\section{Introduction}
A two-player zero-sum stochastic game (SG) \cite{Shapley} models sequential decision-making of two players with opposing objectives in a stochastic environment. An SG is played in stages. At each stage, the game is in a state, and the players choose one of their available actions simultaneously and receive payoffs. The game then transitions to a new random state according to a probability distribution which represents the stochasticity in the environment.

In an SG, each player aims to synthesize a strategy that maximizes the player's expected payoff at the end of the game. Traditionally, a pair of optimal strategies is described by Nash equilibrium \cite{Nash} according to which both players play their best-response strategies against the opponent's strategy. The value of the game then corresponds to the expected payoff that each player receives at the end of the game, if they both play their respective equilibrium strategies.

The concept of Nash equilibrium is based on the assumptions that the players have perfect information about the environment and act rationally \cite{QRE_book}. However, in certain scenarios, the information that a player has about the environment may not match the reality. For example, in a planning scenario, if the player obtains its information about the environment through surveillance missions performed in the past, it may face with a significantly different environment during the execution of the play. In such scenarios, playing an equilibrium strategy may dramatically decrease the player's actual expected payoff as the strategy is computed under the assumption of perfect information.

The principle of maximum entropy prescribes a probability distribution that is \say{maximally noncommittal with regard to missing information} \cite{Jaynes}. The principle of maximum causal entropy extends the maximum entropy principle to settings where there is dynamically revealed side information that causally affects the evolution of a stochastic process \cite{Ziebart2, Ziebart3}. A distribution that maximizes the causal entropy of a stochastic process (in the absence of additional constraints) is the one that makes all admissible realizations equally probable regardless of the revealed information \cite{Yagiz}. Therefore, the causal entropy of a player's strategy provides a convenient way to quantify the dependence of its strategy to its level of information about the environment as well as the other player's strategy.

In this paper, we propose a method to synthesize a pair of strategies that balances each player's rationality with its belief about the level of missing information. Specifically, we regularize each player's objective with the causal entropy of its strategy which is causally dependent on the history of play. Therefore, the proposed method allows the players to adjust their strategies according to different levels of misinformation by tuning a parameter that controls the importance of the regularization term. For example, in two extremes, it allows the player to be perfectly rational or to purely randomize its strategy.

We study both entropy-regularized $N$-stage and entropy-regularized discounted games, and show the existence of a value in both games. We first prove the sufficiency of Markovian and stationary strategies for both players, respectively, in $N$-stage and discounted games in order to maximize their entropy-regularized expected payoff. Then, we provide algorithms based on a sequence of convex optimization problems to compute a pair of equilibrium strategies. Finally, we demonstrate the proposed methods on a motion planning scenario, and illustrate that the introduced regularization term yields strategies that perform well in different environments.

\noindent \textbf{Related work.} In stochastic games literature, the idea of balancing the expected payoffs with an additional regularization term appeared recently in \cite{Jordi} and \cite{Reza}. The work \cite{Jordi} proposes to bound the rationality of the players to obtain tunable behavior in video games. They study $\gamma$-discounted games and restrict their attention to stationary strategies to balance the expected payoffs with the Kullback-Leibner distance of the player's strategies from reference strategies. In \cite{Reza}, authors study $N$-stage games and consider only Markovian strategies to balance the expected payoffs with the player's sensing costs which are expressed as directed information from states to actions. Unlike this work, we introduce causal entropy of strategies as the regularization term. Additionally, we allow the player's to follow history-dependent strategies and prove the sufficiency of Markovian strategies to attain the value in $N$-stage games.

Regularization terms are also used in matrix and extensive form games generally to learn equilibrium strategies \cite{Merti}, \cite{Leslie}, \cite{Ling}, \cite{Levine}. When each player uses the same parameter to regularize its expected payoffs with the entropy of its strategy, an equilibrium strategy profile is called a quantal response equilibrium (QRE) \cite{QRE_book}, and an equilibrium strategy of a player is referred as quantal best response \cite{Leslie} or logit choice strategy \cite{Merti}. From a theoretical perspective, the main difference between our approach and the well-studied QRE concept \cite{McKelvey} is that we establish the existence of equilibrium strategies even if the players use different regularization parameters. Additionally, we provide an efficient algorithm based on a convex optimization problem to compute the equilibrium strategies.

Robust stochastic games \cite{Kardes}, \cite{Aghassi} concern the synthesis of equilibrium strategies when the uncertainty in transition probabilities and payoff functions can be represented by structured sets. Unlike robust SG models, the proposed method in this paper can still be used when it is not possible to form a structured uncertainty set.

In reinforcement learning literature, the use of regularization terms is extensively studied to obtain robust behaviors \cite{Haarnoja}, improve the convergence rates \cite{Fox}, and compute optimal strategies efficiently \cite{Todorov}. As stochastic games model multi-player interactions, our approach leverages the ideas discussed in aforementioned work to environments where an adversary aims to prevent a player to achieve its objective.

\section{Background}
We first review some concepts from game theory and information theory that will be used in the subsequent sections.

\textbf{Notation:} For a sequence $x$, we write $x^t$ to denote $(x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_t)$. Upper case symbols such as $X$ denote random variables, and lower case symbols such as $x$ denote a specific realization. The cardinality of a set $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted by $\lvert \mathcal{X} \rvert$, and the probability simplex defined over the set $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted by $\Delta(\mathcal{X})$. For $V_1$$,$$V_2$$\in$$\mathbb{R}^n$, we write $V_1$$\preccurlyeq$$V_2$ to denote the coordinate-wise inequalities. We use the index set $\mathbb{Z_{+}}$$=$$\{1,2,\ldots\}$ and the natural logarithm $\log (\cdot)$$=$$\log_e (\cdot)$.
\subsection{Two-Player Stochastic Games}
A two-player stochastic game $\Gamma$ \cite{Shapley} is played in stages. At each stage $t$, the game is in one of its finitely many states $\mathcal{X}$, and each player observes the current state $x_t$. At each state $x_t$, the players choose one of their finitely many actions, and the game transitions to a successor state $x_{t+1}$ according to a probability distribution $\mathcal{P}$$:$$\mathcal{X}$$\times$$\mathcal{U}$$\times$$\mathcal{W}$$\rightarrow$$\Delta(\mathcal{X})$ where $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{W}$ are finite action spaces for player 1 and player 2, respectively. The pair of actions, $u_t$$\in$$\mathcal{U}$ and $w_t$$\in$$\mathcal{W}$, together with the current state $x_t$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$ determine the payoff $\mathcal{R}(x_t,u_t,w_t)$$\leq$$\overline{\mathcal{R}}$$<$$\infty$ to be made by player 2 to player 1 at stage $t$.

A player's strategy is a specification of a probability distribution over available actions at each stage conditional on the history of the game up to that stage. Formally, let $\mathcal{H}_t$$=$$(\mathcal{X}$$\times$$\mathcal{U}$$\times$$\mathcal{W})^{t-1}$$\times$$\mathcal{X}$ be the set of all possible history of plays up to stage $t$. Then, the strategy of player 1 and player 2 are denoted by $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$$=$$(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\ldots)$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}$$=$$(\tau_1, \tau_2,\ldots)$, respectively, where $\sigma_t$ $:$$\mathcal{H}_t$$\rightarrow$$\Delta(\mathcal{U})$ and $\tau_t$ $:$$\mathcal{H}_t$$\rightarrow$$\Delta(\mathcal{W})$ for all $t$. If a player's strategy depends only on the current state for all stages, e.g., $\sigma_t$$:$$\mathcal{X}_t$$\rightarrow$$\Delta(\mathcal{U})$ for all $t$, the strategy is said to be \textit{Markovian}. A \textit{stationary} strategy depends only on the current state and is independent of the stage number, e.g., $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$$=$$(\sigma, \sigma,\ldots)$, where $\sigma$$:$$\mathcal{X}$$\rightarrow$$\Delta(\mathcal{U})$. We denote the set of all strategies, all Markovian strategies, and all stationary strategies for player $i$$\in$$\{1,2\}$ by $\Gamma_i$, $\Gamma_i^M$, and $\Gamma_i^S$, respectively.

Let $\mu_{t+1}(x^{t+1},u^t,w^t)$ be the joint probability distribution over the history $\mathcal{H}_{t+1}$ of play which is uniquely determined by the initial state distribution $\mu_1(h_1)$ through the recursive formula
\begin{align}
&\mu_{t+1}(x^{t+1},u^t,w^t)=\mathcal{P}(x_{t+1} | x_t, u_t, w_t)\sigma_t(u_t | h_t)\nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad \ \times \tau_t(w_t | h_t)\mu_{t}(h_t)
\end{align}
where $h_t$$\in$$\mathcal{H}_t$ is the history of play up to stage $t$.

A stochastic game with the initial distribution $\mu_1(x_1)$ is called an $N$-stage game, if the game ends after $N$ stages. The evaluation function for an $N$-stage game is
 \begin{align}\label{usual_evaluation_finite}
&J(X^N, U^N, W^N):=\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\sum_{t=1}^N\mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t}\mathcal{R}(X_t, U_t, W_t)+\mathbb{E}^{{\mu}_{T+1}}\mathcal{R}(X_{N+1})
\end{align}
where $\overline{\mu}_t(\cdot)$$:=$${\mu}_t(\cdot)$$\sigma_t(\cdot)$$\tau_t(\cdot)$. Similarly, if the number of stages in the game is infinite, and the future payoffs are discounted by a factor $0$$<$$\gamma$$<$$1$, the game is called a $\gamma$-discounted game. The evaluation function for a $\gamma$-discounted game is
\begin{align}\label{classical_infinite}
\sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\gamma^{t-1}\mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t}\mathcal{R}(X_t, U_t, W_t).
\end{align}

The player 1's objective is to maximize the evaluation function, i.e., its expected payoff, whereas the player 2 aims to minimize it. A stochastic game is said to have the \textit{value} $\mathcal{V}^{\star}$, if for an evaluation function $f(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau})$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{V}^{\star}=\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in \Gamma_u} \min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma_w}  f(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau})=\min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma_w}\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in \Gamma_u}   f(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau}).
\end{align*}
A pair of strategies $(\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{\star},\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\star})$ is said to be equilibrium strategies if it attains the value of the game.

It is well-known that both $N$-stage and $\gamma$-discounted games have a value for finite state and action sets \cite{Bewley}. Moreover, Markovian and stationary strategies are sufficient for players to attain the value in $N$-stage and $\gamma$-discounted games, respectively \cite{Shapley}, \cite{Sorin}.

\subsection{Causal Entropy}
For a sequential decision-making problem where decisions depend causally on the past information such as the history of play, the causal entropy of a strategy is a measure to quantify the randomness of the strategy. Let $X^N$, $Y^N$ and $Z^N$ be sequences of random variables with length $N$. The entropy of the sequence $X^N$ causally conditioned on the sequences $Y^N$ and $Z^N$ is defined as \cite{Kramer}
 \begin{align}\label{causal_deff}
H(X^N || Y^N, Z^N ):= \sum_{t=1}^NH(X_t | X^{t-1}, Y^{t}, Z^ t),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
&H(X_t | X^{t-1}, Y^{t}, Z^ t):=\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{\mathcal{X}^N, \mathcal{Y}^{N},\mathcal{Z}^{N} }\text{Pr}(x^t, y^t, z^t)\log \text{Pr}(x_t | x^{t-1}, y^t, z^t).
\end{align}

The concept of causal entropy has recently been used to infer correlated-equilibrium strategies in Markov games \cite{Ziebart1} and to recover cost functions in inverse optimal control problems \cite{Ziebart3}. In this study, we employ causal entropy to compute an equilibrium strategy profile that balances the players' expected payoff with the randomness of their strategies in stochastic games.

 In the absence of additional constraints, a strategy $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$$\in$$\Gamma_1$ that maximizes the causal entropy $H(U^N || X^N, W^{N-1})$ of the player 1, which is conditioned on the revealed history of play, is the stationary strategy $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$$=$$(\sigma,\sigma,\ldots)$ where $\sigma(x)(u)$$=$$1/ \lvert \mathcal{U} \rvert$. Therefore, a player that maximizes the entropy of its strategy acts purely randomly regardless of the history of play. On the other hand, a player that regularizes its expected payoff with the entropy of its strategy can be thought as a player that balances its rationality with its belief about the correctness of the underlying transition model of the environment.

\section{Problem Statement}
We first consider entropy-regularized $N$-stage games for which we define the evaluation function as
\begin{align}\label{entropy_regularized}
\Phi_N(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau}) :=& J(X^N, U^N, W^N)+\frac{1}{\beta_1}H(U^N || X^N, W^{N-1} )\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{\beta_2}H(W^N || X^N, U^{N-1} ),
\end{align}
where $\beta_1,\beta_2$$>$$0$ are regularization parameters that adjust for players the importance of the randomness in their strategies.
Note that, when $\beta_1$$=$$\beta_2$$=$$\infty$, both players act perfectly rational, and we recover the evaluation function \eqref{usual_evaluation_finite}. Additionally, since the play is simultaneous, the information of a player's strategy at a given stage is not revealed to the other player. Hence, at each stage, players are allowed to condition their strategies only to observed history of play.

\noindent \textbf{Problem 1:} Provide an algorithm to synthesize, if exists, equilibrium strategies in entropy-regularized $N$-stage games.

We next consider stochastic games that are played in infinite stages, and introduce entropy-regularized $\gamma$-discounted games for which we define the evaluation function as
\begin{align}\label{entropy_regularized_infinite}
\Phi_{\infty}(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau}):=& \sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\gamma^{t-1}\Big[\mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t}\mathcal{R}(X_t, U_t, W_t)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{\beta_1}H(U_t | H_t )-\frac{1}{\beta_2}H(W_t | H_t )\Big],
\end{align}
where $H_t$$=$$(X^t, U^{t-1}, W^{t-1})$, i.e., the admissible histories of play at stage $t$. Note that in the evaluation function \eqref{entropy_regularized_infinite}, we discount players' future entropy gains as well as the expected payoff in order to ensure the finiteness of the evaluation function.

\noindent \textbf{Problem 2:} Provide an algorithm to synthesize, if exists, equilibrium strategies in entropy-regularized $\gamma$-discounted games.

\section{Existence of Values and The Computation of Optimal Strategies}
{\setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
In this section, we analyze entropy regularized $N$-stage and $\gamma$-discounted games, and show that both games have values. Then, we provide algorithms to synthesize equilibrium strategies that attain the corresponding game values.
\subsection{Entropy-Regularized $N$-Stage Games}\label{finite_section}
Searching optimal strategies that solve a stochastic game with the evaluation function $\Phi_N(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau})$ in the space of all strategies can be intractable for large $N$. We begin with establishing the existence of optimal strategies for both players in the space of Markovian strategies.
\begin{prop}\label{Markovian_finite}
Markovian strategies are sufficient for both players to attain, if exists, the value in entropy-regularized N-stage games, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in\Gamma_u^M}\min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma_w^M}\Phi_N(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau})=\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in\Gamma_u}\min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma_w}\Phi_N(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau}),\\
\min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma_w^M}\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in\Gamma_u^M}\Phi_N(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau})=\min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma_w}\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in\Gamma_u}\Phi_N(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau}).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}}
\noindent\textbf{Proof:} See Appendix A. $\quad \Box$

Next, we show that entropy-regularized $N$-stage games have a value. Let $\rho_t$$:$$\mathcal{X}$$\times$$\mathcal{U}$$\times$$\mathcal{W}$$\rightarrow$$\mathbb{R}$ be a function and $x_t$ be a fixed state. Additionally, let
\begin{align}\label{one-shot-game}
\mathcal{V}_t^{\sigma_t,\tau_t}(x_t):=\mathbb{E}^{\sigma_t, \tau_t}\Big[&\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\log \sigma_t(u_t | x_t )\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log \tau_t(w_t | x_t )\Big]
\end{align}
be the evaluation function for a \say{one-shot} game in which the game starts from the state $x_t$ and ends after both players play their one-step strategy.
{\setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
\begin{prop}\label{normal_game_prop}
A stochastic game with the evaluation function \eqref{one-shot-game} has a value, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\max_{\sigma_t\in \Delta(\mathcal{U})}\min_{\tau_t\in\Delta(\mathcal{W})}\mathcal{V}_t^{\sigma_t,\tau_t}(x_t)=\min_{\tau_t\in\Delta(\mathcal{W})}\max_{\sigma_t\in \Delta(\mathcal{U})}\mathcal{V}_t^{\sigma_t,\tau_t}(x_t).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}}
\noindent\textbf{Proof:} It is clear that $\mathcal{V}_t(x_t)$ is a continuous function that is concave in $\sigma_t$ and convex in $\tau_t$. Additionally, $\Delta(\mathcal{U})$ and $\Delta(\mathcal{W})$ are compact convex sets. The result follows from von Neumann's minimax theorem \cite{Neumann}.$\quad\Box$

The following proposition states that one can compute the value of the one shot game \eqref{one-shot-game} and synthesize equilibrium strategies by solving a convex optimization problem.

{\setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
\begin{prop}\label{optimal_strategy_finite}
For a given one-shot game with the evaluation function \eqref{one-shot-game}, optimal strategies $(\sigma_t^{\star},\tau_t^{\star})$ satisfy
\begin{align}\label{player_1_st}
&\sigma_t^{\star}(u_t|x_t)\in\nonumber\\
&\arg\max_{\sigma_t\in\Delta(U)}\Big[-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma_t(u_t | x_t)\log\sigma_t(u_t | x_t)\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log\sum_{w_t\in \mathcal{W}}\exp\big(-\beta_2\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma_t(u_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)\big)\Big],\\
&\tau_t^{\star}(w_t|x_t)=\nonumber\\\label{player_2_st}
&\frac{\exp\big(-\beta_2\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma_t^{\star}(u_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)\big)}{\sum_{w_t\in \mathcal{W}}\exp\big(-\beta_2\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma^{\star}_t(u_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)\big)}.
\end{align}
Furthermore, the unique value $\mathcal{V}^{\star}_t(x_t)$ of the game is given by
\begin{align}\label{value_game_opt}
&\mathcal{V}_t^{\star}(x_t)=-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma^{\star}_t(u_t | x_t)\log\sigma^{\star}_t(u_t | x_t)\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log\sum_{w_t\in \mathcal{W}}\exp\big(-\beta_2\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma^{\star}_t(u_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)\big).
\end{align}
\end{prop}}
\noindent\textbf{Proof:} See Appendix A.$\quad \Box$

It is worth noting that the objective function of the optimization problem given in \eqref{player_1_st} is strictly concave, and therefore, optimal strategies $\sigma_t^{\star}(u_t|x_t)$ and $\tau_t^{\star}(w_t|x_t)$ are unique. Additionaly, an optimal strategy with the form \eqref{player_2_st} is known in the economics literature as quantal best response \cite{McKelvey}, and for $\beta_1$$=$$\beta_2$$<$$\infty$, the optimal strategies form the well-studied quantal response equilibrium strategies \cite{QRE_book}.

We remark that the optimization problem in \eqref{player_1_st} has a closed-form solution which is a function of the optimal strategy $\tau_t^{\star}(w_t|x_t)$. However, since the closed-form expressions for equilibrium strategies constitute a system of coupled nonlinear equations, the convex optimization formulation provides a more convenient way to compute equilibrium strategies.

Utilizing the results of above propositions, we now reformulate an entropy-regularized $N$-stage game as a series of \say{one-shot} games through the use of Bellman recursions. Let
\begin{align}\label{recursion_function}
&\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)=\mathcal{R}(x_t,u_t,w_t)\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\sum_{x_{t+1}\in \mathcal{X}}\mathcal{P}(x_{t+1}| x_t, u_t, w_t)\mathcal{V}_{t+1}^{\sigma_t,\tau_t}(x_{t+1}),
\end{align}
for $t$$=$$1,\ldots, N$ where $\mathcal{V}_{N+1}^{\sigma_t,\tau_t}(x_{N+1})$$=$$\mathcal{R}(X_{N+1})$. Then, it can be easily verified that
\begin{align}\label{objective-equivalence}
\Phi_N(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\tau})=\sum_{x_1\in\mathcal{X}}\mu_1(x_1)\mathcal{V}_1(x_1)
\end{align}
for a given initial distribution $\mu_1(x_1)$. Consequently, we obtain the following result.
{\setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
\begin{thm}\label{finite_game_has_value}
Entropy-regularized $N$-stage games have a value.
\end{thm}}
\noindent\textbf{Proof:} Due to Proposition \ref{Markovian_finite}, we can focus on Markovian strategies to find an equilibrium point in $N$-stage games. We start from the stage $k$$=$$N$ and compute the value of the one shot game \eqref{one-shot-game}, which exists due to Proposition \ref{normal_game_prop}. Using \eqref{one-shot-game} with \eqref{recursion_function} for $k$$=$$N$$-$$1,N$$-$$2,\ldots,1$, we compute the value of $N$$-$$k$$+$$1$ stage games. As a result, the claim follows due to the equivalence given in \eqref{objective-equivalence}.$\quad\Box$

Algorithm \ref{euclid} summarizes the computation of the pair $(\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{\star},\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\star})$ of optimal strategies for entropy-regularized $N$-stage games.

\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Strategy computation for $N$-stage games}\label{euclid}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]

\State \textbf{Initialize:} $\mathcal{V}_{N+1}(x_{N+1})$=$\mathcal{R}(x_{N+1})$ for all $x_{N+1}$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$.
      \For{$t = N, N$$-$$1, ..., 1$}
      \State Compute $\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)$ for all $x_t$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$, $u_t$$\in$$\mathcal{U}$, and $w_t$$\in$$\mathcal{W}$ as in \eqref{recursion_function}.
        \State For all $x_t$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$, \begin{align*} &\mathcal{V}^{\star}_{t}(x_{t})=\max_{\sigma_t\in\Delta(U)}-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma_t(u_t | x_t)\log\sigma_t(u_t | x_t)\\
&-\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log\sum_{w_t\in \mathcal{W}}\exp(-\beta_2\sum_{u_t\in\mathcal{U}}\sigma_t(u_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t))\end{align*}
\State For all $x_t$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$, compute $\sigma_t^{\star}$ and $\tau_t^{\star}$ as in \eqref{player_1_st} and \eqref{player_2_st}, respectively.
      \EndFor

\State \textbf{return}  $\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{\star}$$=$$(\sigma_1^{\star},\ldots, \sigma_T^{\star})$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\star}$$=$$(\tau_1^{\star},\ldots, \tau_T^{\star})$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\noindent\textbf{Remark:} In certain scenarios, one of the players may prefer to play perfectly rationally against a boundedly rational opponent, e.g., $\beta_2$$=$$\infty$. In that case, it is still possible to compute equilibrium strategies by solving a convex optimization problem at each stage. The value of the one-shot game \eqref{one-shot-game} still exists due to the arguments provided in the proof of Proposition \ref{normal_game_prop}. However, the form of optimal strategies slightly changes to
\begin{align}\label{player_1_infinity}
&\tau_t^{\star}(w_t|x_t)=\arg\min_{\tau_t\in\Delta(W)}\frac{1}{\beta_1}\log\sum_{u_t\in \mathcal{U}}\exp\Big(\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\beta_1\sum_{w_t\in\mathcal{W}}\tau_t(w_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)\Big),\\
&\sigma_t^{\star}(u_t|x_t)=\nonumber\\\label{player_2_infinity}
&\frac{\exp\big(\beta_1\sum_{w_t\in\mathcal{W}}\tau_t^{\star}(u_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)\big)}{\sum_{u_t\in \mathcal{U}}\exp\big(\beta_1\sum_{w_t\in\mathcal{W}}\tau^{\star}_t(w_t | x_t)\rho_t(x_t,u_t,w_t)\big)}.
\end{align}
It is important to note that, if $\beta_i$$=$$\infty$ for some $i$$\in$$\{1,2\}$, equilibrium strategies may be not unique since the function $\log\sum\exp(\cdot)$ is not strictly convex over its domain \cite{Rockafellar}.

\subsection{Entropy-Regularized $\gamma$-Discounted Games}
In this section, we focus on Markovian strategies, whose optimality for $N$-stage games is shown in Proposition \ref{Markovian_finite}. Let $\mathcal{V}$$\in$$\mathbb{R}^{\lvert \mathcal{X}\rvert}$ be a real-valued function, and for a given $x$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$, $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{V})(x,\cdot,\cdot)$ $:$ $\mathcal{U}$$\times$$\mathcal{W}$$\rightarrow$$\mathbb{R}$ be a function such that
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{V})(x,\sigma,\tau):=\mathbb{E}^{\sigma, \tau}\Big[\mathcal{R}(x,u,w)-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\log \sigma(u | x )\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log \tau(w | x )+\gamma\sum_{{x'}\in\mathcal{X}}\mathcal{P}(x' | x,u, w)\mathcal{V}(x')\Big].
\end{align}

As discussed in Proposition \ref{normal_game_prop}, a one-shot game with the evaluation function $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{V})(x,\sigma,\tau)$ has a value. Therefore, we can introduce the Shapley operator $\Psi$$:$$\mathcal{V}$$\rightarrow$$\Psi(\mathcal{V})$ from $\mathbb{R}^{\lvert \mathcal{X}\rvert}$ to itself specified, for all $x$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$, as
\begin{align*}
\Psi(\mathcal{V})[x]:=\max_{\sigma\in\Delta(U)}\min_{\tau\in\Delta(W)}\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{V})(x,\sigma,\tau).
\end{align*}

It is clear that the operator $\Psi$ satisfies two key properties: \textit{monotonicity}, i.e., $\mathcal{V}$$\preccurlyeq$$\overline{\mathcal{V}}$ implies $\Psi(\mathcal{V})$$\preccurlyeq$$\Psi(\overline{\mathcal{V}})$, and \textit{reduction of constants}, i.e., for any $k$$\geq$$0$, $\Psi(\mathcal{V}$$+$$k\boldsymbol{1})[x]$$=$$\Psi(\mathcal{V})[x]$$+$$\gamma k$ for all $x$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$. Consequently, it is straightforward to show that the operator $\Psi$ is a contraction mapping \cite{Bertsekas}. Specifically, we have
\begin{align*}
\lVert \Psi(\mathcal{V})-\Psi(\overline{\mathcal{V}})\rVert_{\infty}\leq \gamma \lVert \mathcal{V}- \overline{\mathcal{V}}\rVert_{\infty},
\end{align*}
where $\lVert\mathcal{V}\rVert_{\infty}$$=$$\max_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\mathcal{V}(x)$. We omit the details since similar results can be easily found in the literature \cite{Neyman}. Then, by Banach's fixed-point theorem \cite{Puterman}, we conclude that the operator $\Psi$ has a unique fixed point which satisfies $\mathcal{V}^{\star}$$=$$\Psi\mathcal{V}^{\star}$.

Next, we need to show that the fixed point $\mathcal{V}^{\star}$ is indeed the value of the entropy-regularized $\gamma$-discounted game. Let $\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{\star}$$=$$(\sigma^{\star},\sigma^{\star},\ldots)$ be a stationary strategy such that $\sigma^{\star}$ is a one-step strategy for player 1 satisfying the fixed point equation, and $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ be an arbitrary Markovian strategy for player 2. Denoting by $h_t$ the history of play of length $t$, one has, by definition of $\Psi$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{\star}$,
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t}\Big[\mathcal{R}(x_t,u_t,w_t)-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\log \sigma^{\star}(u_t | x_t )+\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log \tau(w_t | x_t )\nonumber\\
&+\gamma\sum_{{x'}\in\mathcal{X}}\mathcal{P}(x' | x_t,u_t, w_t)\mathcal{V}^{\star}(x') \Big| h_t\Big]\geq \mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t}\Big[\mathcal{V}^{\star}(x_t)\Big| h_t\Big].
\end{align*}
This expression can further be written as
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t,\overline{\mu}_{t+1}}\Big[\mathcal{R}(x_t,u_t,w_t)-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\log \sigma^{\star}(u_t | x_t )\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log \tau(w_t | x_t )+\gamma\mathcal{V}^{\star}(x_{t+1})\Big| h_t\Big]\geq \mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t}\Big[\mathcal{V}^{\star}(x_t)\Big| h_t\Big].
\end{align*}
Multiplying by $\gamma^{t-1}$, taking expectations and summing over $1$$\leq$$t$$<$$k$, one obtains
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{t=1}^{k-1}\gamma^{t-1}\mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_t}\Big[\mathcal{R}(x_t,u_t,w_t)-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\log \sigma^{\star}(u_t | x_t )+\nonumber\\
&\frac{1}{\beta_2}\log \tau(w_t | x_t )\Big| x_1\Big]\geq \mathcal{V}^{\star}(x_1)-\gamma^{k}\mathbb{E}^{\overline{\mu}_{k+1}}\Big[\mathcal{V}^{\star}(x_{k+1})\Big| x_1\Big].
\end{align*}
Taking the limit as $k$$\rightarrow$$\infty$ and using Proposition \ref{Markovian_finite}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{infinite_first}
\Phi_{\infty}(\sigma^{\star},\tau)\geq \mathcal{V}^{\star}(x_1).
\end{align}
Similarly, when player 2 plays the optimal stationary strategy $\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\star}$$=$$(\tau^{\star},\tau^{\star},\ldots)$ against an arbitrary Markovian strategy $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ of player 1, we have
\begin{align}\label{infinite_second}
\Phi_{\infty}(\sigma,\tau^{\star})\leq \mathcal{V}^{\star}(x_1).
\end{align}
Then, the combination of \eqref{infinite_first} and \eqref{infinite_second} implies the following result.
{\setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
\begin{thm}
Entropy-regularized $\gamma$-discounted games have a value which satisfies $\Psi(\mathcal{V})$$=$$\mathcal{V}$. Furthermore, stationary strategies are sufficient for both players to attain the game value, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in\Gamma}\min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma}\Phi_{\infty}(\sigma,\tau)=\max_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\in\Gamma^S}\min_{\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\Gamma^S}\Phi_{\infty}(\sigma,\tau).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}}
Computation of optimal strategies is just an extension of Algorithm \ref{euclid}. Note that for $\gamma$-discounted games, we use the same one-shot game introduced in \eqref{one-shot-game}.  Therefore, optimal decision rules at each stage has the form \eqref{player_1_st} and \eqref{player_2_st}. Consequently, to compute the optimal strategies, we initialize Algorithm \ref{euclid} with an arbitrary value vector $\mathcal{V}$$\in$$\mathbb{R}^{\lvert \mathcal{X}\rvert}$ and iterate until convergence, which is guaranteed by the existence of a unique fixed point.

\section{A Numerical Example}
In this section, we demonstrate the proposed strategy synthesis method on a motion planning scenario that we model as an entropy-regularized $\gamma$-discounted game. To solve the convex optimization problems required for the computation of equilibrium strategies, we use ECOS solver \cite{Ecos} through the interface of CVXPY \cite{cvxpy}. All computations are performed by setting $\gamma$$=$$0.8$.

 As the environment model, we consider a $5$$\times$$5$ grid world which is given in Figure \ref{grid_graph} (top left). The brown grid denotes the initial position of the player 1 which aims to reach the goal (green) state. The red grid is the initial position of the player 2 whose aim is to catch the player 1 before reaching the goal state. Finally, black grids represent walls.

Let $x$$=$$(s_1,s_2)$ be the current state of the game such that $x[1]$$=$$s_1$ and $x[2]$$=$$s_2$ are the positions of the player 1 and the player 2, respectively. At each state, the action space for both players is given as $\mathcal{U}$$=$$\mathcal{W}$$=$$\{right,left,up,down,stay\}$. For simplicity, we assume deterministic transitions, i.e., $\mathcal{P}(x,u,w)$$\in$$\{0,1\}$ for all $x$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$, $u$$\in$$\mathcal{U}$ and $w$$\in$$\mathcal{W}$. If a player takes an action for which the successor state is a wall, the player stays in the same state with probability 1.

For a given $(x,u,w)$$\in$$\mathcal{X}$$\times$$\mathcal{U}$$\times$$\mathcal{W}$, we encode the payoff function $\mathcal{R}(x,u,w)$ as the sum of two functions such that $\mathcal{R}(x,u,w)$$=$$\mathcal{R}_1(x,u,w)$$+$$\mathcal{R}_2(x,u,w)$ where
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{R}_1(x,u,w)=\sum_{x'[1]=\text{G}}\mathcal{P}(x' | x,u,w), \\
&\mathcal{R}_2(x,u,w)=\begin{cases} -\mathcal{P}(x' | x,u,w) & \text{if} \ \ x'[1]=x'[2]\neq \text{G}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}
\end{align*}

Note that the payoff function defines a zero-sum game which is won by the player 1, if it reaches the goal state before getting caught, and by the player 2, if it catches the player 1 before reaching the goal state.

We first compute Nash equilibrium strategies in the absence of causal entropy terms, i.e., $\beta_1$$=$$\beta_2$$=$$\infty$, by employing standard linear programming formulation \cite{Miltersen} for zero-sum games. Starting from the initial state, an equilibrium strategy for the player 1 is to move towards the goal state by taking the action $right$ deterministically, and for the player 2 is to chase the player 1 by taking the action $up$ in the first two stages, and then, take the action $right$ until reaching the goal state. Therefore, a perfectly rational player 1 wins the game with probability 1 no matter what strategy is followed by the player 2.

To illustrate the drawback of playing with perfect rationality, we assume that there is another wall in the environment about which the players have no information while they compute the equilibrium strategies, i.e., the players use the nominal environment (top left) to compute the equilibrium strategies. First, we consider the case that the wall is between the goal state and the player 1, as shown in Figure \ref{grid_graph} (middle left). In this case, if the player 1 follows the Nash equilibrium strategy, the probability that it reaches the goal state becomes zero. Therefore, following the Nash equilibrium strategy makes the player 1 significantly vulnerable to such changes in the environment.

\begin{figure}[t!]\centering\hspace{-0.5\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.1\linewidth}\centering
\raisebox{0.07\height}{\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[black,line width=1pt] (0,0) grid[step=1] (5,5);
\draw[black,line width=4pt] (0,0) rectangle (5,5);

			   \StaticObstacle{1}{1}  \StaticObstacle{2}{1}  \StaticObstacle{3}{1}
			   \StaticObstacle{1}{3}  \StaticObstacle{2}{3}  \StaticObstacle{3}{3}
			    \initialstate{0}{2}  \goalstate{4}{2} \initialadversary{0}{0}
\node at (4+0.5,2+0.5) { \textbf{\huge G}};
\end{tikzpicture}
}}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.25\linewidth}
\scalebox{0.3}{
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[]{wallno.pdf}
\end{subfigure}}
\\
\centering\hspace{-0.5\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.1\linewidth}\centering
\raisebox{0.07\height}{\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[black,line width=1pt] (0,0) grid[step=1] (5,5);
\draw[black,line width=4pt] (0,0) rectangle (5,5);

			   \StaticObstacle{1}{1}  \StaticObstacle{2}{1}  \StaticObstacle{3}{1} \StaticObstacle{3}{2}
			   \StaticObstacle{1}{3}  \StaticObstacle{2}{3}  \StaticObstacle{3}{3}
			    \initialstate{0}{2}  \goalstate{4}{2} \initialadversary{0}{0}
\node at (4+0.5,2+0.5) { \textbf{\huge G}};
\end{tikzpicture}
}}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.25\linewidth}
\scalebox{0.3}{
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[]{wall13.pdf}
\end{subfigure}}
\\
\centering\hspace{-0.5\linewidth}
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.1\linewidth}\centering
\raisebox{0.07\height}{\scalebox{0.5}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[black,line width=1pt] (0,0) grid[step=1] (5,5);
\draw[black,line width=4pt] (0,0) rectangle (5,5);

			   \StaticObstacle{1}{1}  \StaticObstacle{2}{1}  \StaticObstacle{3}{1} \StaticObstacle{0}{3}
			   \StaticObstacle{1}{3}  \StaticObstacle{2}{3}  \StaticObstacle{3}{3}
			    \initialstate{0}{2}  \goalstate{4}{2} \initialadversary{0}{0}
\node at (4+0.5,2+0.5) { \textbf{\huge G}};
\end{tikzpicture}
}}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.25\linewidth}
\scalebox{0.3}{
\begin{subfigure}[!t]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[]{wall15.pdf}
\end{subfigure}}
\caption{ (Top left) The nominal environment players use for computing their strategies. (Top right) The probability that the player 1 wins the game when it plays the strategy computed by using $\beta_1=\beta_2=\beta$ against the perfectly rational player 2. (Middle and bottom left) The actual environments where the game is played.  (Middle and bottom right) The probability of winning for the player 1 when it employs strategies computed by using different $\beta$ values against the perfectly rational player 2.  }
\label{grid_graph}
\end{figure}

To investigate the tradeoff between rationality and randomness, we compute 9 different strategies for player 1 by using $\beta_1$$=$$\beta_2$$=$$2,3,\ldots,10$, and let it play against the perfectly rational player 2 which follows its Nash equilibrium strategy computed on the nominal environment (top left). The winning probabilities of player 1 under different strategies are shown in Figure \ref{grid_graph} (right) for the corresponding environments given in Figure \ref{grid_graph} (left). This specific scenario demonstrates that, by choosing $\beta$$=$$6$, the player 1 can obtain a robust behavior against unforeseen changes in the environment, i.e., the winning probability is around 20\%, without sacrificing too much from its optimal performance, i.e., around 15\%, if the structure of the environment remains the same. It is worth noting that the asymptotical performance of the player 1 as $\beta$$\rightarrow$$\infty$ approaches to its performance under Nash equilibrium strategy as discussed in \cite{McKelvey}. Additionally, the importance of the randomness for the player 1 increases as $\beta$$\rightarrow$$0$, and using smaller $\beta$ values negatively affects the performance after a critical point, i.e., $\beta$$=$$4$.

Finally, one can argue that the tradeoff occurs in this specific scenario only if the unpredicted wall is between the player 1 and the goal state. To justify the choice of $\beta$ value, we also consider the scenario in which the unexpected wall occupies another state which is shown in Figure \ref{grid_graph} (bottom left). In this case, as shown in  Figure \ref{grid_graph} (bottom right), the use of $\beta$$=$$6$ result in a strategy that guarantees around 80\% winning probability. Therefore, the entropy-regularized strategy of the player 1 still provides an advantage against unpredicted changes without sacrificing too much from the optimal performance.

\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
We consider the problem of two-player zero-sum stochastic games with entropy regularization, wherein the players aim to maximize the causal entropy of their strategies in addition to the conventional expected payoff. We show that equilibrium strategies exist for both entropy-regularized $N$-stage and entropy-regularized $\gamma$-discounted games, and can be computed by solving a convex optimization problem. In numerical examples, we applied the proposed approach to a motion planning scenario and observed that by tuning the regularization parameter, a player can synthesize robust strategies that perform well in different environments against a perfectly rational opponent.

Extending this work to multi-agent reinforcement learning settings, as discussed in \cite{Jordi}, is an interesting future direction. Future work can also investigate the effect of entropy regularization term on the convergence rate of learning algorithms as discussed in \cite{Fox}.


\section{Introduction}

A  function on the space of  convex bodies in  $\mathbb{R}^n$
is called a valuation if it satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:add}\mu(K\cup L) = \mu(K)+\mu(L)-\mu(K\cap L)\end{equation}
 whenever $K\cup L$ is convex. The prime examples of valuations on convex bodies are the intrinsic volumes, but also many other of the most central constructions in Convex Geometry are valuations. Remarkably, in many  cases \eqref{eq:add}  together with a short list of inevitable properties determines these constructions uniquely. The seminal result in this direction is Hadwiger's characterization of the intrinsic volumes \cite{Hadwiger:Vorlesungen}; see, e.g., \cite{HaberlParapatits:Surface,Ludwig:Ellipsoids,Ludwig:Minkowski,Ludwig:Intersection,LudwigReitzner:Classification,SchusterW:Generalized,Schneider:AreaMeasures,Schneider:CurvatureMeasures} for results in similar spirit. The recent work of Alesker on valuations \cite{Alesker:Irreducibility,Alesker:Lefschetz,Alesker:Product,Alesker:Survey,Alesker:VMfdsIG,Alesker:Fourier} completely transformed this classical line of research by introducing numerous new tools and  opening up  new directions that extend well  beyond Convexity.

The most important examples of valuations on convex bodies are usually invariant under translations and continuous with respect to the Hausdorff metric. The restriction of  such a valuation to polytopes   satisfies \eqref{eq:add} for polytopes, is invariant under translations, and is  weakly continuous, i.e., continuous with respect to parallel displacements of the facets of a polytope. While it is typically  not difficult to  check that a valuation is weakly continuous, it is not clear how to decide whether it admits a continuous extension to convex bodies  (see, e.g., \cite{alesker:extendability,hhw}, \cite[Problem 2.3.13]{fu:barcelona}, and also \cite{HugSchneider:LocalTensor,HugSchneider:RotationCovariant} where this is a key issue):

\begin{problem}
Specify (simple necessary and sufficient) conditions under which a translation-invariant, weakly continuous valuation on polytopes admits a continuous extensions to  convex bodies.
\end{problem}

\begin{remark}
Since polytopes are a dense subset, an extension, if it exists, is unique. Moreover, by a theorem of Groemer \cite{Groemer:Extension}, a continuous extension is automatically  a valuation.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Statement of the theorem}
According to McMullen \cite{mcmullen:weakly}, every translation-invariant, weakly continuous valuation on polytopes can be obtained by a fairly explicit geometric construction. A special case of this construction is the following.
Let $F_{k,k+1}$ be the manifold of pairs $(E,\ell)$ where $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a linear subspace of dimension $k$ and $\ell \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a $1$-dimensional linear subspace orthogonal to $E$. For every continuous function $h\colon F_{k,k+1}\to \mathbb{C}$ define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:muf} \mu_h(P)= \sum \int_{\ell \subset N_FP } h(\overline F, \ell ) \; d\ell, \end{equation}
where  $P\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a polytope, the sum extends over all $k$-dimensional faces $F$ of $P$, $\overline F$ is the translate of the affine hull  of $F$ containing the origin,  $N_FP$ is the normal cone of $P$ at the face $F$, $d\ell$ is the rotation-invariant probability measure on the space of rays in $\overline{F}^\perp$ emanating from the origin, and
$h(\overline F, \cdot )$ is considered as an even function on rays in $\overline{F}^\perp$. By the easy part of McMullen's theorem \cite{mcmullen:weakly}, $\mu_h$ is a translation-invariant, weakly continuous valuation on polytopes.

It may sound surprising, but, as was shown by Alesker \cite{alesker:extendability},  there exist smooth functions $h$ such that $\mu_h$ does not admit  a continuous extension to convex bodies. Later, several  authors arrived at the same conclusion in very different ways  \cite{af:lorentz,hhw,pw:klain}. In the special case $n=3$ and $k=1$ Alesker~\cite{alesker:extendability} described a subspace of smooth sections  of a certain line bundle over $F_{1,2}$ that can be identified with those functions $h$ for which a continuous extensions is possible.  A sufficient condition for all $n$ and $k$ was found by Hinderer, Hug, and Weil \cite{hhw}: if $h$ lies in the image of a certain integral transform, then $\mu_h$ extends by continuity.

The simplest non-trivial case of the construction \eqref{eq:muf} is when the function $h$ does not depend on $\ell$. In this situation, the integrals are proportional to the external angle $\gamma(F,P)$ of the  polytope $P$ at the face $F$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:angular}\mu_{\pi^* f}(P) = \sum f(\overline{F}) \gamma(F,P) \vol_k(F),\end{equation}
where  $\pi \colon F_{k,k+1}\to \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$, $(E,\ell)\mapsto E$ is the projection to the Grassmannian and
$f\colon \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)\to \mathbb{C}$.
If $f\equiv 1$ one obtains the intrinsic volumes. Other important examples of such valuations that admit a continuous extension are  the Hermitian intrinsic volumes arising in Hermitian Integral Geometry \cite{hig} or more generally the constant coefficient valuations (see, e.g., \cite{hig,fu:barcelona}). Moreover,  valuations of type \eqref{eq:angular} are of interest in connection with the Angularity Conjecture \cite{bfs,w:angularity}.

The problem of characterizing those functions $f$ for which \eqref{eq:angular} admits a continuous extension  was explicitly stated by Fu   \cite[Problem 2.3.13]{fu:barcelona}.  Although \eqref{eq:angular} is arguably the simplest possible instance of \eqref{eq:muf}, the results of \cite{alesker:extendability,hhw} provide almost no information on this problem.   The purpose of this note is to resolve this situation by specifying a simple necessary and sufficient condition under which a continuous extension exists.

Throughout this article we assume that $n\geq 3$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
 Let $1\leq k <n-1$ and  $f\colon \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)\to \mathbb{C}$. Then $\mu_{\pi^* f}$ admits a continuous extension to convex bodies if and only if $f$ is the restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding.
 Consequently, the space of such valuations has dimension
$$\frac{1}{n-k+1}\binom{n}{k}\binom{n+1}{k+1}$$
and coincides with the space of constant coefficient valuations.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark} As was already observed in \cite{alesker:extendability} for $k=n-1$ there is no condition on $f$ except continuity.
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} directly implies the classification of angular curvature measures that has been recently obtain by the author \cite{w:angularity}.
\end{remark}

Let us clarify what we mean by restriction to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding in the statement of theorem. The Pl\"ucker embedding  is a map \begin{equation}\label{eq:pluecker}\psi\colon \widetilde \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n) \to \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n\end{equation}
from the Grassmannian of oriented $k$-planes in $\mathbb{R}^n$ into  the $k$th exterior power of $\mathbb{R}^n$. If $u_1,\ldots, u_k$ is a positively oriented orthonormal basis of $E$, then
$$\psi(E)= u_1\wedge \cdots \wedge u_k.$$
We call a function on the oriented Grassmannian even if it is invariant under change of orientation; even  functions on the oriented Grassmannian correspond bijectively to functions on the Grassmannian $\Grass_k( \mathbb{R}^n )$ of (unoriented) linear subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^n$. In particular one may restrict even functions on  $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$
to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding to obtain functions on the Grassmannian $\Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$.

\subsection{Outline of the proof}

 We conclude this introduction with a plan of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. We denote by $\Val_k^+=\Val^+_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$ the space of $k$-homogeneous, continuous valuations on convex bodies in $\mathbb{R}^n$ that are invariant under translations and even (i.e., invariant under reflections in the origin).

\begin{definition}\label{def:angular}
 A valuation $\mu\in \Val_k^+$ is a called \emph{angular} if
 $$\mu(P)= \sum \Klain_\mu(\overline F) \gamma (F,P) \vol_k(F)$$
 for every polytope $P\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. Here the sum is over the $k$-dimensional faces $F$ of $P$,
 $\Klain_\mu\colon \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)\to \mathbb{C}$ is the Klain function of $\mu$  (see Section~\ref{sec:prelim} for its definition),
 $\overline F$ is the translate of the affine hull of $F$ that contains the origin, and $\gamma(F,P)$ is the external angle of $P$ at $F$.  The subspace of angular valuations is denoted by $A_k\subset \Val_k^+$.
\end{definition}

Clearly, if the valuation $\mu_{\pi^*f}$ extends by continuity to convex bodies, then  $\mu_{\pi^*f} \in A_k$
 and $\Klain_{\mu_{\pi^*f}} = f$. The strategy of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is to  characterize the Klain functions of the elements of $A_k$.
 To this end we pass to the more manageable subspace of smooth valuations introduced by Alesker. This will result in no loss of generality, since, as we will prove  in Section~\ref{sec:smooth}, smooth valuations are dense in $A_k$. By a deep theorem of Alesker, the Irreducibility Theorem \cite{Alesker:Irreducibility}, every smooth valuation can be represented by integration of a differential form over the normal cycle of a convex body (see Section~\ref{sec:prelim} below for precise statements). This provides us with the computational framework to deduce by an variational argument the  following necessary condition on the Klain function of $\mu\in A_{n-2}$.
 Here and in the following we will not notationally  distinguish between functions on $\Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and even functions on unit length  simple $k$-vectors of $\mathbb{R}^n$.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:relation} If $\mu\in A_{n-2}$, then the function $f\colon \Grass_2(\mathbb{R}^n) \to
\mathbb{R}$,
$$f(E)=\Klain_\mu(E^\perp),$$ satisfies
 \begin{equation} \label{eq:relation} (n-1)\int_{E_2^{n-1}} f(
  \frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}  \epsilon_i u_i \wedge u_n) \; d\epsilon   =
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} f( u_i \wedge u_n) \end{equation}
for every orthonormal basis $u_1,\ldots, u_{n}$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$, where $d\epsilon$ denotes the uniform probability measure on $E_2^{n-1}=\{-1,1\}^{n-1}$.
\end{proposition}

One may deduce a similar condition for $\mu\in A_{k}$. We will however proceed differently and first show that \eqref{eq:relation} holds if and only if $f$ is the  restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial to the image of the Pl\"ucker  embedding and then finish the general case by an inductive argument.

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}

\subsection{Convex geometry}

Let us denote by $\mathcal{K}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ the space of convex bodies in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Continuity of functions on this space will always be understood with respect to the Hausdorff metric. The convex hull of a subset $A\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ will be denoted by $\conv A$. For other basic notions from Convex Geometry not defined here we refer the reader to our standard reference \cite{Schneider:BM}.

\subsubsection{Continuous valuations}
Alesker's book  \cite{Alesker:Kent} and Chapter~6 of \cite{Schneider:BM} are our references for this material.
Let $\Val= \Val(\mathbb{R}^n)$ denote the space of translation-invariant continuous valuations on $\mathbb{R}^n$. By McMullen's decomposition theorem,
$$ \Val = \bigoplus_{k=0}^n\Val_k,$$
where $\Val_k$ denotes the subspace of $k$-homogeneous valuations, i.e., those valuations $\mu$ satisfying $\mu(tK) = t^k\mu(K)$ for all $t>0$ and $K\in \mathcal{K}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Moreover, there is the splitting $\Val_k= \Val_k^+\oplus \Val_k^-$ into even and odd valuations with respect to reflections in the origin. The space $\Val$ is equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets. In fact, $\Val$ becomes a Banach space with respect to the norm
$$ \| \mu \| = \sup_{K \subset B} |\mu(K)|,$$
where  $B$ is a convex body with nonempty interior.

The affine surface area is a notable exception of a geometrically relevant valuation that does not fit into this framework \cite{BesauLudwigWerner:Weighted,LudwigReitzner:Affine}; of a different and more recent vintage are valuations invariant under the indefinite orthogonal groups \cite{BernigFaifman:Indefinite,Faifman:Crofton}.

Let $\mu\in \Val_k^+$ and let $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a $k$-dimensional linear subspace. By Hadwiger's characterization of volume (see, e.g., \cite[Theorem 9.1.1]{KlainRota:GP}), the restriction of $\mu$ to $E$ is proportional to the $k$-dimensional volume on $E$,
$$  \mu|_E = \Klain_\mu(E) \vol_k.$$
The map $\Klain\colon \Val_k^+ \to C(\Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n))$ is called the  Klain embedding and $\Klain_\mu$ is called the Klain function of $\mu$.  By a theorem of Klain \cite{Klain:Even}, $\Klain_\mu=0$ implies $\mu=0$.

\subsubsection{Convex cones}
If  $C\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a closed convex cone, then the largest linear subspace contained in  $C$ is called the lineality space of $C$ and denoted by $L(C)$. The polar cone to $C$ is
$$C^\circ =\{ x\in \mathbb{R}^n\colon \langle x,y\rangle \leq 0 \text{ for } x\in C\}.$$
The external angle $\gamma(C)$ of $C$ is defined to be the fraction of $L(C)^\perp$ taken up by $C^\circ$. More precisely,
$$ \gamma(C) = \frac{\vol_{n-k-1}(S^{n-1} \cap C^\circ)}{\vol_{n-k-1}(S^{n-k-1})}, \qquad \text{where } k=\dim L(C).$$
It will be important for us that the external angle of $C$ does not depend on the ambient space: If $C\subset \mathbb{R}^m\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, then  $\gamma(C)$ is the same whether computed in $\mathbb{R}^m$ or in $\mathbb{R}^n$.

The tangent cone of a polytope $P$ at $x\in P$ is the closed convex cone
$$T_x P = \mathrm{cl}\bigcup_{t>0} t(P-x)$$
The lineality space of   $T_x P$ is the linear subspace parallel to the affine hull the unique face $F$ of $P$
containing $x$ in its relative interior. Note also that $T_xP = T_y P $ if $x,y$ belong to the relative interior of the same face $F$;
we denote this common cone by $T_FP$. The normal cone of $P$ at the face $F$ is
$$ N_F P = T_F P ^ \circ.$$
The external angle of a polytope $P$ at a face $F$ is denoted $\gamma(F,P)=\gamma(T_FP)$.

If $\mu$ is a valuation on convex bodies in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a linear subspace,
we denote by $\mu|_E$ the restriction of $\mu$ to $E$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:res} Let $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a linear subspace. If $\mu\in A_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$, then $\mu|_E\in A_k(E)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
 This follows immediately from $\Klain_\mu|_{\Grass_k(E)}
 =\Klain_{\mu|_E}$ and the fact that  the external angle $\gamma(F,P)=\gamma(T_F P)$ of $P\subset E \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is the same whether computed in $E$ or $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Smooth valuations and the normal cycle}

The general linear group $GL(n)$ acts on $\Val$ by $(g\cdot \mu)(K)= \mu(g^{-1} K)$. A valuation
$\mu\in\Val$ is called smooth, if the map $GL(n)\to \Val$, $g\mapsto g\cdot \mu$ is smooth.

Let us write $S\mathbb{R}^n=\mathbb{R}^n\times S^{n-1}$ for the sphere bundle of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
As a set, the normal cycle of a convex body $K\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is  the set of outward unit normals to $K$,
$$N(K)=\{ (x,v)\in S\mathbb{R}^n\colon v \text{ is an outward unit normal at } x\in K\}.$$
 Using the metric projection $p_K\colon \mathbb{R}^n \to K$ (see \cite{Schneider:BM}) it is not difficult to see that $(x,v)\to x+v$ is a bi-Lipschitz equivalence between  $N(K)$ and the boundary of the  convex body $K+B^n$, where $B^n$ is the Euclidean unit ball. We orient normal cycle such that this is map preserves orientations; our convention for the orientation of a domain $D\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is that $v_1,\ldots,v_{n-1}\in T_p \partial D$ is positively oriented if $\nu_p,v_1,\ldots, v_{n-1}$ is, where $\nu_p$ is the outward normal at the point $p\in \partial D$.

 In the language of Geometric Measure Theory the preceding paragraph  can be summarized by saying that the normal cycle of a convex body is an integral current. It was proved in \cite{Alesker:VMfdsIII}
that for a smooth $(n-1)$-form $\omega$ on $S\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ which is invariant under translations by elements of $\mathbb{R}^n$ the function
$$K\mapsto \int_{N(K)} \omega$$
defines a smooth valuation. The converse is also true and follows from Alesker's Irreducibility theorem:

\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem 5.2.1]{Alesker:VMfdsI}}]
 Let $0\leq k\leq n-1$. If $\mu\in \Val_{k}^\infty$ then there exists a translation-invariant smooth differential form $\omega\in \Omega^{n-1}(S\mathbb{R}^n)$ of bi-degree $(k,n-k-1)$ such that
 $$\mu(K)= \int_{N(K)} \omega$$
 for every convex body $K\subset \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Grassmannians and exterior powers}

Here we  recall the correspondence between simple $k$-vectors and $k$-planes in $\mathbb{R}^n$. For more information and proofs see, e.g., \cite{Federer:GMT}.
If $w_1,\ldots, w_k$ is a basis of a linear subspace  $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, then
$$w_1\wedge \cdots \wedge w_k$$
is a simple $k$-vector. A different choice of basis yields a proportional $k$-vector and
$$ \{ v\in \mathbb{R}^n\colon v\wedge w_1\wedge \cdots \wedge w_k=0\}= E.$$

A choice of orientation on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is equivalent to a choice unit $n$-vector $\omega$. With respect to this choice the Hodge star operator $* \colon\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k\mathbb{R}^n\to \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^{n-k}\mathbb{R}^n$ is defined by
$$  \xi\wedge * \eta= \langle \xi, \eta\rangle \omega, \qquad \xi,\eta\in \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k\mathbb{R}^n,$$
where the inner product $\langle \xi,\eta\rangle$ is defined by declaring $e_{i_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge e_{i_k}$, $1\leq i_1<\cdots < i_k\leq n$, for the the standard orthonormal basis $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$,  to be an orthonormal basis of $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k\mathbb{R}^n$.
Hence, if the orientation on $E^\perp$ is chosen such that $E\oplus E^\perp =\mathbb{R}^n$   has orientation $\omega$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hodge} \psi(E^\perp) = * \psi(E), \qquad E\in \widetilde \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n), \end{equation}
where $\psi$ denotes the Pl\"ucker embedding \eqref{eq:pluecker}.

Finally, let us remark that if $v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_k$ and $w_1\wedge \cdots \wedge w_k $ are simple $k$-vectors then
$$\langle v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_k, w_1\wedge \cdots \wedge w_k \rangle = \det (\langle v_i, w_j\rangle ).$$
In particular,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:norm_volume} |v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_k| = k! \vol_k(\conv\{0,v_1,\ldots, v_k\}).\end{equation}

\subsection{Representation theory of the orthogonal group}

We recall from \cite{FultonHarris} the parametrizations of the  irreducible complex representations of the special  orthogonal groups $SO(n)$.
The description of the representations of these groups is sensitive to the parity of the dimension $n$.
The irreducible representations of $SO(2m+1)$ are parametrized by integer sequences $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_m)$ with \begin{equation}\label{eq:parametr_so_odd}\lambda_1\geq\ldots\geq \lambda_m\geq 0;\end{equation}
the irreducible representations of $SO(2m)$ are parametrized by integer sequences $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_m)$ with \begin{equation}\label{eq:parametr_so_even}\lambda_1\geq\ldots\geq \lambda_m\quad \text{and} \quad\lambda_{m-1}\geq |\lambda_m|.\end{equation}

For example,  the representation $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^i V$, where $V=\mathbb{C}^n$ is the standard representation of $SO(n)$, is irreducible for $1\leq i < m$  and  corresponds to
$$\lambda_1=\cdots=\lambda_i=1 \qquad \text{and}\qquad \lambda_{i+1}=\cdots =\lambda_{m}=0.$$
When  $n$ is odd, then also $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^m V$ is irreducible and has highest weight
$$\lambda_1=\cdots=\lambda_m=1;$$
but when $n$ is even  $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^m V$ is not irreducible: the eigenspaces of the Hodge star operator are the irreducible subrepresentations with highest weights
$$\lambda_1=\cdots=\lambda_{m-1}=1 \quad \text{and} \qquad \lambda_{m}=\pm 1.$$

\subsubsection{Spherical harmonics} Let  $\mathcal{H}_p^n$  denote the subspace of $p$-homogeneous complex-valued polynomials on $\mathbb{R}^n$  that are harmonic, i.e., satisfy $\Delta f= 0$. The restriction of $\mathcal{H}_p^n$ to $S^{n-1}$ yields precisely the irreducible subrepresentations of $C(S^{n-1})$ under the action of the orthogonal group.  Since
$ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}= 4 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z \partial \bar z}$, the polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sphericalhw}\bar z_1^p = (x_1 -ix_2)^p\end{equation}
is in $\mathcal{H}_p^n$ and a short computation shows that it is in fact a highest weight vector of  weight
$(p,0,\ldots, 0)$, see, e.g., \cite[Exercise 7.2]{Sepanski:LieGroups}.

\subsubsection{Restriction to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:highest_weights_restrictions}
 The subspace of $C(\widetilde\Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n))$ of restrictions of $2$-homogeneous polynomials on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$  to $\widetilde \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$ decomposes under the natural action of
 $SO(n)$  precisely into the  irreducible representations with highest weights $(2 m_1, 2 m_2,\ldots, 2 m_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor})$ satisfying
 $|m_{1}|\leq 1$ and $m_i=0$ for $i>\min(k,n-k)$. Its dimension is
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:plucker dim} \frac{1}{n-k+1}\binom{n}{k}\binom{n+1}{k+1}.\end{equation}
 \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
 This is a well-known fact that is proved for example in \cite[Lemma 4.3]{w:angularity} and \cite[Lemma 4.2]{w:angularity}
\end{proof}

\section{Reduction to smooth valuations}
\label{sec:smooth}

\begin{lemma}
 $A_k\subset \Val_k^+$ is closed and invariant under the action of $O(n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
 If $(\mu_i)_{i=1}^\infty$ is a sequence of angular valuations converging uniformly on compact subsets to some valuation $\mu\in \Val_k^+$, then also $\Klain_{\mu_i}\to \Klain_\mu$ uniformly. If $P$ is a polytope, then
 $$  \mu_i(P)= \sum \Klain_{\mu_i}(\overline F) \gamma (F,P) \vol_k(F)$$
 for every $i$. Passing to the limit, we see that $\mu$ is angular as well.
It is clear form the definition that for every $g\in O(n)$ the valuation $g\cdot \mu$ is angular if $\mu$ is.
\end{proof}

Let us recall some terminology from representation theory (see, e.g., \cite{Knapp:Examples,Sepanski:LieGroups}).
Let $K\times V\to V$ be a representation of a group $K$ on an arbitrary vector space $V$. A vector $v\in V$ is a called $K$-finite the span of $\{ k\cdot v\colon k\in K\}$ is finite-dimensional. For a compact Lie group $K$, let $\widehat K$ be the set of equivalence classes of irreducible finite-dimensional representations of $K$.  A continuous representation of $GL(n)$ on a Frech\'et space $V$ is called admissible if for each $\gamma\in \widehat{O(n)}$ the sum of all irreducible $O(n)$-invariant subspaces that are in the class $\gamma$ has finite dimension. The existence of the  Klain embedding $\Klain\colon \Val_k^+\to C(\Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n))$ implies that the representation of $GL(n)$ on $\Val_i^+$ is admissible \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Alesker:McMullen}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:smooth}
 $A_k\cap \Val_k^\infty$ is a dense subspace of $A_k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The action of $O(n)$ on $A_k$ is a continuous representation of a compact Lie group on a Banach space. It is well known that in this situation the subspace of $O(n)$-finite vectors is dense (see, e.g., \cite[Theorem 3.46]{Sepanski:LieGroups}). It is another well-known fact that for every admissible representation of $GL(n)$ on a Frech\'et space, every $O(n)$-finite vector is smooth (see, e.g., \cite[Proposition 8.5]{Knapp:Examples}). We conclude that smooth valuations in $A_k$ form a dense subspace.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:relation}}

Throughout  this section let  $ \mu\in \Val_{n-2}^+(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be fixed. Let us also fix an orientation $or$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let us  suppose that  $\mu$ is given by a translation-invariant smooth differential form $\omega\in \Omega^{n-1}(S\mathbb{R}^n)$ of bi-degree $(n-2,1)$,
 $$\mu(K)=\int_{N(K)} \omega.$$

 Consider the simplex $S\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ spanned by the points $p_0=0$, $p_i=v_i$, $i=1,\ldots, n-1$, $p_n=t v_n$, where $t$ is a positive number, and $v_1,\ldots,v_n$ is some orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
 Let us  make the dependence of the simplex $S$ on the choice of orthonormal basis more explicit by writing
 $ S=S(v_1,\ldots, v_n)$. The first goal of this section is to prove the following lemma.
 Here and in the following for every function $f\colon \Grass_k(\mathbb{R}^n)\to \mathbb{C}$ and every simple nonzero $k$-vector $w_1\wedge \cdots \wedge w_k$ we will often write
 $ f(w_1\wedge \cdots \wedge  w_k)$ instead of $f(E)$, $E=\{v\in \mathbb{R}^n\colon v\wedge w_1\wedge \cdots \wedge  w_k=0\}$.
 \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:comp1}
    $$\lim_{t\to 0^+}  \der{t}  \int_{E_2^{n-1}}  \mu(S (\epsilon_1v_1,\ldots, \epsilon_{n-1}v_{n-1}, v_n)) \; d\epsilon  = \frac{1}{4(n-2)!} \sum_{1\leq i< j<n}  \Klain_\mu( \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k\leq n\\k\neq i,j}} v_k ).$$
 \end{lemma}

 We will introduce now some notation that will be useful not only in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:comp1}, but also in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:comp2} below.
 Let  $F_0,F_1,\ldots, F_n$ be the facets of $S$, where the notation is chosen such that $p_i\notin F_i$. Note that every $(n-2)$-face of $S$ is of the form
 $$ F_i\cap F_j = \conv\{ p_k\colon k\neq i,j\}.$$
 The dihedral angle $\theta_{ij}\in (0,\pi)$ of this face is given by
 $$ \cos\theta_{ij} = \langle u_i,u_j\rangle,
 $$
 where $u_i$ is the facet normal of $F_i$. Note that
 $$u_i=-v_i, \qquad i=1,\ldots, n,$$
 and
 $$u_0=  \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(n-1)t^2}} (\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} tv_i + v_n).$$

 \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:volume}
  Let $v_1,\ldots, v_n$ be an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then
  $$ \vol_{n-1}( \conv\{ v_1,\ldots, v_n\})=  \frac{\sqrt n}{(n-1)!}.$$
 \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
 Note that
 $$ \vol_{n-1}( \conv\{ v_1,\ldots, v_n\}) = \frac{h}{n-1} \vol_{n-2}(\conv\{ v_1,\ldots, v_{n-1}\}),$$
 where $h$ is the distance from $v_n$ to the affine subspace spanned by $ v_1,\ldots, v_{n-1}$.
 Since
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:ortho_decomp}v_n=  \frac{1}{n-1}(v_1 + \cdots +v_{n-1}) +  (  v_n - \frac{1}{n-1}(v_1 + \cdots +v_{n-1}))\end{equation}
 where the first vector is in the affine hull of  $v_1,\ldots, v_{n-1}$ and the second vector is orthogonal to that affine subspace, we get
 $$ h^2  =  \frac{n}{n-1}.$$
 Induction on $n$ finishes the proof.
\end{proof}

 We divide the set of all $(n-2)$-faces of $S$ into four disjoint subsets.

 \begin{enumerate}
  \item $ F_i\cap F_n$ for  $i=1,\ldots,n-1$.
 These faces  do not depend on the parameter $t$ and have volume
 $$ \vol_{n-2}(F_i\cap F_n) = \frac{ 1}{(n-2)!}.$$
 The normal cones
 $$ N_{F_i\cap F_n}S = \pos \{ -v_i,-v_n\}$$
 are constant and $\theta_{in}=\pi/2$.

 \item  $ F_i\cap F_j$ for distinct $i,j=1,\ldots n-1$.
 These faces  depend on $t$, but their affine hull does not.
Their  volume  is
 $$ \vol_{n-2}(F_i\cap F_j) = \frac{ t}{(n-2)!}.$$
The normal cones
 $$ N_{F_i\cap F_j}S  = \pos \{ -v_i,-v_j\}$$
are constant and $\theta_{ij}=\pi/2$

 \item $ F_0\cap F_n$.
 This face does not depend on the parameter $t$, but its normal cone does. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:volume} we have
 $$   \vol_{n-2}(F_0\cap F_n) = \frac{ \sqrt{n-1}}{(n-2)!}. $$
 The normal cone is
  $$ N_{F_0\cap F_n}S = \pos \{ u_0,-v_n\}$$ and the dihedral angle is
 $$\theta_{0n}(t) = \arccos (- \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(n-1)t^2}}).$$
 Moreover
 $$S^{n-1} \cap N_{F_0\cap F_n} S  = \{ \cos\alpha u_n + \sin\alpha w_n \colon 0\leq \alpha\leq \theta_{0n}\},$$
 where
 $$ w_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} v_i. $$

 \item $F_0\cap F_i$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$. These faces
 have nonconstant volume, affine hull, normal cone, and dihedral angle.
 It follows from a decomposition similar to \eqref{eq:ortho_decomp} that
 $$ \vol_{n-2}(F_0\cap F_i) = \frac{ \sqrt{1+(n-2)t^2}}{(n-2)!}.$$
 The normal cone is
  $$ N_{F_0\cap F_i}S = \pos \{ u_0,-v_i\}$$ and the dihedral angle is
 $$\theta_{0i}(t) = \arccos (- \frac{t}{\sqrt{1+(n-1)t^2}}).$$
 Moreover
 $$S^{n-1} \cap N_{F_0\cap F_i} S  = \{ \cos\alpha u_i + \sin\alpha w_i \colon 0\leq \alpha\leq \theta_{0i}\},$$
 where
 $$ w_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 +(n-2)t^2 }} (\sum_{\substack{1\leq j\leq n-1\\ j\neq i}} tv_j + v_n) . $$

 \end{enumerate}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:comp1}]
Observe that
$$\mu(S)= \sum_F \int_{F\times (N_F S \cap S^{n-1})} \omega,$$
where the sum is over all $(n-2)$-faces of $S$. Using the preceding division of the $(n-2)$-faces
of $S$, up to an additive constant that does not depend on $t$ we have that    $\mu(S(v_1,\ldots, v_n))$  equals $S_1+S_2+S_3$, where
 \begin{align*}
  & S_1:=\sum_{1\leq i< j<n} (-1)^{i+j+n+1}\frac{ t}{(n-2)!} or(v_1 \wedge \cdots  \wedge v_n)
  \\ & \hspace{4cm} \int_{0}^{\pi/2} \langle \omega(-\cos\alpha v_i -\sin \alpha v_j ), \bigwedge_{
   \substack{1\leq k\leq n\\k\neq i,j}} v_k \wedge
  (\sin\alpha \bar v_i -\cos \alpha \bar v_j )\rangle \, d \alpha,   \\
  & S_2:=  \frac{1}{(n-2)!}  or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n)
  \\ &  \hspace{2.5cm} \int_0^{\theta_{0n}(t)}  \langle \omega (\cos\alpha u_n + \sin\alpha w_n), \bigwedge_{1<k<n}(v_k-v_1) \wedge (-\sin\alpha \bar u_n + \cos\alpha \bar w_n)  \rangle  \, d\alpha, \\
  &S_3:= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{(-1)^i}{(n-2)!} or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n) \\
  &  \hspace{2.5cm} \int_0^{\theta_{0i}(t)}  \langle \omega (\cos\alpha u_i + \sin\alpha w_i(t)  ) ,\bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}(v_k-tv_n)\wedge  (-\sin\alpha \bar u_i + \cos\alpha \bar w_i ) \rangle \,  d\alpha.
 \end{align*}
Here we always  write  $\bar x =(0,x)\in \mathbb{R}^n\oplus \mathbb{R}^n$ and $x= (x,0)\in  \mathbb{R}^n\oplus \mathbb{R}^n$ if we form wedge products.  Moreover, we have used \eqref{eq:norm_volume} to obtain
$$ | \bigwedge_{1<k<n}(v_k-v_1) | = (n-2)! \vol_{n-2}(\conv \{ v_1,\ldots, v_{n-1}\}) = (n-2)! \vol_{n-2}(F_0\cap F_n)$$
and
$$|\bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}(v_k-tv_n)|=(n-2)! \vol_{n-2}(F_0\cap F_i)$$
for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$.

Now  we compute the first derivative with respect to $t$ and let $t\to 0^+$.
Let us make the dependence of $S_1(t)$ on the choice of orthonormal basis explicit by writing  $S_1(t)(v_1,\ldots, v_n)$. We have
\begin{align*}  & \int_{E_2^{n-1}} S'_1(t)( \epsilon_1 v_1,\ldots, \epsilon_{n-1} v_{n-1}, v_n)\, d\epsilon \to \sum_{1\leq i<j<n}  (-1)^{i+j+n+1}  or( v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n ) \\
 &  \hspace{2cm}  \frac{1}{4(n-2)!}  \int_0^{2\pi}  \langle  \omega(\cos\alpha v_i + \sin\alpha v_j),\bigwedge_{
   \substack{1\leq k\leq n\\k\neq i,j}} v_k\wedge (-\sin\alpha \bar v_i + \cos\alpha \bar v_j) \rangle \\
 &  = \frac{1}{4(n-2)!} \sum_{1\leq i< j<n}  \Klain_\mu( \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k\leq n\\k\neq i,j}} v_k ).
\end{align*}

Next we use
\begin{equation}\label{eq:theta0n}\theta_{0n}(t)\to \pi, \qquad   \theta_{0n}'(t)\to -\sqrt{n-1}\end{equation}
as $t\to 0^+$. Since the integrand does not depend on $t$, taking derivatives yields
$$ S_2'(t)\to  \frac{\sqrt{n-1}}{(n-2)!}  or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n) \langle \omega(v_n),\bigwedge_{1<k<n}(v_k-v_1) \wedge \bar w_n\rangle.  $$
Now
\begin{align*}  \sqrt{n-1} \bigwedge_{1<k<n}(v_k-v_1) \wedge \bar w_n  & = (-1)^n \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} v_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge \bar v_k\wedge \cdots \wedge v_{n-1}+ R,
\end{align*}
where $R$ contains all terms that are multiples of  $v_i\wedge \bar v_i$ for some $1\leq i \leq n-1$. After integration over $E_2^{n-1}$ the terms coming from $R$ cancel and we get
\begin{align*}  \int_{E_2^{n-1}}  &  S'_2(t)( \epsilon_1 v_1,\ldots, \epsilon_{n-1} v_{n-1}, v_n) \, d\epsilon \to\\
& \frac{ (-1)^n}{(n-2)!}  or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n)   \langle \omega(v_n),
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} v_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge \bar v_k\wedge \cdots \wedge v_{n-1}\rangle.
\end{align*}

Finally, since
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:theta0i} \theta_{0i}(t)\to \pi/2, \qquad \theta_{0i}'(t)\to 1, \qquad i=1, \ldots, n-1,
\end{equation}
we get
\begin{align*} & S'_3(t)\to \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \bigg(  \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{(n-2)!}or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n)   \langle \omega( v_n ), v_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge \bar v_i\wedge \cdots \wedge v_{n-1}  \rangle \\
&+ \frac{(-1)^i}{(n-2)!}   or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n)  \int_0^{\pi/2} \langle \langle \operatorname{grad} \omega(-\cos\alpha v_i + \sin \alpha v_n ), \sin\alpha \sum_{\substack{1\leq j\leq n-1\\ j\neq i}} v_j\rangle ,\\
 & \hspace{3cm}\bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}v_k\wedge  (\sin\alpha \bar v_i + \cos\alpha \bar v_n  \rangle  d\alpha \\
& +  \frac{ (-1)^i}{(n-2)!} or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n)   \int_0^{\pi/2} \langle \omega(-\cos\alpha v_i + \sin \alpha v_n ), \xi \rangle    d\alpha \bigg),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}\xi:=&\left. \der{t}\right|_{t=0} \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}(v_k-tv_n)\wedge  (-\sin\alpha \bar u_i + \cos\alpha \bar w_i(t))  \\
 =& \sum_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}(-1)^{k+i+1}    v_1\wedge \cdots  \wedge  \underbrace{(\sin \alpha \bar v_i+ \cos\alpha \bar v_n)}_{i\text{th position}} \wedge \cdots  \wedge
\widehat{v_k} \wedge \cdots \wedge v_n \\
&  \hspace{1cm}+ \cos\alpha   v_1\wedge \cdots  \wedge \widehat{v_i} \wedge \cdots  \wedge
v_{n-1} \wedge \bar v_k,
\end{align*}
where $\widehat{v_k}$ means that this factor is omitted.
If we integrate over $E_2^{n-1}$, then the first summand will cancel the contributions from $S_2(t)$ and the second summand will vanish. Indeed,  the term
$$   \int_0^{\pi/2} \langle \langle \operatorname{grad} \omega(-\cos\alpha v_i + \sin \alpha v_n ),  v_j\rangle ,\\
 \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}v_k\wedge  (\sin\alpha \bar v_i + \cos\alpha \bar v_n  \rangle  d\alpha,$$
where $1\leq j\leq n-1$, $j\neq i$,  will not  change sign if we replace $v_j$ by $-v_j$.
Similarly after integration the third summand will vanish since
\begin{align*}(-1)^{k+i+1}    v_1\wedge \cdots  \wedge  \underbrace{(\sin \alpha \bar v_i+ \cos\alpha \bar v_n)}_{i\text{th position}} & \wedge \cdots  \wedge
\widehat{v_k} \wedge \cdots \wedge v_n\\
& + \cos\alpha   v_1\wedge \cdots  \wedge \widehat{v_i} \wedge \cdots  \wedge
v_{n-1} \wedge \bar v_k, \end{align*}
where $1\leq k<n$, $k\neq i$,
will not  change sign if we replace $v_k$ by $-v_k$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:comp2} If $\mu$ is angular, then
  \begin{align*}
    & \lim_{t\to 0^+}  \der{t}  \int_{E_2^{n-1}} \mu(S (\epsilon_1v_1,\ldots, \epsilon_{n-1}v_{n-1}, v_n)) \,d\epsilon = \frac{1}{4(n-2)!} \sum_{1\leq i< j<n-1}  \Klain_\mu( \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k\leq n\\k\neq i,j}} v_k)\\
    &-\frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{n-1}{(n-2)!} \int_{E_2^{n-1}}  \Klain_\mu (
  \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^i  \epsilon_i \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}v_k)\,d\epsilon +
  \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{1}{(n-2)!} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \Klain_\mu(\bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}v_k).
  \end{align*}

\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 If $\mu$ is angular then, up to an additive  constant which does not depend on $t$, we have that  $\mu(S (v_1,\ldots, v_{n-1}, v_n))$ equals  $A_1+A_2+A_3$, where
 \begin{align*}A_1(t)  :=& \frac{t}{4(n-2)!} \sum_{1\leq i< j<n-1}  \Klain_\mu( \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k\leq n\\k\neq i,j}} v_k ),\\
  A_2(t)  := &\frac{\theta_{0n}(t)}{2\pi} \frac{\sqrt{n-1}}{(n-2)!}  \Klain_\mu ( \bigwedge_{ 1<k<n} (v_k-v_1)),\\
  A_3(t)  :=&  \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{\theta_{0i}(t)}{2\pi} \vol_{n-2}(F_0\cap F_i(t))\Klain_\mu(F_0\cap F_i(t)) \\
    = &\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{\theta_{0i}(t)}{2\pi}
   \frac{ (-1)^i}{(n-2)!}or(v_1\wedge \cdots \wedge v_n) \\ &  \hspace{2cm}  \int_0^{2\pi}   \langle \omega (\cos\alpha u_i + \sin\alpha w_i(t)  ) ,\bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}(v_k-tv_n)\wedge  (-\sin\alpha \bar u_i + \cos\alpha \bar w_i  \rangle  d\alpha.
 \end{align*}
 Taking the first derivative, letting $t\to 0^+$, and integrating over $E_2^{n-1}$,  the term
 $A_1(t)$ yields
 $$ \frac{1}{4(n-2)!} \sum_{1\leq i< j<n-1}  \Klain_\mu( \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k\leq n\\k\neq i,j}} v_k ).$$
 For $A_2(t)$ we use \eqref{eq:theta0n} and get
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:A2}   -\frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{n-1}{(n-2)!}   \int_{E_2^{n-1}}  \Klain_\mu ( \bigwedge_{ 1<k<n} (\epsilon_k v_k- \epsilon_1 v_1))\,d\epsilon.\end{equation}
For $A_3(t)$ we see as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:comp1} that after integration over $E_2^{n-1}$ the first derivative of $$\vol_{n-2}(F_0\cap F_i(t))\Klain_\mu(F_0\cap F_i(t)) $$ vanishes. Using \eqref{eq:theta0i}  we are left with
$$\frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{1}{(n-2)!} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \Klain_\mu(\bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}v_k).  $$
To simplify \eqref{eq:A2} note that
$$ \bigwedge_{ 1<k<n} ( v_k-  v_1)=  \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{i+1} \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}v_k$$
and hence \eqref{eq:A2} equals
 $$-\frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{n-1}{(n-2)!} \int_{E_2^{n-1}}  \Klain_\mu (
  \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^i  \epsilon_i \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}v_k)\, d\epsilon.$$
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:relation}]
 Let us first assume that $\mu\in A_{n-2}$ is smooth. From Lemma~\ref{lemma:comp1} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:comp2} we conclude that
 $$ (n-1) \int_{E_2^{n-1}}  \Klain_\mu (
  \frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^i  \epsilon_i \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}u_k) \, d\epsilon =
  \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \Klain_\mu(\bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}u_k) $$
  for every orthonormal basis $u_1,\ldots, u_{n}$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
  Applying the Hodge star operator  yields
$$ * (-1)^i   \bigwedge_{\substack{1\leq k<n\\k\neq i}}u_k = (-1)^{n+1} u_i \wedge u_n.$$
Combining this with \eqref{eq:hodge}  we obtain \eqref{eq:relation}. Since by Lemma~\ref{lemma:smooth} any continuous angular valuation can be approximated by smooth angular valuations, the claim follows.
\end{proof}

\section{Necessary condition for $k=n-2$.}

In the section we will deduce the necessary condition in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} in the special case $k=n-2$.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:characterization}
 Let $f\colon \Grass_2 (\mathbb{R}^n)\to \mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function. Then $f$ satisfies the relation \eqref{eq:relation}
 for every orthonormal basis $u_1,\ldots,u_n$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$ if and only if $f$ is the restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^2 \mathbb{R}^n$ to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let us first prove that the restriction of every to $2$-homogeneous polynomial satisfies \eqref{eq:relation}.
To see this recall that
if $p\colon V \to \mathbb{C}$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ on  a finite-dimensional real vector space $V$, then there exists a
symmetric multilinear function  $p\colon V^k\to \mathbb{C}$,
 called the polarization of $p$ and denoted by again by $p$,  which is uniquely determined by the equation
 $$ p(a,\ldots, a) = p(a),\qquad \text{for all}\ a\in V.$$
For a proof see, e.g., \cite[Appendix A]{Hormander:Convexity}. Now if $f$ is the restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial $p$ on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^2\mathbb{R}^n$ to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding, then expanding the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:relation} by the bilinearity of the polarization
of $p$ immediately yields the claim.

To prove the converse, let $W\subset C(\Grass_2(\mathbb{R}^n))$ be the subspace of all continuous functions $f$ on $\Grass_2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with the property that \eqref{eq:relation} holds for every orthonormal basis
$u_1,\ldots, u_n$.
 We have to show that $W$ is contained in  the space of restrictions of $2$-homogeneous polynomials on  $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$ to  $\Grass_2(\mathbb{R}^n)$.

Clearly,  the subspace $W$ is closed and  invariant under the action of $SO(n)$. Hence $W$ decomposes into certain irreducible subrepresentations.  The highest weights occurring in the representation $C(\Grass_2(\mathbb{R}^n))$ are well
known. According to Strichartz \cite{strichartz}, if $n\geq 4$, they all have multiplicity $1$ and are of the form
$(2m_1,\ldots, 2m_{2},0\ldots, 0)$
with integers satisfying
$$m_1\geq   |m_{2}|\qquad \text{and} \qquad \text{if}\  n>4,\ m_2\geq 0.$$
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:highest_weights_restrictions}, the proof for $n\geq 4$ will be finished if we can show that only the highest weights with
 $$ m_1\leq 1$$
 can occur in $W$. For this it will suffice to show that for all other highest weights the corresponding highest weight vector $f_{m_1, m_{2}}$ is not an element of $W$. This step will be based on an
 explicit description of the highest weight vectors given by Strichartz  \cite{strichartz} (see also \cite{Alesker:Lefschetz}).

For any subspace $E\in \Grass_2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ choose an orthonormal basis $X^1,X^2$ of $E$ and consider the corresponding $n \times 2$ matrix
 $$\begin{pmatrix}
    X^1_1  &  X^2_1\\
    \vdots & \vdots  \\
   X^1_{n}  &   X^2_{n}\\
   \end{pmatrix}
$$
of coordinates with respect to the standard basis $e_1,\ldots, e_{n}$ of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
Let $X_j$ denote the $j$th row of this matrix. For $l\leq \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ let $A(l)$ be the $l\times 2$ matrix whose $j$th row is $X_{2j-1} +
\sqrt{-1} X_{2j}$, $j=1,\ldots, l$. Note that the $l\times l$ matrix  $A(l)A(l)^t$ is independent of the choice of the orthonormal basis of $E$.

A  highest weight vector of the irreducible subrepresentation of $C(\Grass_2(\mathbb{R}^n))$ with highest weight $(2m_1, 2m_2,0,\ldots, 0)$
is given by
\begin{enumerate}
 \item if $m_2\geq 0$,  $$ f_{m_1, m_2}= \det\left( A(1)A(1)^t\right)^{m_1-m_{2}}\det\left( A(2)A(2)^t\right)^{m_2};$$
 \item if $m_2<0$,
 $$ f_{m_1, m_2}= \det\left( A(1)A(1)^t\right)^{m_1-|m_{2}|}\overline{\det\left( A(2)A(2)^t\right)}^{|m_2|}.$$
\end{enumerate}

Let $e_1,\ldots, e_n$ be the standard basis of  $\mathbb{R}^n$ and put
\begin{align*}
u_1& = se_1 -c e_3,\\
u_2& = e_2,\\
u_i& = e_{i+1}, \qquad 3\leq i\leq n-1,\\
u_n& = ce_1 +s e_3,
\end{align*}
where $c=\cos \phi$ and $s=\sin\phi$ for brevity.

For this choice of orthonormal basis let us   evaluate  \eqref{eq:relation}  for a highest weight vector $f=f_{m_1,m_2}$. Throughout we assume that $m_1\neq 0$.
A straightforward computation shows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rhs}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} f_{m_1,m_2}( u_j \wedge u_n) =\begin{cases}
                                                         1 + (-1)^{m_2} c^{2m_1} + (-1)^{m_1} s^{2m_1}, &  m_2\neq 0;\\
                                                         1 + (n-3) c^{2m_1} + (-1)^{m_1} s^{2m_1},&  m_2= 0,\\
                                                        \end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}\notag (n-1)& \int_{E_2^{n-1}}    f(
  \frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}  \epsilon_j u_j \wedge u_n )  \,d\epsilon =  \\
 \label{eq:lhs} &   \frac{2^{m_2}}{(n-1)^{m_1-1}}  \int_{E_2^{n-1}}
  ((n-2)c^2 + 2i \epsilon_1\epsilon_2 s  )^{m_1-m_2} (\epsilon_2\epsilon_3 cs + i \epsilon_1(\epsilon_2 s -\epsilon_3 c))^{m_2}\,d\epsilon ,
\end{align}
provided $m_2\geq0$; if $m_2<0$, then the second factor inside the integral has to be conjugated and $m_2$ replaced by $|m_2|$.
We will distinguish the  cases $m_2=0$, $m_2$ even (and different from $0$), $m_2$ odd.

Let us start with the case $m_2=0$. Note that by \eqref{eq:rhs} and \eqref{eq:lhs} both sides of \eqref{eq:relation}
are trigonometric polynomials of degree $2m_1$. Comparing the coefficients of the leading term $c^{2m_1}$, we get
$$  \frac{(n-2)^{m_1}}{(n-1)^{m_1-1}} =  (n-2).$$
This can only hold if $m_1=1$.

Next let us treat the case  $m_2$ even and different from $0$. Again by \eqref{eq:rhs} and \eqref{eq:lhs} the leading term on both sides is $c^{2m_1}$ and comparing coefficients we get
$$ 2^{|m_2|} \frac{(n-2)^{m_1-|m_2|}}{(n-1)^{m_1-1}} =2.$$
This is equivalent to
$$ \left( \frac{n-2}{n-1} \right) ^{m_1-1}  = \left( \frac{n-2}{2} \right) ^{|m_2|-1}.$$
Since the left-hand side is strictly less than $1$ and the right-hand side greater equal $ 1$, this is a contradiction. Hence no highest weight vector $f=f_{m_1,m_2}$ with
$m_2\neq 0$ even can satisfy \eqref{eq:relation}.

Let us finally consider the case $m_2$ odd. Expanding  the two factors inside the  sum in \eqref{eq:lhs} we get
\begin{align} \notag ((n-2)c^2)^{m_1-m_2} +\binom{m_1-m_2}{1} &  ((n-2)c^2)^{m_1-m_2-1} 2i \epsilon_1\epsilon_2 s  \\
  \label{eq:expansionI} &  + \binom{m_1-m_2}{2} ((n-2)c^2)^{m_1-m_2-2}  (2i  s)^2+ \cdots
\end{align}
and
\begin{align} \notag\epsilon_2\epsilon_3 (cs)^{m_2} +  & \binom{m_2}{1}  (cs)^{m_2-1}   i\epsilon_1(\epsilon_2 s- \epsilon_3 c)\\
 \label{eq:expansionII} & \hspace{2cm}+
\binom{m_2}{2} \epsilon_2\epsilon_3  (cs)^{m_2-2} (i\epsilon_1(\epsilon_2 s- \epsilon_3 c))^2 + \cdots
\end{align}
where $\cdots$ denotes lower order terms.  Observe that
$$(i\epsilon_1(\epsilon_2 s- \epsilon_3 c))^2= 2\epsilon_2\epsilon_3 cs-1.$$
Integrating over $E_2^{n-1}$ we see that the leading term $c^{2m_1-2}$ on the left-side of \eqref{eq:relation} results from the product of the second terms in the above expansions and the product of the first in \eqref{eq:expansionI} with the third in \eqref{eq:expansionII}. Comparing coefficients we get
$$ (-1)^{(m_2-1)/2}
  \frac{2^{m_2+1}(n-2)^{m_1-m_2-1}}{(n-1)^{m_1-1}}  \big((n-2)\binom{m_2}{2}  + (m_1-m_2)m_2\big)
= - m_1.$$
Consequently, $(m_2-1)/2$ must be odd and in particular $m_2\geq 3$.
If $n=2k+2$ is even, then
$$ 2^{m_1} k^{m_1-m_2-1} \big((n-2)\binom{m_2}{2}  + (m_1-m_2)m_2\big)= m_1 (2k+1)^{m_1-1}.$$
We conclude that $2^{m_1}$ divides $m_1$, a contradiction. If $n=2k+1$ is odd ($k\geq 2$), then
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:oddcase} (2k-1)^a \big((2k-1) \binom{m_2}{2}+  (a+1)m_2 \big)
  =  m_1 2^{a-1} k^{m_2+a},
\end{equation}
where we put $a= m_1-m_2-1$.
Since $2l \leq k^l$ for integers $k,l\geq 2$, we have
\begin{align*}  (2k-1)^a   \big( (2k-1)   \binom{m_2}{2} & +  (a+1)m_2 \big) \\
& \leq  m_2 (2k-1)^{a+1} \frac{k^{m_2-1}}{4}
+ (2k-1)^a (a+1) m_2 \\
& < m_2 2^{a-1} k^{m_2+a} +  (2k-1)^a (a+1) m_2\\
& = m_1 2^{a-1} k^{m_2+a} + (a+1)( (2k-1)^a m_2 - 2^{a-1}  k^{m_2+a}) \\
& \leq m_1 2^{a-1} k^{m_2+a},
\end{align*}
which contradicts \eqref{eq:oddcase}.
Therefore if $m_2$ is odd and \eqref{eq:relation} holds for $f_{m_1,m_2}$, then we must have $m_1-|m_2|=0$.

Now if $m_1=|m_2|\geq 3$ is odd, then after integration over $E_2^{n-1}$ we see that  the leading terms in \eqref{eq:lhs} and \eqref{eq:rhs}  are $(cs)^{m_1-1}$ and $c^{2m_1-2}$. Comparing coefficients we get
$$(-1)^{(m_1-1)/2}    \frac{2^{m_1}}{(n-1)^{m_1-1}} (m_1-1)   = -1.$$
For the signs to match we must have $m_1=4k+3$ with $k=0,1,2,\ldots$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:identityOdd}4 \cdot  2^{4k+2} (2k+1) = (n-1)^{4k+2}\end{equation}
which implies that $n-1$ must contain the prime factor $2$ more then once. But then
\eqref{eq:identityOdd} can only hold if $k=0$ and $n-1=4$.

Now  for $n=5$ and $m_1=|m_2|=3$ one immediately checks that \eqref{eq:lhs} and \eqref{eq:rhs} do coincide. Hence we are going to choose a different orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$:
\begin{align*} u_1 & = c(ae_1+ be_3)+ s e_n,\\
  u_2 & = s(ae_1+be_3)-c e_n,\\
   u_3 & = e_2,\\
   u_i & = e_i, \qquad  4\leq i\leq n-1, \\
   u_n & = -be_1+ae_3,
\end{align*}
where $a=\cos\psi , b=\sin \psi $ for brevity.
A straightforward computation shows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rhs5}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} f_{m_1,\pm m_1}( u_j \wedge u_n) =c^{2m_1}+s^{2m_1} +(-1)^{m_1} (a^{2m_1}+b^{2m_1})
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}\notag (n-1) \int_{E_2^{n-1}}  &  f_{m_1,\pm m_1}(
  \frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}  \epsilon_j u_j \wedge u_n )  \,d\epsilon = \\
 \label{eq:lhs5} & \hspace{1cm} \frac{2^{m_1}}{(n-1)^{m_1-1}}  \int_{E_2^{n-1}}
( \epsilon_1\epsilon_2 cs - \epsilon_3\epsilon_4 ab + i (\epsilon_1 c +\epsilon_2 s) (\epsilon_3 a +\epsilon_4 b))^{m_1}\,d\epsilon.
\end{align}
Comparing the coefficients the leading term  we get a contradiction for $m_1>1$. We conclude that the validity of \eqref{eq:relation} for a highest weight vector $f_{m_1,m_2}$ implies $m_1\leq 1$.

It remains to treat the case $n=3$. Taking orthogonal complements, we have to show that if an even  continuous  function
$f\colon S^2\to \mathbb{C}$ satisfies
$$  2\int_{E_2^2}  f(\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \sum_{j=1}^2 \epsilon_j u_j)\,d\epsilon =\sum_{j=1}^2 f(u_j)$$
for every pair of orthonormal vectors $u_1,u_2$, then $f$ is the restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial to $S^2$. According to \eqref{eq:sphericalhw} the function $f=f_{m_1}= (x_1-ix_2)^{2m_1}$, is contained  in the irreducible subrepresentation with highest weight $(2m_1)$. Now if $m_1>0$, then choosing as before $u_1=se_1-ce_3, u_2=e_2$, evaluating  both sides, and comparing the coefficients of the leading term  $s^{2m_1}$,  we get
$$ \frac{1}{2^{m_1-1}} =1. $$
Hence also in this case $m_1\leq 1$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:codegree2} If  $\mu \in A_{n-2}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, then  the Klain function of $\mu$ is the restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^{n-2}\mathbb{R}^n$ to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof} Proposition~\ref{prop:relation}, Proposition~\ref{prop:characterization}, and \eqref{eq:hodge} imply that if $\mu \in A_{n-2}$, then the Klain function of $\mu$ is the restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^{n-2}\mathbb{R}^n$ to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding.

\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}

In this final section we provide an inductive argument that allows us to deduce Theorem~\ref{thm:main} from the special case $k=n-2$ already established in  Corollary~\ref{cor:codegree2}. We will need the following fact.

\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Proposition 4.4]{w:angularity}}]\label{prop:polynomial_restriction}
 Let $1\leq k <n-1$ and $f$ be an even continuous function on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Suppose that for every nonzero $v\in \mathbb{R}^n$ there exists a
 $2$-homogeneous polynomial $q_v$ on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k v^\perp$ such that $f=q_v$ on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(v^\perp)\subset \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k v^\perp$. Then there exists
  a globally defined $2$-homogeneous polynomial $q$ on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
 $f=q$ on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(\mathbb{R}^n)\subset \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:induction}
  Let  $1\leq k <n-1$ and $f$ be an even continuous function on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Suppose that for every linear subspace  $E\subset  \mathbb{R}^n$ of dimension $k+2$ there exists a
 $2$-homogeneous polynomial $q_E$ on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k E$ such that $f=q_E$ on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(E)\subset \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k E$. Then there exists
  a globally defined $2$-homogeneous polynomial $q$ on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
 $f=q$ on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(\mathbb{R}^n)\subset \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof} Put $m=n-k-2$. If $m=0$, then there is nothing to prove. Assume now that $m>0$ and that the theorem has been proved for $m-1$. Then for every nonzero vector $v\in \mathbb{R}^n$ there exists a
 $2$-homogeneous polynomial $q_v$ on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k v^\perp$ such that $f=q_v$ on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(v^\perp)\subset \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k v^\perp$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:polynomial_restriction} this implies the existence of
  a globally defined $2$-homogeneous polynomial $q$ on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
 $f=q$ on $\widetilde{\Grass}_k(\mathbb{R}^n)\subset \mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]
If $\mu=\mu_{\pi^*f}$  admits a continuous extension to  convex bodies then $\mu\in A_k$.
For every linear subspace $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ the restriction $\mu|_E$ of $\mu$ to $E$ is according to Lemma~\ref{lemma:res}  angular. The Klain function of $\mu|_E$ is the restriction of the Klain function of $\mu$ to $\Grass_k(E)$. If the dimension of $E$ is $k+2$, then $f|_{\Grass_k(E)}=\Klain_{\mu|_E}$ is by Corollary~\ref{cor:codegree2} the restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k E$   to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding. By  Corollary~\ref{corollary:induction}, $f$ is the restriction of $2$-homogeneous polynomial on $\mbox{\Large $\wedge$}^k \mathbb{R}^n$ to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding.

The converse follows from the fact proved in \cite[Theorem 1.4]{w:angularity} that to each
restriction of a $2$-homogeneous polynomial  to the image of the Pl\"ucker embedding corresponds a constant coefficient curvature measure. Globalizing this curvature measure we get an element of $A_{k}$. That   $A_k$ has the stated dimension is now immediate from  Lemma~\ref{lemma:highest_weights_restrictions}.
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{abbrv}