\section{Conclusion  and Discussion}
This work proposes a fast adversarial training method to overcome catastrophic overfitting and improve adversarial robustness by introducing the priori-guided adversarial initialization and the novel adversarial label perturbation.
Specifically, after exploring three adversarial initialization strategies, we propose to use the momentum of adversarial gradients of all previous epochs as the initialization of FGSM for AE generation.
Inspired by AE perturbation, we propose the adversarial label perturbation by adding adversarial perturbation to the ground truth label.
The perturbed labels and AEs are used for training.
Evaluations on four databases demonstrate that the proposed method can prevent catastrophic overfitting and improve adversarial robustness without additional calculation cost.

\noindent \textbf{Limitations.}
Our method has a side effect of improving robustness, \textit{i.e.,} the clean accuracy decreases.
This effect also exists in other FAT methods.
It might limit the application of FAT.
We will rethink the robustness and accuracy trade-off in the future.

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we investigate how to improve adversarial example quality from the perspective of initialization and propose to adopt historically generated adversarial perturbations to initialize adversarial examples.
It can generate powerful adversarial examples with no additional calculation cost.
Moreover, we also propose a simple yet effective regularizer to further improve model robustness, which prevents the current perturbation deviating too much from the prior-guided initialization.
The regularizer adopts both historical and current adversarial perturbations to guide the model learning. Extensive experimental evaluations demonstrate that the proposed method can prevent catastrophic overfitting and outperform state-of-the-art FAT methods at a low computational cost.

\section{Experiments}
\label{Experiments}

\input{table/CIFAR10_ResNet_v2}
\subsection{Experimental Setting}
\noindent \textbf{Dataset Settings.} To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed FGSM-MEP, extensive experiments are conducted on four benchmark datasets that are the most widely used to evaluate adversarial robustness, \textit{i.e.}, CIFAR-10~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, CIFAR-100~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, Tiny ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet}, and ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet}.
Following the commonly used settings in the adversarial training, we adopt ResNet18~\cite{he2016deep} and WideResNet34-10~\cite{DBLP:conf/bmvc/ZagoruykoK16} as the backbone on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100,  PreActResNet18~\cite{he2016identity} on Tiny ImageNet, and ResNet50~\cite{he2016deep} on ImageNet.
We adopt the SGD optimizer \cite{DBLP:journals/nn/Qian99} with a learning rate of 0.1,  the weight decay of 5e-4, and the momentum of 0.9.
As for CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny ImageNet, following the settings of \cite{rice2020overfitting,pang2020bag},
the total epoch number is set to 110. The learning rate decays with a factor of 0.1 at the 100th and 105th epoch.
As for ImageNet, following the settings of \cite{shafahi2019adversarial,wong2020fast}, the total epoch number is set to 90.
The learning rate decays with a factor of 0.1 at the 30th and 60th epoch.
Experiments on ImageNet are conducted with 8 Tesla V100 and other experiments are conducted with a single Tesla V100.
For our hyper-parameters, the decay factor $\mu$ is set to 0.3 and the hyper-parameter $\lambda$ is set to 10. More details are presented in the \textbf{supplementary material}.

\noindent \textbf{Evaluation Metrics.} For adversarial robustness evaluation, we adopt several widely used attack methods, \textit{i.e.,} PGD~\cite{madry2017towards}, C\&W~\cite{carlini2017towards}, and an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attacks, AA~\cite{croce2020reliable} that includes APGD~\cite{croce2020reliable}, APGD-T~\cite{croce2020reliable}, FAB~\cite{croce2020minimally}, and Square~\cite{andriushchenko2020square}.
We set the maximum perturbation strength $\epsilon$ to 8 for all attack methods.
Moreover, PGD attack is conducted with 10, 20 and, 50 iterations, \textit{i.e.}, PGD-10, PGD-20, and PGD-50. We report the results of the checkpoint with the best accuracy under the attack of PGD-10 as well as the results of the last checkpoint.
All experiments in the manuscript are performed with the multi-step learning rate strategy.
We also conduct experiments by using a cyclic learning rate strategy \cite{smith2017cyclical} which are presented in the \textbf{supplementary material}.

\noindent \textbf{Competing Methods.}
We compare the proposed method with a series of state-of-the-art FAT methods, \textit{i.e.,} Free-AT\cite{shafahi2019adversarial}, FGSM-RS~\cite{wong2020fast}, FGSM-GA\cite{andriushchenko2020understanding}, FGSM-CKPT\cite{kim2020understanding}, GAT~\cite{sriramanan2020guided} and NuAT~\cite{sriramanan2021towards}.
We also compare with an advanced multi-step AT method, \textit{i.e.,} PGD-AT\cite{rice2020overfitting}), which is an early stopping version of the original PGD-based AT method~\cite{madry2017towards}.

\input{table/CIFAR100_v2}
\input{table/Tiny_imagenet_v2}
\input{table/Imagenet}
\input{table/Ablation_study}

\subsection{Results on CIFAR-10}
On CIFAR-10, we adopt ResNet18 as the backbone.  The results are shown in Table~\ref{table:cifar10_ResNet}.
Note that the results of using WideResNet34-10 as the backbone are shown in the \textbf{supplementary material}.
The proposed FGSM-MEP prevents catastrophic overfitting and
even achieves better robustness than PGD-AT in most cases.
It costs much less time than PGD-AT. Specifically, under the AA attack, PGD-AT achieves an accuracy of about 48\% while the proposed FGSM-MEP achieves an accuracy of about 49\%.

Compared with other FAT methods, the proposed FGSM-MEP achieves comparable robustness to the previous most potent FAT method, NuAT.
But FGSM-MEP costs less time than NuAT (73 min VS 104 min).
Besides, for the last checkpoint, the proposed FGSM-MEP can achieve the best robustness performance under all attack scenarios.
And for the best checkpoint, the proposed FGSM-MEP also achieves the best robustness performance under the PGD-10, PGD-20, and PGD-50.
In terms of efficiency, our training process is about 3 times faster than Free-AT, 2.5 times faster than FGSM-GA, and 1.4 times faster than GAT and NuAT. Previous fast adversarial training variants~\cite{andriushchenko2020understanding,kim2020understanding,sriramanan2020guided,sriramanan2021towards} improve the quality of adversarial examples in different ways. Though they can prevent catastrophic overfitting and improve model robustness, they all require much time for  quality improvement.
Differently, we improve adversarial example quality from the perspective of initialization and propose to adopt historically generated adversarial perturbation to initialize the adversarial examples without additional calculation cost.

\subsection{Results on CIFAR-100}
On CIFAR-100, we adopt ResNet18 as the backbone.
The results are shown in Table~\ref{table:cifar100_ResNet}.
Compared with CIFAR-10, it is hard for the classification model to obtain robustness because the CIFAR-100 covers more classes.
The proposed FGSM-MEP achieves comparable robustness to PGD-AT and costs less time than PGD-AT. Specifically, under the AA attack,  PGD-AT achieves an
accuracy of about 25\%, while our FGSM-MEP also achieves an
accuracy of about 25\%.
Note that our training process is about 3 times faster than PGD-AT.
Compared with other FAT methods,
the proposed FGSM-MEP also achieves the best robustness against AEs under all attack scenarios on the best and last checkpoints.
In terms of training efficiency, we observe similar results on CIFAR-10.

\subsection{Results on Tiny ImageNet and ImageNet}

\noindent \textbf{Results on Tiny ImageNet.}  Following the setting of \cite{kim2020understanding,rice2020overfitting}, we adopt PreActResNet18 to conduct AT.
The results are shown in Table~\ref{table:Tiny_Imagnet}.
Compared with competing FAT methods, our FGSM-MEP achieves higher robust accuracy.
Compared with PGD-AT, our FGSM-MEP achieves better robustness performance under all attack scenarios on the best and last checkpoints. In terms of training efficiency, we observe similar results on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100.

\noindent \textbf{Results on ImageNet.}
Following the setting of \cite{shafahi2019adversarial,wong2020fast}, we adopt ResNet50 to conduct experiments.
Specifically, ResNet50 is trained with the maximum perturbation strength $\epsilon=2$, $\epsilon=4$, and $\epsilon=8$. The proposed FGSM-EP and FGSM-MEP require memory consumption to store the adversarial perturbation of the last epoch, which limits their application on ImageNet. Fortunately, FGSM-BP does not require memory consumption to conduct AT. Hence, on the ImageNet,
we compare our FGSM-BP with FGSM-RS and Free-AT. The results are shown in Table~\ref{table:Imagnet}.
Compared with FGSM-RS and Free-AT, our FGSM-BP achieves the highest clean and robust accuracy.
Our FGSM-BP requires a bit more calculation cost than FGSM-RS, but much less time than Free-AT.

\subsection{Ablation Study}
In this paper, we propose a regularization loss term to enforce function smoothness, resulting in improving model robustness.
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed regularization, we adopt ResNet18 as the classification model to conduct ablation experiments on CIFAR-10.
The results are shown in Table~\ref{tb:ablation}. It can be observed that combined with our regularization method, FGSM-BP, FGSM-EP, and FGSM-MEP can achieve better robustness performance under all attack scenarios.

\section{Introduction}
Deep neural networks (DNNs) \cite{lecun2015deep,bai2021improving,zou2019reinforced,gu2021capsule,wei2018transferable,wang2021enhancing,jia2019comdefend,liang2020efficient,liang2022parallel,li2022semi} are vulnerable to adversarial examples (AEs) \cite{szegedy2013intriguing,chen2018robust,finlayson2019adversarial,duan2020adversarial,lin2019nesterov,xie2019improving,jia2020adv,gu2021effective,duan2021adversarial,bai2020targeted,bai2020improving} generated by adding imperceptible perturbations to benign images.
Standard adversarial training (SAT) \cite{madry2017towards,wang2019improving,jia2022adversarial} is one of the most efficient defense methods against AEs.
It adopts projected gradient descent (PGD) ~\cite{madry2017towards}, a multi-step attack method, to generate AEs for training.
But, SAT requires much time to calculate gradients of the network's input multiple times.

\input{fig/time_acc}
\par To improve efficiency, fast adversarial training (FAT) methods \cite{goodfellow2014explaining,park2021reliably,zhang2019you,jia2022boosting} have been proposed. Goodfellow~\emph{et al.} first  \cite{goodfellow2014explaining} adopt FGSM to generate AEs for training, \textit{i.e.,} FGSM-AT, but it encounters the catastrophic overfitting.
Wong \emph{et al.} \cite{wong2020fast} propose to combine FGSM-AT with random initialization along with early stopping to overcome the overfitting.
Andriushchenko \emph{et al.} \cite{andriushchenko2020understanding}
propose a method from the view of regularization to enhance the quality of AEs, \textit{i.e.,} GradAlign.
Kim \emph{et al.} \cite{kim2020understanding} propose a simple method to determine an appropriate step size of FGSM-AT to generate stronger AEs, \textit{i.e.,} FGSM-CKPT.
Sriramanan \emph{et al.} \cite{sriramanan2020guided} introduce a relaxation term in the training loss to improve the quality of the generated AEs, \textit{i.e.,} GAT.
Then, Sriramanan \emph{et al.}~\cite{sriramanan2021towards} propose a Nuclear-Norm regularizer to enhance
the optimization of the AE generation and the model training.
These methods not only prevent
catastrophic overfitting but also achieve advanced defense performance by enhancing the quality of AEs.
However, compared with FGSM-RS, these advanced methods require high additional calculation costs to generate stronger AEs.

As AEs are critical for adversarial training, we study the AEs of both FAT and SAT during their training processes to explore the reason for catastrophic overfitting.
Surprisingly, we observe a distinct difference between the attack success rates of their AEs in the late training stage.
The attack success rate of FAT drops sharply after a few training epochs while the robust accuracy decreases to 0 (see FGSM-AT and FGSM-RS in Fig.~\ref{fig:difference}).
This phenomenon indicates that  overfitting happens when the quality of AEs becomes worse.
However, the overfitting does not exist in the two-step PGD (PGD-2-AT) that can be treated as FGSM-AT with an adversarial initialization. It means adversarial initialization could be a solution to overfitting.
\input{fig/ASR}
Based on the observation, we raise a question \textit{``can we obtain an adversarial initialization for FGSM-AT to maintain the high quality of AEs for avoiding catastrophic overfitting without additional calculation cost?"}
We investigate several initialization strategies and propose a prior-guided initialization by leveraging historically generated AEs, dubbed FGSM-PGI.
Specifically, we first use the buffered perturbations of AEs from the previous batch and the previous epoch as the initialization for FGSM, respectively, called FGSM-BP and FGSM-EP. The two strategies are demonstrated to be effective.
 To exploit complete prior information,
 we then propose to leverage the buffered gradients from all previous epochs via a momentum mechanism as an additional prior, dubbed FGSM-MEP, which works the best.
Furthermore, we provide a theoretical analysis for the proposed initialization method.

Moreover, we also propose a simple yet effective regularizer based on the above prior-guided initialization to guide model learning for better robustness.
The current perturbation can be generated via FGSM using the prior-guided initialization.
The regularizer prevents the current perturbation
deviating too much from the prior-guided initialization, which is implemented by using a squared $L_2$ distance between the predictions of adversarial examples generated based on the current perturbation and the prior-guided initialization.

The proposed method not only prevents catastrophic overfitting but also improves the adversarial robustness against adversarial attacks.
Fig.~\ref{fig:time_acc} illustrates the robustness and training efficiency of different FAT methods.
Our main contributions are in three aspects:
\textbf{1)} We propose a prior-guided adversarial initialization to prevent overfitting after investigating several initialization strategies.
\textbf{2)} We also propose a regularizer to guide the model learning for better robustness by considering both the currently generated perturbation and the prior-guided initialization.
\textbf{3)} Extensive experiments on four datasets demonstrate that the proposed method can outperform state-of-the-art FAT methods in terms of both efficiency and robustness.

\subsection{Prior-Guided Adversarial Initialization}
\label{sec:Initialization}
The above three observations motivate us to dive into the question \textit{``how to obtain adversarial initialization without additional calculation cost"}.
We come up with using the adversarial perturbations of historical AEs as the initialization for FGSM to conduct adversarial training, dubbed FGSM-PGI.
Such perturbations serve as the prior knowledge that we can freely obtain without additional gradient calculation except for extra storage.
We explore three strategies of exploiting historical perturbations, \textit{i.e.,} taking perturbations from the previous batch, from the previous epoch, and from the momentum of all epochs, \textit{i.e.,} FGSM-BP, FGSM-EP, and FGSM-MEP.

\noindent\textbf{Prior From the Previous Batch (FGSM-BP).}
We store the perturbations of AEs from the previous batch and regard them as the initialization of FGSM to generate AEs in the current batch.
As the batch is randomly sampled, there is no correspondence between perturbations from the previous batch and samples from the current batch.
Specifically, for a data point $\mathbf{x}$, we first add the perturbation from the previous batch onto it and then conduct FGSM based on the perturbed example.
The adversarial perturbation can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FSGM_BP}
\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{B_{t+1}}=\Pi_{[-\epsilon, \epsilon]}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{B_{t}}+\alpha \cdot \operatorname{sign}\left(\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{B_{t}} ; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y})\right)\right],
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{B_{t+1}}$ is the adversarial perturbation in the $t+1$-th batch.
Compared with FGSM-RS (see Eq.~\ref{eq:FGSM_RS}), we replace the random initialization with the adversarial perturbation from the previous batch.

\noindent\textbf{Prior From the Previous Epoch (FGSM-EP).}
We store the perturbations of all adversarial samples from the previous epoch and use them as initialization of FGSM to generate adversarial perturbations for the samples in the current epoch.
Note that there is a correspondence between each perturbation from the previous epoch and the sample in the current epoch.
 The adversarial perturbation is defined as:
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:FSGM_EP}
    \mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{E_{t+1}}=\Pi_{[-\epsilon, \epsilon]}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{E_{t}}+\alpha \cdot \operatorname{sign}\left(\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{E_{t}} ; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y})\right)\right],
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{E_{t+1}}$ is the adversarial perturbation in the $t+1$-th epoch.
Compared with FGSM-RS (see Eq.~\ref{eq:FGSM_RS}), we replace the random initialization with the adversarial perturbation from the previous epoch.

\vspace{1mm}
\noindent\textbf{Prior From the Momentum of All Previous Epochs (FGSM-MEP).}
To completely leverage historical adversarial perturbations during the whole training process, we propose to compute the momentum of one sample's gradients across all previous training epochs.
Then, the gradient momentum is used as the initialization of FGSM for AE generation in the current epoch.
There is also a correspondence between the gradient momentum and the sample in the current epoch.
The adversarial perturbation can be defined as:
\begin{align}
&\mathbf{g}_{c} =\operatorname{sign}\left(\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\eta}}_{E_t} ; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y})\right), \\
&\mathbf{g}_{E_{t+1}} =\mu \cdot \mathbf{g}_{E_{t}} + \mathbf{g}_{c}, \\
&\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{E_{t+1}}=\Pi_{[-\epsilon, \epsilon]}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\eta}}_{E_{t}}+\alpha \cdot \mathbf{g}_{c} \right], \label{eq:FSGM_MEP_1}\\
&\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\eta}}_{E_{t+1}} =\Pi_{[-\epsilon, \epsilon]}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\eta}}_{E_{t}}+\alpha \cdot \operatorname{sign}(\mathbf{g}_{E_{t+1}}) \right]. \label{eq:FSGM_MEP_2}
\end{align}
Similar to FGSM-AT (Eq.~\ref{Eq:FGSM_AT}), $\mathbf{g}_c$ is regarded as the signed gradient and $\mathbf{g}_{E_{t+1}}$ is the signed gradient momentum in the $t+1$-th epoch.
$\mu$ represents the decay factor.
${\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{E_{t+1}}$ is the adversarial perturbation, similar to that of FGSM-EP.
${\boldsymbol{\eta}}_{E_{t+1}}$ is the projected perturbation, which is used as adversarial initialization in the next epoch.
Compared with FGSM-EP, FGSM-MEP exploits the gradient momentum involving information of all previous epochs as initialization, instead of using only information in the previous epoch.

\subsection{Prior-guided Initialization based Regularization }
\label{sec:regularization}
We propose an effective regularization method based on the prior-guided initialization to improve model robustness.
Specifically, given the prior-guided initialization, we can generate a current perturbation via FGSM with the initialization.
Both the current perturbation and the initialization can be used to create adversarial examples.
Forcing the two types of adversarial examples to have similar predictions could help improve the smoothness of function.
The proposed regularization term can be added into the training loss to update the model
parameters $\mathbf{w}_{t+1}$, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{w}_{t+1}=\arg\min_{\mathbf{w}} [\mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{adv}; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y}) +
\lambda \cdot\left\|f(\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{adv} ; \mathbf{w})-{f}(\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{pgi}; \mathbf{w})\right\|_{2}^{2}],
\label{eq:loss}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{pgi}$ represents the prior-guided initialization generated by one of the above three initialization methods.
$\boldsymbol{\delta}_{adv}$ represents the current adversarial perturbation generated via FGSM using $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{pgi}$ as initialization.
$\lambda$ is a trade-off hyper-parameter.
The first term is the cross-entropy loss on AEs generated using the current perturbation.
The second term represents the regularization, \textit{i.e.,} the squared $L_{2}$ distance between the predictions of the two types of adversarial examples.
This term makes the learned model not only robust to currently generated AEs but also historically generated AEs.
In this way, the proposed regularization term explicitly enforces the function smoothness around samples to improve model robustness.

\par Based on the proposed prior-guided adversarial initialization and the regularization, we can establish our FAT framework. We evaluate the three prior-guided adversarial initialization approaches on CIFAR-10 (see results in Table~\ref{table:FGSM_MEP}) and find that they all can prevent catastrophic overfitting and achieve advanced model robustness against adversarial attacks.
FGSM-MEP works the best in terms of robust accuracy under all attack scenarios.
\textbf{The FGSM-EP, FGSM-BP and FGSM-MEP algorithms are presented in the supplementary material}.

\subsection{Theoretical Analysis}
\label{sec:theoretical}
\begin{proposition}
    Let $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{pgi}$ be the prior-guided adversarial initialization in \textbf{FGSM-BP}, \textbf{FSGM-EP} or \textbf{FSGM-MEP}, $\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}$ represents the current adversarial perturbation generated via FGSM using $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{pgi}$ as initialization, and $\alpha$ be the step size of \eqref{eq:FSGM_BP}, \eqref{eq:FSGM_EP}, \eqref{eq:FSGM_MEP_1} and \eqref{eq:FSGM_MEP_2}. If $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ is a bounded set like
    \begin{equation}
        \boldsymbol{\Omega} = \big\{\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}\ :\ \|\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}-\boldsymbol{\delta}_{pgi}\|^2_2\leq{\epsilon}^{2}\big\},
    \end{equation}
    and the step size $\alpha$ satisfies $\alpha\leq\epsilon$, it holds that
    \begin{equation}
        \label{eq:propo_1}
        \begin{aligned}
            & \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}\sim\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\big[\|\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}\|_2\big]&\leq&\ \ \sqrt{\ \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}\sim\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\big[\|\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}\|^2_2\big]}\\
            & &\leq&\ \ \sqrt{\frac{1}{d}}\cdot\epsilon,
        \end{aligned}
    \end{equation}
    where $\boldsymbol{\hat{\delta}}_{adv}$ is the adversarial perturbation generated by \textbf{FGSM-BP}, \textbf{FSGM-EP} or \textbf{FSGM-MEP}, and $d$ is the dimension of the feature space.
\end{proposition}
The proof is deferred to the \textbf{supplementary material}. The upper bound of the proposed method is $\sqrt{\frac{1}{d}}\cdot\epsilon$ which is less than the bound $\sqrt{\frac{d}{3}}\cdot\epsilon$ of FGSM-RS  provided in \cite{andriushchenko2020understanding}. Due to the norm of perturbation (gradient) can be treated as the convergence criteria for the non-convex optimization problem, the smaller expectation represents that the proposed prior-guided adversarial initialization will be converged to a local optimal faster than the random initialization with the same number of iterations.

\section{The Proposed Approach}
We first present our observations of revisiting catastrophic overfitting in Sec.~\ref{sec:Overfitting} and then explore several prior-guided adversarial initialization  strategies for FGSM-AT to prevent the overfitting in Sec.~\ref{sec:Initialization}, \textit{i.e.,} FGSM-PGI. We propose a simple yet effective regularization method for the FGSM-PGI to further improve model robustness in Sec.~\ref{sec:regularization}. Moreover, we also provide a theoretical analysis for the proposed initialization method in Sec.~\ref{sec:theoretical}.

\subsection{Revisting Catastrophic Overfitting}
\label{sec:Overfitting}
Catastrophic overfitting is a phenomenon that the robust accuracy of FAT drops sharply to 0\% in the late training stage (see the left figure of Fig.~\ref{fig:difference}), which was noticed by Wong \textit{et al.}~\cite{wong2020fast}.
They then found random initialization of FGSM can help avoid the overfitting with training for limited epochs.
However, if the training process of FGSM-RS goes on, catastrophic overfitting still appears, as revealed in ~\cite{andriushchenko2020understanding}, which indicates that random initialization must be conducted with early stopping.
Hence, FGSM-RS does not solve the overfitting fundamentally.
FGSM-GA~\cite{andriushchenko2020understanding} proposes a method from the perspective of regularization in the loss to generate stronger AEs. FGSM-CKPT~\cite{kim2020understanding} proposes a method for adjusting the step size of FGSM to improve the quality of AEs in different training stages.
GAT~\cite{sriramanan2020guided} adopts a relaxation term for the classification loss to generate stronger AEs during the AEs generation. NuAT~\cite{sriramanan2021towards} uses a Nuclear Norm regularizer to improve the optimization of the AEs generation.
These methods prevent catastrophic overfitting by improving the quality of AEs during the training.
However, FGSM-GA requires calculating gradients multiple times for regularization, FGSM-CKPT requires multiple times of forwarding propagation for step size selection, and GAT and NuAT require much more time to conduct regularization for generating powerful AEs, which significantly reduces efficiency.

We reinvestigate catastrophic overfitting by comparing the intermediate results of the training processes of FAT and SAT on the CIFAR-10 dataset~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning}.
For FAT, we study two methods, \textit{i.e.,} FGSM-AT and FGSM-RS.
For SAT, we study PGD-AT~\cite{madry2017towards} with the iteration time of 2, \textit{i.e.,} PGD-2-AT.
As AEs are the key that distinguishes adversarial training from conventional training, we observe the quality of adversarial examples during the whole training process, \textit{i.e.,} whether adversarial examples can successfully attack the target model.
The quality is evaluated by attack success rate (ASR).
Fig.~\ref{fig:difference} illustrates the curves of the robust accuracy and the ASR of the above methods as well as ours.
We also observe similar phenomenons on other benchmark datasets that are shown in the \textbf{supplementary material}.

We summarize the observations as follows. First, it can be observed that the ASRs of FGSM-AT and FGSM-RS drop sharply at the 20-th and 74-th epoch, respectively, leading to the dramatic decreases of the robust accuracy.
This indicates that the model robustness would collapse against adversarial attacks if the generated adversarial examples fail in attacking against the model during training.
Note that the investigation from the perspective of the quality of adversarial example (\textit{i.e.,} ASR) is ignored by previous works.
Second, FGSM-RS with random initialization delays the overfitting from the 20-th epoch to the 70-th epoch.
Enhancing the initialization could alleviate the overfitting, but cannot essentially prevent it, which is also observed in ~\cite{andriushchenko2020understanding}.
Third, surprisingly, PGD-2-AT does not suffer from the overfitting, which draws our attention.
PGD-2-AT can be treated as FGSM-AT with an adversarial initialization of FGSM for adversarial example generation.
Even after 110 training epochs, there are still a portion of high-quality adversarial examples that can fool the model.
It indicates that adversarial initialization can improve the quality of adversarial examples.
The initialization requires additional gradient calculation, which is not desirable.

\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Adversarial Training}
Adversarial training (AT) variants \cite{zhang2019theoretically,rice2020overfitting,DBLP:conf/nips/WuX020} are effective in defending against AEs.
Madry \emph{et al.}~\cite{madry2017towards} first formulate AT as a minimax optimization problem formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\min _{\mathbf{w}} \mathbb{E}_{(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) \sim \mathcal{D}}[\max _{{\boldsymbol{\delta}} \in \Omega}\mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\delta}} ; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y})],
\label{Eq:minimax}
\end{equation}
where $f(\cdot ; \mathbf{w})$ represents a deep neural network with parameters $\mathbf{w}$, $\mathcal{D}$ represents a joint data distribution of the benign image $\mathbf{x}$ and the GT one-hot label $\mathbf{y}$.
$\mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x} ; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y})$ represents the classification loss function.  $\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ represents the adversarial perturbation, and $\Omega$ represents a threat bound which can be defined as $ \Omega = \{\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}:\|\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\| \leq \epsilon\}$ with the maximum perturbation strength $\epsilon$.
Multi-step AT methods generate AEs by a multi-step adversarial attack method, \textit{i.e.}, projected gradient ascent (PGD) \cite{madry2017towards}. It can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{t+1}=\Pi_{[-\epsilon, \epsilon]}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{t}+\alpha \cdot \textrm{sign} \left(\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}\left(f\left(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{t} ; \mathbf{w}\right), \mathbf{y}\right)\right)\right],
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_{t+1}$ represents the perturbation at the $t+1$-th iteration, $\alpha$ represents the attack step size, and $\Pi_{[-\epsilon, \epsilon]}$ is the projection that maps the input to the range $[-\epsilon, \epsilon]$. This is a prime PGD-based AT framework proposed in \cite{madry2017towards}.
Following this work,
many advanced variants \cite{DBLP:conf/icml/WangM0YZG19,DBLP:conf/iclr/0001ZY0MG20,DBLP:conf/iclr/BaiZJXM021,kannan2018adversarial,pang2020boosting,roth2019adversarial} have been proposed from different perspectives to improve model robustness.
An early stopping version \cite{rice2020overfitting} of PGD-based AT stands out amongst them.

\subsection{Fast Adversarial Training}
\par Although multi-step AT methods can achieve good robustness, they require lots of calculation costs to generate AEs for training.
Fast adversarial training variants that generate AEs by the one-step fast gradient sign method (FGSM) \cite{goodfellow2014explaining} are proposed to improve the efficiency, which can be dubbed FGSM-based AT methods.
The perturbation of FGSM-AT \cite{goodfellow2014explaining} is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}=\epsilon \cdot \textrm{sign}\left(\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x} ; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y})\right),
\label{Eq:FGSM_AT}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the maximal perturbation strength.
Though FGSM-based AT accelerates the training speed of AT, it encounters catastrophic overfitting.
Specifically, after a period of training, the trained model suddenly cannot defend against the AEs generated by PGD.
Wong \emph{et al.}~\cite{wong2020fast} propose to conduct FGSM-based AT with a random initialization.
Its perturbation can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\delta}}=\Pi_{[-\epsilon, \epsilon]}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}+\alpha \cdot \textrm{sign}\left(\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \mathcal{L}(f(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\eta}}} ; \mathbf{w}), \mathbf{y})\right)\right],
\label{eq:FGSM_RS}
\end{equation}
where  $\boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\eta}} \in \mathbf{U}(-\epsilon, \epsilon)$ represents the random initialization, $\mathbf{U}$ is a uniform distribution, and $\alpha$ is set to $1.25\epsilon$. After that, a series of FAT methods enhances the quality of AEs to improve the defense performance. In detail,
Andriushchenko \emph{et al.} \cite{andriushchenko2020understanding} demonstrate that using the random initialization cannot prevent catastrophic overfitting.
They propose a regularizer to generate stronger AEs, \textit{i.e.,} FGSM-GA.
Kim \emph{et al.}~\cite{kim2020understanding} reveal that FGSM-RS adopts AEs with the maximum perturbation instead of ones in the adversarial direction, resulting in the overfitting. They then propose a method to determine an appropriate step size to generate powerful AEs to improve model robustness.
Sriramanan \emph{et al.} \cite{sriramanan2020guided} enhance the quality of the generated AEs by using a relaxation term for the classification loss, \textit{i.e.,} GAT. Besides, Sriramanan \emph{et al.}~\cite{sriramanan2021towards} design a Nuclear-Norm regularizer to enhance
optimization of the AEs generation to improve the model robustness, \textit{i.e.,} NuAT.
Though these methods can prevent overfitting and achieve advanced defense performance, they require much additional calculation cost to conduct AT.


\section{Introduction}

Recently, Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020och} has developed a method to unitarize infinite-range interactions in partial-wave amplitudes (PWAs)
from their perturbative calculation. In this way non-perturbative PWAs result, which fulfill unitarity exactly and account for the right-hand or unitarity cut (RC). By the same token these unitarized amplitudes give rise to poles. In particular, Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020och} applied this approach to study graviton-graviton scattering and predicted the existence of a relatively light resonance (the graviball) with quantum vacuum numbers, $J^{PC}=0^{++}$, at $s_P=(0.07-i\, 0.21)~\pi G^{-1}$, with $G$ the Newton gravitation constant. The estimated uncertainty was of a 20\% from expected contribution at the next order in the unitarization process.

However, due to the null mass of the force carriers the PWAs in the case of gravity or Coulomb scattering are ill defined, being affected by  infrared (IR) divergences. The treatment offered in Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020och}, discussed in more detailed in Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg}, was recently criticized by Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}, which also denied the existence of the graviball. The Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} introduces a completely different way of dealing with IR divergences, to find the needed perturbative PWAs in order to apply the unitarization method.

It is the aim of the present study to compare these two procedures for unitarizing infinite-range forces with the exactly solvable  non-relativistic Coulomb scattering. For that, we perturbatively calculate the Coulomb PWAs up to the one-loop level  in Sec.~\ref{sec.220708.1}, and unitarize them with both methods. It will turn out that while the unitarization method of Refs.~\cite{Blas:2020och,Blas:2020dyg} is meaningful and works as expected,  Sec.~\ref{sec.220709.1}, the newest one of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} drives to mistaken PWAs and pole content,  Sec.~\ref{sec.220710.1}. A final discussion is given in Sec.~\ref{sec.220711.1}.

\section{Coulomb scattering up to one-loop (once-iterated Born series)}
\label{sec.220708.1}

Let us consider the calculation of the scattering of an electron in an external Yukawa potential
\begin{align}
  \label{220707.1}
  V(r)= Z\alpha\frac{e^{-\lambda r}}{r}
\end{align}
that in the limit $\lambda\to 0$ turns into Coulomb scattering, with $\alpha=e^2/4\pi$ the fine-structure constant.

 The Fourier transform of the Yukawa potential
reads
\begin{align}
  \label{220707.2}
V({\mathbf{q}})&=Z\alpha  \int d^3r\frac{e^{-i{\mathbf{q}} \mathbf{r}} e^{-\lambda r}}{r}=\frac{Ze^2}{{\mathbf{q}}^2+\lambda^2}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
  \label{220707.3}
  {\mathbf{q}}^2=({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{p}})^2=2{\mathbf{p}}^2(1-\cos\theta)=4{\mathbf{p}}^2\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2}~.
\end{align}
As usual $\theta$ is the scattering angle between the final ${\mathbf{p}}'$ and initial ${\mathbf{p}}$ momenta. In the following we take $Z=1$ for simplicity.\footnote{In our convention an attractive potential is positive. E.g. by taking $m$ as the electron mass we have the scattering of an electron by an attractive external Coulomb potential in the limit $\lambda\to 0$.}

Dalitz provided in his seminal paper \cite{Dalitz:1951} the calculation of the scattering amplitude up to third order in the Born series.
His result is  given in the equation (3.4) of Ref.~\cite{Dalitz:1951} which, once multiplied by the factor $4\pi^3/m$ to conform with our normalization, becomes
\begin{align}
  \label{220707.4}
  f({\mathbf{p}}')&=\frac{e^2}{4p^2\sin^2\frac{1}{2}\theta}
  \left\{
  1
  -i\frac{m\alpha}{p}
  \left(\log\sin^2\frac{1}{2}\theta+\log\frac{4p^2}{\lambda^2}\right)+\left(\frac{m\alpha}{p}\right)^2
  \left[-\frac{3}{4}
    \left(\log\frac{4p^2}{\lambda^2}\right)^2
    +\left[\log(\alpha\lambda)\right]^2+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)
    \right]
  \right\}~.
\end{align}
This formula keeps only the leading $\lambda$-dependence in the limit $\lambda\to 0$.\footnote{Let us notice that the exact Coulomb scattering amplitude is not affected by IR divergences because it is defined with respect to asymptotic Coulomb wave functions, and not plane waves. However, the latter are used as asymptotic states for $f({\mathbf{p}}')$ in Eq.~\eqref{220707.4}, and this is why it is IR divergent.}

Now, we work out the partial-wave projected $S$ wave up to the one-loop level.
The leading-order (LO) contribution is given by the angular average of $V({\mathbf{q}})$ in Eq.~\eqref{220707.2},
\begin{align}
  \label{220708.1a}
  F_0^{(1)}(p)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{+1}d\cos\theta\frac{e^2}{2p^2(1-\cos\theta)+\lambda^2}=\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log\frac{2p}{\lambda}~.
  \end{align}
The expression for the scattering amplitude from the once-iterated Born term, $T^{(2)}({\mathbf{p}}',{\mathbf{p}})$, is
\begin{align}
  \label{220708.1}
  T^{(2)}({\mathbf{p}}',{\mathbf{p}})&=\frac{me^4}{4\pi^3}\int\frac{d^3q}{[\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{q}})^2][\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}-{\mathbf{q}})^2][q^2-p^2-i\epsilon]}~.
\end{align}
From this expression it is rather straightforward to take its $S$-wave projection, $F^{(2)}_0(p)$.\footnote{Note that Eq.~\eqref{220707.4} is not suitable to project in PWAs.} We then have
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.1}
  F^{(2)}_0(p)&= \frac{me^4}{16\pi^4}\int d\hat{\mathbf{p}}' \int\frac{d^3q}{[\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{q}})^2][\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}-{\mathbf{q}})^2][q^2-p^2-i\epsilon]}\\
  &=\frac{me^4}{16\pi^4}\int_0^\infty \frac{q^2 dq}{q^2-p^2-i\epsilon}\int \frac{d\hat {\mathbf{q}}}{\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}-{\mathbf{q}})^2}
  \int \frac{d\hat{\mathbf{p}}'}{\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{q}})^2}=\frac{me^4}{16\pi^4}\int_0^\infty \frac{q^2 dq}{q^2-p^2-i\epsilon}\left[
    \int \frac{d\hat {\mathbf{p}}'}{\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{q}})^2}\right]^2\,.\nonumber
\end{align}
One could also have arrived to this result by considering the Lippmann-Schwinger equation in PWAs.

The imaginary part of $F_0^{(2)}(p)$ is restricted by perturbative unitarity in partial waves, which implies
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.2}
  \Im F_0^{(2)}(p)=\frac{mp}{2\pi}{F_0^{(1)}}^2=\frac{m e^2}{8\pi p^3}\left(\log\frac{2p}{\lambda}\right)^2~.
\end{align}
We can explicitly check that Eq.~\eqref{220709.1} for $F^{(2)}_0(p)$ satisfies it by direct calculation
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.3}
\Im F_0^{(2)}(p)&=\frac{me^4}{16\pi^4}\int_0^\infty dq q^2\pi \delta(q^2-p^2)\left[
  \int \frac{d\hat {\mathbf{p}}'}{\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{p}})^2}\right]^2
=\frac{m p e^4}{32\pi^3}\left[
  \int \frac{d\hat {\mathbf{p}}'}{\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{p}})^2}\right]^2~.
\end{align}
Now, by taking into account that $F_0^{(1)}(p)$ in Eq.~\eqref{220708.1a} is also given by
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.4}
  F_0^{(1)}(p)&=\frac{e^2}{4\pi}\int\frac{d\hat{\mathbf{p}}'}{\lambda^2+({\mathbf{p}}'-{\mathbf{p}})^2}=\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log\frac{2p}{\lambda}~,
\end{align}
the equality between Eqs.~\eqref{220709.2} and \eqref{220709.3} follows.

The real part of $F_0^{(2)}(p)$, given by the Cauchy principal value of the integral over $q$ in Eq.~\eqref{220709.1}, indeed vanishes for $\lambda\to 0$. Namely,
\begin{align}
\label{220709.5}
\Re F_0^{(2)}(p)&
=\lim_{\lambda\to 0}\frac{me^4}{16\pi^2 p^2}
\Xint-_0^\infty \frac{dq}{q^2-p^2}\left[ \log\frac{\lambda^2+(p+q)^2}{\lambda^2+(p-q)^2}\right]^2=0~.
\end{align}
This is reflected in  Eq.~\eqref{220707.4}, which ${\cal O}(e^4)$ contribution is purely imaginary for real $p$.

We have calculated $F_0^{(2)}(p)$ numerically for $\lambda=0$, and checked both Eqs.~\eqref{220709.2} and \eqref{220709.5} for the real and imaginary parts of $F_0^{(2)}$, respectively .
From a numerical point of view we have found advantageous to take the limit $\lambda\to 0$ in the formula
\begin{align}
\label{220709.6}
\lim_{\lambda\to 0} \frac{me^4}{16\pi^2}\int_0^\infty \frac{dq}{q^2-p^2-i\lambda}\left[ \log\frac{\lambda^2+(p+q)^2}{\lambda^2+(p-q)^2}\right]^2~,
\end{align}
which shares the same  $\lambda\to 0$ limit as the original $F_2^{(0)}(p)$ in Eq.~\eqref{220709.5}.

In summary, as a consequence of Eqs.~\eqref{220709.2} and \eqref{220709.5},
we have found that the $S$-wave projection of $F_0^{(2)}(p)$
is dominated with arbitrary precision for $\lambda\to 0$ by
\begin{align}
\label{220709.7}
F_0^{(2)}(p)&=i\frac{m e^4}{8\pi p^3}\left(\log\frac{2p}{\lambda}\right)^2~,
\end{align}
Then, the $S$-wave PWA for (non-relativistic) Coulomb scattering  up to  one-loop (once-iterated Born series) is
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.8}
F_0(p)&=F_0^{(1)}(p)+F_0^{(2)}(p)+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)=\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log\frac{2p}{\lambda}+i\frac{m e^4}{8\pi p^3}\left(\log\frac{2p}{\lambda}\right)^2+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)~.
  \end{align}

Due to the infinite-range character of the electromagnetic interactions the PWAs are ill defined, and this is why $F_0(p)$ diverges for $\lambda\to 0$.
In the next section,  we discuss two unitarization methods for treating infinite-range interactions that have appeared recently in the literature.
Our method, the earliest \cite{Blas:2020och,Blas:2020dyg}, and the one of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}, which has just appeared in the  literature. In the following we call {\bf method A} the former and {\bf method B} the latter.

\section{Application of the method A to Coulomb scattering}
\label{sec.220709.1}

The unitarization formula for the non-relativistic scattering is
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.9}
T_J(p)&=\left[V_J(p)^{-1}-i\frac{mp}{2\pi}\right]^{-1}~.
\end{align}
The interaction kernel $V_J(p)$ is expressed as a power-series expansion $V_J=V_J^{(1)}+V_J^{(2)}+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)$, and then matched with the perturbative power-series expansion of $T_J$ itself in order to determine the different $V_J^{(n)}$. The previous formula takes into account that
$\Im T_J^{-1}=- mp/2\pi$, and then one performs a dispersion relation along the RC
  \begin{align}
  \label{220709.10}
T_J^{-1}(p)&=V_J^{-1}-\frac{mp^2}{2\pi^2}\int \frac{dq^2 q}{(q^2-p^2-i\epsilon)q^2}
  \end{align}
  where the crossed-channel dynamics is included in $V_J^{-1}$. The result of the integration is simply $-imp/2\pi$, and Eq.~\eqref{220709.9} results.\footnote{One could think of including a subtraction constant together with the dispersive integral in Eq.~\eqref{220709.10}. However, this constant is reabsorbed in $V_J^{-1}$ in Eq.~\eqref{220709.9}. The Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg} elaborates further on the suitability of taking this subtraction constant equal to zero based on the Sugawara-Kanazawa theorem, to which the interested reader is referred.}
 When relativistic kinematics is used in the unitarity loop function, which would be expressed by an analogous dispersion relation as in Eq.~\eqref{220709.10},  also has a real part, see e.g. Eq.~(8.3) of Ref.~\cite{oller.book}.

 We have already calculated perturbatively the $S$-wave PWA latter in Sec.~\ref{sec.220708.1}, though they are actually ill defined because of the IR divergences. It is at this point where we make use of the redefinition of the $S$ matrix by introducing the phase factor derived by Weinberg by resumming the exchanges of soft gravitons between interacting lines \cite{Weinberg:1965nx}, following Refs.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg,Blas:2020och}.  This phase factor, that we call $S_c$, for the  non-relativistic scattering of a charged particle by a Coulomb potential is
 \begin{align}
  \label{220709.11}
   S_c&=e^{2i\gamma \log\frac{\cal L}{\lambda}}~,~~\gamma=\frac{me^2}{p}~,
 \end{align}
and it was  firstly conjectured by Dalitz \cite{Dalitz:1959},

In Eq.~\eqref{220709.11} it is clear that the scale ${\cal L}$ is proportional to $2p$ since the resummed exchange of soft photons of $\lambda$ (which acts as an infrared regulator) implies a left-hand cut (LC) starting at $4p^2=-\lambda^2$. This is precisely the onset of the LC in the $\log {\cal L}/\lambda$ present in the exponent of $S_c$ for
 \begin{align}
  \label{220709.24}
   {\cal L}=\frac{2p}{a}~,
 \end{align}
 with the constant $a$ being necessarily independent of $p$.

 We then redefine the $S$ matrix by multiplying the standard $S$ matrix, $\bar{S}$, by $S_c^{-1}$, as introduced in Refs.~\cite{Blas:2020och,Blas:2020dyg}.
 The new $S$ matrix, $S$,
 \begin{align}
  \label{220709.12a}
   S&=\bar{S}S_c^{-1}~.
 \end{align}
 is  free from IR divergences for the scattering problem with a potential $V(r)$, see the last section of Ref.~\cite{Weinberg:1965nx}.
  Regarding the value of $a$, it is important to stress that Eq.~\eqref{220709.11} is actually a resummation of the soft exchanges of photons under the assumption that their momenta are clearly smaller than the momentum $p$ of the external particles.
 However, as a resummation one could use it for convenience  with finite values of $a$ as well, with the pertinent extra contributions accounted for by the dependence of $S$ on this parameter.
 From this perspective, one could then naturally consider  $a$ as a number larger than 1 but with a finite value. Indeed, it only enters logarithmically in the problem and we will take  in the following that $\log a={\cal O}(1)$. Later, we give the value of $a$ by comparing with the known exact Coulomb $S$ matrix in partial-wave amplitudes, as similarly done in Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg}. We advance that in that case one has $\log a=\gamma_E+{\cal O}(\alpha^2)$.

 It is worth stressing two facts regarding the previous equation for $S$. First, the new $S$ matrix $S$ is also unitary since $S_c$ is just a phase factor of unit modulus. Second, $S_c$ is independent of angle so that one can directly take the partial-wave projection on both sides of Eq.~\eqref{220709.12a} with the results that
 \begin{align}
  \label{220709.12}
   S_J&=\bar{S}_JS_c^{-1}~,
 \end{align}
 with $J$ the total angular momentum.

 Let us work out the perturbative calculation of $S_J$ from Eq.~\eqref{220709.12}, which also teaches us  about the structure of the infrared divergences in $F_0^{(n)}$.
 These results can be  explicitly confirmed by the knowledge of $F_0$ up to one-loop level worked out in Sec.~\ref{sec.220708.1}.
 Working up to and including ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ contributions,
 \begin{align}
  \label{220709.13}
  S_J&=\left\{1+i\frac{mp}{\pi}(F_J^{(1)}+F_J^{(2)})\right\}\left\{1-2i\gamma\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda}-2\gamma^2(\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda})^2\right\}+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)\\
  &=
  1-2i\gamma\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda}-2\gamma^2(\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda})^2
  +i\frac{mp}{\pi}\left\{F_J^{(1)}\left[1-2i\gamma\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda}\right]+F_J^{(2)}\right\}+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)~.\nonumber
 \end{align}
 Considering this expression at ${\cal O}(\alpha)$,
 and since $S_J$ is free of IR divergences,
 if follows that the dependence of $F_J^{(1)}$ on $\log\lambda$ is $-\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log\lambda$
  in agreement with Eq.~\eqref{220708.1a} for $J=0$. As shown in Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg} the IR divergent contribution in $F_J^{(1)}$ is the same for all the PWAs and is removed by that from the Weinberg phase at ${\cal O}(\alpha)$.

 Considering now Eq.~\eqref{220709.13} at ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ it requires that the IR divergences entering at this order must affect only the imaginary part $F_J^{(2)}$, since $F_J^{(1)}$ is real as it is the partial-wave projection of the Born term with angular momentum $J$. This is manifest in Eq.~\eqref{220709.7} for $J=0$.

 Since $S_J$ is unitary we define an associated $T$ matrix free of IR divergences by the standard relation between $S$ and $T$ matrices in PWAs,
 \begin{align}
  \label{220709.16}
S_J(p)=1+i\frac{mp}{\pi}T_J(p)~.
 \end{align}
 We then read from Eq.~\eqref{220709.13} the following expression up to ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ for $T_J^{(n)}(p)$.
 \begin{align}
  \label{220709.17}
T_J^{(1)}(p)&=F_J^{(1)}(p)-\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda}~,\\
\label{220709.18a}
T_J^{(2)}(p)&=F_J^{(2)}(p)-i F_J^{(1)}(p)\frac{me^2}{2\pi p}\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda}
+i\frac{me^4}{8\pi p^3}
\left(\log\frac{{\cal L}}{\lambda}\right)^2~.
 \end{align}

 For the case $J=0$ we can use the calculated expressions for $F_0^{(1)}$ and $F_0^{(2)}$ above and obtain
 \begin{align}
   \label{220709.18}
   T_0^{(1)}(p)&=\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log\frac{2p}{{\cal L}}=\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log a~,\\
   \label{220709.19}
   T_0^{(2)}(p)&=i\frac{m e^4}{8\pi p^3}\left(\log\frac{2p}{{\cal L}}\right)^2=i\frac{m e^4}{8\pi p^3}\left(\log a\right)^2~.
 \end{align}
 Now, in order to determine $V_0^{(1)}$ and $V_0^{(2)}$ we match the general unitarization formula of Eq.~\eqref{220709.9}
 with $T_0^{(1)}+T_0^{(2)}$,
 \begin{align}
\label{220709.20}
T_0^{(1)}+T_0^{(2)}=\left[\frac{1}{V_0^{(1)}+V_0^{(2)}}-i\frac{mp}{2\pi}\right]^{-1}=V_0^{(1)}+ V_0^{(2)}+i\frac{mp}{2\pi}{V_0^{(1)}}^2+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)~.
   \end{align}
 Therefore,
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.21}
  V_0^{(1)}(p)&=T_0^{(1)}(p)=\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\log a~,\\
  \label{220709.22}
  V_0^{(2)}(p)&=0~.
\end{align}
Thus, up to ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ in the expansion of the interaction kernel $V_0(p)$ our expression for $T_0(p)$ is
\begin{align}
  \label{220709.23}
T_0(p)&=\left(\frac{2p^2}{e^2\log a}-i\frac{mp}{2\pi}\right)^{-1}~.
\end{align}

At this point, we compare it with the exact partial-wave decomposition of the on-shell Coulomb scattering \cite{Kang:1962}
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.1a}
T({\mathbf{p}}',{\mathbf{p}})&=\frac{\pi}{imp}\sum_J (2J+1)\left(\frac{\Gamma(J+1-i \gamma)}{\Gamma(J+1+i \gamma)}-1\right)P_J(\cos\theta)~,
\end{align}
so that
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.1}
  S_J(p)&=\frac{\Gamma(J+1-i \gamma)}{\Gamma(J+1+i \gamma)}=e^{2i\sigma_\ell}~,\\
  \label{220710.2}
  T_J(p)&=\frac{\pi}{i m p}\left(S_J(p)-1\right)~,
\end{align}
with $\sigma_\ell$ the pure Coulomb phase shifts. By comparing Eqs.~\eqref{220709.9} and \eqref{220710.2} we can determine the exact expression for $V_J(p)$ to all orders
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.3}
  V_J(p)&=-i\frac{2\pi}{m p}\frac{\Gamma(1+J-i\gamma)-\Gamma(1+J+i\gamma)}{\Gamma(1+J-i\gamma)+\Gamma(1+J+i\gamma)}~.
\end{align}
Its perturbative expansion gives
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.4}
V_J(p)&=-\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\psi_0(1+J)+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)~,
\end{align}
where $\psi_n(z)=d^{n+1}\log\Gamma(z)/dz^{n+1}$. In particular for $J=0$ we have that\footnote{There is an explicit formula for $\psi_0(n)=-\gamma+\theta(n-1)\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}1/k$\,.}

\begin{align}
  \label{220710.5}
  V_0(p)&=\frac{e^2}{2p^2}\gamma_E+{\cal O}(\alpha^3)~.
\end{align}
By comparison with Eq.~\eqref{220709.21}, this implies the following LO expression for $\log a$
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.6}
  \log a&=\gamma_E+{\cal O}(\alpha^2)~.
\end{align}

Contrarily to the statements in Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}, where the method B is developed, this precise relation for $\log a$ clearly shows that the constant $a$ is not a cutoff.
It has a precise value that has been fixed by matching with the exact solution.
However,  a cutoff is an auxiliary scale that is always taken within a convenient range of values or sent to infinity (as is typically  done in renormalizable quantum field theories).\footnote{The Eq.~\eqref{220710.6} can also be obtained by  employing a screened Coulomb potential and the known asymptotic behavior of the radial Coulomb wave functions, without actually solving Coulomb scattering to get the exact $S_J(p)$  \cite{Blas:2020dyg}.}

Then, we write our final unitarized expression for $T_0$ obtained by determining $V_0(p)$ up to ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ included,
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.7}
T_0(p)&=\frac{2\pi}{mp}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma_E\gamma}-i\right)^{-1}~.
\end{align}
The position of the bound state is then given by
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.8a}
  p^{(1)}=i\,m \alpha \gamma_E~,
\end{align}
to be compared with the exact result
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.8}
  p_{\rm exact}=i\,m \alpha~,
\end{align}
so that there is an extra factor $\gamma_E\approx 0.58$, with an error at LO of a 40\%.
We should notice that our thumb of rule estimate for $\log a={\cal O}(1)$, {\it i.e.} taking $\log a=1$, would give the exact value for the binding momentum.

One can indeed consider higher orders in the expansion in powers of $\alpha$ of $V_0(p)$
by using its exact expression in Eq.~\eqref{220710.4}. In this way, we also obtain that $V_0^{(2)}(p)=0$, and indeed only odd powers in the expansion are non zero. The third order contribution $V_0^{(3)}$ is
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.9}
V_0^{(3)}=\frac{2\pi}{m p}\frac{\gamma^3}{3}(\gamma_E-\zeta(3))~,
\end{align}
with $\zeta(z)$ the Riemann zeta function.
By taking $V_0=\sum_{i=1}^3V_0^{(i)}$ one obtains
\begin{align}
  \label{220710.10}
T_0=\frac{2\pi}{mp}\left(\left\{\gamma_E \gamma+\frac{\gamma_E-\zeta(3)}{3}\gamma^3\right\}^{-1}-i\right)^{-1}~.
\end{align}
The pole position for the bound state in the $p$-axis is
\begin{align}
  p^{(3)}&=0.950\, p_{\rm exact}~,
\end{align}
and the uncertainty has reduced to a 5\% only. The inclusion of still higher orders decreases further the uncertainty \cite{Blas:2020dyg}. This is explicitly worked out in Table~\ref{tab.110711.1} where the binding momentum is given with respect to the exact solution.   The convergence with increasing order is  remarkably fast.

     \begin{table}
       \begin{center}
         \begin{tabular}{|l|llll|}
           \hline
           $n$ & 1 & 3 & 5 & 7 \\
           \hline
           ${p^{(n)}}/p_{\rm exact}$ & $0.58$ & $0.95$ & $1.00$ & $1.00$  \\
\hline
         \end{tabular}
         \caption{Pole positions in the complex $p$-plane corresponding to the deepest bound state from $T_0$, Eq.~\ref{220709.9}, with $V_0(p)=\sum_{i=1}^nV_0^{(i)}(p)$.
           The pole position is given with respect to the exact pole position $im\alpha$.
           \label{tab.110711.1}}
       \end{center}
       \end{table}

     The good behavior of the approach by increasing the precision up to which $V_0(p)$ is calculated is also reflected by comparing directly the PWA $T_0(p)$ calculated from the unitarization formula, Eq.~\eqref{220709.9}, with the exact one in
     Eq.~\eqref{220710.2}. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.220711.1} where the absolute value of $T_0(p)$ is shown for the exact solution, and the LO and NLO unitarized expression by the solid, dashed and dot-dashed lines, respectively. We also show the resulting unitarized $T_0(p)$ up to $n=7$, with a steady improvement in the reproduction of the exact $S$-wave PWA. Due to the essential singularity of the exact Coulomb PWA at $p=0$ its reproduction for $p\ll m\alpha$ requires to include many higher orders and is not practical. As noticed in Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg} Coulomb scattering becomes trivial for $p\to\infty$, so that its reproduction with just a few orders of $V_0$ is very good for $p\gtrsim m\alpha$ (this value of $p$ is indicated by the dashed vertical line in the figure).

     \begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}       \includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth,angle=0]{./nd_exact.png}
  \caption{The modulus of the Coulomb  $S$-wave PWA given by the exact result (black solid line) is compared with those obtained by applying the unitarization formula Eq.~\eqref{220709.9} up to order ${\cal O}(\alpha^n)$ in the calculation of $V_0=\sum_{i=1}^n V^{(i)}_0(p)$.
    The lines with $n=1,$ 3, 5 and 7 are given by the orange dashed, green dotted, red dash-dotted and  magenta long-dashed lines, respectively. In the figure energy units are taken such that $m\alpha=1$, with the vertical line indicating this value for $p$. \label{fig.220711.1}}
\end{center}     \end{figure}

\section{Application of the method B to Coulomb scattering}
\label{sec.220710.1}

Recently, Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} has performed a criticism to the results of Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg} advocating that no resonance appears in graviton-graviton scattering in the energy on which Einstein gravity could be treated as a quantum effective field theory.
The Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} does not take into account the Weinberg phase but directly consider the perturbative calculation of the PWAs in terms of a graviton mass $\lambda$ which is finally sent to zero. The unitarization formula employed by Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} is the Inverse Amplitude Method (IAM) to one loop \cite{Roiesnel:1980gd,Truong:1988zp,Dobado:1989qm}. We refer to Ref.~\cite{Oller:2020guq} for a recent review on unitarization methods with historical remarks.

Since we know the perturbative PWAs $F_0^{(1)}$ and $F_0^{(2)}$ (i.e. up to one-loop order),  we are now in position to apply the unitarization method B of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} to non-relativistic Coulomb scattering and compare its results with the known exact solution. In particular, we discuss the movement of the position of the poles as $\lambda\to 0$, according to the prescriptions of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}.

The one-loop IAM unitarization formula reads
\begin{align}
  \label{220711.1}
T_0(p)&=\frac{F_0^{(1)}(p)^2}{F_0^{(1)}(p)-F_0^{(2)}(p)}~.
\end{align}
We introduce the variable $y=p/m\alpha$ and take units such that $2m\alpha=1$, so that the IAM $T_0(p)$ adopts the simpler form
\begin{align}
  \label{220711.2}
T_0(p)&=\frac{8\pi\alpha\log(y/\lambda)}{y\left[y-i\log(y/\lambda)\right]}~.
\end{align}

We can then look for poles in this expression for  $y\neq 0$. First, it is important to notice that
for $\lambda>0$ there is no bound state pole (despite Coulomb scattering is not resonant and only has bound states). This is clear if we rewrite $y=i\kappa$, with $\kappa>0$, so that the secular equation $i\kappa+\pi/2-i\log\kappa/\lambda=0$ results, which clearly has no solution for real and positive $\kappa$.

The poles of $T_0(p)$ for $y\neq 0$ correspond to the solutions of the equation
\begin{align}
  \label{220711.3}
  y=i\log(y/\lambda)~.
\end{align}
We find values of $y$ with $\Im p<0$ that solve this equation and that correspond to resonance poles.
For small values of $\lambda$ (such that $\lambda\ll -\log \lambda$) the approximate solution is given by $p=\lambda-i\delta$, with $\delta/\lambda$ vanishing as $\lambda\to 0$.  This can be seen by direct substitution in Eq.~\eqref{220711.3}, where the error done is ${\cal O}(\lambda)$ which is much smaller than $-\log\lambda$ which drives the equation, and this is why it is a good approximation for $\lambda\ll 1$. For instance, for $\lambda=0.1$ we have that $-(\log\lambda)/\lambda>23$. We have calculated numerically the solution for some values of $\lambda$, as shown in Table~\ref{tab.110711.2}.
As a result, one cannot reproduce any bound state characteristic of the Hydrogen atom by employing the IAM formula Eq.~\eqref{220711.2} for small $\lambda$. When $\lambda\to 0$ the resonance pole tends asymptotically to $p\to 0$, while the exact solution is $im\alpha$ and, of course, it remains finite and fixed (as dictated by experiment, or even by the anthropic principle).

     \begin{table}
       \begin{center}
         \begin{tabular}{|l|llll|}
           \hline
           $\lambda~ [2m\alpha]$ & $0.5$ & $10^{-1}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-4}$ \\
           \hline
        $p/\lambda$ & $0.79-i\,0.32$ & $0.99-i\,0.10$ & $1.00-i0.01$ & $1.00-i0.00$  \\
\hline
         \end{tabular}
         \caption{Pole positions in the complex $p$-plane corresponding to resonances arising from the method of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}, Eq.~\eqref{220711.1}, for decreasing values of $\lambda$ (with values given in units of $2m\alpha$). Notice that the pole position asymptotically tends to $\lambda$ and hence vanishes. In contrast, the exact pole position is $i m\alpha$.
           \label{tab.110711.2}}
       \end{center}
       \end{table}

     The gross failure of the approach of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}  for unitarizing long-range forces in order to account for Coulomb scattering is also manifest if we compare $T_0(p)$, given by Eq.~\eqref{220711.1},  with the known exact Coulomb $S$-wave PWA.
     This is shown in  Fig.~\ref{fig.220711.2} where the modulus of the exact Coulomb $S$-wave (solid line) is compared with $T_0(p)$ obtained from the IAM with values of $\lambda=1/2$ (dashed), $10^{-1}$ (dotted),  $10^{-4}$ (dot-dashed) and $10^{-12}$ (long-dashed line). The last two lines cannot be distinguished. As in Fig.~\ref{fig.220711.1} the unit of energy is $m\alpha=1$.  We observe that the Coulomb $S$-wave is not reproduced either quantitatively or qualitatively speaking. As a matter of fact, for $\lambda\to 0$ and finite $p$ ($p\neq 0$ nor $p\to \infty$)  the PWA $T_0(p)$ from Eq.~\eqref{220711.1} degenerates into $-i2\pi/mp$ without any dynamical content.

     Indeed, there is a fundamental difference between the exact solution and the one provided by the method B of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}. While the former has no LC the latter has one for $p<0$ (due to the dependence on $\log 2p/\lambda$ with $\lambda\to 0$), so that the analytical properties of the PWA resulting from the method B are, strictly speaking, incorrect. Regarding this, we recall that $\Gamma(z)$ is a meromorphic function in the complex $z$ plane, having only simple poles for $z=-n$ with $n=0$ or in $\mathbb{N}$. In this way, the exact $S_J(p)$ from Eq.~\eqref{220710.1}  has only RC.

     \begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}       \includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth,angle=0]{./iam_exact.png}
\caption{The modulus of the Coulomb  $S$-wave PWA given by the exact result (solid line) is compared with those obtained by applying the IAM-method of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}, Eq.~\eqref{220711.1} for $\lambda=0.5$ (orange dashed), $10^{-1}$ (green dotted),  $10^{-4}$ (red dot-dashed) and $10^{-12}$ (magenta long-dashed line). In the figure energy units are taken such that $m\alpha=1$, with the vertical line indicating this value for $p$. \label{fig.220711.2}}
\end{center}     \end{figure}

     \section{Discussion}
     \label{sec.220711.1}
     In summary, the study of non-relativistic Coulomb scattering is a clear counterexample, which shows that the method of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} for unitarizing forces of infinite range is not suitable.
     Its failure lies in the bad treatment of IR divergences at the level of the scattering amplitudes.
 The authors of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}  keep  in the perturbative PWAs the infrared regulator $\lambda$, interpreted  as a photon (graviton) mass,    so that they take the limit $\lambda\to 0$, in order not to contradict the experimental limit for its mass (e.g. of the order of $10^{-30}$~eV for the graviton \cite{pdg}).  It is also worth noticing that the reason for the wrong PWA $T_0$ provided by the method of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} is not due to the use of the particular unitarization method IAM, Eq.~\eqref{220711.1}, but because of the inadequate treatment  of the IR divergences. In this respect, if the IAM formula is applied with the perturbative IR-safe PWAs $T_0^{(1)}$ and $T_0^{(2)}$, replacing $F_0^{(1)}$ and $F_0^{(2)}$, respectively, one indeed obtains the same result as by using the unitarization method A \cite{Blas:2020dyg,Blas:2020och} because
     \begin{align}
       \label{220711.4}
       \frac{{T_0^{(1)}}^2}{T_0^{(1)}-T_0^{(2)}}=
     \frac{ {T_0^{(1)}}^2}{T_0^{(1)}-i\frac{mp}{2\pi}{T_0^{(1)}}^2}=\frac{1}{ \frac{1}{T_0^{(1)}}-i\frac{mp}{2\pi}}~.
\end{align}

However, the presence of $\lambda$ is removed once the Weinberg's phase is used, so it is  replaced by  ${\cal L}=2p/a$ with the parameter $a$ being  in principle calculable within the scattering theory under study, like in our case with Coulomb scattering.     In this way, the dependence on $p$ of the IR-safe perturbative PWAs changes, so that, instead of $F_0^{(1,2)}(p)$, one now has $T_0^{(1,2)}(p)$.

 Thus, in $F_0^{(1,2)}(p)$  the logarithmic diverging contribution $\log 2p/\lambda$ for $\lambda\to 0$ and finite $p$ is replaced by the constant $\log a=\gamma_E={\cal O}(1)$.
In this way, we have shown that we are able to properly reproduce within the unitarization method of Eq.~\eqref{220709.9} the non-relativistic Coulomb scattering amplitude, with its right analytical properties, improve the accuracy of its reproduction by including higher orders, and adequately accounting for the pole position of the ground state.

We would like to end with some extra discussions to answer some other criticisms of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} on \cite{Blas:2020och,Blas:2020dyg}. The dependence of the graviball pole on the scale $\Lambda$ introduced in Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020och} is only logarithmic, while Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022}  in its Appendix I mistakenly states that it is quadratic. The confusion arises because $\Lambda$  is taken as the unit of energy when giving the graviball $s_P$  in Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020och} as $s_P=(0.07-i\,0.21)\,\Lambda^2$.

Another unfortunate statement in the same Appendix I of Ref.~\cite{Dobado:2022} concerns the claimed inability of the unitarization method of  Refs.~\cite{Blas:2020och,Blas:2020dyg} to generate the $\rho(770)$ in hadron physics. As explained long time ago in Ref.~\cite{nd}, due to the KSFR relation \cite{Kawarabayashi:1966kd,Riazuddin:1966sw}, the $\rho(770)$ can be generated by adjusting adequately the subtraction constant $a_{\pi\pi}$ in the unitarity loop function for $\pi\pi$ scattering in Eq.~(5.17) of Ref.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg}. Denoting by $T_1^{\pi\pi}(s)$ the  $\pi\pi$ $P$-wave scattering amplitude in the chiral limit, with massless pions,
     \begin{align}
       \label{220714.1}
       T_1^{\pi\pi}(s)=\left(\frac{6f^2}{s}+\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left\{a_{\pi\pi}+\log\frac{-s}{\Lambda^2}\right\}\right)^{-1}~.
     \end{align}
Let us notice that the first term is nothing else but the inverse of the LO $\pi\pi$ $P$-wave amplitude (instead of the scalar isoscalar counterpart employed in Refs.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg,Blas:2020och} for discussing the $\sigma$ resonance. The chiral limit is used for analogy with the massless character of gravitons and photons, similarly as in Refs.~\cite{Blas:2020dyg,Blas:2020och}).
We first take the scale $\Lambda=M_\rho$, the mass of $\rho(770)$, which is a natural value for the hadronic non-perturbative chiral expansion scale. The value
     \begin{align}
       \frac{a_{\pi\pi}}{(4\pi)^2}=-\frac{6f^2}{M_\rho^2}\approx 0.086~,
     \end{align}
was obtained in Ref.~\cite{nd} taking into account the KSFR relation. With this result Eq.~\eqref{220714.1} has a $\rho$-resonance pole at $s_\rho=(0.56-i\,0.14)$~GeV$^2$, which is very close indeed to its physical value $s_\rho\approx (0.58-i\,0.12)$~GeV$^2$ \cite{pdg}. The pole position $s_\rho$ only depends logarithmically on the scale $\Lambda$, so that for $\Lambda=4\pi f_\pi$ \cite{Georgi:1984}(another typical value for the chiral expansion scale, around $1.5 M_\rho$) we find $s_\rho=(0.53-i\,0.12)$~GeV$^2$.