l t + 4\pi^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

Letting $\delta$ be the least absolute value of the roots of $f(t) = 4\pi A t^{2} + 4\pi l t + 4\pi^{2}$, the denominator of (\ref{sfir2}) (see Remark \ref{roots} below), the function of $t$ defined by (\ref{sfir2}) extends smoothly to $(-\delta, \infty)$.  In particular, (\ref{sfir2}) extends smoothly to $t = 0$ to give the isoperimetric ratio of the variation $\lbrace \mathcal{D}_{t} \rbrace_{t \geq 0}$ of the disk described in Proposition \ref{goodvar}.  $I(t)$ is a monotone function of $t \geq 0$, with the sign of $I'(t)$ determined by the isoperimetric deficit of $D$:

\begin{equation}
\label{sfird2}
\displaystyle I'(t) = \frac{\left( l^{2} - 4\pi A \right)\left( lt^{2} + 2\pi t \right)}{4\pi\left(At^{2} + lt + \pi\right)^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

Therefore, $I'(0) = 0$ (which also follows from Propositions \ref{12var} and \ref{goodvar}) and for $t > 0$, $I'(t)$ has the same sign as the isoperimetric deficit of $D$.  To show that $l^{2} \geq 4\pi A$, we calculate the second derivative of $I(t)$:

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle I''(t) = \left( \frac{l^{2} - 4\pi A}{2\pi} \right) \left( \frac{\pi^{2} - 3\pi A t^{2} - Alt^{3}}{(At^{2} + lt + \pi)^{3}} \right).
\end{equation}
\smallskip

In particular, $\displaystyle I''(0) = \frac{l^{2} - 4\pi A}{2\pi^{2}}$.  The sign of $l^{2} - 4\pi A$ is the same as that of $I''(0)$, which by Proposition \ref{12var} is greater than or equal to $0$. \end{proof}

\begin{remark}
\label{roots}

The roots of the denominator of (\ref{sfir2}), $f(t) = 4\pi A t^{2} + 4\pi l t + 4\pi^{2}$, are:

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle \frac{-l \pm \sqrt{l^{2} - 4\pi A}}{2A}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

The isoperimetric inequality is equivalent to the statement that the roots of this polynomial are real, and thus negative, and are distinct unless the domain in question is a disk.  For our purposes, it is enough simply to note that any real roots of $f(t)$ are negative since $f(t) \geq 4\pi^{2}$ when $t \geq 0$.  The roots of the Steiner polynomial were studied by Green and Osher in \cite{GO} (the Steiner polynomial of a domain with area $A$ and perimeter $l$ is $\pi r^{2} + lr + A$, with roots $\frac{-l \pm \sqrt{l^{2} - 4\pi A}}{2\pi}$).  They note that Steiner's formula implies the isoperimetric deficit of the $r$-neighborhood of $D$ is equal to that of $D$.
\end{remark}

\section{The Uniqueness of the Disk}
\label{uniqueness}

Once we have shown that $l^{2} \geq 4\pi A$ for all plane domains with perimeter $l$ and area $A$, and thus that the disk minimizes the isoperimetric ratio, any of Steiner's arguments then show that it is the unique minimizer.  The uniqueness of the disk as a minimizing domain for the isoperimetric ratio also follows from our argument, subject to some mild technical assumptions:

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ie}, Part 2] Let $D$ be a bounded domain in the plane with smooth (or $C^{2}$) boundary whose area $A$ and boundary length $l$ satisfy $l^{2} = 4\pi A$.  We can suppose $A = \pi$ and $l = 2\pi$.  Suppose in addition that the curvature of $\partial D$ is positive, as above.  By (\ref{sfir2}), in the variation $\lbrace \mathcal{D}_{t} \rbrace_{t \geq 0}$ of the disk constructed from $D$ as in Section \ref{monotonicity}, the isoperimetric ratio of $\mathcal{D}_{t}$ is equal to $1$ for all $t \geq 0$, and therefore $l(t) \equiv 2\pi$.  Therefore,

\begin{equation}
\label{l_deriv}
\displaystyle l'(t) = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta,t) d\theta \equiv 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{l_second_deriv}
\displaystyle l''(t) = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial t^{2}}(\theta,t) d\theta \equiv 0.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

By (\ref{area_second_derivative}) and (\ref{l_second_deriv}), we then have:

\begin{equation}
\label{a_second_deriv}
\displaystyle \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \left[ \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, t)^{2} - \frac{\partial^{2} p}{\partial t \partial \theta}(\theta, t)^{2} \right] d\theta = A''(t) \equiv 0.
\end{equation}
\smallskip

By (\ref{l_deriv}), (\ref{a_second_deriv}) and Wirtinger's inequality, $\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}(\theta, t) = c_{0}(t) \cos(\theta) + c_{1}(t) \sin(\theta)$ for some functions $c_{0}(t), c_{1}(t)$ of $t$.  Letting $q(\theta)$ be the support function of $D$, by (\ref{var_function}),

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle \frac{q(\theta) - 1}{(t + 1)^{2}} = c_{0}(t) \cos(\theta) + c_{1}(t) \sin(\theta).
\end{equation}
\smallskip

This then implies that $c_{0}(t) = \frac{d_{0}}{(t + 1)^{2}}$, $c_{1}(t) = \frac{d_{1}}{(t + 1)^{2}}$ for some constants $d_{0}, d_{1}$, and that $q(\theta) = d_{0} \cos(\theta) + d_{1} \sin(\theta) + 1$.  $D$ is therefore the unit disk centered at $(d_{0}, d_{1})$. \end{proof}

We conclude with a few remarks about the technical assumptions in the proof of the characterization of equality above: \\

We have assumed the domain $D$ to be convex, and to have $C^{2}$ boundary whose curvature is strictly positive, so that it can be described by a $C^{2}$ support function $q(\theta)$.  However, by the reduction to the convex case, any domain realizing equality in the isoperimetric inequality must be convex.  Moreover, for any compact, convex set $D$ and $r >0$, the $r$-neighborhood $D_{r}$ of $D$ has $C^{1,1}$ boundary, which is therefore twice-differentiable almost everywhere.  If $D$ realizes equality in the isoperimetric inequality, then by (\ref{sfir}) each of its $r$-neighborhoods $D_{r}$ does as well, and by the convexity of $D_{r}$, the curvature of $\partial D_{r}$ is non-negative at all points where it is defined.  Thus, if one can show that a domain which realizes equality in the isoperimetric inequality, whose boundary is twice-differentiable almost everywhere, and has non-negative curvature at all points where its curvature is defined is a disk, one will have shown that $D_{r}$ is a disk for all $r > 0$, and thus that $D$ is a disk as well. \\

The relationship between the regularity of the boundary of a domain and the regularity of its support function and the smoothness properties of $\partial D_{r}$ are both discussed in \cite{Sc}.  Osserman discusses the significance of the regularity assumed on the boundaries of domains in the isoperimetric inequality in Section 2 of \cite{Os}.  He notes that one can modify a smooth domain by adding ``wiggles" to its boundary, increasing its perimeter while leaving its area unchanged -- thus, ``one has the ironic situation that the more irregular the boundary, the stronger will be the isoperimetric inequality, but the harder it is to prove.  The fact is, the isoperimetric inequality holds in the greatest generality imaginable, but one needs suitable definitions even to state it."

Differential Geometry (math.DG); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA)


Orange Peels and Fresnel Integrals

\section{Summary Paragraph}
{\bf
There are two standard ways of peeling an orange: either cut the skin
along meridians, or cut it along a spiral.  We consider here the
second method, and study the shape of the spiral strip, when unfolded
on a table.  We derive a formula that describes the corresponding
flattened-out spiral.  Cutting the peel with progressively thinner
strip widths, we obtain a sequence of increasingly long spirals.  We
show that, after rescaling, these spirals tends to a definite shape,
known as the Euler spiral.  The Euler spiral has applications in many
fields of science.  In optics, the illumination intensity at a point
behind a slit is computed from the distance between two points on the
Euler spiral.  The Euler spiral also provides optimal curvature for
train tracks between a straight run and an upcoming bend.  It is
striking that it can be also obtained with an orange and a kitchen
knife.}

\section{Outline}
Cut the skin of an orange along a thin spiral of constant width
(fig.~\ref{fig:orange}) and lay it flat on a table
(fig.~\ref{fig:peel}).  A natural breakfast question, for a
mathematician, is which shape the spiral peel will have, when
flattened out.  We derive a formula that, for a given cut width,
describes the corresponding spiral's shape.

For the analysis, we parametrize the spiral curve by a constant speed
trajectory, and express the curvature of the flattened-out spiral as a
function of time.
\begin{figure}[h]
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}
  \node[scale = .925] at (-.4,0) {\includegraphics[scale=0.15]{sphere.jpg}};
  \draw[<->,white,very thick] (0.95,1.45) -- node[right, pos=.3, scale=.97] {$1/N$} (1.6,0.4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\caption{An orange, assumed to be a sphere of radius one, with spiral of width $1/N$.\vspace{-1cm}}\label{fig:orange}
\end{figure}
This is achieved by comparing a revolution of the
spiral on the orange with a corresponding spiral on a cone tangent to
the surface of the orange (fig.~\ref{fig:cone}, left).  Once we know the
curvature, we derive a differential equation for our spiral, which we
solve analytically (fig.~\ref{fig:spiral}, left).

We then consider what happens to our spirals when we vary the strip
width.  Two properties are affected: the overall size, and the shape.
\begin{figure}[h]
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}
  \node at (0,0) {\includegraphics[scale=0.098]{spiral.jpg}};
  \draw[very thick] (2.5,-2) -- (2.5,-2.05) -- node[below, scale=.97] {1\,cm} (2.8,-2.05) -- (2.8,-2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\caption{The flattened-out orange peel.}\label{fig:peel}
\end{figure}
Taking finer and finer widths of strip, we obtain a sequence of
increasingly long spirals; rescale these spirals to make them all of
the same size.  We show that, after rescaling, the shape of these
spirals tends to a well defined limit.  The limit shape is a classical
mathematical curve, known as the \emph{Euler spiral} or the
\emph{Cornu spiral} (fig.~\ref{fig:spiral}, right).  This spiral is the
solution of the \emph{Fresnel integrals}.

The Euler spiral has many applications.  In optics, it occurs in the
study of light diffracting through a
slit~\cite{hecht:optics}*{\S10.3.8}.  More precisely, the illumination
intensity at a point behind a slit is the square of the distance
between two points on the Euler spiral, easily determined from the
slit's geometry.

\begin{figure}[h]
\[
  \begin{tikzpicture}
  \draw (0,0) circle (1);
  \coordinate (c) at (0,2);
 \begin{scope}
  \pgftransformcm{1}{0}{0}{.3}{\pgfpoint{0}{0}}
  \draw (-1,0) arc (-180:0:1);
  \pgftransformcm{1.07}{0}{0}{1.07}{\pgfpoint{0}{12}}
  \draw[densely dotted] (-1,0) arc (175:5:1);
  \foreach \x in {180, 188.5, ..., 360}{\draw[gray!50] (\x:1) -- (c);}
  \draw (-190:1) arc (-190:10:1) -- (c) -- cycle;
  \pgftransformcm{.9}{0}{0}{.9}{\pgfpoint{0}{16}}
  \pgftransformcm{.95}{.1}{0}{1}{\pgfpoint{-.4}{8.2}}
  \draw[red, densely dotted] (-110:1) arc (-110:-90:1);
  \draw[red] (-90:1) arc (-90:10:1);
  \pgftransformcm{.95}{0}{0}{.95}{\pgfpoint{0}{8.2}}
  \draw[red] (-190:1) arc (-190:10:1);
  \draw[red] (-190:1) arc (-190:10:1);
  \pgftransformcm{.95}{0}{0}{.95}{\pgfpoint{0}{8.2}}
  \draw[red] (-190:1) arc (-190:10:1);
  \pgftransformcm{.95}{0}{0}{.95}{\pgfpoint{0}{8.2}}
  \draw[red] (-190:1) arc (-190:-50:1);
  \draw[red, densely dotted] (-50:1) arc (-50:-30:1);
 \end{scope}
  \draw[<->] (0,2)+(30:.1) -- node[scale=.85, right, pos=.45]{$\scriptstyle R$} (30:1.1);

  \draw[->,decorate,decoration={snake,post length=.5mm,amplitude=.5mm,segment length=2mm}] (0,-1.3) -- (0,-1.75);
  \begin{scope}[xshift=-3.95cm,yshift=-2.6cm]
  \foreach \x in {-15, -22.5, ..., -165}{\draw [gray!50] (4,.5) -- +(\x:1.5);}
  \draw (4,.5) -- +(-10:1.5) arc (-10:-170:1.5) -- cycle;
  \draw [red] (3.95,.5) +(-80:1.2) arc (-80:-9.5:1.2);
  \draw [red] (3.95,.5) +(-169.5:1.1) arc (-169.5:-9.5:1.1);
  \draw [red] (3.95,.5) +(-169.5:1.0) arc (-169.5:-9.5:1.0);
  \draw [red] (3.95,.5) +(-169.5:.9) arc (-169.5:-60:.9);
  \draw[red, densely dotted] (3.95,.5) +(-60:.9) arc (-60:-45:.9);
  \draw[red, densely dotted] (3.95,.5) +(-96:1.2) arc (-96:-80:1.2);
  \draw[<->] (4,.5) -- node[scale=.85, right, pos=.5]{$\scriptstyle R$} +(-78.7:1.09);
  \end{scope}
  \begin{scope}[xshift=3cm,yshift=-1.75cm]
  \pgftransformcm{.93}{0}{0}{.93}{\pgfpoint{0}{0}}
  \clip (-1,-2.02) rectangle (2.1,4.2);
  \draw (0,0) circle (2cm);
  \draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
  \draw[<->] (-.14,0) -- node[left, scale=.93] {$s$} (-.14,1);
  \draw (0,1) -- (0,4);
  \draw (0,1) -- node[above, xshift=-5,yshift=-2, scale=.9] {$\sqrt{1-s^2}$} (30:2);
  \draw (0,0) -- node[below, scale=.93] {$1$} (30:2);
  \draw (30:2) -- (0,4);
  \filldraw (0,0) circle (.03);
  \pgftransformxshift{3.6}
  \pgftransformyshift{1.8}
  \draw[<->] (30:2) -- node[above,sloped, scale=.9] {$R=\sqrt{1-s^2\,}\!\big/s$} (0,4);
  \end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\caption{\emph{left:} Spiral on the sphere, transferred to the tangent cone, and developed
on the plane, for computing its radius of curvature;\\
  \emph{right:} The computation of the radius of curvature $R$ of the flattened spiral.}
\label{fig:cone}
\end{figure}

The same spiral is also used in civil engineering: it provides optimal
curvature for train tracks~\cite{profillidis:railway}*{\S14.1.2}.  A
train that travels at constant speed and increases the curvature of
its trajectory at a constant rate will naturally follow an arc of the
Euler spiral.  The review~\cite{Levien:EECS-2008-111} describes the
history of the Euler spiral and its three independent discoveries.

\begin{figure}[h]
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
 \useasboundingbox (-2.2,-2.1) rectangle (1.7,1.9);
 \node at (-0.3,-0.1) {\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{solution.pdf}};
 \draw[->] (0,-.3) node[anchor=north, scale=.6] {$t=0$} -- (0,0);
 \draw[->] (-0.8,-1.24) node[anchor=west, scale=.6] {$t=-2\pi N$} --
(-1.31,-1.24);
 \draw[->] (0.65,1.21) node[anchor=east, scale=.6] {$t=2\pi N$} -- (1.17,1.21);
\end{tikzpicture}\quad\,\,\,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.865]
 \useasboundingbox (-2.3,-2.0) rectangle (1.6,1.8);
 \pgftransformyshift {-1.7}
 \node at (-0.4445,-0.1) {\includegraphics[scale=0.865]{euler.pdf}};
 \fill[red] (1.05,1.12) circle (.1) (-1.19,-1.13) circle (.1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\caption{\emph{left:} Maple plot of the orange peel spiral ($N=3$);\\
\emph{right:} the Euler spiral; limit $N \to \infty$.}\label{fig:spiral}
\end{figure}

\section{Analysis}
For the purpose of our mathematical treatment, we shall replace the
orange by a sphere of radius one.  The spiral on the sphere is taken
of width $1/N$, see (fig.~\ref{fig:orange}).  The area of the sphere
is $4\pi$, so the spiral has a length of roughly $4\pi N$.  We
describe the flattened-out orange peel spiral by a curve $(x(t),y(t))$
in the plane, parameterized at unit-speed from time $t=-2\pi N$ to
$t=2\pi N$.

On a sphere of radius one, the area between two horizontal planes at
heights $h_1$ and $h_2$ is ${2\pi(h_2-h_1)}$, see (fig.~\ref{fig:area}).  It
follows that, at time $t$, the point on the sphere has height
$s:=t/2\pi N$.

\begin{figure}[h]
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}
  \draw (0,0) circle (2cm);
  \draw (30:2) -- (150:2);
  \draw (36:2) -- (144:2);
  \fill[gray!20!white] (150:2) arc (150:144:2cm) -- (36:2) arc (36:30:2cm) -- cycle;
  \draw[->] (0,2.8) node[anchor=south] {Perimeter $\approx 2\pi\sqrt{1-s^2}$} -- (0,0 |- -36:-2);
  \draw[->] (-2.5,1.8) node[anchor=south] {Width $\approx \epsilon/\sqrt{1-s^2}$} -- (147:2);
  \draw[->] (-2.5,0) -- node[left] {$h_1$} (-2.5,0 |- 30:2);
  \draw[<->] (-2.5,0 |- 30:2) -- node[left] {$\epsilon$} (-2.5,0 |- 36:2);
  \draw[->] (-2.3,0) -- node[right, yshift=-2.5, xshift=2, fill=white, inner sep=1] {$h_2=h_1+\epsilon$} (-2.3,0 |- 36:2);
  \draw[dashed] (-2.9,0) -- (1.5,0);
  \draw[->] (.5,0) --node[anchor=west, fill=white, inner sep=1, xshift=3] {Height $\approx s$} (.5,0 |- 33:2);
  \node[fill=white, inner sep=2] at (-1.38,-1) {Area = Width $\times$ Perimeter $\approx 2\pi\epsilon$};
  \filldraw (0,0) circle (.03);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\caption{Area of a thin circular strip on the sphere.}
\label{fig:area}
\end{figure}

Our first goal is to find a differential equation for
$(x(t),y(t))$. For that, we compute the radius of curvature $R(t)$ of
the flattened-out spiral at time $t$: this is the radius of circle
with best contact to the curve at time $t$.  For example, $R(-2\pi
N)=R(2\pi N)=0$ at the poles, and $R(0)=\infty$ at the equator.

For $N$ large, the spiral at time $t$ follows roughly a parallel at
height $s$ on the orange. The surface of the sphere can be
approximated by a tangent cone whose development on the plane is a
disk sector (fig.~\ref{fig:cone}, left). The radius
\[
R(t)=\sqrt{1-s^2}/s=\sqrt{(2\pi N)^2-t^2}/t
\]
of that disk equals the radius of curvature of the spiral at time $t$,
and can be computed using Thales' theorem (fig.~\ref{fig:cone},
right). The radius $R(t)$ is in fact only determined up to sign; our
choice reflects the NE-SW orientation of the spiral on the sphere.

Now, the condition that we move move at unit speed on the sphere ---
and on the plane --- is $(\dot x)^2+(\dot y)^2=1$, and the condition that
the spiral has a curvature of $R(t)$ is $\dot x\ddot y-\ddot x\dot y=1/R$.
Here, $\dot x$ and $\dot y$ are the speeds of $x$ and $y$ respectively, and $\ddot x$ and $\ddot y$ are their accelerations.
In fact, introducing the complex path $z(t)=x(t)+iy(t)$, the
conditions can be expressed as $|\dot z|^2=1$ and $\ddot z \dot {\bar z}=i/R$.

The solution has the general form \[z(t)=\int_0^t\exp(i\phi(u))du,\]
for a real function $\phi$; indeed, its derivative is computed as $\dot
z=\exp(i\phi(t))$ and has norm $1$. As $\ddot z\dot{\bar z}=i\dot\phi(t)$,
we have $\dot\phi(t)=s/\sqrt{1-s^2}$, which has as elementary solution
$\phi(t)=-\sqrt{(2\pi N)^2-t^2}$. We have deduced that the
flattened-out spiral has parameterization
\[\left\{\begin{array}{l}
    \displaystyle x(t)\,=\,\,\int_0^t\cos\sqrt{(2\pi N)^2-u^2}du,\\
    \displaystyle y(t)\,=\,-\int_0^t\sin\sqrt{(2\pi N)^2-u^2}du.
  \end{array}\right.\]
The flattened-out peel of an orange is shown in (fig.~\ref{fig:peel}),
and the corresponding analytic solution, computed by
\textsc{Maple}~\cite{Maple10}, is shown in (fig.~\ref{fig:spiral},
left). The orange's radius was 3cm, and the peel was 1cm wide, giving
$N=3$.

\section{Limiting behaviour}
What happens if $N$ tends to infinity, that is, if we peel the
orange with an ever thinner spiral?  For that, we recall the power
series approximation
\[
\sqrt{a^2-u^2}=a-\frac{u^2}{2a}+\mathcal O(\frac{u^4}{a^3}),
\]
which we substitute with $a=2\pi N$ in the above expression:
\begin{align*}
z(t)&=\int_0^t\exp\Big(\!-i\sqrt{(2\pi N)^2-u^2}\,\Big)du\\&
\approx\int_0^t\exp \Big(\!-i\Big(2\pi N-\frac{u^2}{2\cdot2\pi N}\Big)\!\Big)du.
\end{align*}
Taking only values of $N$ that are integers, this simplifies to
$\int_0^t\exp(iu^2/4\pi N)du$. We then set $v=u/\sqrt{4\pi N}$ to
obtain
\[
z(t)\approx \sqrt{4\pi N}\int_0^{t/\sqrt{4\pi N}}\exp(iv^2)dv.
\]
The approximation error is $\int_0^t\mathcal
O(\frac{u^4}{a^3})du=\mathcal O(t^5/N^3)$, which becomes negligible
compared to the size $\mathcal O(\sqrt N)$ of the spiral for $|t|\ll
N^{0.7}$.

The above curve is, up to scaling and parameterization speed,
the solution of the classical Fresnel integral
\[(X(t),Y(t))=\left(\int_0^t\cos u^2du,\int_0^t\sin u^2du\right),\]
defined by the condition that the radius of curvature at time $t$ is
$1/2t$; here the parameterization is over $t$ from $-\infty$ to
$+\infty$. The corresponding curve is called the Euler spiral and
winds infinitely often around the points
$\pm(\sqrt{\frac\pi8},\sqrt{\frac\pi8})$.  Setting $T:=t/\sqrt{4\pi
  N}$, the condition $|t|\ll N^{0.7}$ becomes $|T|\ll N^{0.2}$.  We
have thus proven:
\begin{theorem}
  If $T\ll N^{0.2}$, then the part of the orange peel of width $1/N$
  parameterized between $-\sqrt{4\pi N}\,T$ and $\sqrt{4\pi N}\,T$ is
  a good approximation for the part of the Euler spiral parameterized
  between $-T$ and $T$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent Note that for large $N$, the piece of the orange peel
parameterized between $-\sqrt{4\pi N}\,T$ and $\sqrt{4\pi N}\,T$ forms
a rather thin band around the orange's equator.  The contribution of
rest of the orange disappears due to the rescaling process.

\section{Conclusion}
The Euler spiral is a well known mathematical curve.  In this article,
we explained how to construct it with an orange and a kitchen knife.
Flattened fruit peels have already been considered, e.g.\ those of
apples~\cite{Turrell}, but were never studied analytically.  The Euler
spiral that we obtained has had many discoveries across
history~\cite{Levien:EECS-2008-111}; ours occurred over breakfast.

\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}

\bib{hecht:optics}{book}{
   author={Hecht, Eugene},
   title={Optics},
   date={2002},
   publisher={Pearson Educat.},
   edition={4th}
}

\bib{Levien:EECS-2008-111}{techreport}{
    Author = {Levien, Raph},
    Title = {The Euler spiral: a mathematical history},
    Institution = {EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley},
    Year = {2008},
    URL = {http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2008/EECS-2008-111.html},
    Number = {UCB/EECS-2008-111},
}

\bib{Maple10}{book}{
author = {Michael B.~Monagan},
author = {Keith O.~Geddes},
author = {K.~Michael Heal},
author = {George Labahn},
author = {Stefan M.~Vorkoetter},
author = {James McCarron},
author = {Paul DeMarco},
title = {Maple~10 Programming Guide},
publisher = {Maplesoft},
year = {2005},
address = {Waterloo ON, Canada},
}

\bib{profillidis:railway}{book}{
   author={Profillidis, Vassilios A.},
   title={Railway management and engineering},
   date={2006},
   publisher={Ashgate Publishing Ltd.},
   pages={469}
}

\bib{Turrell}{article}{
   author={F. M. Turrell},
   title={The definite integral symbol},
   journal = {Amer. Math. Monthly},
   volume = {67},
   year = {1960},
   number = {7},
   pages = {656--658}
}

\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}

Orange Peels and Fresnel Integrals