\section{Introduction}
Utility maximization represents an  important problems in financial mathematics. This is an optimal investment problem faced by an economic agent having the possibility of investing in a financial market over a finite period of time with fixed investment horizon $T$. The goal of the agent is to find an optimal portfolio that allows him to maximize his "welfare" at time $T$. The founding work of Von Neumann and Morgenstern \cite{VM44}, made it possible to represent the preferences of the investor by means of a function of utility U and a given probability measure P reflecting his views as follows:
$$E_{\mathbb{P}}[U(X_T^{x,\pi})]$$
Where $X_T^{x,\pi}$ is the wealth of investor at time $T$ starting from an initial wealth $x$ and adopting an investment strategy $\pi$.
The investor's problem then consists in solving the optimization
$$\sup_{\pi}E_{\mathbb{P}}[U(X_T^\pi)]$$
To solve this type of problem there are essentially two approaches:the dual approach \cite{SB09} and the BSDE approach \cite{IH2005}
\\
In reality, several scenarios are plausible and it is impossible to precisely identify $\mathbb{P}$. Therefore, we must take into account this ambiguity on the model also known as Knightian uncertainty. Knightian uncertainty studies have undergone enormous developments in both theory and applications. The work of  Maccheroni, Marinacci and Rustichini led to a new representation of preferences in the presence of model uncertainty, namely:
$$\inf_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}}E_{\mathbb{P}}[U(X_T^{x,\pi})+\gamma(Q)]$$
where $\mathcal{Q}$ the set of plausible senarios and $\gamma (Q)$ is the penalty term.In other words, the investor will decide in the worst case. Thus, it will solve the following optimization problem known as robust utility maximization problem:
$$\sup_{\pi}\inf_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}}E_{Q}[U(X_T^{x,\pi})+\gamma(Q)]$$
Several developments have been implemented on this subject, whether for the dual approach or the BSDE approach.
In this paper  we studies the robust utility maximization problem in incomplete market setting. We characterize the value function of our optimization problem using the quadratic BSDE. This was worked out through the class of nonlinear expectation called $g^*$- expectation.
\section{Formulation Problem}
We consider a filtred space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{F}^W, \mathbb{P})$ over a finite horizon time $T$, where the filtration $\mathbb{F}^W=(\mathcal{F}^W_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ is generated by $d$- dimensional standard Brownian motion $W=(W^1,\ldots, W^d).$
For every measure $Q\ll P$ on $\mathcal{F}_T$ there is a predictable process $(\eta_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$
such that $\displaystyle E[\int_0^T\parallel \eta_t\parallel^2 dt]<+\infty \;\; Q.a.s$
 and the density process of $Q$ with respect to $\mathbb{P}$ is an RCLL
martingale $Z^Q =(Z^Q_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ given by:
$$
Z_{t}^{Q}=\mathcal{E}\left(\int_{0}^{t} \eta_{u} d W_{u}\right) Q . a . s, \forall t \in[0, T]
$$
where $\mathcal{E}(M)_{t}=\exp \left(M_{t}-\frac{1}{2}\langle M\rangle_{t}\right)$ denotes the stochastic exponential of a continuous local martingale $M .$ We introduce a consistent time penalty given by:
$$
\gamma_{t}(Q)=E_{Q}\left[\int_{t}^{T} h\left(\eta_{s}\right) ds \mid \mathcal{F}_{t}\right]
$$
where $h: \mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow[0,+\infty]$ is a convex function, proper and lower semi-continuous function such that $h(0) \equiv 0 .$ We also assume that there are two positive constants $\kappa_{1}$ and $\kappa_{2}$ satisfying:
$$
h(x) \geq \kappa_{1}\|x\|^{2}-\kappa_{2}
$$
Our optimization problem  is written as follows:
$$\sup_{(\pi,c) \in\mathscr{A}_{e} }   \inf_{Q^\eta \in \mathcal{Q}}\mathbb{E}\Big[\bar{\alpha}U(X_T^{x,\pi,c})+\alpha\int_0^T e^{-\int_0^s \delta_udu} u(c_s)ds +\int_{0}^{T}e^{-\int_0^s \delta_udu} h\left(\eta_{s}\right) ds\Big]$$
Where  note that $\mathcal{Q}$ the space of all probability measures $Q^\eta $ on $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ such that $Q^\eta \ll \mathbb{P}$ on $\mathcal{F}_T$ and $\gamma_0(Q^\eta)< +\infty$. $U$ and $u$ are the utility functions and $\mathscr{A}_{e}$ is  the set of admissible strategies which will be specified later.
Our problem is then made up of two optimization subproblems. The first, the infmum, is studied by Faidi Matoussi and Mnif \cite{FMM17}. They have proven under the exponential integrability condition of the random variables $U(X_T^{x,\pi})$ and ${\displaystyle \int}_0^Tu(c_s)ds$ that the infimum is reached in a one unique probability measure $\mathbb{Q}^{*}$ which is equivalent  to $\mathbb{P}$ and and they characterized the value process of the dynamical optimization problem using the quadratic BSDE. More precisely, if
 $$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[\exp{\gamma |U(X_T^{x,\pi})|}]< +\infty \;\; \text{and} \;\; \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[\exp{\gamma \int_0^T|u(c_s)|ds}]< +\infty \;\; \forall \gamma > 0$$ Then the process $$Y^{x,\pi,c}_t=\inf_{Q^\eta \in \mathcal{Q}}\mathbb{E}\Big[\bar{\alpha}U(X_T^{x,\pi,c})+\alpha\int_t^T e^{-\int_t^s \delta_udu} u(c_s)ds +\int_{t}^{T}e^{-\int_t^s \delta_udu} h\left(\eta_{s}\right) ds\Big]$$
 satisfied the following quadratic BSDE:
\begin{equation}\label{bsdecaraterization}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
d Y_{t}^{x,\pi,c}=\left(\delta_{t} Y_{t}^{x,\pi,c}-\alpha u(c_t)+\beta h^{*}
(\frac{1}{\beta}Z_{t})\right) dt-Z_{t} d W_{t}, \\
Y_{T}^{x,\pi,c}=\bar{\alpha} \bar{U}(X_T^{x,\pi,c}) .
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}

Where $h^*$ the Legendre-Fenchel transform of $h$.
\\
In the sequel we are interested in the second problem, the supermum.
\\
The financial market consists of one bond with interest rate zero and
$d \leq m$ stocks. In case $d<m$, we face an incomplete market. The price process
of stock $i$ evolves according to the equation:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d S_{t}^{i}}{S_{t}^{i}}=b_{t}^{i} d t+\sigma_{t}^{i} d W_{t}, \quad i=1, \ldots, d
\end{aligned}
$$
where $b^{i}$ (resp. $\sigma^{i}$ ) is an $\mathbb{R}$ -valued (resp. $\mathbb{R}^{1 \times m}$ -valued) predictable uniformly bounded stochastic process. The lines of the $d \times m$ -matrix $\sigma$ are given by the vector $\sigma_{t}^{i}, i=1, \ldots, d$. The volatility matrix $\sigma=\left(\sigma^{i}\right)_{i=1, \ldots, d}$ has full rank and we assume that $\sigma \sigma^{t r}$ is uniformly elliptic, that is, $K I_{d} \geq \sigma \sigma^{t r} \geq \varepsilon I_{d}$ $P$ -a.s. for constants $K>\varepsilon>0 .$ The predictable $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ -valued process
$$
\theta_{t}=\sigma_{t}^{t r}\left(\sigma_{t} \sigma_{t}^{t r}\right)^{-1} b_{t}, \quad t \in[0, T]
$$
is then also uniformly bounded. A $d$ -dimensional $\mathbb{F}$ -predictable process $\pi=\left(\pi_{t}\right)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ is called trading strategy if $\int \pi \frac{d S}{S}$ is well defined, for example, $\int_{0}^{T}\left\|\pi_{t} \sigma_{t}\right\|^{2} d t<\infty P$ -a.s. For $1 \leq i \leq d,$ the process $\pi_{t}^{i}$ describes the amount of money invested in stock $i$ at time $t .$ The number of shares is $\frac{\pi_{t}^{i}}{S_{t}^{2}} .$ The wealth process $X^{\pi}$ of a trading strategy $\pi$ with initial capital $x$ satisfies the equation
$$
X_{t}^{x,\pi}=x+\sum_{i=1}^{d} \int_{0}^{t}\pi_{i, u} \frac{d S_{i, u}}{S_{i, u}}-\int_0^t c_u du =x+\int_{0}^{t} \pi_{u} \sigma_{u}\left(d W_{u}+\theta_{u} d u\right)-\int_0^t c_u du, \quad t \in[0, T]
$$
In this notation $\pi$ has to be taken as a vector in $\mathbb{R}^{1 \times d}$. Trading strategies are self-financing. The investor uses his initial capital and during the trading interval $[0, T]$, there is no extra money flow out of or into his portfolio. Gains or losses are only obtained by trading with the stock.
\\
 Based on the above, the problem is equivalent to find:
\begin{equation}\label{opt}
V_0(x)=\sup_{(\pi,c) \in \mathscr{A}_{e}}Y_0^{x,\pi,c}
\end{equation}

such that
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
d Y_{t}^{x,\pi,c}=\left(\delta_{t} Y_{t}^{x,\pi,c}-\alpha u(c_t)+\beta h^{*}
(\frac{1}{\beta}Z_{t})\right) dt-Z_{t} d W_{t}, \\
Y_{T}^{x,\pi,c}=\bar{\alpha} \bar{U}(X_T^{x,\pi,c}) .
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}

To solve this problem, we use the notion of $g$-expectation introduced by Peng \cite{Peng97} .
We then start with the main results on this notion of nonlinear expectation.
\section{ $g$-expectation}
The notion of $g$-expectations  was firstly introduced by Peng in \cite{Peng97} in the case of lipschitz generator.  from which most basic material of this section is taken
Let $\xi$ a strictly positive random variable such that $\mathbb{E}_\mathbb{P}[\exp(\gamma |\xi|)]<\infty$ forall $\gamma>0$ and $g:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall  t \in [0, T ], g(t,0)=0$
\item $\forall t \in [0, T ], z \mapsto g(t, z)$ is a continuous convex function,
\item There are two positives constants $ \beta$ and $\gamma$ such that  $$ \forall (t,z)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^d; |g(t,\ z)|\leq\beta|z|^{2}+\gamma .$$
\end{itemize}
 then  the BSDE
$$Y_{t}=\displaystyle \xi+\int_{t}^{T}g(s,\ Z_{s})ds-\int^{T}Z_{s}dW_{s},
$$
admits   a  unique  solution  $(Y,\ Z)\in \mathscr{S}_T^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})\times \mathscr{H}_T^p\left(\mathbb{R}^m\right)$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] For $p \in \mathbb{N}, \mathscr{H}_T^p\left(\mathbb{R}^m\right)$ is the set of all $\mathbb{R}^m$-valued stochastic processes $Z$ which are predictable with respect to $\mathbb{F}$ and satisfy $\mathbb{E}\left[\left({\displaystyle \int}_0^T\left|Z_t\right|^2 d t\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\right]<\infty$.
\item[-] $\mathscr{S}_T^{\infty}$ is the set of all continuous bounded $\mathbb{F}$-adapted semi-martingales  $Y$ that satisfy
$$
\forall \lambda>0, \quad \mathbb{E}\left[e^{\lambda \sup\limits_{t \in[0, T]}\left|Y_t\right|}\right]<\infty,
$$
\end{itemize}
$Y_{t}$ is called conditional $g$-expectation of $\xi$ under $\mathcal{F}_t$ and and is noted
$\mathcal{E}_{g}[\xi|\mathcal{F}_t]$ and $Y_{0}$ is called $g$ -expectation of $\xi$, denoted by $Y_{0}=\mathcal{E}_{g}(\xi)$.

\begin{Definition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
A process $X_{t}$ is called a $\mathrm{g}$-martingale, if for any $s \geq t$
$$\mathcal{E}_{g}[X_{t}|\mathcal{F}_s]=X_{s}$$
\item
A process $X_{t}$ is called a $\mathrm{g}$-submartingale, if for any $s \geq t$
$$\mathcal{E}_{g}[X_{t}|\mathcal{F}_s]\geq X_{s}$$
\item
A process $X_{t}$ is called a $\mathrm{g}$-supermartingale, if for any $s \geq t$
$$\mathcal{E}_{g}[X_{t}|\mathcal{F}_s]\leq X_{s}$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{Definition}
The following result is an immediate consequence of the comparison theorem
\begin{Proposition}
If $g_1 \leq g_2$ then any $\mathrm{g}_1$-supermartingale is $\mathrm{g}_2$-submartingale.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{Lemma}
$$Y_0^{x,\pi,c}={\cal E}_g[e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du}\bar{\alpha} \bar{U}(X_T^{x,\pi,c})+\int_0^T\alpha e^{-\int_0^s \delta_u du} u(c_s)ds]$$
Where
$$g(w,t,z)=\beta e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du} h^{*}
\left(\frac{1}{\beta}e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du}z\right)$$
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let the stochastic process $L^{x,\pi,c}$ defined by:
$$L^{x,\pi,c}_t:= e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du}Y^{x,\pi,c}_t+\int_0^t\alpha e^{-\int_0^s \delta_u du} u(c_s)ds$$
The process $L^{x,\pi,c}$ satisfy the following BSDE:
\begin{equation}\label{gcaracterization}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
d L_{t}^{x,\pi,c}=\beta e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du} h^{*}
\left(\frac{1}{\beta}e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du}Z_{t}\right) dt-Z_{t} d W_{t}, \\
L_{T}^{x,\pi,c}=e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du}\bar{\alpha} \bar{U}(X_T^{x,\pi,c})+\int_0^T\alpha e^{-\int_0^s \delta_u du} u(c_s)ds .
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
In other words
$$L_{t}^{x,\pi,c}={\cal E}_g\Big[ e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du}\bar{\alpha} \bar{U}(X_T^{x,\pi,c})+\int_0^T\alpha e^{-\int_0^s \delta_u du} u(c_s)ds |{\cal F}_t\Big] $$
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
The conditions mentioned above are verified by the BSDE(\ref{gcaracterization}). Indeed:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Since $h(0)=0$ and $h(x)\geq 0$ forall $x\in \mathbb{R},$ we have $h^*(0)=\sup\limits_{y \leq 0}-h(y)=0.$
\item $h$ is supposed to be continuous and convex function so $h^*$ is also.
\item Since $ \forall x \in \mathbb{R}^d;
|h(x)| \geq \kappa_{1}\|x\|^{2}-\kappa_{2}
$
then
$ \forall x \in \mathbb{R}^d;
|h^*(x)| \leq \dfrac{1}{2\kappa_{1}}\|x\|^{2}-\kappa_{2}
$

\end{enumerate}
\end{Remark}
Thus our problem reduces to a utility maximization problem under the nonlinear expectation.

\section{Logarithme utility}

In this section, we consider the logarithm utility, which is given by
$$
U(x)=\ln(x)
$$
We here suppose that the initial wealth is strictly positive: $x > 0.$
We denote by $\pi_{t}$ the fraction of wealth invested in the risky assets at time $t \in[0, T],$ and $c_t$ the consumption rate at time $t$ that is, the portfolio value at time $t$  is given by
$$
\dfrac{dX_t^{\pi,c}}{X_t^{\pi,c}}=\pi_t\sigma_t(dW_t+\theta_tdt)-c_tdt\;\;; X_0^{\pi,c}=x
$$
and one can write
\begin{equation}\label{eq0}
X_t^{\pi,c}=x{\cal E}(\pi\sigma\textbf{.} W^{\mathbb{Q}})_t \exp(-\int_0^tc_sds)>0
\end{equation}
where ${\cal E}$ is the stochastic exponential and $W^{\mathbb{Q}}_t= W_t +\int_0^t \theta_sds.$
\\
To formulate consumption and investment constraints we introduce non-empty subsets ${\cal C} \in {\cal P}$ and ${\cal A} \in {\cal P}^{1\times m}$, where ${\cal P}$ denotes the set of all real-valued predictable processes $(c_t)_{0\ leq t \leq T}$ and ${\cal P}^{1\times m}$ the set of all predictable processes $(\pi_t)_{0\ leq t \leq T}$ with values in $\mathbb{R}^{1\times m}.$
\\
We assume that ${\cal C}$ and ${\cal A}$ are sequentially closed and ${\cal P}$-stable.
\begin{Definition}
an admissible strategy is a pair $(\pi,c) \in {\cal A} \times {\cal C}$  satisfying
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[\exp(\gamma (|\ln(X_T^{x,\pi,c})|+\int_0^T |\ln(c_s)|ds)]< \infty ; \forall \gamma>0
\end{equation}
\begin{Proposition}
The set of admissible strategy is sequentially closed and ${\cal P}$-stable.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
let $(\pi^{(n)},c^{(n)})\in \mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}$ which converges $\nu \otimes \mathbb{P}$ a.e to $(\pi,c)$
\\
Since ${\cal C}$ and ${\cal A}$ are sequentially closed then $(\pi,c) \in {\cal A} \times {\cal C}.$
\\
By Fatou lemma, we have
$$\mathbb{E}[\exp(\gamma (|\ln(X_T^{x,\pi,c})|+\int_0^T |\ln(c_s)|ds)] \leq \liminf\limits_{n}\mathbb{E}[\exp(\gamma (|\ln(X_T^{x,\pi^{(n)},c^{(n)}}|)+\int_0^T |\ln(c^{(n)}_s)|ds)]< \infty$$
and so $\mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}$ is sequentially closed.
\\
The ${\cal P}$-stability arises from convexity of the function $x\mapsto e^{|x|}.$

\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
Using the same argument above, if ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal C}$ are ${\cal P}$-convex then $\mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}$ is ${\cal P}$-convex.
\end{Remark}
\end{Definition}
We assume in the sequel that there exists a pair $(\bar{\pi},\bar{c}) \in \mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}$ such that $\ln(c)-c$ and $\pi$ are bounded.
\\
To solve this problem we adopt the same approach as imkeller hu \cite{IH2005} and Jiang \cite{Jiang16}.
\\Let us first start with the following useful lemma

\begin{Lemma}\label{lemma1}
For any given  $(\pi,c) \in  \mathscr{A}_{e}$ , if there exists a RCLL adapted process $R^{x,\pi,c}$  such that
 \begin{itemize}
 \item $\forall (\pi,c) \in  \mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}  ; R_{T}^{x,\pi,c}:=\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\ln( X_{T}^{x,\pi,c})+{\displaystyle \int}_0^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi,c})du$
 \item $\forall (\pi,c) \in  \mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}  ; R^{x,\pi,c}$ is a $ g$-supermartingale;
 \item  There exists $(\pi^{*},c^{*}) \in \mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}$ such that $R^{ \pi^{*},c^*}$ is a $g$ -martingale,
 then $(\pi^{*},c^{*})$ is an optimal strategy to Problem (\ref{opt})
 \end{itemize}
\end{Lemma}
 \begin{proof}
 Proof. For given $t \in[0, T]$ and $(\hat{\pi},\hat{c}) \in \mathscr{A}_{e}$, we introduce $\tilde{\pi}_{u}=\pi_{u} I_{u \leq t}+\hat{\pi}_{u} I_{u>t}$, and $\tilde{c}_{u}=c_{u} I_{u \leq t}+\hat{c}_{u} I_{u>t}$ one can see that ($\tilde{\pi},\tilde{c}) \in \mathscr{A}_{e}$ and $X_{t}^{x,\tilde{\pi},\tilde{c}}=X_{t}^{x,\pi,c}$. Since $R^{e, \tilde{\pi}}$ is a $g$-supermartingale, we have
 \begin{align*}
 R_{t}^{x,\pi,c} & \geq {\cal E}_g[\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\Big(\ln( X_{T}^{x,\tilde{\pi},\tilde{c}})\Big)+{\displaystyle \int}_0^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (\tilde{c}_u X_{u}^{x,\tilde{\pi},\tilde{c}})du|{\cal F}_t]
 \\&={\cal E}_g\Big[\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\Big(\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi,c}\dfrac{X_{T}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})\Big)+{\displaystyle \int}_0^t \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi,c})du \\&
 +{\displaystyle \int}_t^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (\hat{c}_u  X_{t}^{x,\pi,c}\dfrac{X_{u}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})du|{\cal F}_t\Big]
 \end{align*}
 thus,
 \begin{align*}
 R_{t}^{x,\pi,c} & \geq \sup\limits_{(\hat{\pi},\hat{c})}{\cal E}_g\Big[\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi,c}\dfrac{X_{T}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})+{\displaystyle \int}_0^t \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi,c})du \\&
 +{\displaystyle \int}_t^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (\hat{c}_u  X_{t}^{x,\pi,c}\dfrac{X_{u}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})du|{\cal F}_t\Big]
 \end{align*}
 Furthermore, as for $(\pi^*,c^*); $ $R_{t}^{ \pi^{*}}$ is a $g$ -martingale,
\begin{align*}
 R_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*} & = {\cal E}_g\Big[\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}\dfrac{X_{T}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}}{X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}})+{\displaystyle \int}_0^t \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi^*,c^*})du \\&
 +{\displaystyle \int}_t^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c^*_u  X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}\dfrac{X_{u}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}}{X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}})du|{\cal F}_t\Big]
 \\ & \leq
  \sup\limits_{(\hat{\pi},\hat{c})}{\cal E}_g\Big[\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}\dfrac{X_{T}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})+{\displaystyle \int}_0^t \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi^*,c^*})du \\&
 +{\displaystyle \int}_t^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (\hat{c}_u  X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}\dfrac{X_{u}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})du|{\cal F}_t\Big]
 \end{align*}
 Thus
 \begin{align*}
 R_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*} & =
  \sup\limits_{(\hat{\pi},\hat{c})}{\cal E}_g\Big[\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}\dfrac{X_{T}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})+{\displaystyle \int}_0^t \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi^*,c^*})du \\&
 +{\displaystyle \int}_t^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (\hat{c}_u  X_{t}^{x,\pi^*,c^*}\dfrac{X_{u}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}}{X_{t}^{x,\hat{\pi},\hat{c}}})du|{\cal F}_t\Big]
 \end{align*}
 holds for each $t \in [0, T]$, and by taking $t = 0$, we know that $(\pi^*,c^*)$
 is an optimal strategy
 \end{proof}
We are now trying to build a family of processes $R^{x,\pi,c}$  which satisfies the conditions of the previous lemma. We assume in the sequel that the process $\delta$ is deterministic.
\\
We seek $R^{x,\pi,c}$ in the form
$$R_{t}^{x,\pi,c}:=\bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi,c})-Y_t\Big)+{\displaystyle \int}_0^t \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi,c})du$$
Where the process $Y$  satisfie a quadratic BSDE of the form
$$dY_t=\rho_t Y_t dt + f(t,Z_t)dt -Z_t dW_t\;\;\; Y_T=0$$
and $h$ is the solution of the ordinary Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{cauchypb}
\forall 0 \leq t \leq T; \bar{\alpha} h'(t)=\bar{\alpha}\delta_t h(t)-\alpha \;\; \text{and} \;\; h(T)=1.
\end{equation}
So that
$$h(t)=e^{-\int_t^T \delta_u du }+\dfrac{\alpha}{\bar{\alpha}} e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du }\int_t^Te^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds }du$$
Our goal now is to find the process $\rho$ and the function $f$ such that the process $R$ satisfies the conditions mentioned in the lemma (\ref{lemma1}).
\\
Using ito formula we have
\begin{align*}
dR_{t}^{x,\pi,c}&=\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(h'(t)-\delta_t h(t))\Big(\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi,c})-Y_t\Big)dt
\\&+\bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(\pi_t \sigma_{t}dW_{t}-\pi_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t}dt - c_tdt-\rho_t Y_t dt - f(t,Z_t)dt +Z_t dW_t)
\\&+\alpha e^{+\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_t) dt +\alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (X_{t}^{x,\pi,c}) dt
\\&=-\alpha e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\ln( X_{t}^{x,\pi,c})-Y_t\Big)dt
\\&+\bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(\pi_t \sigma_{t}dW_{t}-\pi_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t}dt - c_tdt-\rho_t Y_t dt - f(t,Z_t)dt +Z_t dW_t)
\\&+\alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_t) dt +\alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (X_{t}^{x,\pi,c}) dt
\end{align*}
To get rid of the term $Y_t dt$, we choose $\rho_t=\dfrac{\alpha}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} \forall 0\leq t \leq T.$ We obtain then
\begin{align*}
dR_{t}^{x,\pi,c}&= e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t) dt -\bar{\alpha}h(t)(\pi_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t} + c_t+ f(t,Z_t))dt\Big)
+\bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(\pi_t \sigma_{t}+Z_t)dW_{t}
\\&=e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)dt
-\bar{\alpha}h(t) e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\pi_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t} + f(t,\dfrac{e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du }}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}\tilde{Z}_t-\pi_t\sigma_t)\Big)dt
+\tilde{Z}_tdW_{t}
\end{align*}
Therefore $R^{x,\pi,c}$ is solution of the BSDE
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
d R_{t}^{x,\pi,c}=F(t,Z^{\pi,c}_t)dt+Z^{\pi,c}_tdW_{t}
 \\
R_{T}^{x,\pi,c}:=\bar{\alpha}e^{-\int_0^T \delta_u du }\ln( X_{T}^{x,\pi,c})+{\displaystyle \int}_0^T \alpha e^{-\int_0^u \delta_s ds } \ln (c_u X_{u}^{x,\pi,c})du.
\end{array}\right.
$$
Where
$$F(t,z)=e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)
-\bar{\alpha}h(t) e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\pi_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t} + f(t,\dfrac{e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du }}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}z-\pi_t\sigma_t)\Big)$$
we can choose $f$ such that:
$$ F(t,Z_t^{\pi,c}) \leq g \left(t, Z_t^{\pi,c}\right) \forall (\pi,c); P.a.s$$
with the equality is rached for some $(\pi^*,c^*) \in \mathscr{A} \times \mathscr{C}$
\\
It is sufficient that forall $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$; forall $(\pi,c)\in \mathscr{A}\times \mathscr{C}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)
-\bar{\alpha}h(t) e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\pi_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t} + f(t,\dfrac{e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du }}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}z-\pi_t\sigma_t)\Big)
 \leq g \left(t, z\right)\;\;\;  \mathbb{P}.a.s
\end{equation}

and there is at least $(\pi^*,c^*)$ such that forall $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\alpha  \ln (c^*_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c^*_t\Big)
-\bar{\alpha}h(t) e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\pi^*_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t} - f(t,\pi^*_t\sigma_t-\dfrac{e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du }}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}z)\Big)
 = g \left(t, z\right)\;\;\;  \mathbb{P}.a.s
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{eq1} ) implies that forall $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$; forall $\pi\in \mathscr{A}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\sup_{c\in \mathscr{C}}\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)
-\bar{\alpha}h(t) e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\pi_t \sigma_{t}\theta_{t} + f(t,\dfrac{e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du }}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}z-\pi_t\sigma_t)\Big)
 \leq g \left(t, z\right)\;\;\;  \mathbb{P}.a.s
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
$$\forall z, \forall \pi \in \mathscr{A}; f(t,z) \geq \frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} \left(e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\sup_{c\in \mathscr{C}}\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)- g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi_t\sigma_t)\right)\right)-\pi_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}\;\;\;  \mathbb{P}.a.s$$
and so
$$\forall z ; f(t,z) \geq \frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\sup_{c\in \mathscr{C}}\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)- \inf_{\pi \in \mathscr{A}}\left(\frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi_t\sigma_t)\right)+\pi_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}\right)\;\;\;  \mathbb{P}.a.s$$
The sets $$\{c \in \mathscr{C}; \alpha  \ln (c)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c \geq \alpha  \ln (\bar{c})  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)\bar{c}\}$$  and $$\{\pi \in \mathscr{A}; g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi\sigma)\right)+\pi \sigma \theta \leq g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \bar{\pi}\sigma)\right)+\bar{\pi} \sigma \theta\}$$
are $L^0-$ bounded. It follows from Theorem \textbf{4.4} in \cite{cheridito11} the existence of a pair $(\pi^*,c^*) \in \mathscr{A} \times \mathscr{C}$ such that
$$\inf_{\pi \in \mathscr{A}}g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi_t\sigma_t)\right)+\pi_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}=g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi^*_t\sigma_t)\right)+\pi^*_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}$$
and
$$\sup_{c\in \mathscr{C}}\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)=\alpha  \ln (c^*_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c^*_t$$

To achieve equation (\ref{eq2}) we must choose
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
\begin{split}
 f(t,z)& =
\frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\sup_{c\in \mathscr{C}}\Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big)- \inf_{\pi \in \mathscr{A}}\left(\frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi_t\sigma_t)\right)+\pi_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}\right)
\\
& =
 \frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} \left(e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\alpha  \ln (c^*_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c^*_t\Big)- g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi^*_t\sigma_t)\right)-\pi^*_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}\right)\;\;\;  \mathbb{P}.a.s
 \end{split}
\end{equation}
It remains to verify the measurability of the function $f$. We have the following lemma
\begin{Lemma}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f$ is is predictible process
\item There are a predictables processes  $c^*$ and $\pi^*$ such that
\begin{equation*}
 f(t,z)=
 \frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} \left(e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\Big(\alpha  \ln (c^*_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c^*_t\Big)- g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi^*_t\sigma_t)\right)-\pi^*_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}\right)\;\;\;  \mathbb{P}.a.s
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Lemma}
From the above we deduce the following result
\begin{Theorem}
The optimal value of the problem (\ref{opt}) is given by
$$V_0(x)=\bar{\alpha}h(0)\Big(\ln(x)-Y_0\Big)$$
Where $Y_.$ is the solution of the following BSDE
$$dY_t=\dfrac{\alpha}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} Y_t dt + f(t,Z_t)dt-Z_t dW_t\;\;;\; Y_T=0$$
The functions $h$ and  is respectively  given  by (\ref{cauchypb}) and (\ref{eq4}).
\\
Morover $(\pi^*,c^*)$  is an optimal admissible strategy if and only if
$$c^* \in \argmax_{c\in {\cal C}} \Big(\alpha  \ln (c_t)  -\bar{\alpha}h(t)c_t\Big) \;\;\; \text{and}  \;\;\;\pi^* \in \argmin_{\pi\in {\cal A}} g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi_t\sigma_t)\right)+\pi_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}$$
\end{Theorem}
\section{Example}

In this section we suppose that $h(x)=\dfrac{1}{2}\|x\|^2; \forall x \in \mathbb{R}^d$ which matches the entropic utility case. Then, we have $  h^*(x)=\dfrac{1}{2}\|x\|^2$ and therefore
$g(w,t,z)=\dfrac{1}{\beta }e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du} \|z\|^2$.
We also assume that $\dfrac{\alpha}{\bar{\alpha}h} \in {\cal C}$
\begin{Proposition}
The generator (\ref{eq4}) is given by
\begin{equation*}
 f(t,z) =
\frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)} e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(\alpha\ln(\dfrac{\alpha}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)})-\alpha)- \dfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\beta}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }d^2(z+\dfrac{\beta e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du } }{2\bar{\alpha} h(t) }\theta_t,\sigma {\cal A})-z_t\theta_t-\dfrac{\beta e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du } }{4\bar{\alpha} h(t) }\|\theta_t\|^2
\end{equation*}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 &\frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}h(t)}g \left(t, \bar{\alpha}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }(z+ \pi_t\sigma_t)\right)+\pi_t \sigma_{t} \theta_{t}
 \\&
 =\dfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\beta}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\|z+\pi_t\sigma_t\|^2+\pi_t\sigma_t\theta_t
 \\&
 =\dfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\beta}h(t)e^{-\int_0^t \delta_u du }\|z+\pi_t\sigma_t+\dfrac{\beta e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du } }{2\bar{\alpha} h(t) }\theta_t\|^2-z_t\theta_t-\dfrac{\beta e^{\int_0^t \delta_u du } }{4\bar{\alpha} h(t) }\|\theta_t\|^2
 \end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}

\newpage


\section{Introduction}
Recent advancements in deep learning research have yielded impressive results for many
Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks,
with text classification~\cite{kowsari2019text,otter2020survey} being no exception.
A popular application domain for text classification systems is social media, as it features
many high-stake use cases~\cite{minaee2021deep}.
Deep neural networks have been used for suicidal ideation detection and depression identification~\cite{sawhney2018exploring,tadesse2019detection}, analysing public perceptions of physical distancing interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak~\cite{raamkumar2020use}, and identification of modern slavery~\cite{Guzman2022RaFoLa:Labour}.

Their impressive performance can be attributed to two factors: on the one hand, conceptually simple general-purpose neural architectures that provide expressive contextualised embeddings optimised on large corpora \cite{Devlin2018} are readily available to be fine-tuned to a target application domain. On the other hand, the existence of these standardised approaches facilitates the development of benchmarks \cite{Thorne2018,rajpurkar2016squad,Wang2019,Wang2019a}, that allow us to perform scalable, automated and reproducible evaluation. This, in turn, fosters healthy competition, driven by advantages associated with developing approaches that perform best on these benchmarks, such as increased visibility in the research community  \cite{Linzen2020,Church2019AEvaluation}. In this setting, progress can naturally only be measured (and thus achieved) towards those objectives that are explicitly modelled with corresponding performance metrics as the target of evaluation. This development can be summarised with the proverb ``you reap what you sow'': providing the research community with a competitive and accessible benchmark that evaluates some metric \emph{A} will result in approaches that are explicitly optimised for \emph{A}, gradually pushing \emph{A}'s state-of-the-art measure.

The vast majority of popular benchmarks focus on intrinsic task performance only, reflected in metrics such as accuracy \cite{Ribeiro2020}.
This may explain more recent findings which suggest that evaluated approaches tend to overfit to these benchmarks by relying on spurious correlations in data in favour of reaching a high score, rather than successfully solving the represented task \cite{gururangan2018annotation}. This is evidenced by their moderate generalisation performance to examples drawn outside of a benchmark's distribution \cite{Schlegel2020a}, or their brittleness towards adversarial inputs \cite{Wallace2019}.
These objectives are of vital importance in real-world scenarios, however. For example, utilising a static dataset to evaluate a tool that detects misinformation on social media contradicts the fact that language use in social media changes over time \cite{eisenstein2014diffusion}, and contemporary events may lead to claims regarding completely new topics. Similarly, an automated tool should be robust to perturbations in the lexical form of how misinformation is conveyed.

Different solutions have been proposed to address these issues, such as ``training set-free benchmarks'' to prevent overfitting to benchmark data \cite{Linzen2020}, or adversarial challenge sets that evaluate the robustness of classifiers to out-of-distribution examples \cite{mccoy2019right}. We propose to take a complementary route and to focus on the capability of classifiers to explain their predictions. In the context of the present position paper, explainability refers to the process of revealing the inner workings behind a model prediction for a single input text \cite{gunning2019xai,danilevsky2020survey}. In contrast, interpretability refers to a characteristic of a model that makes its global logic easily understandable by end-users \cite{atanasova2020diagnostic}. We discuss why explanations are important, what makes explanations ``good'' and how their quality is evaluated and conclude with a set of specific research questions for combining human-grounded evaluation and large-scale objective evaluation in order to make these benchmarks reflective of real-world application scenarios.

\section{Why are Explanations Important?}
The first, perhaps more straightforward use case for explanations is their capability to contextualise predictions. Explanations are necessary for the current generation of state-of-the-art solutions to text classification problems, because
unlike other algorithms, such as those based on symbolic rules, e.g. decision trees, or human-interpretable features, it is not directly possible to predict the behaviour of a neural network-based classifier (the \emph{what}) or to explain it (the \emph{why}) by looking at its performed computations (the \emph{how}). Neural networks are agnostic to input data (e.g. the same algorithm can be used to classify text or detect cats in images); the properties of the resulting models are largely determined by the data they are optimised on. This is not necessarily a problem: if there is access to data that is fully representative of a well-defined task, as is the case with synthetic datasets \cite{Weston2015}, and a model that solves this task perfectly, one might argue that understanding its behaviour is secondary given the reliability of its performance.

As previously argued, this assumption appears to not hold for many text classification tasks due to the dynamic and compositional nature of language, and can be seen by the lack of out-of-distribution generalisation. In this scenario, an explanation can provide end-users the necessary context to trust or challenge the prediction \cite{Glass2008TowardAgents}. For example, a nonsensical explanation to a social media post classified as misinformation could hint at the fact that the prediction is wrong. In this context, explanations serve the same purpose as many other tools aimed at providing additional context, such as with model cards \cite{Mitchell2019ModelReporting}, behavioural testing suites \cite{Ribeiro2020} or interpretability methods \cite{Belinkov2019a}. Different from those, explanations are arguably the easiest to understand for end users as they do not require any technical knowledge.

Beyond their use as a diagnostic tool, explanations can help to evaluate the classifier itself. This is intuitive: being able to explain something is a sufficient but not necessary indicator to understand it---to explain something you need to understand it first and good performance on the harder task of producing a good explanation implies robust performance on the classification task. This intuition is supported by the  fact that jointly learning to both predict and explain, results in more robust classifiers that are less susceptible to weaknesses such as reliance on spurious correlations \cite{Rajagopal2020,Dua2020BenefitsComprehension,atanasova2020diagnostic,lei2016rationalizing}.

Therefore, objective and large-scale evaluation of classifiers' capabilities to produce explanations is desirable, and benchmarks that require approaches to explicitly optimise these capabilities, can contribute to the development of robust classifiers suitable for real-world applications. In the following sections we discuss why such benchmarks have yet to gain traction.

\section{What Makes a Good Explanation?}
Even in practical terms, what constitutes a valid explanation is an open question. On a high level, different desiderata for evaluating explanations have been proposed: \emph{plausibility}, or human-likeness describes whether humans are likely to be convinced by a machine-generated explanation. Put simply, an explanation is plausible if a majority of humans exposed to the explanation agree that it explains the prediction well.
Furthermore, \emph{faithfulness}, also referred to as fidelity, describes the extent to which explanations inform model predictions~\cite{ross2017right}, which is important, because a classifier's plausible explanation should in fact be reflected in its prediction.

Different approaches have been proposed for explaining the outcome of neural text classifiers. Explanations by example exemplify a classification by presenting most similar examples in the training data \cite{Han2020}. Counter-factual explanations, rooted in the causal reasoning framework \cite{hendricks2018generating,garg2019counterfactual} identify which parts of the input need to be changed in order to arrive at a different explanation. Scientific explanations aim to link the input to the predicted label via reasoning chains and background knowledge \cite{Jansen2018WorldTree:Anthology}, Finally, \emph{rationales} are text snippets that justify or warrant the predicted class.

In its simplest form, these are based on building connections between the input text and output labels and quantifying how much each element (words or \emph{n}-grams) contributes to the final prediction~\cite{atanasova2020diagnostic}. In the context of deep learning-based methods for text classification, these extractive post-hoc explanation methods commonly take the form of token-level importance scores~\cite{danilevsky2020survey}. While \textit{soft} scoring models assign soft weights to token representations, and so one can extract highly weighted tokens as explanations, \textit{hard} selection mechanisms discretely extract snippets from the input text as explanations~\cite{atanasova2020diagnostic,danilevsky2020survey}. Relaxing the requirement that rationales must be part of the input, free-form rationales take the form of short texts aimed at justifying the label \cite{liu2018towards}. These can be generated with Natural Language Generation approaches, such as Sequence-to-Sequence models \cite{costa2018automatic,rajani2019explain}.

\section{How is Explainability Evaluated?}
Concerning evaluation, there is little consensus on how to assess the quality of these explanations either for deployment or benchmarking~\cite{doshi2017towards}. Current evaluation approaches typically fall into two categories. The first uses some formal definition of explainability desiderata as a quantifiable proxy for explanation quality and requires no human experiments~\cite{nguyen2018comparing,carton2020evaluating}. The second evaluates explainability in the context of an application using human experiments either for the practical application or a simplified version of it~\cite{lertvittayakumjorn2019human,hase2020evaluating}.

\paragraph{Proxy-based Evaluation}
Model-generated explanations have typically been evaluated by automatic proxy measures of similarity with human explanations~\cite{hase2020evaluating}. In this context, the term ``proxy'' denotes that an objective metric is used to---perhaps imperfectly---represent a more abstract concept, such as plausibility. For the discrete case, researchers have measured agreement using phrase-matching metrics such as BLEU and MAXSIM~\cite{camburu2018snli,clinciu2021study}, Intersection-over-Union (IOU) on a token level to derive precision, recall and F1-scores~\cite{deyoung2019eraser}. Meanwhile, for soft token scoring models, some studies have used the Area Under the Precision-Recall curve (AUPRC) constructed by sweeping a threshold over token scores~\cite{samek2016evaluating}.

While these proxy metrics are suitable for automated and scalable evaluation, there is no guarantee that they represent human intuition well. At their core, these metrics are evaluating lexical overlap and might give unreasonably high scores when predicted rationales are lexically similar yet semantically different or unreasonably low scores in the converse case. For text generation tasks, this results in poor correlation between human ratings and scores under these metrics \cite{Wiseman2017ChallengesGeneration,Ma2019ResultsChallenges}. Additionally, for generated explanations, trivial baselines, such as input copying, may outperform bespoke approaches \cite{Krishna2021HurdlesAnswering}.

Furthermore, even though the evaluation metrics cited above provide a good starting point, they do not reveal model behaviour as they evaluate plausibility but not faithfulness~\cite{hase2020leakage,carton2020evaluating}, because they do not reveal whether the produced explanations actually informs the classifier's prediction. Despite the fact that the best way to measure explanation faithfulness for text classification remains an open question, most researchers investigating it have defined that a faithful explanation should have high sufficiency and comprehensiveness~\cite{deyoung2019eraser}. Sufficiency measures how well explanations can provide nearly the same prediction as the whole input text, while comprehensiveness assesses how well machine-generated explanations include all relevant tokens~\cite{liu2018towards}

More recently, literature presenting contradictory findings of using proxy-based metrics for evaluating machine-generated explanations, has emerged \cite{carton2020evaluating,lertvittayakumjorn2019human}. Previous research has established that human explanations do not necessarily have high sufficiency and comprehensiveness, suggesting they may not be treated as ground truth baselines~\cite{carton2020evaluating}.

The issue has grown in importance in light of recent evidence that indicates that automated metrics are highly model-dependent, which makes it challenging to compare explanations from different text classification models~\cite{clinciu2021study}. Moreover, metrics for assessing explanation faithfulness are unstable compared to model performance. For instance, sufficiency and comprehensiveness may continue to fluctuate significantly even when model accuracy has stabilised~\cite{carton2020evaluating}.

\paragraph{Human-grounded Evaluation}
With a concrete application in mind, the best way to assess model explanations is to evaluate them for the specific task. If such evaluation with end-users is not feasible, simpler human-subject experiments may be a good alternative if they maintain the essence of the target application.

To date, several studies have begun to examine the use of human-grounded evaluation methods to assess explanation quality for NLP applications~\cite{mohseni2018human,nguyen2018comparing,lertvittayakumjorn2019human,mohseni2021quantitative}. Together, these studies indicate that human experiments can help to evaluate whether explanations can expose irrational behaviour of a text classifier, e.g. the exploitation of dataset-specific spurious correlations~\cite{lertvittayakumjorn2019human}, assess whether explanations are faithful concerning the predicted class~\cite{mohseni2018human,mohseni2021quantitative} or to investigate uncertain predictions~\cite{lertvittayakumjorn2019human}. Human-centred experiments can also help to measure the users' understanding of explanations, establish the usefulness of explanations for a specific task \cite{Paleja2021TheTeaming}, and assess user-reported trust as a proxy for explanation goodness \cite{lertvittayakumjorn2019human,lage2019human,kocielnik2019will}.

\section{How to Benchmark Explainability
We have reviewed the challenges of evaluating text classification systems robustly, objectively and at scale. Objective evaluation is exacerbated by spurious correlations in static benchmarks and changing requirements between training data and real-world application scenarios. To detect and alleviate these issues, we propose to expand text classification benchmarks by a harder task, \textbf{explanation reconstruction}. This forms a sufficient requirement for successful text classification, while doing so ``for the right reasons'', rather than relying on superficial heuristics and shortcuts. Specifically, we discuss the tasks of rationale extraction and generation as conceptually simple yet flexible candidates. In this section, we outline the necessary steps to transition from performance-focussed benchmark suites to those that explicitly evaluate explainability.

In the \textbf{short-term}, we argue that rationales need to be incorporated into large-scale classification benchmarks. Conceptually, both generating and extracting rationales are well-explored supervised learning tasks (natural language generation and span extraction, respectively), so any classification benchmarks and classifiers they evaluate can be feasibly enriched by these tasks.
\emph{For new benchmarks}, required training and evaluation data can be collected by crowd-workers during annotation for the main task due to the conceptual simplicity of rationales, as they do not require additional knowledge, such as a training set to draw analogies from or additional resources to form reasoning chains. In other words, providing a justification does not significantly increase the cognitive load of annotators, because they already perform this task when choosing the correct label, albeit implicitly \cite{Zaidan2007UsingAnthology}.
\emph{For existing benchmarks}, rationale annotations can be gathered post-publication \cite{Dua2019a}.

Evaluation of explainability in such benchmarks can be carried out with the existing proxy-based metrics based on overlap with human-annotated rationales.

In the \textbf{longer term}, however, proxy-based metrics only reflect general desiderata of explainability \cite{lertvittayakumjorn2019human}, and are not aimed at establishing the \emph{usefulness} of produced explanations. By usefulness we mean the level of utility an explanation brings in addition to the raw prediction, when supporting decision-making. For example, a human might report an explanation to a misleading claim to be plausible and faithful. However, this is not necessarily reflective of whether the same human would refrain from sharing the claim on social media.
Thus, to better reflect real-world human-centred applications in benchmarks, requirements for valid explanations for different tasks and for different user groups need to be gathered. As argued previously, human-centred experiments are best to establish and repesent these requirements.
Unfortunately, these evaluation methods do not exhibit any of the features that make benchmarks popular: Due to the human involvement they are not automated, and they might not be easily scalable and reproducible due to the effort required. Every newly developed approach will require a costly re-run of the human-centred evaluation.

With the need of objective explanation evaluation and in light of  the challenges associated with existing proxy-based approaches, we propose to develop evaluation metrics based on task-specific signals provided by humans, effectively simulating expensive human-centred experiments. We propose three possible ways to achieve and highlight associated practical questions that need to be considered.

\emph{Gamification:} Gamification (``Beat the AI'') or dynamic benchmarks have been  proposed more recently to combat the reliance on dataset-specific artefacts in static benchmarks \cite{Nie2019,Kiela2021Dynabench:NLP,Wallace2019TrickAnswering}. In these settings, examples would only be accepted if they can ``fool'' some pre-trained classifier to produce the wrong label, while the majority of humans would still annotate the correct one. The game-like nature of the annotation task provides additional motivation, at least in the short term \cite{Hamari2014DoesGamification}.
Similarly, this annotation paradigm can be extended to continuously evaluate explanations generated by optimised models, for example by accepting only those challenging examples, where an explanation generated by a system would be voted as low-quality by majority of human annotators, effectively serving as a human-in-the-loop explanation benchmark.

\emph{Learned explainability evaluation metrics:} More recently, overlap-based metrics have been complemented by embedding-based metrics in an effort to improve the correlation between automatically measured and human-judged quality of generated text \cite{Zhang2019BERTScore:BERT,Sellam2020BLEURT:Generation}. Similar metrics can be developed to directly learn plausibility, faithfulness or usefulness of explanations based on human judgements, effectively approximately replicating human-centred experiments. Predicting these scores directly given an explanation, has the further advantage that explanations can potentially be evaluated \emph{without gold standard reference explanations}. However, it is worth investigating, whether the learned explainability metrics generalise beyond the training/evaluation data or whether the metrics themselves are susceptible to spurious correlations. Finally, overlap-based metrics have the advantage of being interpretable. It is unclear whether this property is desired from learned metrics.

\emph{Use of Social Media:} Finally, the dynamics of social media can be helpful to approximate how \emph{useful} or convincing generated explanations are. \citet{Zellers2020EvaluatingUse} post machine-generated explanations to the \textsc{RedditAdvice} forum and approximate their usefulness by the number of ``upvotes'' received. Similarly, researchers can expose generated explanations to the public by making use other fora that have voting, liking or sharing mechanisms. For example, the utility of fact verification tools can be approximated by automatically identifying misleading tweets and commenting with generated explanations why they are misleading. Different explanation methods can then be compared by the number of retweets they can accumulate or by how much they manage to dampen the expected spread of the original claim. Studies like these will need to consider the trade-off between impartiality and potential harm. On the one hand prefacing generated explanations with the fact that they are machine-generated can have an impact on evaluation, while on the other hand, ``incorrect explanations'' could cause harm.

We hope this position paper will contribute to the ongoing dialogue around incorporating human-centred, application-grounded scalable evaluation of explainability capabilities into predominantly performance-based benchmarking of text classification approaches. This will contribute to the development of robust benchmarks that are not easily exploitable firstly, and secondly, are more representative of humans' needs in real-world scenarios.

\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank the reviewers for their feedback. This work was partially funded
by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation action programme, via the AI4Media Open Call \#1 issued and executed under the AI4Media project (Grant Agreement no. 951911).

\section{Approaches}

Two main approaches for evaluating the quality of machine-generated rationales:

\begin{itemize}
    \item Agreement with human rationales
    \item Automated metrics
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Agreement with human rationales}
Metrics for measuring agreement with human rationales (plausibility):

\begin{itemize}
    \item Hard selection (discrete rationale selection):
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Intersection-over-Union (on a token level) and F1 scores.
            \item Phrase-matching metrics (e.g. BLEU, MAXSIM)
        \end{itemize}
    \item Soft selection (token scoring models):
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Area under the Precision-Recall curve (AUPRC) constructed by sweeping a threshold over token scores
        \end{itemize}
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Automated metrics}
Automated metrics based on how rationales affect model behaviour:

\begin{itemize}
    \item Sufficiency: Do the extracted rationales contain enough signal to come to a disposition?
    \item Comprehensiveness: Were all features needed to make a prediction selected?
\end{itemize}

\section{Challenges}
Challenges for evaluating the quality of machine-generated rationales:

\begin{itemize}
    \item Automated metrics are highly model-dependent, making it difficult to compare different models.
    \item Automated metrics are unstable compared to model performance (e.g. Even when accuracy stabilises, sufficiency and comprehensiveness may continue to fluctuate significantly).
    \item Ground truth baselines (human rationales) do not necessarily have high sufficiency and comprehensiveness, suggesting they may not be treated as gold standards.
    \item While human subject experiments are a valuable complement to automatic evaluations, it is expensive to conduct sufficiently large-scale studies.
    \item People's preconceived notions might impair their ability to simulate the models accurately. These notions might also bias performance for different people.
    \item Plausibility and Faithfulness trade-off. When people evaluate explanations, they can determine whether they match their intuition, but it is not easy to assess if the highlighted words are responsible for the model's prediction.
\end{itemize}

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}

The measurement of the 2S-2P energy splitting in muonic hydrogen by the CREMA collaboration
with $10^{-5}$ relative accuracy~\cite{Pohl:2010zza,Antognini:2013txn} started the
so-called ``proton radius puzzle'', as the then accepted value from electron-proton scattering
was significantly larger, see e.g. \cite{A1:2013fsc}, contrasting the ``small radius'' $r_E^p \simeq
0.84\,$fm with the ``large'' one,  $r_E^p \simeq 0.88\,$fm. This stirred lots of activities, both on the
experimental as well as on the theoretical side, see e.g. the recent reviews~\cite{Karr:2020wgh,Gao:2021sml}.
However, as I will show in this talk, the dispersion-theoretical analysis of the $ep$ scattering
data and the available data for the form factors from data in the timelike region always led
to the small radius and continues to do so. In fact, the radius puzzle was anticipated in 2007 in
Ref.~\cite{Belushkin:2006qa}, where it was shown that the DR analysis of $ep$ scattering
could not accommodate the then accepted radius from the Lamb shift in electronic hydrogen of
$r_E^p =0.88-0.89\,$fm.
Without going into further details of this intriguing story, that is, without telling about all
the twists and turns (or: confusions and errors) that appeared over time, I will  illuminate some
developments that were not appreciated by large parts of the community for a long time. More precisely,
what I will show here is that the
powerful approach of dispersion relations (DRs), that allows one to include all possible physics constraints,
is arguably the best method to analyze the data that are sensitive to the nucleons electromagnetic
form factors and thus the various sizes of the nucleon as given by the electric and magnetic radii of the
proton and the neutron.

\section{Formalism}
\label{sec:form}

First, let me define  the nucleon electromagnetic form factors. For the
dispersive analysis it is mandatory to consider protons and neutrons together,
for details see the review~\cite{Lin:2021umz}. These form factors are given
by the matrix element of the electromagnetic current $j_\mu^{\rm em}$ sandwiched between
nucleon states,
\begin{equation}
\langle p' | j_\mu^{\rm em} | p \rangle = \bar{u}(p')
\left[ F_1 (t) \gamma_\mu +i\frac{F_2 (t)}{2 m} \sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu \right] u(p)\,,
\end{equation}
with $m$ the nucleon mass (either proton or neutron), $u(p)$ a conventional nucleon
spinor and $t=(p'-p)^2$  the four-momentum
transfer squared. In the space-like region, one often
uses the variable $Q^2=-t>0$.
The form factors are normalized as
$F_1^p(0) = 1\,$,  $F_1^n(0) = 0\,$, $F_2^p(0) =  \kappa_p\,$ and $F_2^n(0) = \kappa_n\,$,
with $\kappa_p=1.793$ and $\kappa_n=-1.913$ the anomalous magnetic moment of
the proton and the neutron, respectively. Also used are the Sachs (electric and magnetic) form factors,
given by $G_{E}(t) = F_1(t) - \tau F_2(t)$, $G_{M}(t) = F_1(t) + F_2(t)$,
with $\tau = -t/(4 m^2)$. The proton charge radius and the corresponding magnetic
radius follow as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rp}
 (r_E^p)^2 = 6 \frac{dG_p^E(t)}{dt}\Big|_{t=0}~, \quad  (r_M^p)^2 = \frac{6}{\mu_p} \frac{dG_p^M(t)}{dt}\Big|_{t=0}~,
\end{equation}
with $\mu_p=1+\kappa_p$. The neutron radii are defined similarly, note, however, that $G_E^n(0) = 0$.

Next, we turn to the dispersive analysis of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors.
For a generic form factor $F(t)$, one writes down an unsubtracted dispersion
relation of the form:
\begin{equation}
F(t) = \frac{1}{\pi} \, \int_{t_0}^\infty \frac{{\rm Im}\,
F(t')}{t'-t-i\epsilon}\, dt'\, .
\label{eq:disp}
\end{equation}
Here, $t_0$ is the threshold of the lowest cut of $F(t)$ and the $i\epsilon$ defines the
integral for values of $t$ on the cut. In fact, in the isospin basis, $t_0 = 4M_\pi^2$ in the
isovector and $t_0 = 9M_\pi^2$ in the isoscalar channel, respectively. The imaginary part ${\rm Im}\, F$,
the so-called {\em spectral function}, encodes the constraints from analyticity and unitarity besides
other important physics.
These spectral functions are given in terms of continua, narrow vector
meson poles as well as broad vector mesons. In the isovector case, the spectral function can
be reconstructed up to about $t \simeq 1\,$GeV$^2$ from data on pion-nucleon scattering and
the pion vector form factor, as pioneered in Ref.~\cite{Frazer:1959gy}
and most precisely done in Ref.~\cite{Hoferichter:2016duk}. This
in fact not only generates the $\rho$-meson but also an important enhancement on the left
shoulder of the $\rho$, that is of utmost importance to properly describe the nucleon isovector
radii~\cite{Hohler:1974eq}.
In the isoscalar spectral function, the $\omega$-meson represents the lowest contribution. It is not
affected by uncorrelated three-pion exchange~\cite{Bernard:1996cc}.
Further up, in the region of the $\phi$-meson, there
is a strong competition between $K\bar{K}$ and $\pi\rho$ effects, which to some extent suppresses
this part of the spectral function. For momenta above $t \simeq 1\,$GeV$^2$, effective narrow poles
represent the physics at higher energies. To describe the observed oscillations
of the cross sections for $e^+e^-\to p\bar{p}$ and $e^+e^-\to n\bar{n}$  in the timelike region,
additional broad poles are required. The spectral functions are further constrained by the
normalizations of the form factors as well as the perturbative QCD behavior,
$F_1 (t) \sim 1/t^2$ and $F_2(t) \sim 1/t^3$.  A cartoon of the spectral functions is
given in Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering\includegraphics*[width=0.75\linewidth,angle=0]{specF.jpg}~~~~~
\caption{\label{fig:spec}Sketch of the isoscalar (left) and isovector (right) spectral function.
In the left panel, the $\omega$ and $\phi$ mesons are relevant together with the  $\pi\rho$ and $K\bar{K}$ continua,
while $s_1, s_2, ...$ are narrow and $S_1, S_2, ...$ are broad effective poles. In the right panel,
the $\pi\pi$ continuum not only generates the $\rho$ but is also visibly enhanced on the left shoulder of the $\rho$.
Further,  $v_1, v_2, v_3, ...$ are narrow and $V_1, ...$ are  broad effective poles.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}

The spectral functions are determined from a fit to the world data set on electron-proton scattering
as well as the reactions $e^+e^- \leftrightarrow \bar{p}p, \bar{n}n$, the latter giving the form factors
in the timelike region. The fit parameters are the vector meson masses (except for the $\omega$
and the $\phi$) and the residua as well as the widths for the broad poles. There are two sources
of uncertainties that need to be accounted for. First, the statistical error is obtained using
a bootstrap procedure and second, the systematic error is calculated from varying the number
of vector meson poles so that the total $\chi^2$ does not change by more than 1\%~\cite{Hohler:1976ax}.
A detailed description of these methods is given in the review~\cite{Lin:2021umz}.

\section{Results for the form factors}

Fitting to the world data basis of data in the spacelike and the timelike regions (about 1800 data points),
the form factors are obtained with good precision. Details of these fits are given in Ref.~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}.
The electric and magnetic form factors of the proton in the spacelike region from Ref.~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}
normalized to the canonical dipole form, $G_{\rm dip}(Q^2) = (1+Q^2/0.71\,{\rm GeV}^2)^{-2}$, are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Gp} together with their statistical and systematic uncertainties. It is interesting to note that
the form factor ratio $\mu_p G_E^p(Q^2)/G_M^p(Q^2)$ measured at Jefferson Lab seems to level off with
increasing momentum transfer, somewhat disfavoring a zero crossing. To settle this issues certainly requires
more measurements extending to $Q^2 \simeq 10\,$GeV$^2$.
Predictions for the upcoming PRad-II experiment at Jefferson Lab are made in Ref.~\cite{Lin:2021cnk}.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics*[width=0.45\linewidth,angle=0]{gepgdip.pdf}~~~~
\includegraphics*[width=0.45\linewidth,angle=0]{gmpgdip.pdf}
\caption{Electric (left panel) and magnetic (right panel) form factor of the proton
  from Ref.~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}
  divided by the canonical dipole form factor are shown by the red lines. The light red band is the
  statistical uncertainty and the purple band shows the systematic error added in quadrature. }
\label{fig:Gp}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}

The form factors in the timelike region are complex-valued quantities. In most experiments,
the modulus of the effective form factor $|G_{\rm eff}(t)|$ is extracted, which is a linear
combination of $|G_E(t)|$ and $|G_M(t)|$, see e.g.~\cite{Lin:2021umz,Pacetti:2014jai} for definitions.
There are clearly visible oscillations, which in the DR approach are generated by the interference
of the broad poles. However, there are other mechanisms proposed to generate such structures,
see e.g. Refs.~\cite{Bianconi:2015owa,Bianconi:2015vva,Lorenz:2014yda,Tomasi-Gustafsson:2020vae,Yang:2022qoy}.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics*[width=0.45\linewidth,angle=0]{tlpff.pdf}~~~~
\includegraphics*[width=0.45\linewidth,angle=0]{tlnff.pdf}
\caption{Oscillations in the  proton  (left panel) and neutron (right panel) effective form factor
  in the timelike region from the complete fit to all data~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}. Closed symbols are
  fitted and open symbols are not fitted. The complete data basis is given in Ref.~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}.}
\label{fig:Gosc}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}

\section{Results for the radii}

From the just discussed form factors, the extracted proton radii are~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}
\begin{equation}
r_E^p = 0.840^{+0.003}_{-0.002}{}^{+0.002}_{-0.002}~{\rm fm}~, ~~~
r_M^p = 0.849^{+0.003}_{-0.003}{}^{+0.001}_{-0.004}~{\rm fm}~,
\end{equation}
where the first error is statistical and the second one systematic. This value of the proton
charge radius is consistent with recent experimental determination as shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:rEp}
and the present CODATA value of $0.8414(19)\,$fm. Other recent determinations of the proton charge
radius give $r_E^p = 0.842(10)\,$fm ~\cite{Alarcon:2020kcz}, $0.847(8)\,$fm~\cite{Cui:2021vgm} and
$0.852(9)\,$fm~\cite{Atac:2021} and for the magnetic radius  $r_M^p = 0.850(10)\,$fm ~\cite{Alarcon:2020kcz},
$0.739(41)\,$fm~\cite{Borah:2020gte} and $0.817(27)\,$fm~\cite{Cui:2021skn}. For more discussion on
these determinations, see Ref.~\cite{Lin:2021umk}. As further shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}, the
proton charge and magnetic radius have been rather stable since the 1976 Karlsruhe DR \cite{Hohler:1976ax},
with $r_M^p > r_E^p$ always.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=32pc]{compDR_p.jpg
\caption{\label{fig:comp}DR determinations of the proton charge radius (left panel) and the
  proton magnetic radius (right panel). Also shown are the CREMA result and the CODATA 2018 value for $r_E^p$.
  Values are in [fm]. References from top to bottom:
  \cite{Antognini:2013txn,Tiesinga:2021myr,Lin:2021xrc,Lin:2021umk,Lorenz:2014yda,Lorenz:2012tm,Belushkin:2006qa,Hammer:2003ai,Mergell:1995bf,Hohler:1976ax}.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
  \caption{Recent determination of the proton charge radius from the electronic Lamb shift
  in hydrogen (H) and $ep$ scattering compared to the most recent DR result.\label{tab:rEp}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$r^p_E$ [fm] & year &  method & Ref. \\
\hline
0.877(13)  & 2018 & H Lamb shift &\cite{Fleurbaey:2018fih}\\
0.833(10)  & 2019 & H Lamb shift &\cite{Bezginov:2019mdi}\\
0.8482(38) & 2020 & H Lamb shift &\cite{Grinin:2020}\\
0.8584(51) & 2021 & H Lamb shift &\cite{Brandt:2021yor}\\
\hline
0.831(7)(12) & 2019& $ep$ scattering & \cite{Xiong:2019umf}\\
\hline
0.840(3)(2) & 2022& DR & \cite{Lin:2021xrc}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table}

Let me now consider the neutron radii. The charge radius squared is used as input in most DR analyses,
with the exception of Ref.~\cite{Belushkin:2006qa}, where it was also extracted (and came out consistent
with other determinations). In the most
recent analysis, the precise value extracted from $ed$ scattering using chiral nuclear EFT was used,
$(r_E^n)^2 = -0.105^{+0.005}_{-0.006}\,$fm$^2$~\cite{Filin:2020tcs}. The extracted magnetic radius for the
neutron is
\begin{equation}
r_M^n = 0.864^{+0.004}_{-0.004}{}^{+0.006}_{-0.001}~{\rm fm}~.
\end{equation}
The uncertainties are a bit larger than for the proton, but in any case, the neutron magnetic
radius is the largest of all, $r_M^n >r_M^p > r_E^p$, and it has been equally constant over
time as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rnm}. For comparison, Ref.~\cite{Borah:2020gte} gives
$r_M^n = 0.878(79)$~fm. I mention that the bump-dip structure seen at low $Q^2$ in $G_M^n(Q^2)$ in
some form factor extractions is inconsistent with the strictures from analyticity and unitarity, as such
a structure would require a vector meson with a mass of about 400~MeV that is excluded by the spectral
functions shown above.

\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=18pc]{compDR_n.pdf}\hspace{2pc}%
\begin{minipage}[b]{16pc}\caption{\label{fig:rnm}Extraction of the neutron magnetic radius
    $r_M^n$ in units of fm  based on dispersion-theoretical analyses since 1976. References
  as in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}.}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Finally, it is interesting to compare the DR results with recent lattice QCD determinations.
In Tab.~\ref{tab:lat}, the isovector radii are displayed as these are free of disconnected diagrams.
Only simulations at the physical pion mass are considered. While the isovector electric
radius appears to converge to the DR result, the situation is less clear in the isovector magnetic case.
Clearly, more precise lattice studies need to be performed.

\begin{table}[h]
  \caption{Recent determination of the nucleon isovector radii from lattice QCD simulations with
    physical pion masses. \label{tab:lat}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
                   &  $r_E^V$ [fm]   &  $r_M^V$ [fm] \\
\hline
DR ~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}         &  0.900(2)(2)    &   0.854(1)(3)  \\
\hline
Lattice/Mainz (2021) \cite{Djukanovic:2021cgp}  &  0.894(14)(12)  &   0.813(18)(7) \\
Lattice/ETMC  (2020) \cite{Alexandrou:2020aja} &  0.827(47)(5)    &    ----       \\
Lattice/PACS  (2019) \cite{Shintani:2018ozy} &  0.785(17)(21)  &   0.758(33)(286) \\
Lattice/MIT   (2018) \cite{Hasan:2017wwt} &  0.787(87)      &    ----        \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}

\section{Remarks on the hyperfine-spitting in leptonic hydrogen}

Laser spectroscopy of muonic hydrogen ($\mu$H), an atom formed by a negatively charged
muon and a proton, represents an excellent pathway to investigate low-energy properties of the proton.
While the 2S-2P energy splitting is sensitive to electric properties of the proton as the
proton charge radius as discussed before, the hyperfine splitting (HFS) is sensitive also to magnetic properties of
the proton as it arises from the interaction between the proton and muon magnetic moments.
For recent reviews, see Refs.~\cite{Peset:2021iul,Antognini:2022xoo}.
For the HFS, the leading proton structure contribution is given by the two-photon-exchange
contribution $\Delta E^{2\gamma} $, which is conventionally divided into a Zemach radius
contribution $\Delta_Z^{\mu{\rm H}}$, a recoil contribution $\Delta_\mathrm{recoil}^{\mu{\rm H}}$ and a
polarizability contribution $\Delta_\mathrm{pol}^{\mu{\rm H}}$
\cite{Carlson:2008ke,Carlson:2011af,Tomalak:2017lxo,Tomalak:2017owk,Faustov:2006ve,Hagelstein:2015egb}.
The Zemach contribution $\Delta_Z^{\mu{\rm H}}$ that accounts for the elastic part of the two-photon exchange
contribution can be expressed through the electric  and  magnetic  Sachs form factors
of the proton~\cite{Zemach:1956zz}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Zemach}
\Delta_Z  =-2Z\alpha m_r  \, r_\mathrm{Z}^p~, \quad
r_\mathrm{Z}^p = - \frac{4}{\pi} \int_0^\infty \frac{dQ}{Q^2}
  \left[\frac{G_E^p(Q^2) G_M^p(Q^2) }{1+\kappa_p} -1\right]~,
\end{equation}
where $Z$ is the atomic number, $\alpha = e^2/(4\pi)$ the electromagnetic fine-structure constant,
$\mu_r$ the reduced mass of the lepton-proton system and $r_\mathrm{Z}^p$ is the Zemach radius.
The so-called recoil contribution, which more precisely is the recoil correction to
the Zemach contribution, can also be described solely by form factors. In addition to
the Sachs form factors in this case also the Dirac and Pauli form factors enter~\cite{Antognini:2022xoo}:
\begin{eqnarray}
  \Delta_\mathrm{recoil} &=&\frac{Z \alpha}{\pi (1+\kappa_p)}\int_0^\infty \frac{dQ}{Q}
  \Bigg\{\frac{G_M^p(Q^2)}{Q^2}\frac{8m_l m_p}{v_l+ v_p} \left(2F_1^p(Q^2)+\frac{F_1^p(Q^2)
    +3F_2^p(Q^2)}{(v_l+1)(v_p+1)}
  \right)\nonumber\\ &&-\frac{8m_r G_M^p(Q^2)G_E^p(Q^2)}{Q}-\frac{m_l (F_2^p)^2(Q^2)}{m_p}
  \frac{5+4v_l}{(1+v_l)^2}\Bigg\}~,
  \label{Deltarecoilintegrand}
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_p=(1+4m_p^2/Q^2)^{1/2}$, $v_l= (1+4m_l^2/Q^2)^{1/2}$ and $m_p \,(m_l)$ is the proton (lepton) mass.
A precise evaluation of $\Delta_\mathrm{recoil}^{\mu{\rm H}}$
is timely given the ongoing experimental efforts carried out by three collaborations
that aim at the HFS in $\mu$H~\cite{Amaro:2021goz, Kanda:2020mmc, Pizzolotto:2020fue}
with relative accuracies ranging from 1 to 10~ppm.

Based on the form factors from~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}, the Zemach radius is:
\begin{equation}
r_Z^p = 1.054^{+0.003}_{-0.002}{}^{+0.000}_{-0.001}\,{\rm fm}~,
\end{equation}
which is compared to earlier determinations in Fig.~\ref{fig:rZ}.

\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=20pc]{zemachradius.pdf}\hspace{2pc}%
\begin{minipage}[b]{16pc}\caption{\label{fig:Zr}Extraction of the Zemach radius (in units of fm)
    from various methods ($ep$ scattering, electronic hydrogen and muonic hydrogen).
    References from top to bottom:
    \cite{Lin:2021xrc,Borah:2020gte,Antognini:2013txn,Distler:2010zq,Brodsky:2004ck,Volotka:2004zu,Friar:2003zg,Dupays:2003zz}.\label{fig:rZ}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Consider now the calculation of the recoil correction defined in Eq.~(\ref{Deltarecoilintegrand})
using the  form factors from~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}. For the $\mu$H system, this gives~\cite{Antognini:2022xqf}
\begin{equation}
  \Delta_\mathrm{recoil}^{\mu{\rm H}} =  (837.6^{+1.7}_{-1.0}{}^{+2.2}_{-0.1}) \times 10^{-6}
  = (837.6^{+2.8}_{-1.0})  \times 10^{-6} = (837.6^{+2.8}_{-1.0})~{\rm ppm}~,
\end{equation}
with the first/second error is the statistical/systematic uncertainty. These
errors are a few per~mille, so that this
can be considered as a high-precision determination. Compared with the most recent value
from Ref.~\cite{Tomalak:2017lxo}, $\Delta_\mathrm{recoil}^{\mu{\rm H}} = 844(7) \times 10^{-6}$,
these numbers agree  within errors but the new result is more precise.
The analogous value for regular hydrogen ($e$H) is~\cite{Antognini:2022xqf}
\begin{equation}
  \Delta_\mathrm{recoil}^{e\rm H} =   (526.9^{+1.1}_{-0.3}{}^{+1.3}_{-0.2}) \times 10^{-8}
  = (526.9^{+1.7}_{-0.4}) \times 10^{-8}~,
\end{equation}
which is, as expected, two orders of magnitude smaller but with comparable
uncertainties as in the $\mu$H case.  Again, the corresponding value from
Ref.~\cite{Tomalak:2017lxo}, $\Delta_\mathrm{recoil}^{e\rm H} = 532.8(4.9)\times 10^{-8}$,
is about 1\% larger but is also a bit less precise. For further discussion, see Ref.~\cite{Antognini:2022xqf}.

\section{Remarks on muon-proton scattering}

Elastic muon-proton scattering at low momentum transfers offers an alternative
method to measure the proton charge radius $r_E^p$. Any deviation from the value measured
in $ep$ scattering would challenge the concept
of lepton-flavor universality, which is a cornerstone of the so successful Standard Model of particle
physics, that was put into question in recent experiments on certain decay modes of B mesons.
There are experiments that are pursuing such proton radius measurements, namely MUSE
at PSI \cite{Downie:2014qna} and AMBER at CERN \cite{Adams:2018pwt}. Both experiments were
triggered by the abovementioned proton radius discrepancy. In Ref.~\cite{Kaiser:2022pso}
the radiative corrections to $\mu^\mp p$ scattering specifically
for the kinematics of the AMBER experiment, which operates with a high-energetic muon beam at $100\,$GeV
and measures in near forward directions, thus spanning the momentum transfers  $32\,$MeV$\,< Q < 141\,$MeV,
were worked out. This momentum transfer range  nicely overlaps with the range of the
upcoming MUSE experiment at PSI with $45\,$MeV$\, < Q< 265$~MeV,
the PRAD-II experiment at Jefferson Lab for $e^-p$ scattering with $14\,$MeV$\, < Q
< 245$~MeV~\cite{PRad:2020oor} as well as the MAGIC $e^-p$ experiment at Mainz, that aims at a
momentum range $10\,$MeV$\,<Q<292$~MeV~\cite{Denig:2016tpq}.
The AMBER experiment intends to measure the proton radius with an accuracy of better than $0.01$~fm,
which requires a detailed study of the radiative corrections to be able to achieve such an accuracy.
For related work on radiative corrections to $\mu p$ scattering,
see Refs.~\cite{Tomalak:2015hva,Tomalak:2018jak,Peset:2021iul}.

\begin{figure}[t!]\centering
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fullcorr100}~~~
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fullcorr50}
\caption{Radiative corrections for the AMBER kinematics with $E_1=100\,$GeV (left panel)
  and $E_1=50\,$GeV (right panel). The individual
  radiative corrections from vacuum polarization, the virtual photon-loops and soft bremsstrahlung are
  shown together with their sum, see the solid line labeled ``total''.}
\label{fig:radcorr100}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}

Based on earlier works~\cite{Kaiser:2010zz,Kaiser:2016tbf}, Ref.~\cite{Kaiser:2022pso} provided an
update on the radiative corrections for the AMBER experiment based on the high-precision
form factors from~\cite{Lin:2021xrc}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:radcorr100} the radiative corrections from all
sources of order $\alpha/\pi$ for the planned AMBER experiment with a muon beam energy of $E_1 =100\,$GeV
and for $E_1=50\,$GeV are shown,  assuming an infrared cutoff of $\lambda =20\,$MeV. At small
momentum transfers $Q/M \lesssim 0.06$, vacuum polarization is the most dominant effect, because it
is driven by the
electron mass scale. After that, the soft-photon radiation takes over, with a sizable contribution
(of $2\%$) from the photon-loop form factor $2F_1^{\gamma-{\rm fin}}$, involving the muon mass scale,
at the upper end of the momentum transfers considered here. The negative photon-loop form factor
contribution from the proton stays below $0.4\%$ in magnitude, and the two-photon exchange
correction of maximal size $0.3\cdot 10^{-4}$ can essentially be neglected.
It can be seen that for the ratio to the Born cross section, only
the minor terms from the photon-loop form factors of the proton and two-photon
exchange depend on the proton structure predetermined by the strong interactions.
Since a prominent role among the radiative corrections is played by soft photon
radiation, the calculation of the bremsstrahlung process $\mu p \to\mu p \gamma$
should be extended beyond the soft photon approximation and tailored to the
specific experimental conditions. Such work is under way.

\section{Final thoughts}

DRs are arguably the best tool to analyze the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon
as they allow for a consistent description of all data in the space- and timelike regions
based on fundamental principles. DR analyses
always led to a small proton charge radius and a slightly bigger magnetic one. Also, most
recent experiments tend to the small radius, so the attention has turned from a puzzle
to precision~\cite{Hammer:2019uab}. Also consistently over time, the neutron magnetic
radius has been and is the largest of the electromagnetic nucleon radii. Even more precise
measurements of $ep$ scattering at Jefferson Lab and Mainz are eagerly awaited for as well
as refined lattice QCD calculations. Theory challenges are the consistent extraction of the
neutron form factors from light nuclei along the lines of Ref.~\cite{Filin:2020tcs} and
to obtain a better understanding of the oscillations in the effective form factors
$|G_{\rm eff}^{p,n}|$. Experimental challenges are a measurement of the proton form factor
ratio at $Q^2 \simeq 10\,$GeV$^2$, more resolved form factor measurements in the timelike region
and the investigation of $\mu p$ scattering (MUSE, AMBER) to test lepton flavor universality.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
First, I would like to thank the organizers of INPC 2022 for their superb job done.
Second, I would like to thank my collaborators Yong-Hui Lin, Hans-Werner Hammer,
Norbert Kaiser and Aldo Antognini for sharing their insights into the topics discussed here.
This work  is supported in part by  the DFG (Project number 196253076 - TRR 110)
and the NSFC (Grant No. 11621131001) through the funds provided
to the Sino-German CRC 110 ``Symmetries and the Emergence of
Structure in QCD", by the European Research Council (ERC) under the
European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (EXOTIC, grant agreement No. 101018170),
by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) through a President's
International Fellowship Initiative (PIFI) (Grant No. 2018DM0034) and by the VolkswagenStiftung
(Grant No. 93562).

\section*{References}