\section{Introduction}

Autonomous driving
requires the accurate detection of road users in the vicinity of the ego vehicle.
Those objects can be divided in pedestrian, two-wheeler and vehicle with very different appearances.
For example, the vehicle category contains large variations between a small car and a semi-trailer truck combination which needs to be accommodated for. Especially in industrial applications for yard operation and automation, the accurate detection of large vehicles is mandatory.
Container terminals or company premises are examples where
special vehicles with quite different shapes like semi-trailer truck combinations, tractors and forklifts
are maneuvering which results in lots of different rotations and constellations, see Figure \ref{fig:other_vehicles}. It was recently shown in \cite{RareExamples} how important it is to include rare objects.
3D object detection is usually done with 7 degrees of freedom bounding boxes containing the 3D coordinates, width, length, height and rotation around the Z-axis of the objects. The three sensor modalities camera, LiDAR and radar are mainly used for perception. Each sensor has its strengths and weaknesses.
Camera has the highest resolution and can capture textures. However it is a passive sensor with drawbacks in bad lightning. It can not estimate the distance of objects reliably with high precision unless a precisely calibrated wide base stereo system is used.
Radar has a very high range and can measure the radial velocity of objects with very high precision. However it has a low angular resolution and suffers from sidelobes which can mask weak targets.
LiDAR has, compared to radar, a much higher angular resolution.
Latest models have a resolution of around 0.1 degree and can detect even small objects.

3D object detection benchmarks are dominated by LiDAR only methods which are sometimes surpassed by LiDAR-camera fusion models. However the higher the LiDAR resolution and the lower the number of classes which need to be classified, the smaller the benefit of the camera becomes (compare \eg Waymo Open \cite{Waymo} vs. nuScenes \cite{nuScenes}). Camera can mainly help to classify objects into precise categories as \eg motor-cycles vs. bicycles, detect small targets in greater distances or differentiate pedestrians from other similar shapes as \eg poles or trash cans.

\begin{figure*}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{img/other_vehicles.png}
	\end{center}
	\caption{
		Left: Premises with special non-standard vehicles like forklift and special truck in the foreground. Right: Bird's eye view of LiDAR pointcloud with ground truth boxes. Buses in the background with varying occlusions which make it impossible to determine the length from the point cloud.
	}
	\label{fig:other_vehicles}
\end{figure*}

Early neural network implementations were based on Pointnets \cite{PointNet, PointNetPlusPlus} and were soon augmented with camera information by \eg Frustum-PointNet \cite{FrustumPointNet} which crops points inside the camera frustum of 2D bounding boxes. A 3D detection based on segmentation of the point cloud into foreground and background can also be used \cite{PointRCNN}.
Since Voxelnet \cite{VoxelNet} as a generic one-stage model, most methods use a voxelized point cloud representation \cite{Polarnet,Cylindrical}.
The projected range image for object detection is used by \cite{RangeSparseNet,RangeDet}. Hybrid feature methods including the voxel network are \cite{PVRCNN,HybridVoxel,HVNet}.
Due to the need of 3D convolutions the Voxelnet approach was slow at the beginning until SecondNet \cite{SecondNet} introduced sparse 3D convolutions from \cite{Sparse3dConv}. SecondNet also added ground truth database sampling and focal loss \cite{FocalLoss} to improve performance.
Based on this, Point Pillars \cite{PointPillars} introduced a pillar based approach which operates in bird's eye view (BEV) and was able to operate faster than real time.
The Point Pillars network was extended in \cite{ClassBalanced} to include multiple detection heads and a class balanced sampling for different classes.

3D object detection methods are often divided into anchor-based \cite{PointPillars,SecondNet,PointRCNN} and anchor-free \cite{AFDet,PillarBased,CenterNet} methods. In our view anchor-free is however a misnomer. "Anchor-free" methods use anchors which do not rely on the IoU with predefined anchor bounding boxes.
\cite{CenterPoint} introduced the heatmap based detection inspired from image processing \cite{CornerNet} and \cite{CenterNet}.
Fusion of camera images can be done inside one network \eg using a unified BEV representation \cite{BEVFusion} or as a point cloud annotation \eg \cite{PointPainting}.
Most recently networks based on the attention mechanism in transformer networks \cite{Attention} are being used to extract more complex scene relations \cite{CenterFormer}.
Class imbalances can be handled by resampling \cite{ClassBalanced}, adopted weighting \cite{EffectiveSamples}) or
loss function adaptation \cite{FocalLoss, LongTailVisual}. Knowledge transfer \cite{FeatureSpace, LearningTail} or expert learning and distillation \cite{LearningExperts, Distillation} are further methods.

Our work is loosely based on the \cite{ClassBalanced} paper for the new anchor based AdaptiveShape implementation to make use of the fast inference speed of the PointPillars architecture. For the heatmap based method we based our work on \cite{CenterFormer}.

\paragraph{Contributions}
\begin{itemize}
	\item Our main contribution is a new shape aware anchor and heatmap generation method, AdaptiveShape, which improves detection performance for datasets with a large variance in object geometries.
	\item LiDAR camera fusion concept which is fast and robust against calibration errors or temporally unaligned sensors.
	\item Multi-frame temporal stacking concept which allows to extract movement patterns from objects.
	\item Adapted evaluation metric to improve analysis of underrepresented classes.
	\item Paired ground truth database sampling for point cloud augmentation which improves the augmentation for object pairs.
\end{itemize}

\section{Anchors and heatmap}

Anchor grids are a well-established method for BEV bounding box regression. Benjin Zhu et al. \cite{ClassBalanced} use two anchor grids for each object category. Each of those grid cells comprises anchor boxes with two orientations, 0 and 90 degrees and a mean category dimension.
Foreground/background and ignore anchors are chosen based on two thresholds. An anchor is classified as foreground anchor if the intersection over union (IoU) between the ground truth and anchor box is above a first threshold. An anchor is classified as a background anchor if the IoU is below a second threshold. If the IoU is in between the first and second threshold an anchor is considered an ignore anchor, which won’t be accounted for in the loss.
This leads to problems as can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:anchors}. Objects with orientations close to 45 degree or with unusual object dimensions get no positive anchors assigned. If no anchor is assigned to an object, a fallback anchor in the center of the object is used. However, this fallback leads to a single binary classification without ignore area. Moreover it neither accounts for the object shape nor the object orientation.
On the other hand objects with standard dimensions and orientations (as normally seen from a vehicle perspective) similar to the anchors get many positive anchors assigned as can be seen for the car with 0 degree orientation in Figure \ref{fig:anchors} on the left. Therefore a large imbalance is created which favors those standard objects with standard orientations. Usually, those objects are cars driving in the front or parked on the side.

Trucks and trailers on the other hand have largely varying shapes, especially lengths. All orientations, not only preceding or crossing ones, are seen in yard automation, as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:other_vehicles}. The result is that they get most of the time only the backup anchor assigned.

Some public 3D object detection challenges contain a disproportional high amount of the favored standard objects. Metrics usually do not explicitly account for different orientations therefore the typical high performing object detection algorithms are overfitted on those standard objects and perform worse on special vehicles with less frequent orientations.

One way of mitigation is the approach presented in \cite{PillarBased} or CenterPoint \cite{CenterNet}\cite{CenterPoint}. As described in \cite{CenterNet}: "A center point can be seen as a single shape-agnostic anchor". In fact, CenterPoint is an extension to the backup anchor strategy from the original anchor approach that takes the local neighborhood into account and replaces the discrete foreground/background/ignore classes with a distance-based weighting.
Anchors will be weighted with a continuous loss according to the distance from the center. Nevertheless, the original CenterNet and 3D CenterPoint are not really shape aware since they do not use different standard deviations for length and width and use only an uncorrelated Gauss distribution that does not account for the object orientation.
Different lengths and widths are mentioned in the papers but the source code at the respective repositories does not create a correlated distribution \cite{CenterPointGithub}.

We show that it is an advantage to have multiple anchors representing the shape and orientation of a single object.
Having multiple anchors, the network must determine the visible corners of an object by estimating the offsets to a virtual center and virtual length, inferred from similar objects in the training set, for multiple anchor positions. Moreover, having a Gaussian anchor distribution will generate an intermediate representation that more closely resembles the shape of an object.

We can reduce the anchor size to a norm size of \eg 1x1m and calculate an intersection over the anchor size instead of an intersection over union. This leads to multiple positive anchor positions within an object and scales with its size.
However, we encountered interpolation artifacts at the object boundary of two overlapping vehicles, like a truck semi-trailer combination.
Therefore it would require a median based post processing for the results of the regression head or an additional distance restriction from the center of an object where anchors will be considered.

Here we present two shape aware methods, named AdaptiveShape: The first one is an extension of a classical anchor grid using foreground and ignore anchors. The second one is an extension of CenterNet where we replaced the uncorrelated Gaussian with a fully correlated shape/orientation dependent Gauss distribution.

\subsection{Shape aware grid representation}

Our new grid based approach embeds two ellipses based on two fully correlated Gauss distributions encoding the shape and orientation of an object, one for the positive and one for the ignore anchors, which are ignored in the loss function.
Therefore anchors are distributed in an rotated ellipse around the center. The length and width of the ellipse corresponds to the box ratio and the rotation of the ellipse is the same as the box orientation.
Anchors are thereby restricted not to be too far away from the center. This is especially important for overlapping objects to avoid \eg interpolations at the transitions between trucks and semi-trailers.
A pleasant side effect of this approach is, that the network is trained on more positive anchors for large objects which are usually underrepresented. This helps to counteract this imbalance and is preferred to a stronger weighting of those classes in the loss. It forces the network to learn offsets for object edges for different anchor positions.

\begin{figure*}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{img/anchors.png}
	\end{center}
\caption{
	Left: Original PointPillars anchor distribution. Anchors are created for 0 and 90 degree for each class and matched based on an axis aligned IoU with ground truth. The anchor distribution is highly dependent on the orientation and class dependent anchor box size.
	Right: Our new AdaptiveShape implementation which distributes anchors in an rotated ellipse around the center. The anchor distribution is independent of object category standard sizes and orientations. Large objects which are usually underrepresented will get more anchors.
}
\label{fig:anchors}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Fully correlated Gaussian heatmap}

The original Gaussian heatmap implementation in \cite{CenterPoint} is based on an uncorrelated Gauss distribution which neither takes a different ratio between lengths and widths nor the object orientation into account.
Our approach improves this by using a fully correlated Gauss distribution with individual standard deviations based on the lengths and widths of objects.
The Gaussian is rotated according to the orientation of the object. Therefore we achieve a similar effect as in the new anchor assignment, where elongated and/or rotated objects have an elongated and/or rotated Gaussian distribution.

\begin{figure*}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{img/gaussians.png}
	\end{center}
\caption{
	Left: Original uncorrelated CenterPoint Gauss distributions which do not take the orientation or the length/width ratio into account. All distributions have the same standard deviation in both directions. Right: Our new AdaptiveShape implementation which takes orientation and length/width ratio of objects into account. For long objects like the truck in the center we can see how the distribution is elongated along the length of the truck.
}
\label{fig:gaussians}
\end{figure*}

\section{LiDAR camera fusion}

At the same time when Sourabh Vora et al published their PointPainting \cite{PointPainting}, we came up with an identical approach based on the segmented image but switched soon to a bounding box classifier based image augmentation, in the following referred to as PointDistanceFusion.
PointPainting projects the point cloud onto a segmented image and individual points are classified based on their object category as foreground or background points. The main problem with this approach however is, that the complete system needs to be perfectly synchronized and calibrated. Otherwise, the overlaid point cloud will not fit to the camera objects and many background points will be classified as being part of a foreground object and vice versa.
Our method is based on the distance between the back projected points and the center of the classified 2D bounding boxes, see Figure \ref{fig:cameradist}.
Using the vehicle ego motion, we transform the points to the camera shutter timestamp and project the point cloud onto the image. In the image coordinate system, we calculate the distance of each point to its nearest camera bounding box for the different object categories. The distance is subsequently normalized by the width/height of the bounding box (thus encoding the distance in 3D), which is then used as an extra column in the point cloud.
Optionally the camera based object depth can be appended.
Using a distance measure makes us more robust to calibration and synchronization errors, especially when it comes to moving objects with unknown speed and direction of movement. In addition, while PointPainting relies on an object segmentation network, PointDistanceFusion utilizes a bounding box-based classification network as found in most autonomous driving perception stacks.

\begin{figure*}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{img/camera_distance.png}
	\end{center}
	\caption{
		Camera LiDAR PointDistanceFusion based on the distance of the backprojected LiDAR points to nearest camera object in camera projection. The distance is added to the original point cloud as an extra column and allows the network to improve detection performance and makes it more robust against calibration and synchronization errors.
	}
	\label{fig:cameradist}
\end{figure*}

\section{Fusion of multiple temporal frames}
\label{sec:temporal}
To improve the confidence of an object and derive additional measurements like the velocity or yaw rate, we consider the last 3-frames together. The simplest way to account for multiple frames is to augment each feature vector within an ego motion compensated frame with the time offset to the current frame \eg \cite{nuScenes}.

However, since our network is based on a point pillar architecture it is not clear how a simple augmentation will be propagated through it.
Therefore, we decided to modify the architecture in such a way that the output of the ego motion compensated features can be stacked on top of each other as separate layers once the output of the point pillar net is mapped onto a grid representation. This allows the network to learn more complex patterns using simple 2D convolutions, spanning over all temporal layers, as seen in Figure \ref{fig:temporalB}.

\begin{figure}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{img/layers.png}
	\end{center}
	\caption{
		We can derive temporal information like the velocity or yaw rate of a vehicle once the ego motion compensated features are stacked on top of each other using a simple convolutional filter. On the left we can see the temporal pattern of an object moving from bottom to top. On the right we can see an object moving from right to left.
	}
	\label{fig:temporalB}
\end{figure}

Having a point pillar architecture, we extend the shape of the input [BatchSize, NrOfPillars, NrOfPointsPerPillar, NrOfFeatures0] to account for the last N frames [BatchSize, N , NrOfPillars, NrOfPointsPerPillar, NrOfFeatures0]. This input is reshaped to [BatchSize * N, NrOfPillars, NrOfPoints, NrOfFeatures0] and can be directly used as an input for a standard point pillar network. A pleasant side effect is, that the number of training examples seen by the network is increased by the number of time steps to be considered. Once the output of the point pillar network is mapped onto a bird's eye view grid representation [BatchSize * N, GirdSizeX, GridSizeY, NrOfFeatures1] we reshape the output to a tensor having a size of [BatchSize, GirdSizeX, GridSizeY, N * NrOfFeatures1]. The ego motion compensated temporal features are stacked on top of each other which allows the network to extract temporal information using a simple convolutional network.
To correctly sample objects, the ground truth of the previous frames must be taken into account. If frames are not continuously labeled, interpolation can be applied, or the training set can be augmented using simulated data.

\section{Ground truth analysis and adapted metrics}

In our opinion an often overlooked topic is the in depth analysis of the ground truth dataset and the fine tuning of the used metrics. Having investigated point clusters of long vehicles and trailers, we see that there is often no information regarding the length of the object because large objects are often partly occluded. Similar looking trailers from the front/back might have largely varying lengths. Using the IoU or bounding box center for ground truth matching for extended objects with non-observable lengths is not optimal as there might be large differences. A better approach can be to check for the alignment of the front/rear face of objects. This information is also more important for collision avoidance.

In addition metrics are usually calculated using the average precision (AP) for different object categories. Those categories can be fine as seen in \eg nuScenes \cite{nuScenes} or coarse as seen in \eg Kitti \cite{Kitti} or Waymo Open \cite{Waymo} datasets.
The choice of categories highly influences the results. This explains \eg why there seems to be no benefit of the camera fusion for Waymo Open while for nuScenes having more classes and lower LiDAR resolution we can see a clear benefit.

A finer class partitioning introduces artificial boundaries between objects of similar shapes. SUVs, pickup trucks and vans can belong to the car or truck class.
Therefore the network is forced to overfit on class decision boundaries which are not visible in the data. This can significantly worsen the performance in a class specific metric while the actual detection capability of a network can be superior. In real world situations the accurate class of an vehicle is rarely needed. Class divisions should only be introduced for those cases.
Additionally most of those vehicles behave similar in traffic apart from larger (semi-)trucks with trailers which have different orientations.

The problem with a coarse class partitioning is that the performance for underrepresented classes is not measurable anymore. If \eg all vehicles are in one common class, the performance of this metric is mainly influenced by the most common vehicle type which is often medium sized cars.
Significantly worse performance of an underrepresented subclass will not be visible if the overrepresented class has improvements.

Some methods try to overcome this class imbalance by resampling the ground truth and repeating frames with more underrepresented objects \cite{ClassBalanced}.
Another method is the ground truth database sampling which we investigate deeper in section \ref{sec:gt}.

\subsection{Adapted metric}
\label{sec:metric}

To overcome these problems we propose a new metric calculation. Our metric is split in four different classes: car, truck, pedestrian and two-wheelers. However we allow mis-classifications of cars as trucks and vice versa (the same for cyclist and pedestrian classes). As an example, for the truck metric we check that for each truck ground truth we have either a corresponding truck or car class. For false positives, we check for each truck detection if a corresponding truck or car ground truth is available. This new metric allows to see changes for underrepresented classes while not artificially separating similar classes.

Additionally we use so called no label zones. Those zones are added to the ground truth in the following ways:
During manual labeling at non relevant areas in the environment, \eg parking spaces or automatically based on point cloud distribution, \eg every ground truth box with less then 5 LiDAR points is set to an ignore zone.
Instead of removing all points inside the no label zones and the corresponding ground truth, we ignore them in the loss calculation. This has the advantage that the network can still see patterns containing ignore zones and improve its larger scene understanding. An example would be an occluded car in between two other cars, so the network won't be punished for detecting it.

\section{Improving ground truth database sampling}
\label{sec:gt}

A common method for training of 3D object detection is the ground truth database sampling. A database is created which contains the points within the 3D bounding box and class information for each ground truth object. See \eg Figure \ref{fig:towing} on the left for such a point cluster. During training, each frame is augmented by pasting a random selection of objects from the database into the current frame.
Recent works introduced the fading technique where ground truth sampling is stopped early when the model is near convergent \cite{PointAugmenting}. This shows that the augmented point clouds do not represent perfectly valid scenes but rather kick start the training process with lots of examples.
A further performance improvement can be achieved by a more realistic ground truth database sampling. We propose several methods.

\subsection{Sampling pairs of connected objects}

In our dataset we introduced an extra category named "towing vehicle" to accommodate the special nature of semi-trailer truck combinations, see Figure \ref{fig:towing} for an example. The movement of these vehicles is quite special in curves as the direction of the trailer will not point towards the driving direction. Only the truck part points in the actual driving direction and needs to be therefore detected separately to predict the future trajectory, see Figure \ref{fig:cameradist}. The difficulty for separated detection is that the semi-trailer and truck have a section where the point cloud overlaps in bird's eye view.
If we consider a semi-trailer truck with an attached semi-trailer but we cut-off the point cloud at the end of the truck it looks significantly different from a standalone semi-trailer truck, see Figure \ref{fig:towing}. During conventional ground truth database generation, the pair relation of those objects is not stored and therefore those objects are pasted separately during training, possibly in different frames. With a pairwise augmentation, PairAugment, we store this relation and check during training if objects from the database contain a corresponding pair relation. If this exists, we paste both objects together as they were also seen in the original data.

\begin{figure*}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{img/towing_trailer.png}
	\end{center}
	\caption{
		Top- and side-view of a semi-trailer truck combination ground truth pair (truck in red, semi-trailer in blue). If we cut and paste only one of the two objects, we get deformed objects which do not resemble realistic vehicles. Therefore we store the pair relation at ground truth database creation and paste such objects together when augmenting frames during the training.
	}
	\label{fig:towing}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Include correct points from temporal history}

To improve performance or when direction and velocity information is needed, multiple LiDAR frames can be stacked together for the network input, as discussed in section \ref{sec:temporal}.
As we observed, most state of the art open source repositories do not fully account for the temporal history \cite{CenterPointGithub, CenterFormerGithub}.
They only account for the history of the current bounding box but ignore the full history of the previous measurements. Therefore the sampled points from multiple temporal frames are artificially cut-off at the bounding box border while the bounding boxes of previous frames would extend further.
To correctly sample objects, the ground truth of the previous frames must be taken into account.
Interpolation can be used to get the full ground truth if continuous labels for all temporal frames are not available.
We implemented a new ground truth sampling which takes previous frame bounding boxes into account.

\section{Experiments}

As baseline, we re-implemented the ideas from \cite{ClassBalanced} and use an adapted PointPillars network with multiple detection heads and a slightly modified backbone.
For the camera LiDAR PointDistanceFusion we augmented the network input with two distance measures, one for vulnerable road users and one for vehicles.
Training is done with 24 epochs, batch size 8, Adam optimizer with weight decay \cite{AdamW} and one cycle learning rate scheduler \cite{OneCycle} and with a pillar size of 0.2 meters.
For the final detection list we use non-maximum supression. No ensembles or test time augmentation is used.
For an additional experiment we adapted the CenterFormer implementation from \cite{CenterFormerGithub} with a fully correlated Gaussian heatmap. The source code of the changes can be found in the supplementary material.

\subsection{Dataset}

Our dataset was recorded with different test vehicles between January 2019 and September 2022. It was mainly recorded in southern Germany and contains large variations in seasons, weather and daytime.
To be able to evaluate the performance of large vehicles it should be mentioned, that the dataset is focused on rather difficult truck semi-trailer combinations as well as special vehicles, \eg construction vehicles, see Figure \ref{fig:other_vehicles}.
For this reason we recorded the scenes on company yards. Additionally, we recorded scenes at roundabouts next to company yards with lots of passing semi-trailer truck combinations (Figure \ref{fig:cameradist}).
The recording setup consists of three front facing fisheye cameras, two Velodyne VLP-32 LiDARS at the front left and right, one high resolution 4D imaging radar at the front center and one Oxford GPS and IMU.
The dataset contains around 90.000 frames with around 850.000 manually 3D labeled objects.
Labeling was done on small segments of four frames with 500ms separation. Segments were chosen based on a scene selection algorithm which was applied on the recorded data.
The test set contains 11,415 frames and was chosen to have mostly different geographic locations but a similar class distribution to the training set.

\section{Results}

\subsection{Shape aware grid representation}

Table \ref{tab:results} shows our results in comparison to the baseline. Each new extension was evaluated with all previously ones applied.
Additionally, to show the effect of using only the fallback anchor, we run one experiment with PointDistanceFusion using only one single positive anchor in the center of the object.
To calculate average precision we use the nuScenes metric with the adaptations mentioned in \ref{sec:metric}. The maximum evaluated detection distance is 96 meter instead of the 40/50 meter used in nuScenes. We also report the mean average precision (mAP) over all categories.
To be more comparable to nuScenes we also calculated the average precision for a range of 40 meters for vulnerable road users and 50 meters for vehicles.

\begin{table*}[t]
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{lrrrrr}
		\hline
		Experiment                            &   Truck AP &   Pedestrian AP &   Cyclist AP &   Car AP &   mAP \\
		\hline
		\multicolumn{6}{c}{Evaluation up to distance 96m} \\
		Baseline IoU anchor                   &       29.3 &            78.4 &         62.8 &     88.9 &  64.9 \\
		+PointDistanceFusion                  &       29.7 &            80.6 &         63.7 &     89.5 &  65.9 \\
		+Center anchor                        &       26.2 &            80.9 &         56.1 &     89.4 &  63.2 \\
		+AdaptiveShape anchor                 &      \fontseries{b}\selectfont 40.6 &           \fontseries{b}\selectfont 81.5 &        \fontseries{b}\selectfont 64.5 &    \fontseries{b}\selectfont 89.9 & \fontseries{b}\selectfont 69.1 \\
		\hline
		+Ground truth augmentation            &       43.7 &            80.8 &         63.4 &     88.7 &  69.2 \\
		+PairAugment                          &      \fontseries{b}\selectfont 45.9 &            81   &         63.3 &     88.6 & \fontseries{b}\selectfont 69.7 \\
		\hline
		\multicolumn{6}{c}{Evaluation up to distance of 50m (vehicles) and 40m (rest)} \\
		Our best model & 51.5 & 87.3 & 75.6 & 93.5 & 77.0 \\
		\hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{
		Experiment results. The largest improvements can be seen for the truck class using the new AdaptiveShape anchor generation. Camera fusion improves the results of all classes. The ground truth augmentation additionally improves the truck detection and is further improved when pairs are considered. This results in the overall best mAP.
		To be more comparable to nuScenes we also evaluated our best model on our data with a evaluation distance up to 40/50m.
	}
	\label{tab:results}
\end{table*}

\paragraph{PointDistanceFusion}
The camera fusion improves the pedestrian detection by +2.2\% AP. The other classes are improved between +0.4\% and 1.0\% AP. This shows how the camera can be used to improve the detection of small objects which are only covered by few LiDAR points, especially pedestrians by adding a focus of attention.

\paragraph{Center anchor}
As expected using only one single anchor in the center of the object leads to a poor results for larger objects. All classes decrease between -0.1\% and -7.5\% AP, while only the pedestrian detection performance increased by 0.3\%. The mAP decreases by -2.7\%.

\paragraph{AdaptiveShape anchor}
Introducing the AdaptiveShape grid generation improved the truck class by +10.9\% AP while all other classes are improved between 0.4\% and 0.9\%.
This shows the importance of having multiple shape aware anchor distribution.

\paragraph{Standard ground truth augmentation}
Adding the standard ground truth augmentation for the truck class improves the truck metric by further +3.1\% AP. The other metrics decrease between -0.7\% and -1.2\% AP. One explanation for the decrease in performance for the non-truck class metrics is that the class distribution was further shifted towards large objects by the ground truth sampling within the backbone of the network. The mAP however increases by 0.1\%.

\paragraph{PairAugment}
Adding the pair database generation improves the truck metric by additional +2.2\% AP while the other metrics change between +0.2\% and -0.1\%. This shows how important it is to keep the pair relation for semi-trailer truck combinations. The mAP increases by 0.5\%.

\subsection{Fully correlated Gaussian heatmap}

Table \ref{tab:results_waymo} shows the results of differently sized fully correlated Gaussian heatmaps compared to the baseline from CenterFormer. We use two frames for temporal accumulation.
The Gaussian scale in the table shows the length and width ratio used to scale the Gaussian standard deviations.
The evaluation is done with our metric on the Waymo validation dataset subsampled using every 20th frame.
The benefits of having more positive anchors can be seen by the increase of mAP with larger Gaussian scale.

\begin{table}[t]
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{lrr}
		\hline
		Experiment    & Gaussian scale & mAP \\
		\hline
		CenterFormer  & -              & 78.0 \\
		AdaptiveShape & 1/12           & 78.1 \\
		AdaptiveShape & 1/8            & 79.2 \\
		AdaptiveShape & 1/6            & 79.3 \\
		\hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{
		Comparison of original CenterFormer implementation and ours on Waymo validation set with every 20. frame. Baseline with uncorrelated Gaussian distributions using the same standard deviations in x and y. Our implementation with fully correlated Gaussian distributions with standard deviations with differently scaled length and width ratios and appropriate rotation.
	}
	\label{tab:results_waymo}
\end{table}

\section{Conclusions}

We showed multiple strategies to improve the performance for 3D object detection
and shape estimation of arbitrary shaped vehicles. These new methods are especially beneficial for systems operating in logistic yards, harbors, airports, in mining or agricultural environments.
Adding the shape awareness to the underlying grid representations proofed to be most beneficial for the detection of large objects. Doing pairwise truck trailer augmentation further improved the performance.
Small objects did benefit most from the camera LiDAR fusion. However the improvement from camera fusion depends highly on the LiDAR resolution and number of object categories used.
Furthermore the choice of the metric plays an important role.

{\small
	\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}


\section{#1}\label{#2}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

\begin{document}

\newtheorem{Theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{Corollary}[Theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{Proposition}[Theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{Lemma}[Theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{Assumptions}[Theorem]{Assumptions}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]

\theoremstyle{definition
\newtheorem{Remark}[Theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{example}[Theorem]{Example}

\title{{\bf Generalized exponentially bounded integrated semigroups }}

\author{
Marko  Kosti\'c\thanks{Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia,  marco.s@verat.net} ,
Stevan Pilipovi\'c\thanks{Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia,  stevan.pilipovic@dmi.uns.ac.rs} ,
Milica \v Zigi\'c\thanks{Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, milica.zigic@dmi.uns.ac.rs}
	}
\maketitle
\date{}

\bigskip

\begin{abstract}
The main subject of this paper is the analysis of  sequences of exponentially bounded integrated semigroups which are related to Cauchy problems
\begin{equation}\label{jed}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}u(t,x)-a(D)u(t,x)=f(t,x), \quad u(0,x)=u_0(x), \quad t\geq 0, \  x\in \mathbb R^d,
\end{equation}
with a distributional initial data $u_0$ and a distributional right hand side $f$ through a sequence of equations with regularized $u_0$ and $f$ and a sequence of (pseudo) differential operators $a_n(D)$ instead of $a(D)$. Comparison of sequences of infinitesimal generators and the determination of corresponding sequences of integrated semigroups are the main subject of the paper. For this purpose, we introduce association, the relation of equivalence for  infinitesimal generators on one side and the corresponding relations of equivalence of integrated semigroups on another side.  The order of involved assumptions on generators essentially characterize the mutual dependence of sequences of infinitesimal generators and the corresponding sequences of integrated semigroups.
\end{abstract}

\maketitle

\section{Introduction}
This paper aims to provide an approach to the sequences of infinitesimal generators and the corresponding sequences of integrated semigroups, usually obtained through a process of regularization,  as a framework for solving singular Cauchy problems within spaces of generalized functions.

General theory of integrated semigroups, introduced by Arendt \cite{A 1987}, was  already  stated in a large number of monographs.  We refer to a fundamental monograph \cite{ABHN 2011}  and references therein  for the historical background. For the applications, especially  in population biology and population persistence, we refer to   \cite{Tim2} and  \cite{MR}. The authors of quoted monographs are the leading ones in the field with a plenty of strong papers which can be found in the bibliography of these monographs. Actually, contributions to the theory of integrated semigroups were given by many excellent  papers which can be easily found.  We do not mention them because it is very likely that many important works will be omitted. Here we mention that one of coauthors has written several papers and monographs related to various kinds of semigroups. We refer to \cite{MK 11}, \cite{MK 15} and references therein.

Concerning generalized  $C_0$-semigroups through regularization, we refer to  \cite{NPR},  where,  in the frame of Colombeau theory \cite{C1984} of generalized function algebras, were discussed relations between nets of infinitesimal generators and the corresponding nets of $C_0$-semigroups, with applications to a certain class of nonlinear wave equations. In relation to \cite{NPR}, our approach in this paper is different; instead of nets, we simplify the exposition using sequences as a main tool and instead of technically more complex definitions of Colombeau theory we directly introduce sequences of solutions of regularized Cauchy problems with strong singularities.  Roughly speaking, our results   are related to approximations of infinitesimal generators and the corresponding integrated semigroups, through the sequences of such operators and integrated semigroups.

We only deal with one time integrated semigroups although it is clear that  the paper can be extended to $k$-times integrated semigroups. In this way, we avoid the distributional semigroups for which we know that every one of them is a $k$-times integrated semigroup for a certain $k$ (cf. \cite{ku}, \cite{w}). Our approach is motivated by revisiting well known results for one time integrated semigroups which correspond to infinitesimal generators given as Fourier multipliers with symbols of the class $S^m_{1,0},$ $m\in\mathbb{N},$ on the Lebesgue space $L^p(\mathbb R^d),$ $p\geq1$ and those which correspond to symbols $i|\xi|^m, m\in \mathbb N$ given in  Section 8.3 of \cite{ABHN 2011}, see also \cite{H1}, \cite{H2}.

In the main part of the paper we  analyse the relations between sequences of infinitesimal generators and corresponding sequences of integrated  semigroups in a sense that a certain perturbation of a sequence of infinitesimal generators  results by a perturbation of the corresponding sequence of integrated semigroups which we estimate and classify.   This is done by the introduction of associated sequences, as in the algebraic theory of generalized functions, cf. \cite{C1984}, \cite{MMMR}.

The paper is organized as follows. Notation is the standard one  for the real  numbers, as well as for the Lebesgue $L^p$-spaces, Schwartz test function and distribution spaces. In Introduction, Subsection \ref{ss not}, we introduce sequence spaces over the pivot Banach space $X$ as a framework for the further investigations. The moderate growth of involved sequences is the essential assumption of all sequence spaces considered in the paper. Section \ref{s 2} is related to sequences of closed linear operators defined on $X$ (Subsection \ref{ss sog}) since they are under suitable conditions infinitesimal generators  of sequences of  exponentially bounded integrated semigroups (Subsection  \ref{ss geis}). For this purpose we impose additional conditions on operators and call them sequences of  infinitesimal generators. In Section \ref{examples}, we revisit some examples presented in the monograph \cite{ABHN 2011}, given in Section 8.3, related to a class of pseudo-differential operators. This section illustrates just a few possibilities for the applications in finding a solution to \eqref{jed}, in the form of a sequence,  although  the singular equation from which we started does not have a solution in a classical analysis setting.  If a problem \eqref{jed} has a classical solution, one must have that obtained sequence of solutions, also called very weak solution (cf.  \cite{GR}, \cite{R}), converges to this solution in the same setting.  Essential interest  is to find out whether a very weak solution has a subsequence which converges in the  sense of distributions, that is in the weak sense.  Usually, this is a weak solution to (\ref{jed}).

Our approach is exposed in Section \ref{s 4} where the relations between sequences of infinitesimal generators and corresponding sequences of exponentially bounded integrated semigroups are discussed.  This is achieved by analysing associated sequences, the ones for which the norm of their difference tends to zero.  In this way, we introduce relations of equivalences in the corresponding spaces of moderate sequences given in Section \ref{s 2} and in Section \ref{s 4}.  A classical result on perturbation given in \cite{KH} fits well in the given approach.

\subsection{Notation}
\label{ss not}

Let $(X,\|\cdot\|_X)$ be a Banach space and $(\mathcal{L}(X),\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)})$ be a space of linear continuous mappings on $X,$ with values in $X.$ For a sequence $ (x_n)_n\in X^{\mathbb N}$, $\mathbb N$ is the set of natural numbers, we say that it is moderate, and write $ (x_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M,$ if there exists $a\in\mathbb R$ such that $\|x_n\|_X=\mathcal{O}(n^{a}),$ which means $\|x_n\|_X\leq C n^a,$ $n>n_0$ for some $C>0.$ With $\mathcal{L}(X)$ instead of $X,$ we define $\mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{L}(X)}^M$. Note that $\mathcal{L}(X)$ is considered as a Banach algebra with respect to the operation of composition. Directly from the definition, one can deduce the following: $(R_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{L}(X)}^M$ if and only if there exists $(M_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\|R_n x\|_X\leq M_n \|x\|_X,$ $x\in X$.

Denote by $\mathcal{C}^M([0,\infty);X)$ the space of vector valued sequences  of  continuous mappings $F_n:[0,\infty)\ni t\mapsto F_n(t)\in X,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$  with the property
\begin{equation}\label{SX_M}
(\exists a\in\mathbb R)\quad \sup_{t\geq 0} \|F_n (t)\|_{X}=\mathcal{O}(n^{a}),\quad n\to \infty.
\end{equation}
We will consider the  case when $X=L^p(\mathbb R^d),$ $p\in(1,\infty),$ but our special interest is the case  when we have above  $\mathcal L(X)$ instead of $X$. Then one obtains the space of sequences $(S_n)_n$ of strongly continuous mappings $S_n:[0,\infty)\to (\mathcal{L}(X),\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}),$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ denoted by $\mathcal{C}^M([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)).$ The introduced sequences will be also denoted by $(S_n(t))_n,$ $t\geq 0,$ to emphasize the role of $t.$ Clearly, $\mathcal{C}^M([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X))$ is an algebra under composition.

The space of sequences  of continuous mappings $F_n:[0,\infty)\to (X,\|\cdot\|_{X}),$  with the property $\sup_{t\geq 0} \|e^{-\omega t} F_n (t)\|_{X}=\mathcal{O}(n^{a}),$ $n\to \infty, $  for some $ \omega>0$  and some $a\in\mathbb R,$ is denoted by $\mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);X).$ It is also an algebra.  Again, we emphasize the case when $\mathcal{L}(X)$ is instead of $X,$ and write $(S_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X))$ if
\begin{equation}\label{exp1}
\sup_{t\geq 0} \|e^{-\omega t} S_n (t)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}=\mathcal{O}(n^{a}),\; n\to \infty, \mbox{ for some } \omega>0 \mbox{ and some } a\in\mathbb R.
\end{equation}
Note that for every $(S_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)) $ and every $t_0\in [0,\infty)$ we have  $(S_n(t_0))_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_{\mathcal{L}(X)}.$

Let us note that for all sequences under consideration we have to assume that their properties hold for $n>n_0$ since only the behaviour, as $n\rightarrow \infty,$ is important. In the sequel, we will not explicitly point out this fact and just assume that a certain property holds for every $n\in\mathbb{N}.$ Actually, it is not a restriction since we can always change the first $n_0$ elements by the $(n_0+1)$-th element.

\section{Generalized exponentially bounded integrated semigroups}
\label{s 2}

\subsection{Sequences of generators}
\label{ss sog}

Let $(A_n)_n$ be a sequence of closed linear operators acting on $X$ and $D_{A_n}$ be a domain for $A_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$  Let $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n$ be a sequence of resolvents that corresponds to  $(A_n)_n$ and $\rho(A_n),$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ be their resolvent sets.  Assume:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(G1):] There exists $D\subset X,$ $D\neq \emptyset,$ such that $D_{A_n}=D,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$
\item[(G2):] There exists $\omega>0$ such that $(\omega,\infty)\subset\rho(A_n),$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$
\item[(G3):] $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_{\mathcal{L}(X)},$ $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$
\end{enumerate}
Denote by $\mathcal{A}^{M}_3$ the set of sequences which satisfy (G1) - (G3).  We call $(A_n)_n$ a sequence of generators.

We define a domain $\mathbf{D}_A$ for $(A_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_3,$ that is $(A_n)_n:\mathbf{D}_A\subset \mathcal{E}_X^M\to \mathcal{E}_X^M,$ as
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{D}_A=\left\{(x_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M\,:\,x_n\in D,\,n\in\mathbb{N}\;\;\wedge\; (A_n x_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M\right\}.
\end{align*}

\begin{Proposition} \label{pr21}
Let $(A_n)_n$ be a sequence of generators and $(y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M.$ Then $(R(\lambda,A_n)y_n)_n=(x_n)_n\in \mathbf{D}_A,$ $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$ Conversely, if $(x_n)_n\in \mathbf D_A$, then  there exists $(y_n)_n\in\mathcal E^M_X$ so that $R(\lambda, A_n)y_n=x_n, $ $n\in \mathbb N,$ for $\lambda\in(\omega,\infty).$
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$ It is clear that $x_n=R(\lambda,A_n)y_n\in D$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and that $(x_n)_n=(R(\lambda,A_n)y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M,$ $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$  Finally, since $(x_n)_n,(y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M$ we have $(A_n x_n)_n=(\lambda x_n - y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M.$

For the converse assertion, just note that if $y_n=\lambda x_n-A_nx_n, $ $n\in\mathbb N$, then $(y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M$ and $R(\lambda,A_n)y_n=x_n, $ $n\in\mathbb N.$
\end{proof}

A range $\mathbf{R}_{\lambda,A},$ $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty),$ of the sequence of resolvents $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n,$ that corresponds to the sequence of generators $(A_n)_n,$ is defined as:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{R}_{\lambda,A}=\left\{(x_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M:\text{there exists } (y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M \text{ so that }  (R(\lambda,A_n)y_n)_n=(x_n)_n\right\}.
\end{align*}
Since for every $\lambda,\lambda'\in (\omega,\infty)$ one obtains $\mathbf{R}_{\lambda,A}=\mathbf{R}_{\lambda',A},$ we will use notation $\mathbf{R}_A=\mathbf{R}_{\lambda,A},$ $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$ Now we state the direct consequence of Proposition \ref{pr21}.

\begin{Corollary}\label{cor D=R}
$\mathbf{R}_{A}=\mathbf D_A$.
\end{Corollary}

\subsection{Generalized exponentially bounded integrated semigroup and sequences of strong infinitesimal generators}
\label{ss geis}

\begin{definition}\label{def g.i.g.}
Let $(A_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_3.$ It is called a sequence of infinitesimal generators if there exists a sequence   $(S_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)),$  that is (\ref{exp1}) holds, and
\begin{align}\label{rez}
R(\lambda,A_n)=\lambda\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}S_n(t)\,dt,\quad \lambda\in (\omega,\infty),\quad n\in \mathbb{N};
\end{align}
$(S_n)_n$ is called a sequence of exponentially bounded integrated semigroups (in short, g.e.i.s.  or in plural g.e.i.s.'s) generated by $(A_n)_n.$
\end{definition}

\begin{Remark}
If \eqref{exp1} holds,  then by Theorem 3.1 of Arendt \cite{A 1987},  the necessary and sufficient condition  for $(S_n)_n$ to be a g.e.i.s. is that $R(\lambda,A_n), $ $\lambda\in(\omega,\infty),$ is a pseudoresolvent, for  every $n\in\mathbb N.$
\end{Remark}

A direct application  of Theorem 2.5.1 in \cite{ABHN 2011} gives in Theorem \ref{th 1} below the existence of a sequence of exponentially bounded integrated semigroups $S_n,$ $n\in\mathbb N,$ with the generators $A_n, $ $n\in\mathbb N,$ for which the conditions (G1) -  (G3) hold, as well as the next one,
\begin{align}\label{G5}
\sup_{{\rm Re}\,\lambda>\omega}\| \lambda^{b} R(\lambda,A_n)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)} \leq M_n,\ n\in\mathbb{N},\;\text{ for some } \; b>0\text{ and } \; (M_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_\mathbb{R}.
\end{align}

\begin{Theorem}\label{th 1}
Let $(A_n)_n \in \mathcal{A}^{M}_3$ so that it satisfies condition \eqref{G5}.Then there exists a sequence $(S_n)_n$ of exponentially bounded integrated semigroups such that
\begin{align*}
R(\lambda,A_n)=\lambda\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}S_n(t)\,dt,\quad \lambda\in (\omega,\infty),\quad n\in\mathbb{N},
\end{align*}
and $(S_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)).$ More precisely, the growth condition for $(S_n)_n$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t>0}\|e^{-\omega t}t^{-b}S_n(t)x\|_X\leq  M'_n,\;n\in\mathbb{N},\,\text{ for some } ( M'_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_\mathbb{R}.
\end{align*}
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $x\in X$.  Then  assumption \eqref{G5} implies that for every $n\in\mathbb N,$
\begin{align*}
S_n(t)x=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{(\alpha+ir)t} \frac{R(\alpha+ir,A_n )x}{\alpha+ir}\,dr,\quad t\geq 0,
\end{align*}
where $\alpha>\omega$ and $S_n (\cdot)x\in C([0,\infty),X)$ (the space of continuous functions $[0,\infty)\rightarrow X$).  Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t>0}\|e^{-\omega t}t^{-b}S_n(t)x\|_X\leq M'_n,\quad n\in\mathbb{N},
\end{align*}
for some $(M'_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_\mathbb{R}.$ This is a direct consequence of Theorems 3.2.8 and 2.5.1 in \cite{ABHN 2011} where, with fixed $n,$ we have to put $q(\lambda)=\lambda^{b-1}R(\lambda,A_n)x$ and use this theorems for $f(\cdot)=S_n(\cdot)x.$ Namely, as in \cite{ABHN 2011} at the very end of the proof of Theorem 2.5.1, with $R>0$, one has,
\begin{equation*}
\|S_n(t)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}\leq \frac{M_n e^{\alpha t}}{\pi b R^b}+\frac{M_n e^{\alpha t} }{\pi R^b}\int_0^{\pi/2} e^{Rt\cos\theta} \,d\theta,\quad t>0,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
M_n=\sup_{{\rm Re}\,\lambda>\omega}\|\lambda^{b} R(\lambda,A_n)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}, \quad n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{equation*}
Now, taking $R=1/t$ one obtains $\|e^{-\omega t}t^{-b}S_n(t)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}\leq CM_n=M'_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ $t>0.$ Clearly, $\sup_{t>0}\|e^{-\omega t}t^{-b}S_n(t)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}\leq M'_n$ which, for $\omega_1\geq \omega+b,$ implies
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t\geq 0} \|e^{-\omega_1 t} S_n (t)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}\leq M'_n,\quad n\in\mathbb{N};
\end{equation*}
so, $(S_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)).$
\end{proof}

The obtained  growth condition for $(S_n)_n$ is stronger than the one which characterizes the growth in $\mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X))$ because it gives the behaviour of the sequence $(S_n)_n$ when $t\to 0.$

\section{Revisiting of known examples }\label{examples}

All   one time integrated semigroups in this section are  well known (for fixed $n$).  They are used for the explanation of our approach to sequences of such semigroups.  Our main literature are results for integrated semigroups given in \cite{ABHN 2011},  Section 8.3. Concerning notation, if $t\mapsto f(t,x)$ is a continuous function on $[0,\infty)$ with values in the Schwartz space of distributions $\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{R}^d),$ we write  $f(t,x)\in C([0,\infty),\mathcal D'(\mathbb R^d)).$ Additionally, if the above function  is continuously differentiable, we write $f(t,x)\in C^1([0,\infty),\mathcal D'(\mathbb R^d))$. These functions are elements of $\mathcal D'((0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^d)$ through the dual pairing $\langle f(t,x),\psi(t,x)\rangle,$ $\psi\in\mathcal{D}((0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d),$ where $\mathcal{D}((0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d)$ is a space of smooth function $\psi$ supported by a compact set in $(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d$ with the usual convergence structure.

Recall \cite{ABHN 2011},  a smooth function $a$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ is called a symbol belonging to $S^{m}_{1,0},$ $m\in\mathbb{N},$ if $|D^\alpha_\xi a(\xi)|\leq C \langle\xi\rangle^{m-|\alpha|},$ $ \xi\in \mathbb{R}^d,$  for some $C>0$ and all $\alpha\in (\mathbb N\cup\{0\})^d, $ where $ \langle\xi\rangle=(1+|\xi|^2)^{1/2}.$ Then $(a_n)_n\in (S^{m}_{1,0})^\mathbb{N}$ is a moderate sequence of symbols if there exists $(C_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_\mathbb{R}$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{dot}
|D^\alpha_\xi a_n(\xi)|\leq C_n \langle\xi\rangle^{m-|\alpha|},\quad \xi\in \mathbb{R}^d,\ n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{equation}

With the notation $D=(D_1,...,D_d),$ $D_j=\partial/(i\partial x),$ $j=1,...,d,$ and $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ for the Fourier and inverse Fourier transform, we consider pseudo-differential operator  formally defined by $a(D)f=({\rm Op}\  a)f= \mathcal{F}^{-1}(a \mathcal{F}f),$ where $a\in S^{m}_{1,0}$ and $f$ belongs to an appropriate space of functions or distributions. (Here, the notation $D$ for the differential operator should not be confused with $D=D_A\subset X,$ which is the domain of the corresponding operator $A.$) Usually, a sequence of  such operators $(a_n(D))_n$ can be considered as a stationary one $a_n=a,$ $ n\in\mathbb N,$  or as a sequence of approximations of $a$.

\begin{Remark}\label{rim}
The regularization  of a  Cauchy problem (\ref{jed}) with $u_0\in\mathcal D'(\mathbb R^d)$ and $f\in C([0,\infty),\mathcal D'(\mathbb R^d))$ leads to a family of Cauchy problems with $u_{0,n}$ and $f_n, $ $n\in\mathbb N,$ belonging to appropriate function spaces,
\begin{equation}\label{eq **}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}w_n(t,x) - a_n(D)w_n(t,x) =f_n(t,x),\quad w_n (0,x)=u_{0,n}(x),\quad n\in\mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
as follows. Let $\theta\in\mathcal D(\mathbb R^d).$ Assume that it is non-negative and $\int_{\mathbb R^d}\theta(x)dx=1$. Let $\theta_n(x)=n^d\theta(nx),$ $ x\in\mathbb R^d$; this is a delta sequence. In the case when $u_0(x)$ is a distribution and  $f(t,x)\in C([0,\infty),\mathcal D'(\mathbb R^d))$, we make  regularization by the use of convolution:
\begin{align*}
u_{0,n}(x)=u_0(x)*\theta_n(x), \quad f_n(t,x)= f(t,x)*_x\theta_n(x),\quad n\in \mathbb N,\  t\geq 0, \ x\in\mathbb R^d.
\end{align*}
\end{Remark}

In order to show that the regularizations of Remark \ref{rim} determine elements of the  domain $\mathbf{D}_A$ (cf. Subsection \ref{ss sog})  related to the pseudo-differential operators $A_n=a_n(D)=({\rm Op}\;a_n),$ $n\in\mathbb N,$  we recall that $g\in\mathcal D'_{L^p}(\mathbb R^{d}),$ $ p\in(1,\infty],$ if and only if  it is of the form $g=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k} g_\alpha^{(\alpha)}$, where $g_\alpha\in L^p(\mathbb R^d),$ $k\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}.$  Recall also, that $\mathcal D'_{L^p}(\mathbb R^{d})$ is a strong dual of the space  $\mathcal D_{L^q}(\mathbb R^{d}),$ $ q=p/(p-1)$ ($q=1$ for $p=\infty$), consisting of smooth functions $\phi$ for which all the norms $\|\phi^{(\alpha)}\|_{L^q(\mathbb R^d)},$ $ \alpha\in (\mathbb N\cup\{0\})^d,$ are finite. Using the H\" older inequality $\|g_\alpha*\theta_n^{(\alpha)}\|_{L^p}\leq \|g_{\alpha}\|_{L^p}\|\theta_n^{(\alpha)}\|_{L^q}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{lpp}
g_n=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k} g_\alpha*\theta_n^{(\alpha)}\in L^p(\mathbb R^d), \;\text{ since }\; g_\alpha*\theta_n^{(\alpha)}\in L^p(\mathbb R^d),\ n\in\mathbb N.
\end{equation}
Finally,  $(\theta_n^{(\alpha)}(x))_n=(n^{d+|\alpha|}\theta^{(\alpha)}(nx))_n,$ $x\in\mathbb{R}^d,$ imply $(\theta^{(\alpha)}_n)_n\in \mathcal E^M_{L^q(\mathbb R^{d})}.$ So, $(g_n)_n\in\mathcal{E}^M_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^{d})}.$

\begin{Remark} The case $p=1$ should be treated in another way. We exclude this case in order to simplify our exposition.
\end{Remark}

Recall, if $a\in S^m_{1,0},$ then it determines a pseudo-differential operator on $L^p(\mathbb R^d)$,  with the domain
\begin{align*}
D_{{\rm Op}\,a}=\{g\in L^p(\mathbb R^d): \mathcal F^{-1}(a(\xi)\mathcal Fg(\xi))\in L^p(\mathbb R^d)\}.
\end{align*}
Since $\mathcal S(\mathbb R^d)\subset D_{{\rm Op}\,a},$  these operators are densely defined.  Moreover, we have the next lemma.

\begin{Lemma}
Let $p\in[1,\infty),$ and $g_n,$ $ n\in \mathbb N,$ be of the form (\ref{lpp}). Let $(a_n)_n\in (S^m_{1,0})^{\mathbb N}$ so that (\ref{dot}) holds. Then,  $(({\rm Op}\  a_n)g_n)_n$ belongs to $ \mathcal{E}^M_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^{d})}.$
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
Take $s\in\mathbb N$  such that $h_n(x),$ $x\in\mathbb R^d$, defined by $x\mapsto h_n(x)=\int_{\mathbb R^d}  e^{2\pi i \xi x}a_n(\xi)(1+2\pi |\xi|^2)^{-s} d\xi$ belongs to $L^q(\mathbb R^d)$. Then
\begin{align}\label{eq :}
({\rm Op}\  a_n)g_n(x) & =\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}  (1- \Delta_x)^s e^{2\pi i \xi x}\frac{a_n(\xi)}{(1+2\pi |\xi|^2)^s}\ d\xi \ast g_n(x)\nonumber\\
& = h_n(x) \ast (1- \Delta_x)^s g_n(x) \qquad(\Delta_x \text{ is Laplacian}).
\end{align}
By (\ref{dot}), one can find $C>0$ and $a\in\mathbb{R}$ so that $\|h_n\|_{L^q}\leq Cn^a,$ $ n\in\mathbb N. $ We use  (\ref{lpp}) and in $(1-\Delta_x)^s g_n(x),$ on the right hand side of (\ref{lpp}), we differentiate only the part   $\theta_n^{(\alpha)}$. Clearly, $(\theta^{(\alpha)}_n)_n\in \mathcal E^M_{L^q(\mathbb R^{d})}.$ So, using again H\" older inequality, one obtains that there exists a sequence $(C_n)_n\in\mathcal E^M_{\mathbb R}$ so that
\begin{align*}
\|{(\rm Op}\  a_n) g_n\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq C_n,\quad n\in\mathbb N.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

We continue with the assumptions (cf. \cite{ABHN 2011} Subsections 8.2, 8.3): \begin{enumerate}
\item[(A1):]
$\hspace{2,75cm}\exists\, r>0, \ \exists\,  L>0, \ \exists\, C_n>0\; \;n\in\mathbb N, \ \exists\, c_0>0,
$
$$ |a_n(\xi)|\geq C_n |\xi|^r,  \ |\xi|>L \mbox{ and } 1/C_n\leq c_0;$$
\item[(A2):] $\rho({\rm Op}\ a_n)\neq \emptyset,$ $n\in\mathbb N;$
\item[(A3):] $\sup_{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^d}{\rm Re}\ a_n(\xi)\leq m,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$  for some $m\in \mathbb{R}.$
\end{enumerate}

\begin{Proposition} \label{pret} Assume that a sequence of symbols $(a_n)_n,$  satisfies \eqref{dot}, \eqref{delc},  (A1) - (A3), as well as  that all ${\rm Op}\ a_n$ have the same domain $D=D_{{\rm Op}\,a_n}, $ $n\in\mathbb N.$
Assume that $p$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{delc}
\left|\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right|<\frac{r}{md}.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}\label{HKe}
S_n(t)u=\mathcal F^{-1}\left(\int_0^t e^{sa_n(\cdot)}ds\ \mathcal F u(\cdot)\right),\quad u\in L^p(\mathbb R^d),\quad n\in\mathbb N,
\end{equation}
is a g.e.i.s. generated by $({\rm Op}\ a_n)_n.$
Moreover,  $({\rm Op}\ a_n)_n\in\mathcal{A}^{M}_3.$ In particular,  (G3) holds with $\sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\|R(\lambda,{\rm Op}\  a_n)\|_{\mathcal L(L^p)}<\infty, $ $\lambda\in(\omega,\infty). $
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof}
Essentially, assumption (\ref{delc}) implies that $a_n$ determines one time integrated semigroup (cf. \cite{ABHN 2011}). Moreover, by  the implication (i)  $\Rightarrow$ (ii) of Theorem 8.3.6 in \cite{ABHN 2011}  we have directly that $a_n$ determines exponentially bounded integrated semigroup $S_n$ of the form (\ref{HKe}) for  every $n$. By the uniform bound of $1/C_n$ in (A1) and the uniform bound   in (A3), we obtain that $(S_n)_n$ is g.e.i.s.  Since $R(\lambda,{\rm Op}\ a_n)$ is defined by the  $S_n$  with the uniform exponential bound  of all $S_n$ in (\ref{rez}), $n\in \mathbb N,$ we have that (G2) holds with $\omega > |m|,$ as well as that (G3) holds with the uniform bound $\sup_{n\in\mathbb N,\lambda>\omega}\|R(\lambda,{\rm Op}\ a_n)\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^p)}<\infty.$
\end{proof}

\begin{Proposition}\label{3}
Concerning $(a_n)_n$ assume that all the assumptions of Proposition \ref{pret} hold. Let $(u_{0,n})_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}$ and  $(f_n)_n, (\frac{d}{dt} \,f_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{exp}([0,\infty);L^p(\mathbb{R}^{d})),$ $p\in [1,\infty).$  Then the sequence of equation
\begin{align}\label{equiv1}
w_n (t,x)=u_{0,n}(x)+a_n(D)\int_0^t w_n (r,x)\ dr +\int_0^t  f_n(s,x)\ ds,\quad n\in\mathbb{N},
\end{align}
has a sequence of solutions  $(w_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);L^p(\mathbb R^d))$ (mild solutions, for every $n$)  given by $w_n=\frac{d}{dt} v_n$, where
\begin{align}\label{sol11}
v_n(t,x)=S_n(t)u_{0,n}(x) + \int_0^t S_n(t-r)f_n(r,x)\ dr,\quad t\geq 0,\quad x\in \mathbb R^d,\quad n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{align}
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof} We have by Proposition \ref{pret} that $(S_n)_n$ is a g.i.e.s.  so the mappings   $[0,\infty)\rightarrow L^p(\mathbb R^d)$ given by $t\mapsto S_n(t)u_{0,n}(x)$ and $t\mapsto \int_0^t S_n(t-r)f_n(r,x)\ dr$ are continuous, as well as  their derivatives, with respect to $t$, for every fixed $n$. Thus, by assumptions of the proposition, there holds that $a_n(D)u_{0,n}+\frac{d}{dt}f(0)\in L^p(\mathbb R^d), n\in\mathbb N.$ This implies that the assumptions  of  Corollary 3.2.11. in \cite{ABHN 2011} are satisfied. By part c)  of this corollary,  there exists a unique mild solution to (\ref{equiv1}) (with fixed $n$). The fact that $(v_n)_n$ and $(w_n)_n$ have a moderate growth with respect to $n$  follows from the moderate growth of $(S_n)_n,$ $(u_{0,n})_n$ and $(f_n)_n$.
\end{proof}

The sequence of mild solutions $(w_n)_n$ is a very weak solution to (\ref{jed}), in the sense of \cite{GR} and \cite{R} because for every fixed $n$, $w_n(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the distributional solution to (\ref{eq **}),
\begin{equation}\label{dise}
\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial t}w_n(t,x)-a_n(D)w_n(t,x)-f_n(t,x),\psi(t,x)\rangle=0,\quad \psi(t,x)\in\mathcal D([0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^d),
\end{equation}
$w_n(0,x)=u_{0,n}(x), n\in\mathbb N,$ and $(w_n)_n$ has a moderate growth with respect to $n$. Moderate growth means that
\begin{equation}\label{mod}
\forall \psi\in\mathcal D((0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^d)\;\; \exists m=m_\psi\in\mathbb R,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
|\langle w_n(t,x),\psi(t,x)\rangle|=O(n^m), \;n\rightarrow \infty.
\end{equation*}
This is a consequence of the fact that the  mapping  $[0,\infty)\times L^p(\mathbb R^d) \ni (t,f) \mapsto S_n(t)f\in L^p(\mathbb R^d)$ is continuous because  $t\mapsto S_n(t,\cdot)\in  L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is continuous,  and determines a distribution $w_n(t,x)\in\mathcal D'((0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^d)$. Note that $C([0,\infty),L^p(\mathbb{R}^d))=C([0,\infty)\times L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)),$ with  $f(t,\varphi)=\int f(t,x)\varphi(x)\,dx,$ $\varphi\in L^q(\mathbb{R}^d).$

The next corollary serves as a motivation for our approach.

\begin{Corollary} \label{34}
 Let  $a(D)\in S^m_{0,1}$ be a pseudo-differential operator on $L^p(\mathbb R^d)$ so  that  (A1) - (A3) and  (\ref{delc}) hold. Let $(u_{0,n}(x))_n$ and $(f_n(t,x))_n$ be a sequence in $L^p(\mathbb R^d)$ and $C^1([0,\infty),L^p(\mathbb R^d))$, respectively, obtained as a regularization of $u_0\in\mathcal D'_{L^p}(\mathbb R^d)$ and $f\in C^1([0,\infty),\mathcal D'_{L^p}(\mathbb  R^d))$  (as in Remark \ref{rim}).
Then, the sequence $(v_n)_n$ of the form (\ref{sol11})  determine  $w_n=\frac{d}{dt}v_n, n\in\mathbb N$, a sequence of mild solutions to (\ref{equiv1}); $(w_n)_n$ has a subsequence $(w_{k_n})_n$ with elements in $C([0,\infty),L^p(\mathbb R^d))$  such that it converges to $w(t,x)\in \mathcal D'([0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^d)$. Moreover, $w$ is a weak solution to (\ref{jed}); it satisfies
\begin{align}\label{zad1}
\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial t}w(t,x)-a(D)w(t,x)-f(t,x),\psi(t,x)\rangle=0,\quad \psi(t,x)\in\mathcal D([0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^d),
\end{align}
\begin{equation*}
\langle w(0,x),\psi(x)\rangle=\langle u_0(x),\psi(x) \rangle, \; \psi\in\mathcal D(\mathbb R^d).
\end{equation*}
\end{Corollary}

\begin{proof}
We fix $t>0.$ With $S$ as in (\ref{HKe}) (without subindex), we have that $(S(t)u_{0,n}(\cdot))_n$ is a bounded sequence in $\mathcal D'_{L^p}(\mathbb R^d)$. The same holds for $(\int_0^t S(t-r)f_n(r,\cdot)\ dr)_n.$   This implies that there exists a subsequence $v_{k_n}(t,x)=S(t)u_{0,k_n}(x) + \int_0^t S(t-r)f_{k_n}(r,x)\ dr$ so that it converges weakly as $n\rightarrow\infty$ to $v(t,\cdot)\in\mathcal D'_{L^p}(\mathbb R^d)$. If we consider the set of rational points $Q_+\subset[0,\infty),$ $Q_+=\{q_1,,q_2,...\}$ and form a convergent subsequence of already convergent subsequence, by diagonalization, we can construct a subsequence (again denoted as) $(v_{k_n})_n$ so that for every $t\in Q_+,$ $v_{k_n}(t,\cdot)\rightarrow v(t,\cdot)\in \mathcal D'_{L^p}(\mathbb R^d),$ $n\to\infty.$ Since all the elements of this subsequence are continuous with respect to $t$, we obtain that  $v_{k_n}(t,\cdot)\rightarrow v(t,\cdot), t\in[0,\infty), n\rightarrow \infty,$ where $v(t,\cdot)\in C^1([0,\infty),\mathcal D'_{L^p})\subset \mathcal D'([0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^d).$ This is a consequence of the fact that $t\mapsto \langle v_{k_n}(t,x),\psi(x)\rangle,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_{L^q}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ as well as  $t\mapsto \langle \frac{d}{dt}v_{k_n}(t,x),\psi(x)\rangle,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_{L^q}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ are uniformly continuous sequences of functions on any bounded interval $[0,T],$ $T>0.$ Thus, by the convergence in this space of distributions, $w=\frac{d}{dt}v$ is a weak solution to (\ref{jed}), i.e. \eqref{zad1} holds.
\end{proof}

Assume that $u_0\in L^p(\mathbb R^d),$  $f\in C^1([0,\infty),L^p(\mathbb R^d))$, $|D^\alpha_\xi a_n(\xi)|\leq C \langle\xi\rangle^{m-|\alpha|}, $ $n\in\mathbb N, $ $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^d, $ for some $C>0,$ as well as
that (\ref{delc}) and (A1) - (A3) hold. Then,  the sequence of equations (\ref{equiv1}) (with $u_0$ and $f$ instead of $u_{0,n}$ and $f_n$) has a sequence of solutions $(w_n)_n$ of the form  (\ref{sol11}), where $S_n(t)$ is given by (\ref{HKe}). Moreover, there exists a subsequence of solutions $(w_{k_n})_n$ such that $w_{k_n}\rightarrow w, $ $n\rightarrow \infty,$  weakly in $ \mathcal D'([0,\infty)\times \mathbb R^d).$
This can be proved by the similar arguments as in the proof of the previous corollary.

We apply the above considerations to a special equation (\ref{equiv1}), in the case $d=1$ in order to discuss its dependence on the sequences of coefficients:
\begin{align}\label{pex}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} w_n- P_n\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)w_n=f_n, \quad n\in\mathbb{N},
\end{align}
where  $(f_n)_n$ is a moderate sequence in $C^1([0,\infty),L^p(\mathbb{R}))$ and $P_n$ is a linear  differential  operator with constant coefficients belonging to $\mathcal E^M_{\mathbb C}$, of the form
\begin{align*} P_n(\partial/\partial x)=\alpha_{0,n}+i\beta_{0,n}+(\alpha_{1,n}+i\beta_{1,n})\partial/\partial x+(\alpha_{2,n}+i\beta_{2,n})(\partial/\partial x)^2,\quad n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{align*}
We note that (G1) holds since all the domains $D_{P_n}, n\in\mathbb N$, are equal to the Sobolev space $W^{2,p}(\mathbb R)$. Since we are considering one dimensional case,  $P_n$ are elliptic, $n\in\mathbb N,$ so (A1) and (A2)  are fulfilled. A sufficient condition for the application of Proposition \ref{3} and Corollary \ref{34}, originating from  (A3) reads:
\begin{align*}
\alpha_{2,n}\geq 0 \text{ and } \omega_n=\max\left\{0,\frac{4\alpha_{2,n}\alpha_{0,n}+\beta_{1,n}^2}{4\alpha_{2,n}}\right\}\leq \omega,\ n\in\mathbb{N},  \text{ for some }  \omega\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{align*}
It shows that whenever $\beta_{1,n}=O(\sqrt{\alpha_{2,n}}), $ $\alpha_{2,n}>0$ and $\alpha_{0,n}=O(1)$ condition (A3) is satisfied. Then, directly using \cite{KH} Theorem 4.1, one has that g.e.i.s. $(S_n)_n$ is defined by $S_n (t)u(t,\cdot)=(2\pi)^{-1/2}(\mathcal{F}^{-1}\phi_{t,n})\ast u(t,\cdot),$ $n\in\mathbb{N}$ where $\phi_{t,n}(\xi):=\int_{0}^t e^{p_n(i\xi)s}ds,$ $\xi\in \mathbb{R},$ $ t>0$, see (\ref{HKe}).  Again one has the existence of a very weak solution for  (\ref{pex}).

Note that by  \cite{KH}, instead of $L^p(\mathbb{R})$ one can consider in (\ref{pex}) spaces: $ C_0(\mathbb{R}),$ $C_b(\mathbb{R}),$ $UC_b(\mathbb{R}).$ More generally, if one defines the space $\mathcal D_{E}$, where $E$ is one of quoted spaces, then by the adaptation of Proposition \ref{3} and Corollary \ref{34}, one obtains the corresponding g.e.i.s's. We refer to \cite{DPV} for the translation invariant spaces $\mathcal D_E$ and their duals.

\begin{Remark}
We  can consider equation (\ref{eq **}) with
$a_n(\xi)=ic_n |\xi|^m,$ $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^d,$ $m\in \mathbb{R},$ $c_n\in \mathbb{R},$ $ |c_n|\leq c,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ with the similar definitions:  $({\rm Op}\ a_n)(u)=\mathcal F^{-1}(a_n\mathcal F u)$ and their  domains $D_n=D\subset L^p(\mathbb{R}^d),$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$  Now as in \cite{ABHN 2011}, Example 8.2.5, let $m$ and $p$ satisfy conditions of Theorem 8.3.9 of \cite{ABHN 2011} (with $k=1$). Then the sequence  $(a_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_3$ and it determines a g.e.i.s.  $(S_n)_n$.  We have a similar assertions as in Proposition  \ref{3} and Corollary \ref{34}, adapted to $(ic_n|\xi|^m)_n$, which will not be repeated.
\end{Remark}

\section{Associated sequences }
\label{s 4}

In this section we classify  infinitesimal generators and corresponding g.e.i.s.'s and we analyse the  relations of generalized infinitesimal generators and g.e.i.s.'s. Moreover, we introduce sequences associated to zero within algebras of Subsection \ref{ss not}.

The notion of association between  sequences is well understood in the literature related to the algebraic theory of  generalized function   \cite{C1984}, \cite{MMMR}. A sequence $(x_n)_n\in\mathcal E^M_X$ is associated to zero if $||x_n||_X \rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$. Denote by $\mathcal{I}_{X}$ the space of elements of $\mathcal E^M_X$  which are associated  to zero. Such elements make a  subspace  of $\mathcal E^M_X$.  Similarly,  we define $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal L(X)}$ as the space of sequences $(N_n)_n\in\mathcal E^M_{\mathcal L(X)}$ which converges to zero in $\mathcal L(X),$ as  $n\rightarrow \infty$; $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal L(X)}$  is a subalgebra of $\mathcal E^M_{\mathcal L(X)}$ under the operation of composition.  A subspace of $\mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);X),$  consisting of elements $(N_n(t))_n,$ $t\geq 0,$  with the property
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\geq 0} \|e^{-\omega t} N_n (t)\|_{X}\rightarrow 0,\quad n\to \infty, \mbox{ for some } \omega>0,
\end{align*}
is denoted by $\mathcal{I}_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);X).$  Analogously, we define a subspace $\mathcal{I}_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X))$ of the space $\mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X))$ containing elements $(N_n(t))_n,$ $t\geq 0,$  such that for some $ \omega>0,$ $\sup_{t\geq 0} \|e^{-\omega t} N_n (t)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}\rightarrow 0,$ $n\to \infty.$

Two sequences in $\mathcal E^M_X$ or  $\mathcal E^M_{\mathcal L(X)}$ or $\mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);X)$ or $\mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X))$ are associated in these spaces, respectively,   if their difference converges to zero,  that is, belongs to the corresponding space $\mathcal{I}_{X}$ or  $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal L(X)}$ or $\mathcal{I}_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);X)$ or $\mathcal{I}_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)).$  In any of these spaces the association is the relation of equivalence. We will use in the sequel the symbol ''$\sim$'' if the difference of two elements is associated.

\begin{Remark}
One can also define weak associative sequences of quoted algebras when one involve test functions in the definitions (cf. \cite{C1984}), as is it implicitly suggested in Section \ref{examples}, where we considered sequences with values in distribution spaces.
\end{Remark}

Concerning generators, we add to conditions (G1),  (G2) and (G3) the following one:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(G4):]  For every $\lambda>\omega$ there exist $0<c_1(\lambda)<c_2(\lambda)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|R(\lambda,A_n)\|_{\mathcal L(X)}\in(c_1(\lambda),c_2(\lambda)), \quad n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
Note that (G4) implies
\begin{align*}
R(\lambda,A_n)y_n\rightarrow 0 \;\mbox{ if and only if } \; y_n\rightarrow 0, \; n\rightarrow \infty\; \text{for all}\; \lambda\in (\omega,\infty).
\end{align*}
We denote by $\mathcal{A}^{M}_4$, the set of sequences which satisfy (G1), (G2), (G3), (G4).

\begin{Lemma}\label{N u N}
Let $A\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_4.$ If $(x_n)_n\in \mathbf{D}_A$ and $(x_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_{X}$ then $(A_n x_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_{X}.$
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
Denote by $y_n=\lambda x_n-A_n x_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}, $ $\lambda>\omega.$ Then  $(x_n)_n\in \mathbf{D}_A$ imply $(y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M.$ Since $(R(\lambda,A_n)y_n)_n=(x_n)_n \in \mathcal{I}_X,$ according to (G4), one obtains $(y_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_X.$ Finally, $A_n x_n=\lambda x_n - y_n, $ $\lambda>\omega,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}, $ implies $(A_n x_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_X.$
\end{proof}

We introduce the relation of equivalence in $\mathcal{A}^{M}_4$: $(A_n)_n\simeq (\tilde A_n)_n$ if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(GE1):] $D=\tilde D,$ where $D=D_{A_n}$ and $\tilde D=D_{\tilde A_n},$ $n\in\mathbb{N};$
\item[(GE2):] $\mathbf{D}_A=\mathbf{D}_{\tilde{A}};$
\item[(GE3):] $((A_n -\tilde A_n)x_n)_n\rightarrow 0$ in $X,$ as $n\to\infty,$ for every $(x_n)_n\in \mathbf{D}_A.$
\end{enumerate}

\noindent Note, if $(A_n)_n,$ $(\tilde A_n)_n $ in $\mathcal{A}^{M}_4$ then there always exists $\omega>0$ such that $(\omega,\infty)\subset \rho(A_n)\cap\rho(\tilde A_n),$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$

We say that sequences of resolvents $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n$ and $(R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n, $ $\lambda>\omega,$ are associated,  and write
\begin{align*}
(R(\lambda,A_n))_n \simeq  (R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n
\end{align*}
if for every $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty),$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(RE1):] $R={\rm range\,}R(\lambda,A_n)={\rm range\,}R(\lambda,\tilde A_n),$ $n\in\mathbb{N};$
\item[(RE2):] $\mathbf{R}_{A}=\mathbf{R}_{\tilde A};$
\item[(RE3):] $((R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))y_n)_n\rightarrow 0$ in $X,$ as $n\to\infty,$ for every $(y_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}_X^M.$
\end{enumerate}

\begin{Theorem}\label{prop 1}
Let $(A_n)_n,(\tilde A_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_4$ and  $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n, (R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_{\mathcal{L}(X)}, $ $\lambda>\omega,$ be corresponding resolvents.

Then $(A_n)_n \simeq(\tilde A_n)_n$ if and only if $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n  \simeq (R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n,$ $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\Rightarrow)$] Let us first assume that $(A_n)_n\simeq (\tilde A_n)_n.$ Since $D_{A_n}=D_{\tilde A_n}=D,\,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ one directly obtains that ${\rm range\;}R(\lambda,A_n)={\rm range\;}R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)=D$ for any $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}.$ Also,  Corollary \ref{cor D=R} shows that $\mathbf{D}_A=\mathbf{D}_{\tilde A}$ implies $\mathbf{R}_A=\mathbf{R}_{\tilde A}.$

Let  $(y_n)_n \in \mathcal{E}_X^M$ arbitrary and $\lambda>\omega.$ Denote by
\begin{align*}
(R(\lambda,A_n)y_n)_n=(x_n)_n, \; (R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)y_n)_n=(\tilde x_n)_n\in \mathbf{R}_A=\mathbf{D}_A.
\end{align*}
This implies that
\begin{align*}
y_n=(\lambda I-A_n)x_n=(\lambda I-\tilde A_n)\tilde x_n,\quad n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{align*}
Now we infer
\begin{align*}
\lambda(x_n-\tilde x_n) & =A_n x_n -\tilde{A}_n \tilde x_n = A_n x_n -\tilde{A}_n \tilde x_n +\tilde A_n x_n - \tilde A_n x_n \\
& = (A_n-\tilde A_n)x_n +\tilde A_n(x_n - \tilde x_n)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
(\lambda I-\tilde A_n)(x_n-\tilde x_n)=(A_n-\tilde A_n)x_n.
\end{align*}
Since $((A_n -\tilde A_n) x_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_X$ one obtains $((\lambda I-\tilde A_n)(x_n-\tilde x_n))_n\in \mathcal{I}_X.$ Applying $(R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n$ and using (G4) one obtains
\begin{align*}
(x_n)_n \sim (\tilde x_n)_n \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad (R(\lambda,A_n)y_n)_n \sim (R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)y_n)_n.
\end{align*}
So one obtains $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n\simeq (R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n,$ $\lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$

\item[$(\Leftarrow)$] Now, let $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n\simeq(R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n,$ $ \lambda\in (\omega,\infty).$ Clearly, $D_{A_n}=D_{\tilde A_n}=D,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ since  $ {\rm range\;}R(\lambda,A_n)={\rm range\;}R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)=D,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$ Corollary \ref{cor D=R} implies $\mathbf{D}_A=\mathbf{D}_{\tilde{A}}.$

Finally, let us show that (GE3) holds.  Let $(x_n)_n\in \mathbf{D}_A,$ be given and denote by $(y_n)_n = (A_n x_n)_n,\;(\tilde y_n)_n = (\tilde A_n x_n)_n\in  \mathcal{E}_X^M.$ Then, for $\lambda>\omega,$
\begin{align*}
& (\lambda I-A_n)x_n=\lambda x_n - y_n \quad \Rightarrow \quad x_n = \lambda R(\lambda, A_n)x_n - R(\lambda, A_n)y_n\\
& (\lambda I-\tilde A_n)x_n=\lambda x_n - \tilde y_n \quad \Rightarrow \quad x_n = \lambda R(\lambda, \tilde A_n)x_n - R(\lambda, \tilde A_n)\tilde y_n.
\end{align*}
Next, for $\lambda>\omega,$
\begin{align*}
R(\lambda, \tilde A_n)\tilde y_n-R(\lambda, A_n) y_n & = \lambda R(\lambda,\tilde{A}_n)x_n - \lambda R(\lambda, A_n)x_n,\\
&=\left( R(\lambda, \tilde A_n)- R(\lambda, A_n)\right)(\lambda x_n).
\end{align*}
This relation and the assumption $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n\simeq(R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n,$ $\lambda>\omega$ imply that  $(R(\lambda, \tilde A_n)\tilde y_n)_n\sim (R(\lambda, A_n) y_n)_n.$ On the other hand,  since
\begin{align*}
R(\lambda, \tilde A_n)\tilde y_n-R(\lambda, A_n) y_n & =R(\lambda, \tilde A_n)\tilde y_n-R(\lambda, A_n) y_n \pm R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)y_n\\
& = R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)(\tilde y_n-y_n)+(R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)-R(\lambda,A_n))y_n,
\end{align*}
we conclude that
\begin{align*}
(R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)\tilde y_n)_n \sim (R(\lambda,\tilde A_n) y_n)_n, \quad\lambda\in(\omega,\infty).
\end{align*}
Thus,  Lemma \ref{N u N} implies
\begin{align*}
((\lambda I- \tilde A_n)R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)\tilde y_n)_n \sim ((\lambda I- \tilde A_n)R(\lambda,\tilde A_n) y_n)_n \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad (\tilde y_n)_n \sim (y_n)_n.
\end{align*}
This means $ (A_n )_n \simeq (\tilde A_n)_n.$
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\subsection{Relations between generators and g.e.i.s.'s}

We define the relation of equivalence for g.e.i.s.'s in the sense of  association:

\begin{definition}\label{sg rel}
Let $(S_n)_n$ and $(\tilde S_n)_n$ be g.e.i.s.'s determined by $(A_n)_n,(\tilde A_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_4.$  Then $(S_n)_n \simeq (\tilde S_n)_n$ if $((S_n-\tilde S_n)x_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);X)$ for any $(x_n)_\in\mathcal{E}^M_X$ and the sequences of resolvents  $(R(\lambda,A_n))_n$ and $(R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))_n$ satisfy (RE1) and (RE2).
\end{definition}

\begin{Theorem}\label{T sg ka ig}
Assume $(S_n)_n \simeq (\tilde S_n)_n.$ Then their infinitesimal generators  satisfy  $(A_n)_n\simeq (\tilde A_n)_n.$
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let us prove that $((R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))x_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_{X}$ for any $(x_n)_n\in\mathcal{E}_X^M.$ By Proposition  \ref{prop 1}, this implies that $(A_n)_n \simeq (\tilde{A}_n)_n.$ Let $\lambda>\omega$ and $(x_n)_n\in\mathcal{E}_X^M$ be fixed.  Then,
\begin{align*}
\left\|(R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))x_n\right\|_{X} & = \left\|\lambda \int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}\left(S_n(t)-\tilde{S}_n(t) \right)x_n\,dt \right\|_{X}\\
& \leq \sup_{t\geq 0}\|e^{-\omega t}(S_n(t)-\tilde{S}_n(t))x_n \|_{X} \left|\lambda \int_0^\infty e^{-(\lambda-\omega)t} dt \right| \\
& \leq C\sup_{t\geq 0}\|e^{-\omega t}(S_n(t)-\tilde{S}_n(t))x_n \|_{X}\to 0,\quad n\to\infty.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Next, we introduce sets of sequences of strong infinitesimal generators denoted by $\mathcal{A}^{M}_5.$ Denote by (G5) assumption \eqref{G5}, i.e.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(G5):] $\sup_{\rm Re\,\lambda>\omega}\| \lambda^b R(\lambda,A_n)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)} \leq M_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ for some  $b>0$ and $(M_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_\mathbb{R}.$
\end{itemize}

We say that a sequence $(A_n)_n$ is a sequence of strong infinitesimal generators,  that is $(A_n)_n\in\mathcal{A}^{M}_5$,  if $(A_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_4$ and (G5) holds. Note that if $(A_n)_n$ satisfies (G5) then it also satisfies condition (G3).

Let us introduce a relation of equivalence in $\mathcal{A}^{M}_5$ as follows:  $(A_n)_n\simeq_0(\tilde A_n)_n$ if $(A_n)_n\simeq(\tilde A_n)_n$ and
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(GE4)]  there exists $b>0$ such that $\sup\limits_{\rm Re\,\lambda>\omega}\left\| \lambda^b \left(R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)\right)x_n\right\|_{X}\rightarrow 0,$ $n\to \infty,$ for all $(x_n)_n\in\mathcal{E}^M_X.$
\end{enumerate}

\begin{Theorem}
If $(A_n)_n\simeq_0(\tilde A_n)_n$ in $\mathcal{A}^{M}_5,$ then $(S_n)_n\simeq(\tilde S_n)_n.$
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
Assumption (G5) and Theorem \ref{th 1} imply that $(A_n)_n$ and $(\tilde A_n)_n$ generate g.e.i.s.'s $(S_n)_n$ and $(\tilde S_n)_n,$ respectively.  Next, as in the proof of Theorem 2.5.1 in \cite{ABHN 2011},
\begin{equation*}
\|(S_n(t)-\tilde{S}_n(t))x_n\|_{X}\leq \frac{M_n e^{\alpha t}}{\pi}\int_R^\infty \frac{dr}{r^{1+b}}+\frac{M_n e^{\alpha t} }{\pi R^b}\int_0^{\pi/2} e^{Rt\cos\theta} \,d\theta,\; n\in\mathbb{N},\; t>0,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
M_n=\sup_{{\rm Re} \lambda>\omega}\|\lambda^b(R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))x_n\|_{X}.
\end{equation*}
Now assumption (GE4) above gives that $M_n\to 0,$ $n\to\infty.$ This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}

We recall a one more known assumption for integrated semigroups (called theoretically important, in \cite{N}, p.128).  Let a sequence $(A_n)_n\in\mathcal{A}^{M}_4$ be such that the common  domain $D$ of operators $A_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ given in (G1), is dense in $X$ ($\overline D=X$).  Assume
\begin{align}\label{d1}
\sup_{k\in \mathbb{N}_0}\sup_{\lambda>\omega}\| (\lambda-\omega)^{k+1}(R(\lambda,A_n)/\lambda)^{(k)}/k!\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)}\leq M_n, \quad n\in\mathbb{N},
\end{align}
for some $(M_n)_n\in\mathcal{E}^M_{\mathbb{R}}. $
Then, by Theorem 3.3.2 in \cite{ABHN 2011},  the sequence $(A_n)_n$ generate a sequence of exponentially bounded integrated semigroups $(S_n)_n$ such that $\|S_n(t)\|_{\mathcal{L}(X)} \leq M_n e^{\omega t};$ so $(S_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\rm exp}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)).$

This classical result implies the following assertion.

\begin{Proposition}
Let $(A_n)_n,(\tilde A_n)_n\in\mathcal{A}^{M}_4$ satisfy \eqref{d1},  so that the common domain of $A_n,$ $\tilde A_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ $D$ is dense in $X.$ Assume that for all $(x_n)_n\in\mathcal{E}^M_X$
\begin{align}\label{d2}
\sup_{k\in \mathbb{N}_0}\sup_{\lambda>\omega}\| (\lambda-\omega)^{k+1}(((R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))/\lambda)^{(k)}x_n )/k!\|_{X}\rightarrow 0, \  n\rightarrow \infty.
\end{align}
Then  $(S_n)_n\simeq (\tilde S_n)_n.$
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof}
We know, by Theorem 3.3.2 in \cite{ABHN 2011}, that $(A_n)_n$ and $(\tilde A_n)_n$ generate g.e.i.s.'s $(S_n)_n$ and $(\tilde S_n)_n.$  Let $(x_n)_n\in\mathcal{E}^M_X$ and let $m_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}$ denote, in \eqref{d2},
\begin{align*}
\sup_{k\in \mathbb{N}_0}\sup_{\lambda>\omega}\| (\lambda-\omega)^{k+1}(((R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde A_n))/\lambda)^{(k)}x_n )/k!\|_{X}\leq m_n \rightarrow 0, \quad n\rightarrow \infty.
\end{align*}
Now, Theorem 2.4.2 in \cite{ABHN 2011} implies that there exists $(g_n)_n\in(L^1_{\rm loc}([0,\infty),X))^\mathbb{N}$ so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{(R(\lambda,A_n)-R(\lambda,\tilde{A_n}))x_n}{\lambda}=\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}g_n(t)\ dt,\quad \lambda>\omega,
\end{align*}
and $\|g_n(t)\|_X\leq m_ne^{\omega t},$ $t\geq 0,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$

Also, we know that there exist $(H_n)_n$ and $(\tilde H_n)_n$ in $(L^1_{\rm loc}([0,\infty),X))^\mathbb{N}$ determined by $R(\lambda,A_n)$ and $R(\lambda,\tilde A_n)$ so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{R(\lambda,A_n)x_n}{\lambda}-\frac{R(\lambda,\tilde{A_n})x_n}{\lambda}=\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}(H_n(t)-\tilde H_n(t))\ dt=\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda t}g_n(t)\ dt.
\end{align*}
Thus, by the uniqueness of the Laplace transform, we have $\|H_n(t)-\tilde H_n(t)\|_X\leq m_n e^{\omega t},$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$ With $H_n(t)=S_n(t)x_n$ and $\tilde H_n(t)=\tilde S_n(t)x_n,$ $n\in \mathbb{N},$ we complete the assertion.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Perturbations}

We finish the paper with the result concerning the perturbations. It directly follows from the corresponding one in  \cite{KH}, Section 3. The proof is omitted.

Let $(A_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_5,$  be a sequence of infinitesimal generators of g.e.i.s $(S_n)_n\in \mathcal{C}^M_{\text{exp}}([0,\infty);\mathcal{L}(X)).$ Let $(B_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_{\mathcal{L}(\bar D)}$ so that $||B_n||_{\mathcal{L}(\bar D)}\leq C, $ $n\in \mathbb N$ for some $C>0$ ($\bar D$ is the closure of $D=D_{A_n},$ $ n\in\mathbb{N}$). Assume that there exists $\lambda_0$ such that
\begin{align*}
B_nR(\lambda,A_n)=R(\lambda,A_n)B_n, \quad \lambda>\lambda_0, \quad n\in\mathbb N.
\end{align*}
Let (as in \cite{KH})
\begin{equation}\label{eq tacka}
S^{B_n}_n (t)=e^{tB_n}S_n (t)-B_n \int_0^t e^{sB_n}S_n (s)\ ds,\quad t>0,\;\;  n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{equation}
Then we have the next adaptation of Proposition 3.1 in \cite{KH}.

\begin{Proposition} Let $(A_n)_n\in\mathcal{A}^{M}_5$ and $(B_n)_n\in \mathcal{E}^M_{\mathcal{L}(\bar D)}$ satisfy all assumptions given above.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(A_n +B_n)_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_5. $  It is a sequence of infinitesimal generators of $(S^{B_n}_n)_n$ given by \eqref{eq tacka} and $(S_n^{B_n})_n$ is g.e.i.s.
\item Let $(C_n)_n\in \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{L}(\bar D)}$ such that $C_nR(\lambda,A_n)=R(\lambda,A_n)C_n,$ $\lambda>\lambda_0,$ $n\in\mathbb{N},$ and $\tilde B_n=B_n+C_n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$ Then ${(S_n^{B_n})}_n \simeq (S_n^{\tilde B_n})_n$ and ${(A_n +B_n)}_n \simeq_0{(A_n+\tilde B_n)}_n.$
\item Let $(A_n)_n,{(\tilde A_n)}_n\in \mathcal{A}^{M}_5.$ Then
\begin{align*}
(A_n)_n \simeq_0 {(\tilde A_n)_n}\quad  \Rightarrow\quad
{(S^{B_n}_n)_n} \simeq (\tilde S^{B_n}_n)_n.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Proposition}

With this proposition we can  construct associated infinitesimal generators which produce associated g.e.i.s.'s.

For example, continuing with the example concerning the differential o\-pe\-ra\-tor given in the last part of Section \ref{examples}, let $X=L^p(\mathbb R), $ $p\in(1,\infty)$, $A=P(D)=a_0+a_1D+a_2D^2,$ $p(i\xi)=\sum_{j=0}^2 a_j(i\xi)^j$ and make perturbation so that $A_n= P_n (D)=a_0+1/n +a_1D+(a_2+1/n)D^2$ and $p_n(i\xi)=(a_0+1/n)+a_1(i\xi)+(a_2+1/n)(i\xi)^2.$

We have that $D(A)=D(A_n)=W^{2,2}(\mathbb R)$ and $A-A_n=(1+D^2)/n,$ $n\in\mathbb{N}.$ So these sequences are associated and
\begin{align*}
S(t)f=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left(\int_0^t e^{p(i\xi)s}ds\right)\ast f,\quad  S_n(t)f=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left(\int_0^t e^{p_n(i\xi)s}ds\right)\ast f,
\end{align*}
$f\in X,\ n\in\mathbb{N},$ and we have that for given $f\in X$
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t>0}\|S_n (t)f-S(t)f\|_{X}\to 0,\quad n\to \infty.
\end{align*}

\section*{Acknowledgment}

The paper is supported by the following projects and grants: project F10 of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, project 142-451-2384 of the Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research and projects 451-03-47/2023-01/200125 and 337-00-577/2021-09/46 of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.