\section{Introduction}
At international airports, baggage from flights normally need to be scanned by security check devices based on X-ray imaging due to safety issues and customs declaration. To increase the customs clearance efficiency, X-ray security check devices have been deployed in BHS (Baggage Handling System) at many newly constructed airports. After flight arrivals, all check-in baggage will go through security check devices, which are connected with conveyor of BHS. Therefore, the X-ray image of each baggage is generated and inspected before baggage claim. Currently, the common practice is attaching RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags onto interested baggage right after security check devices, in order to indicate the baggage to be further manually unpacked and inspected. As passengers claim interested baggage with RFID tags and carry it to RFID detection zone, alarms will be triggered.

Nevertheless, RFID tag detection has certain drawbacks. First, tags might fall off in the process of transfer. Certain passengers might also deliberately tear off tags in order to avoid inspections. The loss of tags will directly result in detection failures of interested baggage. Second, tagging need to be conducted by manpower or certain equipment, which causes additional cost together with the tag itself and might affect customs clearance rate. Moreover, baggage of metal material surface will interfere with detection signal of RFID tags, thus it also leads to false negative cases.

Considering these defects, a security inspection approach that requires no physical tags will show great advantages in avoiding detection miss and metal interference, reducing costs, and increasing efficiency. An approach based on baggage appearance images is thus employed. Concretely, images of baggage appearance will be captured at BHS and bundled with inspection information before baggage claim. While passengers carrying the baggage and entering the customs checkpoint, i.e. the area for customs declaration and security check before leaving the airport, the appearance image will be taken again. These checkpoint images will be analyzed by comparing with those taken at BHS to identify whether certain baggage is of interest. Practically, passengers often place feature items such as stickers or ropes on baggage, which can serve as cues in distinguishing baggage, thus each baggage could be to be unique within certain time interval. Since the baggage is re-identified cross cameras, the process is referred as baggage ReID later in this paper.

Similar to the person ReID~\cite{ref_proc1}, the baggage ReID task also faces challenges such as object occlusion, background clutter, motion blurring and variations of lighting, pose, viewpoint, etc. Particularly, some of these aspects are even more challenging for baggage ReID. For instance, the baggage pose often differs between images captured at BHS and checkpoint, as well as per each baggage. It brings extra difficulties for applying part-based person image retrieval approaches~\cite{ref_proc2,ref_proc16} to baggage ReID, since pedestrian in video surveillance mostly remains canonical standing/walking pose. Meanwhile, similar to vehicle ReID~\cite{ref_proc3,ref_proc4}, baggage images from different view-points vary much more than the case of person ReID. Furthermore, it is not uncommon that many baggage has very similar appearance thus are less distinctive compared with person. All these characteristics make baggage ReID a uniquely challenging task.

Recent years, research and application in computer vision have seen great development, especially with the help of deep learning. An important enabling factor of the rapid development of deep learning is the availability of large scale datasets~\cite{ref_proc5,ref_proc6,ref_proc10}. Taking person ReID as example, datasets such as Market-1501~\cite{ref_proc7}, MARS~\cite{ref_proc8}, CUHK03~\cite{ref_proc9}, etc., have contributed to improving the state-of-the-art performance continuously~\cite{ref_proc16,ref_proc19}. These large-scale datasets played a key role to evolve the person ReID task from lab problem to real-world industrial application.

In this paper, a large-scale baggage ReID dataset called MVB (Multi View Baggage) is proposed. First, as a large-scale image dataset, MVB consists of 4519 baggage identities and 22660 annotated hand-drawn masks and bounding boxes, as well as surface material labels. Second, all baggage images are captured by specially-designed multi-view camera system to handle pose variation and occlusion. The multi-view images contribute to obtaining 3D information of baggage surface as complete as possible, which is crucial to the ReID problem, since there could be notably different textures on specific area of baggage. Third, in real scenario at airports, the imaging factors like lighting, background, viewpoint, motion, etc., are quite different between BHS and checkpoint, making the baggage ReID task of our dataset tend to be a cross domain problem, which is more challenging and inspiring. Moreover, baggage might have very similar appearance thus are hardly distinctive. These aspects make our dataset have remarkable inter-class similarity and intra-class dissimilarity which domain adaptation approach~\cite{ref_proc17,ref_proc18} in person ReID could be applied. To the best of our
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/fig_1.png}
\caption{Baggage ReID application and multi-view camera system at: (a) checkpoint (b) BHS.} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
knowledge, MVB is the first publicly available baggage ReID dataset, which will enable utilizing deep learning methods on baggage ReID and benefit research and application on general object ReID tasks. Additionally, we also propose baseline models using merged Siamese network with ablation study to understand how baggage ReID performance benefit from features like self-attention, hard example mining, foreground mask, etc.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, MVB dataset will be introduced in detail. Task and evaluation method on MVB will be given in Section 3. Baseline models and corresponding experiment results will be shown in Section 4 and 5. In Section 6, a short conclusion will be summarized.

\section{Dataset}
\subsection{Raw Data Collection System}
As raw data, images containing baggage are all captured at an international airport. The baggage ReID application is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The data collection process can be divided to two stages, i.e. BHS and checkpoint, both have multi-view image capture system deployed.

In BHS stage, after unloaded from landed airplanes, baggage is put on BHS conveyor and transferred to a security check device for X-ray scan in sequence. At the entrance of the device, a portal frame is set up over the conveyor. In order to get 3D information of baggage appearance as complete as possible, three cameras were placed on different position of the frame to capture multi-view images: right-front, top, and left-back respectively. These cameras receive the trigger signal as baggage passes by and take three images simultaneously. As the baggage being scanned by the device next to the frame, the generated X-ray image can be inspected by staff or algorithm in real-time, then the information of whether certain baggage is of interest is bundled with the multi-view images taken by the cameras.

The second stage for capturing multi-view images is at the checkpoint for customs clearance. According to procedure of customs clearance, passengers along with baggage are required to pass through gate at checkpoint after baggage claim. The checkpoint usually contains several gates. At each gate, four cameras are embedded for multi-view image capturing. Two pairs of cameras are located near the exit and entrance of the gate at each side, taking images against and along the passenger moving direction respectively. The two pairs of cameras are triggered in proper order to adapt many passenger actions such as pushing a baggage cart, dragging/pushing a mobile suitcase, etc. The intention of embedding four cameras is trying to capture baggage with different possible poses, such as lying on baggage cart and standing on ground, considering the fact that in some view the particular baggage might be heavily occluded by person or other baggage.

\subsection{Data Annotation}
Based on the multi-view image capturing system, raw image data were collected at an airport from actual flight during several days. In real case, a baggage ReID pipeline consists of two sequential steps, baggage detection and baggage retrieval. In this paper, the detection step is not considered in the pipeline of baggage ReID for mainly two reasons. First, we have trained Faster-R-CNN~\cite{ref_proc11} based object detection models using annotated bounding boxes on full-sized images, it showed that using detection result for retrieval task has almost the same performance compared to using ground truth. Second, a baggage can be identified means it has at least one valid baggage image taken at BHS and checkpoint respectively. Since there could be many hold-on baggage also appeared in checkpoint image besides check-in baggage, the annotation for detection might bring the dataset many irrelevant baggage which are unable to identify. Therefore, we refer baggage retrieval as baggage ReID in our paper.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Annotation Statistics.}\label{tab1}
\begin{tabular}{ C{2cm} C{3cm} C{3cm} C{4cm} }
\toprule
 & \#Baggage Images & \#Full-sized Images & Average Views per Identity\\
\midrule
BHS & 13028 & 13028 & 2.88\\
Checkpoint & 9632 & 9237 & 2.13\\
Overall & 22660 & 22265 & 5.01\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The annotation process can be described as follows. Images taken at BHS and checkpoint would be annotated if there is a valid baggage. Valid baggage denotes that one integrated surface of baggage is exposed at checkpoint or more than 50\% of baggage surface is exposed at BHS. Each mask is a hand-drawn polygon and each corresponding bounding box is then cropped as minimum enclosing rectangle of annotated mask. Because there are four camera views at checkpoint and three camera views at BHS, the first annotation for ReID is to couple the same baggage separately based on time. The second step is finding the same identity between checkpoint and BHS, which is quite a time-consuming work. Therefore, a ReID model is trained based on a few identities and computed the scores of similarity between baggage at BHS and checkpoint, the ground-truth identity would be much easier to locate based on ranking. At last, the annotator confirms that each identity consists of images from BHS and checkpoint.

MVB consists of 4519 baggage identities and 22660 bounding boxes. Each identity is examined to be unique. For each bounding box, mask of baggage is also given as annotation information. 22660 baggage images (13028 at BHS, 9632 at checkpoint) are cropped from 22265 full-sized images (13028 at BHS, 9237 at checkpoint). Most identities have three baggage images taken at BHS. The number of baggage images at checkpoint gate for each identity fluctuates more. Most frequent occurrence of missing baggage image from certain view at BHS is due to missed camera capture, while at checkpoint is more often due to serious occlusion caused by passenger body parts or cloth, baggage cart, other baggage on cart or on ground. On average, each baggage identity has respectively 2.88 and 2.13 baggage images at BHS and checkpoint. The statistics of annotation is listed in Table~\ref{tab1}.

For better baggage ReID evaluation, the dataset has also provided the attribute annotation of baggage surface material. The attribute labels of four categories are: hard (metal, plastic, etc.), soft (fabric, leather, etc.), paperboard and others (protective cover, etc.). Table~\ref{tab2} showed the sample baggage images and label distributions.

\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Surface Material Annotation.}\label{tab2}
\begin{tabular}{ C{2.5cm} C{2cm} C{2cm} C{2cm} C{2cm} }
\toprule
Categories & Hard & Soft & Paperboard & Others\\
\midrule
\#Identities & 2767 & 1120 & 198 & 434\\
Sample Image &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_table2_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_table2_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_table2_3.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_table2_4.jpg}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Dataset Characteristics}
In MVB dataset, each identity of baggage can be regarded as an individual class containing several images taken at BHS and checkpoint together. It is necessary to point out the characteristics of inter-class similarity and intra-class dissimilarity. For inter-class similarity, we have to admit that some baggage is naturally very hard to distinguish from each other according to their appearance, even more difficult than the case in person ReID. For instance, Table~\ref{tab3} gives two baggage that looks very similar but actually has different identities. The cues to distinguish them are hiding in detail of images. Meanwhile, the images of BHS and checkpoint are substantially different. The intra-class dissimilarity aspects are listed in Table~\ref{tab4}.

\noindent
\textbf{Background:} as most of images in Table~\ref{tab4} indicate, baggage images have quite different backgrounds between BHS and checkpoint. In BHS images, background mainly consists of black conveyor belt and security check device entrance. Meanwhile in checkpoint baggage images background varies from passenger body parts, clothes, baggage cart, floor, etc.

\noindent
\textbf{Occlusion:}other baggage on cart can easily lead to heavy occlusion in checkpoint image as shown in Table~\ref{tab4}d, while checkpoint image might be also partially invisible in BHS image because surface is at bottom, which corresponds to the case in Table~\ref{tab4}c.

\noindent
\textbf{Viewpoint and pose:}they are essentially unlike due to different locations of cameras, and baggage can be in various poses such as Table~\ref{tab4}a showed.

\noindent
\textbf{Lighting:}lighting conditions at BHS and checkpoint are not the same which often leads to color and reflection differences. For instance, Table~\ref{tab4}b displays obviously different color characteristic at BHS and checkpoint.

\noindent
\textbf{Motion blur:}as passengers walking through checkpoint gate at different speed, motion blur makes baggage image to be less distinctive, as shown in Table~\ref{tab4}e.

All these above factors make baggage ReID on MVB a challenging and inspiring task between different domains.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Samples of inter-class similarity on MVB. Images in each row are from one identity.}\label{tab3}
\begin{tabular}{ C{0.5cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} }
\toprule
 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Checkpoint} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{BHS}\\
 & View1 & View2 & View1 & View2 & View3\\
\midrule
a &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_a_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_a_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_a_3.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_a_4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_a_5.jpg}\\
b &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_b_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_b_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_b_3.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_b_4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/fig_tab3_b_5.jpg}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Samples of intra-class dissimilarity on MVB. Blank cell indicates corresponding view image is not valid. Images in each row represent the same identity.}\label{tab4}
\begin{tabular}{ C{0.5cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} C{1.8cm} }
\toprule
 & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Checkpoint} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{BHS}\\
 & View1 & View2 & View3 & View4 & View1 & View2 & View3\\
\midrule
a &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0009_p_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0009_p_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0009_p_3.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0009_p_4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0009_g_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0009_g_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0009_g_3.jpg} \\
b &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0127_p_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0127_p_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0127_p_3.jpg} &
\ &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0127_g_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0127_g_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0127_g_3.jpg} \\
c &
\ &
\ &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0008_p_3.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0008_p_4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0008_g_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0008_g_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0008_g_3.jpg} \\
d &
\ &
\ &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0045_p_3.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0045_p_4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0045_g_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0045_g_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0045_g_3.jpg} \\
e &
\ &
\ &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0080_p_3.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0080_p_4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0080_g_1.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0080_g_2.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{figures/0080_g_3.jpg} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Task and Evaluation Metric}
The task of baggage ReID on MVB is to assign a baggage identity to a given probe by searching among gallery. In baggage ReID task on MVB, definition of probe and gallery are not exactly the same as person ReID based on application scenario. Due to the cross domain characteristic, probe and gallery are naturally separated. Specifically, baggage will be taken appearance images at BHS before the domain is transferred from BHS to checkpoint. Baggage will be detected in checkpoint domain and then searched in BHS domain. Therefore, baggage images captured at checkpoint and BHS are defined as probe and gallery respectively. During test, gallery images from different views of the same identity are supposed to be treated as a whole in identifying whether a probe corresponds to a certain identity. Specifically, for each probe, inference result is supposed to be a possibility rank of all identities rather than all gallery images. Information of which gallery images belong to the same identity is given in test set, which can be easily obtained due to the same trigger signal introduced in Section 2.1.

Among 4519 identities in MVB, 500 identities randomly selected from all identities are reserved for test, while all the rest 4019 identities can be used for training. For the 500 identities test set, there are 1052 probe images and 1432 gallery images. Each probe image will be matched with the 1432 gallery images and a 500 id-length result vector will be output, indicating the sorted baggage under certain similarity metric. How to incorporate matching results of probe with multiple gallery images within an identity to single similarity value is left to be determined by dataset user. CMC (Cumulated Matching Characteristics) is adopted as evaluation metric to measure the performance of baggage ReID on MVB since there is only one ground-truth identity among gallery of 500 identities. In this paper, CMC at rank1 till rank3 will be evaluated.

\section{Baseline Method}
One nature of dataset MVB lies in large number of identities yet limited number of images within each identity, which might make classification scheme less feasible. In this paper, verification scheme using deep neural network is adopted for baggage ReID task. A basic Siamese network and a merged Siamese network are introduced in Section 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.

\subsection{Basic Siamese Network}
Siamese network is originally put forward for verification of signatures~\cite{ref_proc12}. Our basic Siamese network takes in two input images, processes these inputs using the same network architecture sharing parameters and subsequently produces two feature vectors. Ideally the distance under certain metric between the two output vectors indicates whether the two input vectors are from the same identity or not.

In the basic Siamese network adopted in our baggage ReID task, VGG16~\cite{ref_proc13} is used as backbone model to extract output feature vectors for input probe and gallery image. Euclidean distance between these two feature vectors is further calculated as similarity metric. In training phase, contrastive loss is adopted as loss function, with the intention of pushing Euclidean distance of same identity feature vectors near while pulling different identity feature vectors apart.

\subsection{Merged Siamese Network}
Our proposed merged Siamese network treats the verification problem as binary classification, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. Concretely, feature maps for probe and gallery image are extracted after the last convolution layer of VGG16. Then an element-wise subtraction layer is conducted on the feature maps of two paths and the output is fed into the fully connected layers for binary classification. The classification part of network generates possibility of whether probe and gallery images are from the same baggage identity, cross-entropy loss is adopted as loss function in training.

Compared with the basic Siamese network, feature maps extracted after the last convolutional layer contain more spatial information for further merging. The motivation behind element-wise subtraction lies in that by such operation co-located similar features at feature maps are suppressed while prominent dissimilar features are emphasized, meanwhile the spatial information is reserved. The subtraction output is further fed into binary classification network with fully connected layers to learn a similarity metric, which has more nonlinearity compared with Euclidean distance metric. Given the remarkable difference between probe domain and gallery domain, batch normalization~\cite{ref_proc15} is added in Conv4 and Conv5, and it should be noted that all parameters except batch normalization are shared for feature extraction of probe and gallery.

Considering that channels of feature map might have different representation power, a channel-wise module based on Squeeze-and-Excitation (SE)~\cite{ref_proc14} is inserted after pooling layer in Conv4 and Conv5, aiming at learning weighted inter-channel relationship explicitly. The motivation behind Squeeze-and-Excitation module is to assign higher weight for more informative feature channels meanwhile lower weight for less informative ones.  In baggage ReID problem specifically, feature channels can be reasonably assumed to be informative to different extent. For instance, channels in which more activated features are from background rather than baggage should be suppressed. Since no external information other than feature itself is needed, channel-wise attention in form of SE can be viewed as a self-attention mechanism. The parameters for SE module are shared between probe and gallery.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/merged_siamese.png}
\caption{Architecture of merged Siamese network.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\section{Experiments}
The basic and merged Siamese networks that introduced in Section 4 are evaluated on MVB dataset. 4019 identities and 500 identities are employed for training and test respectively. Both Siamese networks are finetuned from a pretrained VGG16 model, setting parameters in Conv1 and Conv2 to be frozen. Training is performed on 4$\times$NVIDIA Tesla P100 GPUs for 50k iterations with a minibatch of 128 image pairs. All probe and gallery images are resized to 256$\times$256 and then randomly cropped to 224$\times$224 in training phase.

For generating the pair data for Siamese network training, all positive pairs, i.e. pair of baggage images with the same identity, among 4019 identities are used as training data, meanwhile negative training pairs are randomly sampled among different identities, forming a training set balanced in positive and negative labels. The merged Siamese network is firstly trained on this balanced training set with a few epochs. Then the output model is utilized to inference each probe among 300 identities randomly sampled from 4019 identities for hard example mining. False positive pairs with high probability are filtered as supplement negative pairs then added to training set. The amount ratio of positive and negative pairs in the augmented training set is roughly 1:2, and total number of pairs is around 75k.

Training and evaluation are conducted on original baggage images and masked baggage images respectively. The masked baggage image is generated in a simple manner by keeping the pixel value inside the annotated polygon area and setting pixel value outside polygon area as zero.

At test time, distance and possibility are inferenced between probe and each image in gallery. For each identity, mean of nearest two distances is regarded as the distance between probe and corresponding identity. Similarly, in classification scheme, mean of highest two possibilities within each identity is regarded as the possibility of same identity. For the minority identities with only one gallery image, computing mean value is replaced with the only distance or possibility. At last, 500 identities will be sorted according to the mean value.

\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{CMC of proposed methods at Rank 1, 2, 3 on MVB.}\label{tab5}
\begin{tabular}{ C{1.5cm} C{1.5cm} C{1.5cm} C{1.5cm} C{1.5cm} C{1.5cm} C{1.5cm} }
\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Siamese Networks + } & \multirow{2}{*}{Rank1(\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{Rank2(\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{Rank3(\%)} \\
Merged & ATS & SE & Mask &\\
\midrule
           &            &            &            & 20.15 & 34.51 & 43.92\\
           & \checkmark &            &            & 24.24 & 39.16 & 48.00\\
           &            &            & \checkmark & 22.05 & 36.22 & 44.01\\
           & \checkmark &            & \checkmark & 26.62 & 39.26 & 47.24\\
\checkmark &            &            &            & 44.39 & 60.27 & 68.54\\
\checkmark & \checkmark &            &            & 46.39 & 58.46 & 65.49\\
\checkmark &            &            & \checkmark & 47.91 & {\bfseries61.98} & {\bfseries68.92}\\
\checkmark & \checkmark &            & \checkmark & 48.86 & 61.60 & 67.49\\
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &            & 47.72 & 59.60 & 67.30\\
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & {\bfseries50.19} & 61.31 & 68.73\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Performance and Ablation Study}
Performance of proposed methods evaluated in form of CMC from Rank1 to Rank3 on MVB is shown in Table~\ref{tab5}. As shown, merged Siamese network shows remarkably superior results compared to basic Siamese network, ca. 20\% to 25\% boost at Rank 1, Rank 2 and Rank 3. Augmenting training set (ATS) by hard example mining can effectively improve performance, ca. 1\% to 2\% for merged Siamese network at Rank 1 and ca. 3\% to 5\% for basic Siamese network at Rank 1, Rank 2 and Rank 3. Further superior performance, i.e. 50.19\% at Rank 1 is obtained by augmenting training set and inserting SE module on masked bounding box. In real application, the most important metric is CMC Rank1, and the highest value of our baseline model is produced by combination of all model features.

\subsection{Case Study}
Sample baggage ReID results on MVB are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. As shown, our proposed network can effectively retrieve baggage with similar appearance from gallery and has detail discrimination ability to some extent. Nevertheless, there are still cases where our network fails to represent more distinguishable details in retrieving baggage at top ranks. One possible reason is that our proposed network mainly extracts a global rather than local feature vector for each probe and gallery image.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figures/top3_succ.png}\\
(a)\\
\bigskip
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/top5_succ.png}\\
(b)\\
\caption{Sample ReID results on MVB. Probe and Gallery images are not masked. Probe images are listed in the left in blue box. Gallery images are displayed in order of inferenced possibility. Gallery images with same identity as probe are bounded in green box, otherwise in red. (a) samples of baggage re-identified in top 3, (b) samples of baggage not re-identified in top 3.} \label{fig3}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Future Work}
Baggage ReID is a research problem toward real-world application, thus the data pipeline has been set up at certain airports and will be promoted to many others. It can be expected that the scale of dataset will be continuously growing and reaching to another order of magnitude within a short period of time. Meanwhile we are organizing an open contest based on MVB for technology improvements and suggestions of dataset usage. As shown in case study, a typical mismatch is related to failing to amplify some important detail information, which is caused by the feature extraction network mainly relying on global feature. Therefore, ReID performance could be possibly improved by making better use of salient details. Last but not least, the dataset potential as 3D object ReID should be further exploited. For instance, the probe and gallery image both can be 3D image, which is baggage 3D surface reconstructed by multi camera calibration and visual SLAM; also one can apply key point detection to understand the pose of baggage, then re-identify it based on 3D alignment with some geometric shape constrains.

\section{Conclusion}
A new baggage ReID dataset named MVB is proposed in this paper. MVB consists of 4519 baggage identities and 22660 bboxes along with mask and material annotations. All data is collected in real scenario using specially-designed multi-view camera system. This paper also presented a merged Siamese network as a baseline model to work on the task of baggage ReID. Considering the large scale and the challenging factors of MVB, it will significantly contribute to further research on general 2D and 3D object ReID, especially with different domains. The performance of merged Siamese network is also evaluated as baseline model of the dataset. To access MVB dataset, please visit its corresponding contest website \href{http://volumenet.cn/}{http://volumenet.cn/}, any feedback is greatly appreciated.


\section{Introduction}

\begin{table*}[htbp]

	\begin{center}

		\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3mm}
		\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
			\toprule
			\textbf{Algorithm}  &  \textbf{Reference}& \textbf{Method}	     &\textbf{Computational Complexity}&   \textbf{Space Complexity}\\
			\midrule

			S$^3$VM$^{light}$&\cite{joachims1999transductive}		&Self-labeling heuristics&

			$O(tn^\kappa)$&		$O(n^2)$\\
			NTS$^3$VM&\cite{chapelle2007training} 	&Gradient-based
			&$O(n^3)$	&$O(n^2)$\\
			BGS$^3$VM&\cite{le2016budgeted} 	&Gradient-based
			&$O(n^3)$	&$O(n^2)$\\
			BLS$^3$VM& \cite{collobert2006large}		&CCCP-based&			$O(tn^\kappa)$& 		$O(n^2)$\\
			ILS$^3$VM&\cite{gu2018new}	&CCCP-based	&$\approx O(Tn^2)$	&$O(n^2)$\\
			\midrule
			TSGS$^3$VM&Our		&TSG&		$O(mT^2)$& 	 	$O(T)$\\

			\bottomrule
		\end{tabular}

	\end{center}

	\caption{Comparisons of computational complexities and memory requirements of representative S$^3$VM algorithms. ($n$ is the training size, $T$ is the total number of iteration, $t$ denotes the number of outer loops and $1<\kappa<2.3$)
		\label{tab:algorithm}}

\end{table*}

Semi-supervised learning (SSL) plays an increasingly important role in the big data era because a large number of unlabeled samples can be used effectively to improve the performance of the classifier.
Semi-supervised support vector machine (S$^3$VM) \cite{bennett1999semi} is one of the most appealing methods for SSL.
Specifically, S$^3$VM enforces the classification boundary to go across the less-dense regions in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS), while keeping the labeled data correctly classified.  Unfortunately, this will lead to a non-convex optimization problem. It is well known that solving a non-convex optimization problem is normally  difficult than solving a convex one like standard support vector machine.
Under this arduous challenge, a wide spectrum of methods for S$^3$VM have been proposed in the last two decades.
Generally speaking, these methods can be roughly divided into three groups, \emph{i.e.},
methods with self-labeling heuristics, concave-convex procedure (CCCP) methods and gradient-based methods.
We give a brief review of these representative S$^3$VM methods in Section \ref{sec:related works} and Table \ref{tab:algorithm}.

Unfortunately, these traditional S$^3$VM methods are inefficient due to increased complexity introduced by the cost of kernel computation as well as non-convexity.
Specifically, the kernel matrix needs $O(n^2d)$ operations to be calculated and $O(n^2)$ memory to be stored, where $n$ denotes the size of training samples and $d$ denotes dimension of the data \cite{gu2018accelerated}. Essentially, gradient-based S$^3$VM methods have $O(n^3)$ complexity due mainly to the operations on the kernel matrix. Even though a convex kernel problem can be solved by a
state-of-the-art solver (\emph{e.g.} LIBSVM), $O(n^\kappa)$ computation is still needed where $1<\kappa<2.3$ \cite{CC01a}.
While to handle the non-convexity of S$^3$VM, the methods using self-labeling heuristics and CCCP-based algorithms need to solve multiple convex sub-problems to guarantee that they finally converge \cite{yuille2002concave}. As a result, these methods scale as $O(tn^{\kappa})$, where $t$ denotes the number of solving sub-problems.
We summarize the computational complexities and memory requirements of the representative S$^3$VM methods in Table \ref{tab:algorithm}.
As pointed in \cite{gu2018new}, scaling up S$^3$VM is still an open problem.

Recently, a novel doubly stochastic gradient (DSG)  method \cite{dai2014scalable} was proposed to achieve efficient and scalable training for kernel methods.
Specifically, in each iteration, DSG computes a doubly stochastic gradient by sampling a random data sample and  the corresponding random features to update the solution. Thus, DSG avoids computing and storing a kernel matrix, while enjoying   nice computational and space complexities.  Xie et al. \shortcite{xie2015scale} used  DSG to scale up nonlinear component analysis. To the best of our knowledge, \cite{xie2015scale} is the only work based on DSG to solve  a non-convex problem.

However, existing algorithms and theoretical analysis of DSG cannot be applied to S$^3$VM due to the following two reasons.
\textbf{1) Multiple data distributions:} S$^3$VM  minimizes  the training errors coming from two different sources. One is the expected error on the unlabeled data, and the other one is the  mean  error on the labeled data whose size is normally significantly smaller than the one of unlabeled data.  However, DSG only considers the expected error on the labeled data.
\textbf{2) Non-convexity analysis:} The theoretical analysis in \cite{xie2015scale} is based on a strong assumption (\emph{i.e.},  the initialization needs to be close to the optimum). However, such an  assumption is rarely satisfied in practice. Besides, they focus on the nonlinear component analysis instead of general non-convex problems. Thus, it is infeasible to extend the analysis of \cite{xie2015scale} to  S$^3$VM.

To address this challenging problem, we first propose a new and practical formulation of S$^3$VM.
Then, we develop a new triply stochastic gradient algorithm (TSGS$^3$VM) to solve the corresponding optimization problem. Specifically, to handle two types of data instances involved in S$^3$VM, TSGS$^3$VM samples a labeled instance and an unlabeled instance as well with their random features in each iteration to compute a triply stochastic gradient (TSG). We then use the TSGs to iteratively update the solution. A critical question is whether and how fast this optimization process with multiple randomness  would converge.
In addressing this concern, we establish new theoretic analysis for TSGS$^3$VM which guarantees that TSGS$^3$VM can converge to a stationary point with a sublinear convergence rate for a general non-convex learning problem under weak assumptions. Extensive experimental results  demonstrate the superiority of TSGS$^3$VM.

\noindent \textbf{Novelties.} We summary the main novelties of this paper as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item To scale up S$^3$VM, we propose a practical formulation of S$^3$VM and develop a novel extension of DSG that could solve optimization problems with multiple data sources.
	\item We have established the new theoretic analysis of TSGS$^3$VM algorithm for a general non-convex learning problem which guarantees its convergence to a stationary point. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first work offering non-convex analysis for DSG-like algorithms without initialization assumption.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Related Works}\label{sec:related works}
We give a brief review of  kernel approximation methods as well as the representative S$^3$VM methods.

\paragraph{Kernel Approximation.}
There are many kernel approximation methods proposed to address the scalability issue of kernel methods.
For instance, low-rank factors are used to approximate the kernel matrix in
\cite{drineas2005nystrom}.
Rahimi \& Recht \shortcite{rahimi2008random} provided another method that uses random features to approximate the map function explicitly.
However, as analyzed in \cite{drineas2005nystrom,lopez2014randomized}, the rank for low-rank and the number of random features need to be $O(n)$ to obtain a good generalization ability.
To further improve the random features method, Dai et al. \shortcite{dai2014scalable} proposed DSG descent algorithm.
Carratino et al. \shortcite{carratino2018learning} proved that DSG only need $O(\sqrt{n})$ random features to obtain a good result.
However, existing DSG methods \cite{li2017triply,gu2018asynchronous,shi2019quadruply} can not be used for S$^3$VM as discussed previously.

\paragraph{S${^3}$VM Methods.}
As mentioned above, traditional S${^3}$VM methods can be roughly divided into three types, \emph{i.e.}, the method of self-labeling heuristics, the concave-convex procedure (CCCP) method, and the gradient-based method.
For the  method of self-labeling heuristics,
Joachims \shortcite{joachims1999transductive} proposed a S$^3$VM$^{light}$ algorithm which  uses self-labeling heuristics for labeling the unlabeled data, then iteratively solve this standard SVM until convergence.
CCCP-based methods were proposed to solve S$^3$VM in \cite{chapelle2005semi,wang2007transductive,yu2019tackle}.
The basic principle of CCCP is to linearize the concave part of S$^3$VM's objective function around a solution obtained in the current iteration so that sub-problem is convex. Then the CCCP framework solves a sequence of the convex sub-problem iteratively until decision variable converges.
Based on CCCP framework, Gu et al. \cite{gu2018new} proposed an incremental
learning method for S$^3$VM which is suitable for the online scenario.
For gradient-based methods,
Chapelle and Zien \shortcite{chapelle2005semi} approximate the kernel matrix $K$ using low-rank factors, then using gradient descent to solve S$^3$VM on the low-rank matrix.
BGS$^3$VM \cite{le2016budgeted} uses budgeted SGD to limit the model size to two predefined budgets $B_l$ and $B_u$.

\section{Preliminaries}
In this section, we first give a general non-convex learning problem for S$^3$VM, and then give a brief review of random feature approximation.

\begin{table}[!ht]

	\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3mm}
	\begin{center}
		\begin{small}

			\begin{tabular}{ccc}
				\toprule
				Name&$u(r)$ &$u'(r)$\\
				\midrule
				SHG&$\max\{0,1-|r|\}$&$\left\{\begin{matrix}
				0 & {\rm if} \ |r|\geq 1
				\\
				-1 & {\rm if}\ |r|<1
				\end{matrix}\right. $\\
				SSHG&$\frac{1}{2}\max\{0,1-|r|\}^2$ &$\left\{\begin{matrix}
				0 & {\rm if}\ |r|\geq 1
				\\
				|r|-1 & {\rm if}\ |r|<1
				\end{matrix}\right. $\\
				Ramp&$H_{1}(r)-H_{s}(r)$ &$H'_{1}(r)-H'_{s}(r)$\\

				DA&$\exp(-5r^2)$ &$-10r \cdot \exp(-5r^2)$\\
				\bottomrule
			\end{tabular}

		\end{small}
	\end{center}

	\caption{Summary of the non-convex loss functions used in S$^3$VM, where $H_s(\cdot)=\max\{0,s-\cdot\}$, then $H'_{s}(\cdot)=0$, if $ \cdot \geq s$ else $H'_{s}(\cdot)=-1$. SHG, SSHG and DA denote symmetric hinge,  square SHG and  a differentiable approximation to SSHG respectively.}
	\label{tab:loss}

\end{table}
\subsection{S$^3$VM Optimization Formulation}
Given the training dataset $\cal X$ constituted with $n^l$ labeled examples $\mathcal{L}:=\{({x}_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^{n^l}$ and $n^u$ unlabeled examples $\mathcal{U} := \{{x}_i\}_{i=n^l+1}^{n}$, where $n = n^l + n^u$, ${x_i} \in \mathbb{R}^d$, and $y_i \in \{1,-1\}$.
Traditional S$^3$VM solves the following problem.
\begin{align
\min_{f\in \cal H} \quad &\frac{1}{2} ||f||^2_{\cal H}+\frac{C}{n^l}\sum_{(x,y)\in \mathcal{L}}l( f(x),y)
+\frac{C^*}{n^u} \sum_{x\in \mathcal{U}}u(f(x)) \nonumber
\end{align}
where $C$ and $C^*$ are regularization parameters, $||\cdot||_{\cal H}$ denotes the norm in RKHS, $l(r,v) = \max(0, 1 - vr)$ is the hinge loss, its subgradient $l'(r,v)=0$, if $rv\ge1$, else $l'(r,v)=-v$,  $u(r)$ is the non-convex loss function which enforce unlabeled data away from the discrimination hyperplane. We summarize the commonly used non-convex S$^3$VM losses and its subgradient $u'(r)$ in Table \ref{tab:loss}.

For S$^3$VM problems, however, the volumes of labeled and unlabeled data are usually quite different.
Because of the labeling cost, the labeled dataset is often very small, while a large amount of unlabeled data can be obtained relatively easily. Taking this into consideration, we propose to solve a novel S$^3$VM formulation as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{S3VM2}
&&\min_{f\in \cal H} R(f)
\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} ||f||^2_{\cal H}+\frac{C}{n^l}\sum_{(x,y)\in \mathcal{L}}l( f(x),y)
+C^* \mathbb{E}_{x \sim P(x)} u(f(x)) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $P(x)$ denotes the target data distribution.
Notice that we use the empirical mean  error on the labeled dataset, while using the expected error on the whole distribution for the unlabeled data.

\subsection{Random Feature Approximation}

Random feature is a powerful technique to make kernel methods scalable. It uses the intriguing duality between kernels and stochastic processes.
Specifically, according to the Bochner theorem \cite{wendland2004scattered},
for any positive definite PD kernel $k(\cdot,\cdot)$, there exists a set $\Omega$, a probability measure $\mathbb{P}$ and a random feature map $\phi_\omega(x)$, such that
$k(x,x')=\int_{\Omega}\phi_\omega(x) \phi_\omega(x')d\mathbb{P}(\omega)$.
In this way, the value of the kernel function can be approximated by explicitly computing random features $\phi_\omega(x)=[\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\phi_{\omega_1}(x),\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\phi_{\omega_2}(x),\cdots,\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\phi_{\omega_m}(x)]$, \emph{i.e.},
\begin{align}\label{random features}
k(x,x')\approx \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\phi_{\omega_i}(x) \phi_{\omega_i}(x')
\end{align}
where $m$ is the number of random features.
Using Gaussian RBF kernel
as a concrete example, it yields a Gaussian distribution $\mathbb{P}(\omega)$ over random feature maps of Fourier basis functions $\phi_{\omega_i}(x) = \sqrt{2}cos({\omega_i^Tx+b})$ to compute its feature mapping, where $\omega_i$ is drawn from $\mathbb{P}(\omega)$ and $b$ is drawn uniformly form $[0,2\pi]$.
Moreover, many random feature construction methods have been proposed for various kernels, such as dot-product kernels and Laplacian kernels.

The theory of RKHS provides a rigorous mathematical framework for studying optimization problems in the functional space.
Specifically, we know that every PD kernel $k(x,x')$ has a corresponding RKHS $\mathcal{H}$. An RKHS $\mathcal{H}$
has the reproducing property, \emph{i.e.},
$\forall x\in \mathcal{X}, \forall f\in \mathcal{H}$, we always have $\langle f(\cdot),k(x,\cdot)\rangle_{\mathcal{H}}=f(x)$.
Besides, functional gradient in RKHS $\mathcal{H}$ can be computed as $\nabla f(x)= k(x, \cdot)$ and $\nabla ||f||^2_{\mathcal{H}} = 2f$.

\section{Triply Stochastic S$^3$VM}
The above section has introduced the basic theoretic tools for triply stochastic functional gradient descent. Now we introduce how to utilize these tools to solve the S$^3$VM problem.
\subsection{Triply Stochastic Gradient}
From Eq. (\ref{S3VM2}), it is not hard to notice that $R(f)$ involves two different data sources. Taking into consideration the distribution of random features $\omega\sim \mathbb{P}(\omega)$ would give us three sources of possible randomness. Here we will show how to explicitly compute the stochastic gradient with these three sources of randomness.

\paragraph{Stochastic Functional Gradients.}
Naturally, to iteratively update $f$ in a stochastic manner, we need to sample instances from the labeled dataset as well as the whole distribution. Different from DSG, we here randomly sample a pair of data points, from the labeled and the unlabeled data distributions, respectively. Then we can obtain stochastic functional gradients for $R(f)$ with these two data points as follow,
\begin{align}
g(\cdot) = f(\cdot) + \xi(\cdot)
\end{align}
where $\xi(\cdot)$ is the gradient contributed by the loss from both labeled and unlabeled data. It can be computed using the chain rule
\begin{align}
\xi(\cdot) =Cl'(f(x^l),y^l)k(x^l, \cdot)+C^{*}u'(f(x^u))k(x^u, \cdot)
\end{align}
where $x^l$, $x^u$ are sampled from the labeled dataset and unlabeled distribution $P(x)$ respectively. Next we will plugging the random feature approximation technique described in the previous section.

\paragraph{Random Feature Approximation.}
According to Eq. (\ref{random features}), when we use stochastically generated random feature $\omega$, we can further approximate $\xi(\cdot)$ as:
\begin{align}
&\xi(\cdot) \approx \zeta(\cdot)
\\
=& Cl'(f(x^l),y^l)\phi_{\omega}(x^l)\phi_{\omega}(\cdot)
+C^{*}u'(f(x^u))\phi_{\omega}(x^u)\phi_{\omega}(\cdot)\nonumber
\end{align}
note that $\xi(\cdot) = \mathbb{E}_{\omega}[\zeta(\cdot)]$. This leads to an unbiased estimator of the original functional gradient with three layers of stochasticity, \emph{i.e.},
\begin{align}
\nabla R(f) = \mathbb{E}_{(x^l,y^l)\in \mathcal{L}} \mathbb{E}_{x^u\sim P(x)}\mathbb{E}_{\omega}(\zeta(\cdot)) + f(\cdot)
\end{align}
Since three random events occur per iteration, \emph{i.e.} $x^l$, $x^u$, $\omega$, we call our approximate functional gradient as triply stochastic functional gradient.

\paragraph{Update Rules.}
In the $t$-th iteration, the triply stochastic (functional) gradient update rule for $f$ is:
\begin{align}
\label{f_upd}
f_{t+1}(\cdot) = f_t(\cdot) - \gamma_t (\zeta_t(\cdot)+f_t(\cdot))  =\sum_{i=1}^{t}a^i_t \zeta_i(\cdot)
\end{align}
where $\gamma$ denotes the step size and  the initial value $f_{1}(\cdot)=0$. It is straight forward to calculate that $a_t^i=-\gamma_i\prod_{k=i+1}^{t}(1-\gamma_k)$.
Ideally, if we could somehow compute the stochastic (functional) gradients $\xi_j(\cdot)$, the update rule becomes:
\begin{align}
\label{h_upd}
&h_{t+1}(\cdot) = h_t(\cdot) - \gamma_t (\xi_t(\cdot) + h_t(\cdot)) = \sum_{i=1}^{t}a^i_t \xi_i(\cdot)
\end{align}
where we have used $h_{t+1}$ instead of $f_{t+1}$ to distinguish from the triply stochastic (functional) gradient update rule and $h_1(\cdot)=0$. However, to avoid the expense of kernel computation, our algorithm will use the triply stochastic update rule Eq. (\ref{f_upd}) instead of Eq. (\ref{h_upd}).

\subsection{Algorithm}
Based on the above triply stochastic gradient update rules (\ref{f_upd}), we provide the TSGS$^3$VM training and prediction procedures  in Algorithms \ref{algo.1} and \ref{algo.2} receptively.
Notice that directly computing all the random features still needs
a large amount of memory.
Following the pseudo-random number generators setting of \cite{dai2014scalable}, our random feature generator is initialized by a predefined seed according to iteration. Thus, TSGS$^3$VM does not need to save the random feature matrix which makes it more memory friendly.
In the $i$-th iteration, our method will execute the following steps.

\begin{enumerate}
	\item Sample  data pair (lines 2-3 in Algorithm \ref{algo.1}): Stochastically sample a labeled sample $(x^l_i,y^l_i)$ and an unlabeled sample $x^u_i$ from different distribution respectively.
	\item
	Sample random features (line 4 in Algorithm \ref{algo.1}): Stochastically sample $\omega^i \sim \mathbb{P}(\omega)$ with seed $i$ and generate random features.
	\item
	Update coefficients (lines 5-8 in Algorithm \ref{algo.1}): Evaluate function value and update $f$ according to Eq. (\ref{f_upd}).
\end{enumerate}

\begin{remark}
	For each iteration, TSGS$^3$VM needs $O(mT)$ operations to evaluate function value, since evaluating the function value needs generating $m$ random features ($O(m)$) for $T$ times. Thus, the total computational complexity of TSGS$^3$VM is $O(mT^2)$. Due to the use of random features and pseudo-random method, TSGS$^3$VM only requires $O(T)$ memory, where $T$ is the iteration number.
\end{remark}

\begin{algorithm}[tb]
	\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
	\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
	\caption{\textbf{TSGS${^3}$VM} \textbf{Train}}
	\label{algo.1}
	\begin{algorithmic}[1]
		\REQUIRE${\cal L}, P(x), \mathbb{P}(\omega), \phi_\omega(x), u(f(x)), C, C^{*}$
		\FOR {$i=1,\cdots, T$}
		\STATE	Sample $(x_i^l, y_i^l) \sim \mathcal{L}$
		\STATE	Sample $x_i^u \sim P(x)$
		\STATE	Sample $\omega_i \sim \mathbb{P}(\omega)$ with seed $i$
		\STATE	$f(x^l_i)=\textbf{Predict}(x^l_i, \{\alpha_j\}_{j=1}^{i-1})$
		\STATE	$f(x^u_i)=\textbf{Predict}(x^u_i, \{\alpha_j\}_{j=1}^{i-1})$
		\STATE	$\alpha_i=-\gamma_i (Cl'(f(x^l_i), y^l_i)\phi_{\omega_i}(x^l_i)+C^{*}u'(f(x^u_i))\phi_{\omega_i}(x^u_i))$
		\STATE	$\alpha_{j}=(1-\gamma_i)\alpha_{j}$, for $j=1,\cdots,i-1$
		\ENDFOR
		\ENSURE $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^T$.
	\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

\begin{algorithm}[tb]
	\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
	\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
	\caption{\textbf{TSGS${^3}$VM} \textbf{Predict}}
	\label{algo.2}
	\begin{algorithmic}[1]
		\REQUIRE {$\mathbb{P}(\omega), \phi_\omega(x), x, \{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^{T}$}
		\STATE Set $f(x)=0$
		\FOR {$i=1,\cdots, T$}
		\STATE	Sample $\omega_i \sim \mathbb{P}(\omega)$ with seed $i $
		\STATE	$f(x)=f(x)+\alpha_i \phi_{\omega_i}(x)$
		\ENDFOR
		\ENSURE {$f(x)$}
	\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

\section{Theoretical Guarantees}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{TSG.eps}
	\caption{Illustration of how TSGS$^3$VM converge to a stationary point, where $e$ denotes for the error between $f_t$ and $h_t$, the white line denote the objective value $R(h)$. In this toy model we assume all horizontal points in $\cal H$ have the same objective value.}

	\label{fig:TSG}
\end{figure}
We follow the common goal of non-convex analysis \cite{ghadimi2013stochastic,gu2018faster,huo2018training} to bound $\mathbb{E}||\nabla R(f)||^2$, which means that the objective function will converge (in expectation) to a stationary point $f_{*}$.
When we use the hypothetical update rule (\ref{h_upd}), $h_t$ will always be inside of $\cal H$. However, because we could only use random features to approximate $h_t$ with $f_t$, we face the risk that functional $f_t$ could be outside of $\cal H$.
As a consequence, $\mathbb{E}||\nabla R(f)||^2_{\cal H}=0$ is not the stationary point of the objective function (\ref{S3VM2}). From Eq. (\ref{f_upd}) and Eq. (\ref{h_upd}), it is obvious that every update of $h_t$ happens implicitly with an update of $f_t(x)$. According to this relationship, we proposed to divide the analysis in two parts. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:TSG}, for a general non-convex optimization problem $R(h)$,  we prove that the $h_{t+1}$  converges to a stationary point $f_*$ (\emph{i.e.}, $\mathbb{E}||\nabla R(h_{t+1})||^2_{\cal H}<\epsilon_1$) firstly. Then we prove that $f_{t+1}(x)$  keeps close to its hypothetic twin $h_{t+1}(x)$ for any $x \in \cal X$ (\emph{i.e.}, $|f_{t+1}(x)-h_{t+1}(x)|^2<\epsilon_2$).
\begin{table}[htbp]

	\centering

	\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
		\hline

		Dataset & Dimensionality & Samples  & Source\\
		\hline
		CodRNA &       8        &  59,535   &{LIBSVM}\\
		W6a&  300& 49749&{LIBSVM}\\
		IJCNN1  &       22       &  49,990   &{LIBSVM}\\
		SUSY   &      18      &  5,000,000   &{LIBSVM} \\
		Skin   &      3      &  245,057   &{LIBSVM} \\

		Higgs&  28& 1,100,000&{LIBSVM}\\
		\hline
		Dota2&  16& 102,944&{UCI}\\
		HEPMASS  & 28& 10,500,000&{UCI}\\
		\hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{Datasets used in the experiments.}
	\label{tab:dataset}

\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[htb]

	\centering
	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{codrna.eps}
		\caption{CodRNA}
	\end{subfigure}

	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{w6a.eps}
		\caption{W6a}
	\end{subfigure}

	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{ijcnn.eps}
		\caption{IJCNN1}
	\end{subfigure}

	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}\label{fig:susy}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{susy.eps}
		\caption{SUSY}
	\end{subfigure}
	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{skin.eps}
		\caption{Skin}
	\end{subfigure}

	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{higgs.eps}
		\caption{Higgs}
	\end{subfigure}

	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{dota.eps}
		\caption{Dota2}
	\end{subfigure}

	\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}\label{fig:hepmass}

		\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{hepmass.eps}
		\caption{HEPMASS}
	\end{subfigure}

	\caption{Running time of different S$^3$VM solvers v.s. training size  on the eight  benchmark data sets, where the lines of BLS$^3$VM and S$^3$VM$^{light}$ are incomplete on several datasets due to the corresponding implementations crash on the large-scale training set.
	}
	\label{fig:time-size}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[!ht]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width = 0.8\linewidth]{error.eps}
	\caption{The boxplot of test error for different methods on different datasets.}
	\label{fig:test}
\end{figure*}

Our analysis is built upon the following assumptions which are standard for the analysis of non-convex optimization and DSG \cite{dai2014scalable}.
\begin{assumption}
	(Lipschitzian gradient) The gradient function $\nabla R(f)$  is Lipschitzian, that is to say
	\begin{align}
	||\nabla R(f) -\nabla R(g)||_{\cal H} \le L||f-g||_{\cal H}, \forall f,g \in \cal H
	\end{align}
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
	(Lipschitz continuity) $l(r,v)$ is $L'$\textbf{-Lipschitz continuous} in terms of its 1st argument. $u(r,v)$ is $U'$\textbf{-Lipschitz continuous} in terms of its 1st argument. We further denote $M'=CL'+C^{*}U'$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{assumption3}
	(Bound of derivative) The derivatives are bounded: $|l'|<M^l$ and $|u'|<M^u$, where $l'$ and $u'$ is the derivative of $l(r,v)$ and $u(r)$ w.r.t. the 1st argument respectively. We further denote $M=CM^l+C^{*}M^u$.
\end{assumption}

\begin{assumption}\label{assumption4}
	(Bound of kernel and random features) We have an upper bound for the kernel value, $k(x,x') \le \kappa$. There is an upper bound of random feature norm, \emph{i.e.}, $|\phi_{\omega}(x)\phi_{\omega}(x')| \le \phi$.
\end{assumption}
Suppose the total number of iterations is $T$, we introduce our main theorems as below. All the detailed proofs are provided in our Appendix.
\begin{theorem}
	\label{theorem1}
	For any $x \in \cal X$, fix $\gamma = \frac{\theta}{T^{3/4}}$ with $0<\theta\le T^{3/4}$, we have
	\begin{equation}
	\mathbb{E}_{x^l,x^u, \omega_t}\Big[\Big|f_{t}(x) - h_{t}(x)\Big|^2 \Big] \le \dfrac{D}{T^{1/2}}
	\end{equation}

	where $D = \theta^2M^2(\sqrt{\kappa}+\sqrt{\phi})^2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
	The error between $f_{t+1}$ and $h_{t+1}$ is mainly induced by random features.
	Theorem \ref{theorem1} shows that this error has the convergence rate of $O(1/\sqrt{T})$ with proper step size.

\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}
	\label{theorem2}
	For fixed $\gamma=\frac{\theta}{T^{3/4}}$, $0<\theta\le T^{3/4}$, we have that
	\begin{align}
	\mathbb{E}_{x^l,x^u, \omega_t}[||\nabla R(h_t)||^2_{\cal H}]\le \frac{E}{T^{1/4}}+\frac{F}{{T}^{3/4}}
	\end{align}
	where $E=\frac{1}{\theta}[R(h_1)-R^*]+\theta M^2M'(\sqrt{\kappa}+\sqrt{\phi})\kappa, F=2\theta M^2L\kappa$,  $R^*$ denotes the optimal value of (\ref{S3VM2}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
	Instead of using the convexity assumption  in \cite{dai2014scalable}, Theorem \ref{theorem2} uses Lipschitzian gradient assumption to build the relationship between gradients and the updating functions $h_{t+1}$. Thus, we can bound each error term of  $\mathbb{E}_{x^l,x^u, \omega_t}[||\nabla R(h_t)||^2_{\cal H}]$ as shown in  Appendix. Note that compared to the strong assumption (\emph{i.e.}, the good initialization)  used in \cite{xie2015scale}, the assumptions used in our proofs are  weaker and more realistic.
\end{remark}

\section{Experiments and Analysis}
In this section, we will evaluate the practical performance of TSGS$^3$VM when comparing against other state-of-the-art solvers.

\subsection{Experimental Setup}
To show the advantage our TSGS$^3$VM for large-scale S$^3$VM learning, we conduct the experiments on large scale datasets to compare TSGS$^3$VM with other state-of-the-art algorithms in terms of predictive accuracy and time consumption. Specifically, the compared algorithms in our experiments are summarized as follows\footnote{BLS$^3$VM and S$^3$VM$^{light}$ can be found in http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~jerryzhu/ssl/software.html}.
\begin{enumerate}
	\setlength{\itemsep}{-1pt}
	\item   \emph{\textbf{BLS$^3$VM}} \cite{collobert2006large}: The state-of-art S$^3$VM algorithm based on CCCP  and SMO algorithm \cite{cai2012generalized}.
	\item  \textit{\textbf{S$^3$VM$^{light}$}} \cite{joachims1999transductive}: The implementation in the popular S$^3$VM$^{light}$ software. It is based on the local combinatorial search guided by a label switching procedure.
	\item  \emph{\textbf{BGS$^3$VM}}\cite{le2016budgeted}: Our implementation of BGS$^3$VM in MATLAB.
	\item  \emph{\textbf{FRS$^3$VM}}: Standard SGD with fixed random features.
	\item  \emph{\textbf{TSGS$^3$VM}}: Our proposed S$^3$VM algorithm via triply stochastic gradients.
\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Implementation.}
We implemented the TSGS$^3$VM algorithm in MATLAB. For the sake of efficiency, our TSGS$^3$VM implementation also uses a mini-batch setting. We perform experiments on Intel Xeon E5-2696 machine with 48GB RAM.
The Gaussian RBF kernel $k(x,x')=\exp(-\sigma||x-x'||^2)$ and the loss function $u=\max\{0,1-|r|\}$ was used for all algorithms.
5-fold cross-validation was used to determine the optimal settings (test error) of the model parameters (the regularization factor C and the Gaussian kernel parameter $\sigma$), the parameters $C^{*}$ was set to $C\frac{n^l}{n^u}$.  Specifically, the unlabeled dataset was divided evenly to 5 subsets, where one of the subsets and all the labeled data are used for training, while the other 4 subsets are used for testing.
Parameter search was done on a 7$\times$7 coarse grid linearly spaced in the region $\{\log_{10} C , \log_{10}  \sigma)|  -3 \le \log_{10} C \le 3, -3 \le \log_{10} \sigma \le 3\}$ for all methods.
For TSGS$^3$VM, the step size $\gamma$ equals $\frac{1}{\eta}$, where $0 \le \log_{10}{\eta} \le 3$ is searched after $C$ and $\sigma$. Besides, the number of random features is set to be $\lceil\sqrt{n}\rceil$ and the batch size is set to 256.
The test error was obtained by using these optimal model parameters for all the methods. To achieve a comparable accuracy to our TSGS$^3$VM, we set the minimum budget sizes $B_l$ and $B_u$ as $100$ and $0.2*n_u$ respectively for BG$S^3$VM.
We stop TSGS$^3$VM and BG$S^3$VM after one pass over the entire dataset. We stop FRS$^3$VM after 10 pass over the entire dataset to achieve a comparable accuracy.
All results are  the average of 10 trials.

\paragraph{Datasets.}
Table \ref{tab:dataset} summarizes the {8} datasets used in our experiments. They are
from LIBSVM\footnote{https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets/} and
UCI\footnote{http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets.html} repositories.
Since all these datasets are originally labeled, we intentionally randomly sample 200 labeled instances and treat the rest of data as unlabeled to make a semi-supervised learning setting.

\subsection{Experimental Results}
Fig. \ref{fig:time-size} shows the test error v.s. the training size for different algorithms.
The results clearly show that TSGS$^3$VM runs much faster than other methods. Specifically, Figs. \ref{fig:time-size}d and \ref{fig:time-size}h confirm the high efficiency of TSGS$^3$VM even on the datasets with one million samples. Besides, TSGS$^3$VM requires low memory benefiting  from pseudo-randomness for generating random features, while BLS$^3$VM and S$^3$VM$^{light}$ would be often out of memory on  large scale datasets.

Fig. \ref{fig:test} shows the test error of different methods.  The results were obtained at the optimal hyper-parameters for different algorithms.
From the figure, it is clear that TSGS$^3$VM achieves similar generalization performance as that of BLS$^3$VM, S$^3$VM$^{light}$, and BGS$^3$VM methods which confirm that TSGS$^3$VM converge well in practice. Besides, TSGS$^3$VM achieves better generalization performance than FRS$^3$VM, because TSGS$^3$VM has the advantage that it would automatically use more and more random features (for each data $x$) as the number of iterations increases.

Based on these results, we conclude that TSGS$^3$VM is much more efficient and scalable than these algorithms while retaining the similar generalization performance.

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we provide a novel triply stochastic gradients algorithm for kernel S$^3$VM to make it scalable.
We establish new theoretic analysis for TSGS$^3$VM which guarantees that TSGS$^3$VM can efficiently converge to a stationary point for a general non-convex learning problem under weak assumptions. As far as we know, TSGS$^3$VM is the first  work that offers non-convex analysis for DSG-like algorithm without a strong initialization assumption.
Extensive experimental results on a variety of benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of our proposed TSGS$^3$VM.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
H.H. was partially supported by U.S. NSF IIS 1836945, IIS 1836938, DBI 1836866, IIS 1845666, IIS 1852606, IIS 1838627, IIS 1837956. B.G. was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No: 61573191), and the Natural Science Foundation  (No. BK20161534), Six talent peaks project (No. XYDXX-042) in Jiangsu Province.


\section{Introduction}

The aim of this paper is to analyze the asymptotic behavior of least-energy solutions to the fractional Schr\"odinger problem
\begin{equation} \label{eq:1.1}
  \begin{cases}
    (-\Delta)^{s} u + V(x) u = f(x,u) &\quad \mathrm{in} \ \Omega, \\
    u = 0 &\quad \mathrm{in} \ \mathbb R^N \setminus \Omega,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
in a bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^N$. We recall that the fractional laplacian is defined as a singular integral via the formula
\begin{align*}
	(-\Delta)^s u (x) = C(N,s) \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N \setminus B_\varepsilon(x)} \frac{u(x)-u(y)}{|x-y|^{N+2s}}\, dx\, dy
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{C(N,s)} = \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \frac{1-\cos \zeta_1}{|\zeta|^{N+2s}}\, d\zeta_1 \cdots d\zeta_N.
\end{align*}
This formal definition needs of course a function space in which problem \eqref{eq:1.1} becomes meaningful: we will come to this issue in \ref{sect:variational-setting}.

\medskip

Several models have appeared in recent years that involve the use of the fractional laplacian. We only mention elasticity, turbulence, porous media flow, image processing, wave propagation in heterogeneous high contrast media, and stochastic models: see \cite{B,DPV,V,G}.

\medskip

Instead of \emph{fixing} the value of the parameter $s \in (0,1)$, we will start from the well-known identity (see \cite[Proposition 4.4]{DNPV})
\begin{align*}
\lim_{s \to 1^-} (-\Delta)^s u = -\Delta u, \quad\hbox{$u \in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$},
\end{align*}
and investigate the convergence properties of solutions to \eqref{eq:1.1} as $s \to 1$. In view of the previous limit, it is somehow natural to conjecture that solutions to \eqref{eq:1.1} converge to solutions of the problem
\begin{align} \label{eq:1.2}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta u + V(x) u = f(x,u) &\hbox{in $\Omega$} \\
u =0 &\hbox{in $\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega$}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
We do not know if this conjecture is indeed correct with this degree of generality, but we will prove that this happens --- up to a subsequence --- for \emph{least-energy} solutions. Our result extends the very recent analysis of Biccari \emph{et al.} (see~\cite{BHS}) in the \emph{linear} case for the Poisson problem to the semilinear case. See also \cite{BC}.

\medskip

We collect our assumptions.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(N)] $N \geq 3$, $1/2<s<1$;
\item[($\Omega$)] $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^N$ is bounded domain with continuous boundary
$\partial \Omega$;
\item[(V)] $V \in L^\infty(\Omega)$ and $\inf_{\Omega} V >  0$;
\item[(F1)] $f \colon \Omega \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is a Carath\'eodory function, namely $f(\cdot, u)$ is measurable for any $u \in \mathbb R$ and $f(x, \cdot)$ is continuous for a.e. $x \in \Omega$. Moreover there numbers~are $C > 0$ and $p \in \left(2, \frac{2N}{N-1} \right)$ such that
\begin{align*}
|f(x,u)| \leq C (1 + |u|^{p-1})
\end{align*}
for $u \in \mathbb R$ and a.e. $x \in \Omega$.
\item[(F2)] $f(x,u)=o(u)$ as $u \to 0$, uniformly with respect to $x
  \in \Omega$.
\item[(F3)] $\lim_{|u| \to +\infty} \frac{F(x,u)}{u^2}=+\infty$
  uniformly with respect to $x \in \Omega$, where
  $F(x,u)=\int_0^u f(x,s)\, ds$.
\item[(F4)] The function $\mathbb R \setminus \{0\} \ni u \mapsto f(x,u)/u$ is strictly increasing on $(-\infty, 0)$ and on $(0, \infty)$, for a.e. $x \in \Omega$.
\end{itemize}

\begin{Rem} \label{rem:1.1}
  It follows from (F1) and (F2) that for
  every~$\varepsilon > 0$ there is~$C_\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\[
|f(x,u)| \leq \varepsilon |u| + C_\varepsilon |u|^{p-1}
\]
for every~$u \in \mathbb{R}$ and a.e~$x \in \Omega$.
Furthermore, assumption~(F4) implies the validity of the inequality
\begin{align*}
f(x,u)u \geq 2F(x,u)
\end{align*}
for every~$u \in \mathbb R$ and a.e.~$x \in \Omega$.
\end{Rem}

We can now state our main result.
\begin{Th}\label{th:main}
  Suppose that assumptions~(N), ($\Omega$), (V), (F1)--(F4) hold. For $1/2<s<1$, let $u_s \in H_0^s(\Omega)$ be a ground state
  solution of problem \eqref{eq:1.1}. Then, there is a sequence $\{s_n\}_n \subset (1/2, 1)$ such that $s_n \to 1$ as $n \to + \infty$ and $u_{s_n}$
  converges in $L^2(\Omega)$ to a ground state solution
  $u_0 \in H_0^1(\Omega)$ of the problem \eqref{eq:1.2}.
\end{Th}

\begin{Rem}
Actually, see Corollary \ref{cor:2.9}, it follows that  $u_{s_n}$ converges to $u_0$ in $L^\nu (\Omega)$ for every $2 \leq \nu < \frac{2N}{N-1}$.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}
Unlike in \cite{BHS}, we cannot expect a convergence of the \emph{family} $\{u_s\}_{s}$ as $s \to 1^-$, since solutions to \eqref{eq:1.2} are not unique, in general.
\end{Rem}

\medskip

The paper is organized as follows. The second section contains a short introduction into fractional Sobolev spaces and the variational setting. In the third section we give the sketch of the proof of existence of ground states to \eqref{eq:1.1}. The fourth section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{th:main}.

\section{The variational setting}\label{sect:variational-setting}

In this section we collect the basic tools from the theory of fractional Sobolev spaces we will need to prove our results. For a thorough discussion, we refer to \cite{MBRS,DNPV} and to the references therein.

\medskip

We define a Sobolev space on $\Omega$ as
\begin{align*}
  H^s(\Omega)= \left\{ u \in L^2(\Omega) \mid \int_{\Omega \times \Omega} \frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{N+2s}} \, dx\, dy < + \infty \right\},
\end{align*}
endowed with the norm
\begin{align*}
  \|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}^2 = \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \int_{\Omega \times \Omega} \frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{N+2s}} \, dx\, dy
\end{align*}
Furthermore, $H_0^s(\Omega)$ is the closure of $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$
with respect to the $H^s(\Omega)$-norm.
\begin{Def}
  For $0<s<1$, we define $X^s(\Omega)$ as the set of all measurable
  functions $u \colon \mathbb{R}^N \to \mathbb{R}$ such that the
  restriction of $u$ to $\Omega$ lies in $L^2(\Omega)$ and the map
\begin{align*}
  \mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N  \ni (x,y) \mapsto \frac{u(x)-u(y)}{|x-y|^{\frac{N}{2}-s}}
\end{align*}
belongs to $L^2(Q)$, where
\begin{align*}
  Q = \left( \mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N \right) \setminus \left( \Omega^c \times \Omega^c \right)
\end{align*}
and $\Omega^c = \mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega$.
 We also define
\begin{align*}
  X_0^s(\Omega) = \left\{ u \in X^s(\Omega) \mid \hbox{$u=0 $ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega$} \right\}.
\end{align*}
\end{Def}
It is well know, see \cite[Lemma 1.24]{MBRS}, that
$X^s(\Omega) \subset H^s(\Omega)$ with a continuous embedding, and
that
\begin{align*}
  X_0^s(\Omega) = \left\{ u \in H^s(\Omega) \mid \hbox{$u=0$ on $\Omega^c$} \right\}.
\end{align*}
Since we assume that~$\Omega$ has a continuous boundary
$\partial \Omega$, $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ is dense in $X_0^s(\Omega)$
(see \cite[Theorem 2.6]{MBRS}), so that actually
$X_0^s(\Omega)=H_0^s(\Omega)$ for such a domain $\Omega$.  For
$u \in X_0^s(\Omega)$, an equivalent norm of $u$ is (see
\cite[Proposition 1.18]{MBRS})
\begin{align*}
	\|u\|_{X_0^s (\Omega)}^2 = \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left\| (-\Delta)^{\frac{s}{2}} u \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2.
\end{align*}
More explicitly, for every $u \in X_0^s(\Omega)$,
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N} \frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{N+2s}}\, dx\, dy = \frac{2}{C(N,s)} \left\| (-\Delta)^{s/2} u \right\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
C(N,s) &=\frac{s(1-s)}{A(N,s)B(s)}, \\
A(N,s) &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N-1}} \frac{d \eta}{(1+|\eta|^2)^{(N+2s)/2}}, \\
B(s) &= s (1-s) \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{1-\cos t}{|t|^{1+2s}} \, dt.
\end{align*}
\begin{Lem}
  For every $u \in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)$, there results
  \begin{align*}
    \lim_{s \to 1^-} \left\| (-\Delta)^{s/2} u
    \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2 = \left\| \nabla u
    \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2.
  \end{align*}
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
  From \cite[Proposition 3.6]{DNPV}, we know that
  \begin{align*}
    \left\| (-\Delta)^{s/2} u \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2 =
    \frac{C(N,s)}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N}
    \frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{N+2s}}\, dx\, dy.
  \end{align*}
  From \cite[Remark 4.3]{DNPV}, we know that
  \begin{align*}
    \lim_{s \to 1^-} (1-s) \int_{\mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N}
    \frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{N+2s}}\, dx\, dy =
    \frac{\omega_{N-1}}{2N} \left\| \nabla u \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2.
  \end{align*}
  Therefore, recalling \cite[Corollary 4.2]{DNPV},
  \begin{align*}
    \lim_{s \to 1^-} \left\| (-\Delta)^{s/2} u
    \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2 &= \lim_{s \to 1^-}
                                     \frac{C(N,s)}{2(1-s)}
                                     \left( (1-s) \int_{\mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^N}
    \frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{N+2s}}\, dx\, dy \right) \\
    &= \frac{1}{2} \frac{4N}{\omega_{N-1}}
      \frac{\omega_{N-1}}{2N} \left\| \nabla u
      \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2 = \left\| \nabla u \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2.
    \end{align*}
  \end{proof}

  On $X^s_0 (\Omega)$ we introduce a new norm
\begin{align}\label{norm-s}
\|u\|_s^2 := \left\| (-\Delta)^s u \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2 + \int_\Omega V(x) u^2 \, dx, \quad u \in X^s_0 (\Omega),
\end{align}
which is, under (V), equivalent to $\| \cdot \|_{X_0^s
  (\Omega)}$. Similarly we introduce the norm on $H^1_0 (\Omega)$ by
putting
\begin{align}\label{norm-1}
\|u\|^2 := \int_{\Omega} |\nabla u|^2 + V(x) u^2 \, dx, \quad u \in H^1_0(\Omega).
\end{align}

\begin{Cor} \label{cor:2.3}
  For every $u \in H_0^1(\Omega)$ we have
  \begin{align*}
    \lim_{s \to 1^-} \|u\|_s = \|u\|.
  \end{align*}
\end{Cor}
The following convergence result will be used in the sequel.
\begin{Lem}
  For every $ \varphi \in C_0^\infty(\Omega)$, there results
  \begin{align*}
    \lim_{s \to 1^-} \left\| (-\Delta)^{s} \varphi - (-\Delta) \varphi
    \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} =0.
  \end{align*}
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
  We notice that
  \begin{multline*}
    \left\| (-\Delta)^{s} \varphi - (-\Delta) \varphi
    \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \left\| (-\Delta)^{s} \varphi - (-\Delta) \varphi
    \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)} = \left\| \mathcal{F}^{-1}_\xi \left( \left(
    |\xi|^{2s} - |\xi|^2 \right) \hat{\varphi}(\xi) \right)
                             \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)} \\
    \leq C \left\| \left(
    |\cdot|^{2s} - |\cdot|^2 \right) \hat{\varphi}
                             \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}
  \end{multline*}
  where $C>0$ is a constant, independent of $s$, that depends on the
  definition of the Fourier transform ${\mathcal F}$. It is now easy to conclude,
  since the Fourier transform of a test function is a rapidly
  decreasing function.
\end{proof}

We will use the following embedding result.
\begin{Th}[\cite{MBRS}] \label{th:2.5}
  If $\Omega$ has a continuous boundary $\partial \Omega$, then the
  embedding $X_0^s(\Omega) \subset L^\nu(\Omega)$ is compact for every
  $1 \leq \nu < 2_s^*$, where $2_s^*=2N/(N-2s)$.
\end{Th}
We will need some precise information on the embedding constant for
fractional Sobolev spaces.
\begin{Th}[\cite{KT}]
  Let $N>2s$ and $2_s^*=2N/(N-2s)$. Then
  \begin{align} \label{eq:2.1}
    \|u\|_{L^{2_s^*} (\mathbb R^N)}^2 \leq \frac{\Gamma \left( \frac{N-2s}{2}
    \right)}{\Gamma \left( \frac{N+2s}{2} \right)} \left| \mathbb{S}
    \right|^{-\frac{2s}{N}} \| (-\Delta)^{s/2} u \|^2_{L^2 (\mathbb R^N)}
  \end{align}
  for every $u \in H^s(\mathbb{R}^N)$, where $\mathbb{S}$ denotes the $N$-dimensional unit sphere and $|\mathbb{S}|$ its surface area.
\end{Th}
\begin{Lem}\label{lemma-constant-independednt}
	Let $N \geq 3$ and $q \in [2,2N/(N-1)]$. Then there exists a constant $C=C(N,q)>0$ such that, for every $s \in [1/2,1]$ and every $u \in X_0^s(\Omega)$, we have
	\begin{align*}
	\|u\|_{L^{q} (\Omega)} \leq C(N,q) \| (-\Delta)^{s/2} u \|_{L^2 (\mathbb R^N)}.
	\end{align*}
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
  Since $\Gamma$ is a continuous function on the interval
  $\left[ \frac{N-2}{2},\frac{N}{2} \right]$ which does not contain
  non-positive integers, the constant
	\begin{align*}
	\frac{\Gamma \left( \frac{N-2s}{2}
		\right)}{\Gamma \left( \frac{N+2s}{2} \right)} \left| \mathbb{S}
	\right|^{-\frac{2s}{N}}
	\end{align*}
	in \eqref{eq:2.1} is bounded from above independently of
        $s \in [1/2,1]$. Therefore inequality \eqref{eq:2.1} holds true
        with a constant independent of $s$. Since obviously
	\begin{align*}
	\|u\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} \leq \|u\|_{X_0^s (\Omega)}
	\end{align*}
	for every $u \in X_0^s(\Omega)$, we can fix any $q \in
        [2,2N/(N-1)]$ and interpolate:
	\begin{align*}
	\frac{1}{q}=\frac{\vartheta_s}{2}+\frac{1-\vartheta_s}{2_s^*}.
	\end{align*}
	Explicitly,
	\begin{align*}
	\vartheta_s = \frac{2N-q(N-2s)}{2sq}
	\end{align*}
	and
	\begin{align*}
	\|u\|_{L^q (\Omega)} \leq \|u\|_{L^2 (\Omega)}^{\vartheta_s} \|u\|_{L^{2_s^*} (\Omega)}^{1-\vartheta_s}\leq C(N,q)^{1-\vartheta_s} \|u\|_{X_0^s(\Omega)}.
	\end{align*}
	Since the function $s \mapsto \vartheta_s$ is continuous in
        the interval $[1/2,1]$, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}
  It follows from the previous proof that the same result is true for
  any $s \in [s_0,1]$, with $s_0 \in (0,1)$ fixed.
\end{Rem}
\begin{Def}
  A weak solution to problem \eqref{eq:1.1} is a function
  $u \in X_0^s(\Omega)$ such that
	\begin{align*}
	\langle (-\Delta)^{s/2} u \mid (-\Delta)^{s/2} \varphi \rangle_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)} + \int_\Omega V(x) u \varphi \, dx = \int_\Omega f(x,u) \varphi\, dx
	\end{align*}
	for every $\varphi \in X_0^s(\Omega)$.
\end{Def}
Weak solutions are therefore critical points of the associated energy
functional ${\mathcal J}_s \colon X^s_0 (\Omega) \rightarrow \mathbb R$ defined by
\begin{align*}
  {\mathcal J}_s (u) = \frac12 \left\| (-\Delta)^s u \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^2 + \frac12
  \int_{\Omega} V(x) u^2 \, dx - \int_{\Omega} F(x,u) \, dx.
\end{align*}

We recall also the definition of a weak solution in the local case.

\begin{Def}
A weak solution to problem \eqref{eq:1.2} is a function $u \in H^1_0 (\Omega)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \varphi \, dx + \int_\Omega V(x) u \varphi \, dx = \int_\Omega f(x,u) \varphi \, dx
\end{align*}
for every $\varphi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$.
\end{Def}

For the local problem \eqref{eq:1.2} we put
${\mathcal J}\colon H^1_0 (\Omega) \rightarrow \mathbb R$
\begin{align} \label{eq:2.2}
  {\mathcal J}(u) = \frac12 \int_{\Omega} |\nabla u|^2 + V(x) u^2 \, dx - \int_{\Omega} F(x,u) \, dx.
\end{align}

Recalling the notation \eqref{norm-s} and \eqref{norm-1}, we can rewrite our functionals in the form
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal J}_s (u) &= \frac12 \|u\|_s^2 - \int_\Omega F(x,u) \, dx, \quad u \in X^s_0 (\Omega), \\
{\mathcal J} (u) &= \frac12 \|u\|^2 - \int_{\Omega} F(x,u) \, dx, \quad u \in H^1_0 (\Omega).
\end{align*}

\section{Existence of ground states}

We define the so-called Nehari manifolds
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal N}_s := \{ u \in X^{s}_0 (\Omega) \setminus \{0\} \mid  {\mathcal J}_s' (u)(u) = 0 \}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal N} := \{ u \in H^{1}_0 (\Omega) \setminus \{0\} \mid  {\mathcal J}' (u)(u) = 0 \}.
\end{align*}
\begin{Def}
A ground state of \eqref{eq:1.1} is any minimum point of ${\mathcal J}_s$ constrained on ${\mathcal N}_s$. Similarly, a ground state of \eqref{eq:1.2} is any minimum point of ${\mathcal J}$ constrained on ${\mathcal N}$.
\end{Def}

To proceed, we show that ground states actually exist.
\begin{Prop}\label{prop:existence}
  For every $s \in (0,1]$, there exists a ground state solution
  $u_s \in \mathcal{N}_s$ to \eqref{eq:1.1}. Moreover
  \begin{equation}\label{ground-state-level}
  {\mathcal J}_s (u_s) = \inf_{v \in X^s_0(\Omega) \setminus \{0\}} \sup_{t \in [0,1]} {\mathcal J}_s (t v) > 0.
  \end{equation}
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is rather standard, so we will present a sketch  and refer the reader to \cite{BM, SzW, SzW-Handbook} for the details.
  Consider $0<s<1$. It follows from our
  assumptions that the Nehari manifold ${\mathcal N}_s$ is homeomorphic to the
  unit sphere $S_s$ in $X_0^s(\Omega)$. The homeomorphism $m_s \colon S_s \rightarrow {\mathcal N}_s$ is given by
  \begin{align*}
  m_s(u) = t_u u,
  \end{align*}
where $t_u > 0$ is the unique positive number such that $t_u u \in {\mathcal N}_s$. The inverse $m_s^{-1} \colon {\mathcal N}_s \rightarrow S_s$ is given by $m_s^{-1}(u) = u / \|u\|_s$. Moreover ${\mathcal J}_s \circ m_s \colon S_s \rightarrow \mathbb R$ is still of class $C^1$. Then there is a Palais-Smale sequence $\{v_n\}_n \subset S_s$   for ${\mathcal J} \circ m_s$. Moreover, we can show that the sequence $\{u_n\}_n \subset {\mathcal N}_s$ given by $u_n := m_s (v_n)$ is a bounded Palais-Smale sequence for ${\mathcal J}_s$ such that ${\mathcal J}(u_n) \to c_s$, where $c_s := \inf_{{\mathcal N}_s} {\mathcal J}_s > 0$. Since $X_0^s(\Omega)$ is compactly embedded into $L^\nu(\Omega)$ for every $2 \leq \nu < 2_s^*$, see Theorem~\ref{th:2.5}, it is easy to check that $\{u_n\}_n$ converges strongly (up to a subsequence) in $L^\nu(\Omega)$ to a function $u \neq 0$ such that ${\mathcal J}_s'(u)=0$. Finally, the properties of $F$ yield
  \begin{align*}
    {\mathcal J}_s(u) = \frac{1}{2} \|u\|_s^2 - \int_\Omega F(x,u)\, dx \leq \liminf_{n \to +\infty} \left\{ \frac{1}{2} \|u_n\|_s^2 -
             \int_\Omega F(x,u_n)\, dx \right\}
    = \liminf_{n \to +\infty}  {\mathcal J}_s(u_n) = c_s.
  \end{align*}
  The proof for the case $s=1$ is similar.
\end{proof}

\section{Non-local to local transition}

For any $s \in (1/2,1)$ we define
\begin{align*}
c_s := \inf_{{\mathcal N}_s} {\mathcal J}_s > 0.
\end{align*}
Similarly, we put also
\begin{align*}
c := \inf_{{\mathcal N}} {\mathcal J} > 0.
\end{align*}

For any $v \in X^s_0 (\Omega) \setminus \{0\}$ we let
$t_s(v) > 0$ be the unique positive real number such that $t_s (v) \in {\mathcal N}_s$. Then we put $m_s(v) := t_s (v) v$ (see the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:existence}).

\begin{Lem}\label{lem:limsup}
	There results
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{s \to 1^-} c_s \leq c.
\end{align*}
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
  Take $u \in H^1_0 (\Omega) \subset X^s_0 (\Omega)$ as a ground state
  solution of \eqref{eq:1.2}, in particular $u \in {\mathcal N}$ and
  ${\mathcal J}(u) = c$, where ${\mathcal J}$ is given by \eqref{eq:2.2}. Consider the function $m_s (u) \in {\mathcal N}_s$. Obviously
\begin{align*}
c_s \leq {\mathcal J}_s (m_s (u)).
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{multline*}
  \limsup_{s \to 1^-} c_s \leq \limsup_{s \to 1^-} {\mathcal J}_s (m_s(u)) =
  \limsup_{s \to 1^-}  \left\{ {\mathcal J}_s (m_s(u))  - \frac12 {\mathcal J}_s '
    (m_s(u)) \right\} \\
  = \limsup_{s \to 1^-} \left\{ \frac12 \int_\Omega f(x,m_s(u))m_s(u) - 2
  F(x,m_s(u)) \, dx \right\}.
\end{multline*}
Recall that $m_s(u) = t_s u$ for some real numbers $t_s > 0$. Suppose
by contradiction that $t_s \to +\infty$ as $s \to 1^-$. Then, in view
of the Nehari identity
\begin{align*}
\| u \|_{s}^2 = \int_\Omega \frac{f(x,t_s u)}{t_s^2} t_s u \, dx
\geq 2 \int_\Omega \frac{F(x,t_s u)}{t_s^2 u^2} u^2 \, dx \to +\infty,
\end{align*}
but the left-hand side stays bounded (see Corollary \ref{cor:2.3}). Hence $(t_s)_s$ is bounded. Take any
convergent subsequence $(t_{s_n})$ of $(t_s)$, i.e. $t_{s_n} \to t_0$ as $n\to+\infty$. Obviously $t_0 \geq 0$. We will show that $t_0 \neq 0$. Indeed, suppose that $t_0 = 0$, i.e. $t_{s_n} \to 0$. Then, in view of the Nehari identity
\begin{align*}
\| u \|_{s_n}^2 = \int_\Omega \frac{f(x,t_{s_n} u)}{t_{s_n} u} u^2 \, dx.
\end{align*}
By Corollary \ref{cor:2.3}, $\| u \|_{s_n}^2 \to \|u\|^2 > 0$. Hence, in view of (F2),
\begin{align*}
\|u\|^2 + o(1) = \int_\Omega \frac{f(x,t_{s_n} u)}{t_{s_n} u} u^2 \, dx \to 0,
\end{align*}
a contradiction. Hence $t_0 > 0$. Again, by Corollary \ref{cor:2.3},
\begin{align*}
t_{s_n}^2 \| u \|_{s_n}^2 \to t_0^2 \|u \|^2 \quad \mathrm{as} \ n\to +\infty.
\end{align*}
Moreover, in view of Remark \ref{rem:1.1},
\begin{align*}
 |f(x,t_{s_n} u) t_{s_n} u| \leq  \varepsilon t_{s_n}^2 |u|^2 + C_\varepsilon t_{s_n}^p |u|^p \leq C ( |u|^2 + |u|^p)
\end{align*}
for some constant $C > 0$, independent of $n$. In view of the Lebesgue's convergence theorem
\begin{align*}
\int_\Omega f(x,t_{s_n} u) t_{s_n} u \, dx \to \int_\Omega f(x,t_0 u) t_0 u \, dx.
\end{align*}
Thus the limit $t_0$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
t_0^2 \|u\|^2 = \int_\Omega f(x,t_0 u) t_0 u \, dx.
\end{align*}
Taking the Nehari identity into account we see that $t_0 = 1$. Hence
$t_s \to 1$ as $s \to 1^-$. Repeating the same argument we see that
\begin{multline*}
\limsup_{s \to 1^-} \left\{ \frac12 \int_\Omega f(x,m_s(u))m_s(u) - 2
  F(x,m_s(u)) \, dx \right\} = \frac12 \int_\Omega f(x,u)u - 2 F(x,u)
                               \, dx \\
  = {\mathcal J}(u) = c
\end{multline*}
and the proof is completed.
\end{proof}

\begin{Lem}\label{lemma-boundedness}
There exists a constant~$M > 0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|u_s\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} + \|u_s\|_{s} \leq M
\end{align*}
for every $s \in (1/2,1)$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
  Note that $\|u_s\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} \leq C \|u_s\|_{s}$, for some $C > 0$ independent of $s$. So it is enough to
  show that $\|u_s\|_{s} \leq M$. Suppose by contradiction that
\begin{align*}
\|u_s\|_{s} \to +\infty \quad \mathrm{as} \ s \to 1^-.
\end{align*}
Put $v_s := \frac{u_s}{\|u_s\|_s}$. Then $\|v_s\|_{s} = 1$, so \cite[Corollary 7]{BBM} implies that $v_s \to v_0$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ for some $v_0 \in H^1_0(\Omega)$. From Lemma \ref{lemma-constant-independednt} $\{v_s\}_s$ is bounded in $L^{\frac{2N}{N-1}} (\Omega)$. Take any $\nu \in \left(2, \frac{2N}{N-1} \right)$ and by the interpolation inequality
\begin{align*}
\|v_s - v_0 \|_{L^\nu (\Omega)} \leq \| v_s - v_0 \|_{L^2 (\Omega)}^\vartheta \|v_s - v_0 \|_{L^{\frac{2N}{N-1}} (\Omega)}^{1-\vartheta} \to 0 \quad \mathrm{as} \ s \to 1^-,
\end{align*}
where $\vartheta \in (0,1)$ is chosen so that $\frac{1}{\nu} = \frac{\vartheta}{2} + \frac{1-\vartheta}{\frac{2N}{N-1}}$. Hence $v_s \to v_0$ in $L^\nu (\Omega)$ for all $2 \leq \nu < \frac{2N}{N-1}$. In particular, we can choose a sequence $\{v_{s_n}\}_n$ such that $v_{s_n} (x) \to v_0(x)$ for a.e. $x \in \Omega$. Note that, from Lemma \ref{lem:limsup}, we know that $\{{\mathcal J}_{s_n} (u_{s_n})\}_n$ is bounded. We will consider two cases.

\begin{itemize}
\item Suppose that $v_0 = 0$. Fix any $t > 0$. By \eqref{ground-state-level} we obtain
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal J}_{s_n} (u_{s_n}) \geq {\mathcal J}_{s_n} \left( \frac{t}{\|u_{s_n}\|_{s_n}} u_{s_n} \right) = {\mathcal J}_{s_n} (t v_{s_n}) = \frac{t^2}{2} - \int_\Omega F(x,tv_{s_n}) \, dx.
\end{align*}
From Remark \ref{rem:1.1} we see that
\begin{align*}
\int_\Omega F(x,tv_{s_n}) \, dx \leq \varepsilon t^2 \| v_{s_n}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + C_\varepsilon t^p \|v_{s_n}\|_{L^p (\Omega)}^p \to 0.
\end{align*}
Hence, for any $t > 0$
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal J}_{s_n} (u_{s_n}) \geq \frac{t^2}{2} + o(1),
\end{align*}
which is a contradiction with the boundedness of $\{{\mathcal J}_{s_n}(u_{s_n})\}_n$.
\item Suppose that $v_0 \neq 0$, i.e. $| \supp v_0 | > 0$. Note that for a.e. $x \in \supp v_0$ we have
\begin{align*}
|u_{s_n}(x)| = \| u_{s_n} \|_{s_n} | v_{s_n} (x)| \to +\infty.
\end{align*}
Hence, taking into account the boundedness of $\{{\mathcal J}_{s_n} (u_{s_n}) \}_n$ and  Fatou's lemma,
\begin{align*}
o(1) = \frac{{\mathcal J}_{s_n} (u_{s_n})}{\|u_{s_n}\|_{s_n}^2} = \frac12 - \int_{\Omega} \frac{F(x, u_{s_n})}{u_{s_n}^2} v_{s_n}^2 \, dx \leq \frac12 - \int_{\supp v_0} \frac{F(x, u_{s_n})}{u_{s_n}^2} v_{s_n}^2 \, dx \to -\infty,
\end{align*}
again a contradiction.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}

\begin{Cor} \label{cor:2.9}
There is $u_0 \in H^1_0 (\Omega)$ and a sequence $\{s_n\}_n$ such that $s_n \to 1^-$ and
\begin{align*}
u_{s_n} \to u_0 \quad \mathrm{in} \ L^\nu (\Omega) \quad \mathrm{as} \ n \to +\infty
\end{align*}
for all~$\nu \in [2, 2N/(N-1))$.
\end{Cor}

\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{lemma-boundedness} and \cite[Corollary 7]{BBM} we note that
\begin{align*}
u_{s_n} \to u_0 \quad \mathrm{in} \ L^2(\Omega)
\end{align*}
for some $u_0 \in H^1_0 (\Omega)$ and sequence $\{s_n\}_n$. In view of Lemma
\ref{lemma-constant-independednt} there is a constant~$C > 0$ (independent of
$s$) such that
\begin{align*}
\|u_{s_n}\|_{ L^{\frac{2N}{N-1}}(\Omega) } \leq C \| u_{s_n} \|_{s_n}.
\end{align*}
In particular, $\{u_{s_n}\}_n$ is bounded in $L^{\frac{2N}{N-1}}
(\Omega)$. Then for any $\nu \in (2, 2N/(N-1))$ we have
\begin{align*}
 \limsup_{n \to +\infty}  \|u_{s_n} - u_0\|_{L^\nu (\Omega)} \leq \limsup_{n \to +\infty} \|u_{s_n} - u_0 \|_{L^2 (\Omega)}^\vartheta \| u_{s_n} - u_0 \|_{L^{\frac{2N}{N-1}} (\Omega)}^{1-\vartheta} =0,
\end{align*}
where $\vartheta \in (0,1)$ is chosen so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\nu} = \frac{\vartheta}{2} + \frac{1-\vartheta}{\frac{2N}{N-1}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{Lem}
The limit $u_0$ is a weak solution for \eqref{eq:1.2}.
\end{Lem}

\begin{proof}
Take any test function $\varphi \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb R^N)$ and note that by \cite[Section 6]{W}
we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb R^N} (-\Delta)^{s/2} u_{s_n} (-\Delta)^{s_n /2} \varphi \, dx = \int_{\mathbb R^N} u_{s_n} (-\Delta)^{s_n} \varphi \, dx.
\end{align*}
Moreover
\begin{multline*}
\left| \int_{\mathbb R^N} u_{s_n} (-\Delta)^{s_n} \varphi \, dx - \int_{\mathbb R^N} u_0 (-\Delta \varphi) \, dx \right| = \left| \int_{\Omega} u_{s_n} (-\Delta)^{s_n} \varphi \, dx - \int_{\Omega} u_0 (-\Delta \varphi) \, dx \right| \\
= \left| \int_{\Omega} u_{s_n} \left( (-\Delta)^{s_n} \varphi - (-\Delta \varphi) \right) \, dx + \int_{\Omega} (u_{s_n} - u_0) (-\Delta \varphi) \, dx \right| \\
\leq \left\|u_{s_n} \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \left\| (-\Delta)^{s_n} \varphi - (-\Delta \varphi) \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|  (-\Delta \varphi) \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \|u_{s_n} - u_0\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \to 0.
\end{multline*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_{\mathbb R^N} (-\Delta)^{s_n /2} u_{s_n} (-\Delta)^{s_n /2} \varphi \, dx = \int_{\mathbb R^N} u_0 (-\Delta \varphi) \, dx = \int_{\Omega} \nabla u_0 \cdot \nabla \varphi \, dx.
\end{align*}
Obviously
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_\Omega V(x) u_{s_n} \varphi \, dx = \int_\Omega V(x) u_0 \varphi \, dx.
\end{align*}
Take any measurable set $E \subset \Omega$ and note that, taking into account Remark \ref{rem:1.1},
\begin{align*}
\int_E | f(x,u_{s_n}) \varphi | \, dx \leq \varepsilon \| u_{s_n} \|_{L^2 (\Omega)} \| \varphi \chi_E \|_{L^2 (\Omega)} + C_\varepsilon \| u_{s_n} \|_{L^p (\Omega)}^{p-1} \| \varphi \chi_E \|_{L^p (\mathbb R^N)}.
\end{align*}
Hence the family $\{ f(\cdot, u_{s_n}) \varphi \}_n$ is uniformly integrable on $\Omega$ and in view of the Vitali convergence theorem
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_\Omega f(x,u_{s_n})\varphi \, dx = \int_\Omega f(x,u_0)\varphi \, dx.
\end{align*}
Therefore $u_0$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega} \nabla u_0 \cdot \nabla \varphi \, dx + \int_\Omega V(x) u_0 \varphi \, dx = \int_\Omega f(x,u_0)\varphi \, dx,
\end{align*}
i.e. $u_0$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eq:1.2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lem}
Since $u_s \in {\mathcal N}_s$ there is (independent of $s$) constant $\rho$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|u_s\|_{s} \geq \rho > 0.
\end{align*}
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
  Since $u_s \in \mathcal{N}_s$, we can write by Remark \ref{rem:1.1}
  \begin{align*}
    \|u_s\|_{s}^2 = \int_{\Omega} f(x,u_s)u_s \, dx &\leq \varepsilon \|u_s\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + C_\varepsilon \|u_s\|_{L^p(\Omega)}^p \\
                                                    &\leq C \left( \varepsilon \|u_s\|_{s}^2 + C_\varepsilon \|u_s\|_{s}^p \right)
  \end{align*}
  for a constant $C>0$ independent of $s$. Choosing $\varepsilon>0$
  small enough, we conclude that
  \begin{align*}
    \|u_s\|_{s}^{p-2} \geq \frac{1-C \varepsilon}{C \cdot C_\varepsilon} =: \rho>0.
	\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{Lem}
We have~$u_0 \neq 0$ and therefore $u_0 \in {\mathcal N}$.
\end{Lem}

\begin{proof}
If $u_0 = 0$, then $u_{s_n} \to 0$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and in $L^p(\Omega)$. Then
\begin{align*}
\|u_{s_n}\|_{s_n} = \int_\Omega f(x,u_{s_n}) u_{s_n} \, dx \to 0,
\end{align*}
a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{Lem}\label{lem:liminf}
  There results
\begin{align*}
\liminf_{n \to +\infty} c_{s_n} \geq c.
\end{align*}
\end{Lem}

\begin{proof}
Since $u_{s_n} \in \mathcal{N}_{s_n}$, then by Corollary \ref{cor:2.9} we have
\begin{align*}
\liminf_{n \to +\infty} c_{s_n} &= \liminf_{n \to +\infty} {\mathcal J}_{s_n} (u_{s_n}) = \liminf_{n \to +\infty} \left\{ {\mathcal J}_{s_n} (u_{s_n}) - \frac12 {\mathcal J}_{s_n} ' (u_{s_n})(u_{s_n}) \right\} \\
&= \liminf_{n \to +\infty} \left\{ \frac{1}{2} \int_\Omega f(x,u_{s_n})u_{s_n} -
  2 F(x,u_{s_n}) \, dx  \right\} \\
&=  \frac12 \int_\Omega f(x,u_0)u_0 - 2 F(x,u_0) \, dx = {\mathcal J}(u_0) \geq c.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{Lem}\label{lem:ground-state}
The function $u_0 \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ is a ground state solution to \eqref{eq:1.2}.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that, from Lemma \ref{lem:limsup} and \ref{lem:liminf} we have
\begin{align*}
\liminf_{n \to + \infty} c_{s_n} \geq c \geq \limsup_{s \to 1^-} c_s \geq \limsup_{n \to + \infty} c_{s_n}.
\end{align*}
Hence $\lim_{n \to +\infty} c_{s_n}$ exists and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} c_{s_n} = c$. From the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:liminf} we have
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} c_{s_n} = {\mathcal J}(u_0).
\end{align*}
Thus ${\mathcal J}(u_0) = c$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:main}]
The statement is a direct consequence of Corollary \ref{cor:2.9} and Lemma \ref{lem:ground-state}.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgements}

Bartosz Bieganowski was partially supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (Grant No. 2017/25/N/ST1/00531). Simone Secchi is member of the \emph{Gruppo Nazionale per l'Analisi Ma\-te\-ma\-ti\-ca, la Probabilit\`a e le loro Applicazioni} (GNAMPA) of the {\em Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica} (INdAM).