\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{equation}}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\end{equation}}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\nonumber}{\nonumber}
\newcommand{{\underline{1}}}{{\underline{1}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{2}}}{{\underline{2}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{a}}}{{\underline{a}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{b}}}{{\underline{b}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{c}}}{{\underline{c}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{d}}}{{\underline{d}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{i}}}{{\underline{i}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{j}}}{{\underline{j}}}
\newcommand{\ku}{{\underline{k}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{l}}}{{\underline{l}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{I}}}{{\underline{I}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{J}}}{{\underline{J}}}

\newcommand{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb C}}{{\mathbb C}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb Q}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb Z}}{{\mathbb Z}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb N}}{{\mathbb N}}

\def\dt#1{{\buildrel {\hbox{\LARGE .}} \over {#1}}}

\newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

\def\double #1{#1{\hbox{\kern-2pt $#1$}}}

\newcommand{{\hat{m}}}{{\hat{m}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{n}}}{{\hat{n}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{p}}}{{\hat{p}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{q}}}{{\hat{q}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{r}}}{{\hat{r}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{a}}}{{\hat{a}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{b}}}{{\hat{b}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{c}}}{{\hat{c}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{d}}}{{\hat{d}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{e}}}{{\hat{e}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{M}}}{{\hat{M}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{N}}}{{\hat{N}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{A}}}{{\hat{A}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{B}}}{{\hat{B}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{C}}}{{\hat{C}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{i}}}{{\hat{i}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{j}}}{{\hat{j}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{k}}}{{\hat{k}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{l}}}{{\hat{l}}}

\newcommand{{\hat{\alpha}}}{{\hat{\alpha}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\beta}}}{{\hat{\beta}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\gamma}}}{{\hat{\gamma}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\delta}}}{{\hat{\delta}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\rho}}}{{\hat{\rho}}}
\newcommand{{\hat{\tau}}}{{\hat{\tau}}}

\newcommand{{\dot\gamma}}{{\dot\gamma}}
\newcommand{{\dot\delta}}{{\dot\delta}}

\newcommand{{\tilde{\sigma}}}{{\tilde{\sigma}}}
\newcommand{{\tilde{\omega}}}{{\tilde{\omega}}}

\renewcommand{\Bar}{\overline}

\newcommand{{\underline{\alpha}}}{{\underline{\alpha}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\beta}}}{{\underline{\beta}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\gamma}}}{{\underline{\gamma}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\delta}}}{{\underline{\delta}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\rho}}}{{\underline{\rho}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\tau}}}{{\underline{\tau}}}

\newcommand{{\underline{\ad}}}{{\underline{\ad}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\bd}}}{{\underline{\bd}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\gd}}}{{\underline{{\dot\gamma}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\dd}}}{{\underline{{\dot\delta}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\dot{\rho}}}}{{\underline{\dot{\rho}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\dot{\tau}}}}{{\underline{\dot{\tau}}}}

\newcommand{{\underline{\hal}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\alpha}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hbe}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\beta}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hga}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\gamma}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hde}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\delta}}}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{\hrh}}}{{\underline{{\hat{\rho}}}}}

\newcommand{{\nabla}}{{\nabla}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\nabla}}}{{\bar{\nabla}}}

\newcommand{{\bar{\sigma}}}{{\bar{\sigma}}}

\newcommand{{\theta}}{{\theta}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\theta}}}{{\bar{\theta}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\theta}}}{{\bar{\theta}}}

\newcommand{{\dot{\rho}}}{{\dot{\rho}}}
\newcommand{{{\tau}}}{{{\tau}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\ta}}}{{\dot{{{\tau}}}}}

\newcommand{{(u^+u^-)}}{{(u^+u^-)}}

\newcommand{{{\bar{\zeta}}}}{{{\bar{\zeta}}}}

\newcommand{{\bm L}}{{\bm L}}
\newcommand{{\bm R}}{{\bm R}}
\newcommand{{\boxplus}}{{\boxplus}}
\newcommand{{\boxminus}}{{\boxminus}}
\newcommand{{\oplus}}{{\oplus}}
\newcommand{{\ominus}}{{\ominus}}

\newcommand{{\overline{I}}}{{\overline{I}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{J}}}{{\overline{J}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{K}}}{{\overline{K}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{L}}}{{\overline{L}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{M}}}{{\overline{M}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{N}}}{{\overline{N}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{P}}}{{\overline{P}}}
\newcommand{{\overline{Q}}}{{\overline{Q}}}

\newcommand{{\underline{I}}}{{\underline{I}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{J}}}{{\underline{J}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{K}}}{{\underline{K}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{L}}}{{\underline{L}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{M}}}{{\underline{M}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{N}}}{{\underline{N}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{Q}}}{{\underline{Q}}}
\newcommand{{\underline{P}}}{{\underline{P}}}

\newcommand{{\mathbb D}}{{\mathbb D}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb \DB}}{{\mathbb \bar{D}}}
\newcommand{{\mathbb S}}{{\mathbb S}}

\newcommand{{\bf D}}{{\bf D}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\bfD}}}{{\bar{{\bf D}}}}

\newcommand{{\bm D}}{{\bm D}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\bmD}}}{{\bar{{\bm D}}}}

\newcommand{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\nabla}}
\newcommand{\bar{\bm{\nabla}}}{\bar{\bm{\nabla}}}

\def\mathsurround=0pt{\mathsurround=0pt}
\def\fracm#1#2{\hbox{\large{${\frac{{#1}}{{#2}}}$}}}

\def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup2\jot \mathsurround=0pt
        \ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
        \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
\newif\ifdtup
\def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup2\jot \mathsurround=0pt
        \everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse
        \vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit
        \else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}
\def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous                  %
eqalignno
        \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
        \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
        \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
        \crcr#1\crcr}}
\def\eqalignnotwo#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous
        \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
        \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$
        \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
        \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
        \crcr#1\crcr}}

\def\de{{\nabla}}
\def{\bar{\nabla}}}                                         % \bar{del{{\bar{\nabla}}}
\def\sp#1{{}^{#1}}
\def\sb#1{{}_{#1}}
\def{\cal M}{{\cal M}}
\def{\cal R}{{\cal R}}
\def{\cal Y}{{\cal Y}}
\def{\cal F}{{\cal F}}

\def{\bar{\de}}{{\bar{\de}}}

\newcommand{\begin{subequations}}{\begin{subequations}}
\newcommand{\end{subequations}}{\end{subequations}}
\newcommand{\boxedalign}[1]{%
  \[\fbox{%
      \addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxsep}%
      \addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxrule}%
      \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}\vspace{-8pt}%
      \begin{align}#1\end{align}%
      \end{minipage}\nonumber%
    }\]
    }

\newcommand{{\bar i}}{{\bar i}}
\newcommand{{\bar j}}{{\bar j}}
\newcommand{{\bar k}}{{\bar k}}
\newcommand{{\bar l}}{{\bar l}}
\newcommand{{\bar p}}{{\bar p}}
\newcommand{{\bar q}}{{\bar q}}
\newcommand{{\bar 1}}{{\bar 1}}
\newcommand{{\bar 2}}{{\bar 2}}
\newcommand{{\bar 0}}{{\bar 0}}
\newcommand{{\bar n}}{{\bar n}}
\newcommand{{\bar m}}{{\bar m}}
\newcommand{{\bar 4}}{{\bar 4}}

\newcommand{{\rm L}}{{\rm L}}
\newcommand{{\rm R}}{{\rm R}}

\newcommand{{{\bm s}}}{{{\bm s}}}
\newcommand{{{\bar{\mu}}}}{{{\bar{\mu}}}}
\newcommand{{{\bm S}}}{{{\bm S}}}

\newcommand{{\bar{\varphi}}}{{\bar{\varphi}}}

\newcommand{{\bar{\xi}}}{{\bar{\xi}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\lambda}}}{{\bar{\lambda}}}

\newcommand{{\bm{\xi}}}{{\bm{\xi}}}
\newcommand{{\bm{\xb}}}{{\bm{{\bar{\xi}}}}}

\newcommand{{\bm{\omega}}}{{\bm{\omega}}}

\newcommand{\eqinbox}[1]{%
  \[\fbox{%
      \addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxsep}%
      \addtolength{\linewidth}{-2\fboxrule}%
      \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}\vspace{-8pt}%
      \begin{align}#1\end{align}%
      \end{minipage}\nonumber%
    }\]
    }

\newcommand{\notag \\}{\notag \\}
\newcommand{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\newcommand{{\nabla}}{{\nabla}}
\newcommand{{\mathrm{c.c.}}}{{\mathrm{c.c.}}}

\newcommand{{\veps}}{{\varepsilon}}

\newcommand{\mathsf{Sp}}{\mathsf{Sp}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SU}}{\mathsf{SU}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SL}}{\mathsf{SL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{GL}}{\mathsf{GL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SO}}{\mathsf{SO}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{O}}{\mathsf{O}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{U}}{\mathsf{U}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{S}}{\mathsf{S}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{PSU}}{\mathsf{PSU}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{PSL}}{\mathsf{PSL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{OSp}}{\mathsf{OSp}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Spin}}{\mathsf{Spin}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Mat}}{\mathsf{Mat}}

\begin{document}

\begin{titlepage}
\begin{flushright}
January, 2023 \\
\end{flushright}
\vspace{5mm}

\begin{center}
{\Large \bf
On higher-spin $\bm{\cN=2}$ supercurrent multiplets

}
\end{center}

\begin{center}

{\bf Sergei M. Kuzenko and Emmanouil S. N. Raptakis} \\
\vspace{5mm}

\footnotesize{
{\it Department of Physics M013, The University of Western Australia\\
35 Stirling Highway, Perth W.A. 6009, Australia}}
~\\
\vspace{2mm}
~\\
Email: \texttt{
sergei.kuzenko@uwa.edu.au, emmanouil.raptakis@research.uwa.edu.au}\\
\vspace{2mm}

\end{center}

\begin{abstract}
\baselineskip=14pt
We elaborate on the structure of higher-spin $\mathcal{N}=2$ supercurrent multiplets
in four dimensions. It is shown that associated with every conformal supercurrent
$J_{\alpha(m) \dot{\alpha}(n)}$ (with $m,n$ non-negative integers) is a descendant
 $J^{ij}_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)}$ with the following properties: (a) it is a linear multiplet with respect to its $\mathsf{SU}(2)$ indices, that is
 $ D_\beta^{(i}  J^{  jk)}_{\alpha(m+1) \dot{\alpha}(n+1) }=0$ and
$ \bar D_{\dot \beta}^{(i}  J^{jk)}_{ \alpha(m+1) \dot{\alpha}(n+1)  }=0$;  and  (b) it is conserved,
  $\partial^{\beta \dot{\beta}} J^{ij}_{\beta \alpha(m) \dot{\beta} \dot{\alpha}(n)}=0$. Realisations of the conformal supercurrents $J_{\alpha(s) \dot{\alpha}(s)}$, with $s=0,1, \dots$, are naturally provided by a massless hypermultiplet and a vector multiplet. It turns out that such supercurrents and their linear descendants $J^{ij}_{\alpha(s+1) \dot{\alpha}(s+1)}$ do not occur in the harmonic-superspace framework recently described in arXiv:2212.14114.
Making use of a massive hypermultiplet, we derive non-conformal higher-spin
$\mathcal{N}=2$ supercurrent multiplets.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{5mm}

\vfill

\vfill
\end{titlepage}

\newpage
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}

\allowdisplaybreaks

\section{Introduction}

Almost two years ago, we described all possible ${\cal N}=2$ conformal supercurrent multiplets
$J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$ in a curved supergravity background \cite{KR21}, with $m$ and $n$ non-negative integers. The $m=n=0$ case corresponds to the ordinary conformal supercurrent $J$
\cite{Sohnius, HST}, which is the source of the Weyl multiplet of $\cN=2$ conformal supergravity
\cite{BdeRdeW}. The supergravity origin of $J$ and its non-conformal extensions was uncovered in \cite{KT,BK10}. If at least one of the parameters $m,n$ is non-zero,
the supercurrent $J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$ is the source of a superconformal primary higher-spin gauge multiplet $\Upsilon_{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$.
The corresponding superconformal gauge-invariant action for
$\Upsilon_{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$ was constructed in \cite{KR21} in an arbitrary conformally flat background.

For a massless hypermultiplet, the conserved conformal supercurrent multiplets
$J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$, with $s\geq 0$, were derived in \cite{KR21}
 in an arbitrary conformally flat background. In the $s=0$ case, the conserved massless hypermultiplet supercurrent $J$  exists in an arbitrary supergravity background
 \cite{KT}. It should be stressed that each conserved conformal hypermultiplet supercurrent $J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$ is uniquely defined by the corresponding conservation equation. In particular, this equation implies that $J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$ is a conformal primary superfield.

For a massive hypermultiplet in $\cN=2$ Minkowski superspace, conserved  supercurrent multiplets $J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$ can be derived from the massless ones given in \cite{KR21} by coupling the hypermultiplet to a `frozen' vector multiplet \`a la \cite{BK97}.\footnote{In the $s=0$ case, the conserved massive hypermultiplet supercurrent $J$  exists in an arbitrary supergravity background
 \cite{KT}. The hypermultiplet's mass is generated by coupling it to a vector multiplet, one of the two supergravity compensators. Following \cite{BK-AdS}, the supercurrent conservation equation has the form
 $\frac{1}{4} (\bar \cD^{ij} + 4 \bar S^{ij}) J = \cW T^{ij}$, where
 $\bar \cD^{ij} = \bar \cD_\ad^{(i} \bar \cD^{j) \ad }$, $\bar S^{ij}$ is one of the torsion tensors,
 $\cW$ is the chiral field strength of the vector multiplet and $T^{ij}$ is the supertrace obeying the constraints  $\cD_\alpha^{(k} T^{ij)} = 0$ and $ \bar\cD_\ad^{(k} T^{ij)} = 0$. In the massless case, $T^{ij}=0$.
 }
This is achieved by replacing the flat covariant derivatives $D_A =(\pa_a , D_\alpha^i, \bar D^{\ad i})$ with gauge-covariant ones ${\bm D}_A$, eq. \eqref{3.1}, with the chiral field strength
being  constant.

It should be pointed out that the conserved higher-spin supercurrent multiplets for a free hypermultiplet have also been described in terms of $\cN=1$ superfields. In the massless hypermultiplet case, the corresponding higher-spin conformal supercurrents were derived in \cite{KMT}  in $\cN=1$ Minkowski superspace. In $\cN=1$ anti-de Sitter superspace, the higher-spin hypermultiplet supercurrents were described in \cite{BHK}, both in the massless and massive cases.

Recently, using  the $\cN=2$ harmonic superspace approach,
conserved hypermultiplet superfield currents have been presented by Buchbinder, Ivanov and Zaigraev \cite{BIZ3},  building on their earlier construction of massless higher-spin $\cN=2$ supersymmetric gauge actions \cite{BIZ1,BIZ2}. No comparison with the existing results on the hypermultiplet supercurrent multiplets \cite{KR21,KMT,BHK}
was given in \cite{BIZ3}. In our opinion, carrying out such a comparison is important, and this short paper provides a thorough analysis.

There exists a duality between massless higher-spin (super)field actions and non-conformal higher-spin (super)currents. In general, massless models are formulated in terms of a uniquely defined conformal gauge (super)field in conjunction with certain compensator (super)fields. In the non-supersymmetric case, this is true for Fronsdal's
massless spin-$s$ field action \cite{Fronsdal}, with $s\geq 2$ an integer, which is formulated using two fields, the conformal prepotential $h_{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$ and the compensator $h_{\alpha(s-2) \ad(s-2)}$. This is also true in the $\cN=1$ supersymmetric case. For instance,
there are two off-shell formulations for the massless half-integer superspin multiplet
\cite{KPS} which involve the same conformal prepotential $H_{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$, which is real and unconstrained, but different compensators.
They are
described in terms of
the following dynamical variables:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\cV^\bot_{s+1/2}& = &\Big\{H_{\alpha(s)\ad(s)}~, ~
\Gamma_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}~,
~ \bar{\Gamma}_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)} \Big\} ~,    \\
\label{10}
\cV^{\|}_{s+1/2} &=&
\Big\{H_{\alpha(s)\ad(s)}~, ~
G_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}~,
~ \bar{G}_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)} \Big\}
~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Here the complex superfields
$\Gamma_{\alpha (s-1) \ad (s-1)} $ and
$G_{\alpha (s-1) \ad (s-1)}$ are  transverse linear and
longitudinal linear, respectively,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bar D}^\bd \,\Gamma_{\alpha(s-1) \bd \ad(s-2)} &=&  0 ~,
\label{transverse}
\\
{\bar D}_{ (\ad_1} \,G_{\alpha(s-1) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{s})}&=&0 ~.
\label{longitudinal}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Different choices of conformal compensators lead to different non-conformal conservation equations \cite{BHK,Hutomo:2017phh}.
In the $\cN=2$ supersymmetric case, the problem of classifying different off-shell massless higher-superspin models is equivalent to that of classifying non-conformal higher-spin supercurrent multiplets. We believe that the massless higher-spin $\cN=2$ supersymmetric gauge models proposed in \cite{BIZ1} are not unique. One way to uncover other off-shell massless higher-superspin actions is to study different non-conformal higher-spin supercurrent multiplets. This paper initiates the program of
classifying the non-conformal higher-spin $\cN=2$ supercurrent multiplets.

This paper is organised as follows. In section \ref{section2} we review the conformal $\cN=2$ higher-spin supercurrents and corresponding multiplets in the case of a massless hypermultiplet. Additionally, we construct conformal higher-spin supercurrents for a vector multiplet. Section \ref{section3} is devoted to the construction of non-conformal higher-spin supercurrents for a massive hypermultiplet.
The former are also compared with the supercurrents recently proposed in \cite{BIZ3}. The main body of this paper is accompanied by a technical appendix, namely appendix \ref{appendixA}, reviewing conformal supercurrents in $\cN=1$ superspace.

\section{Conformal higher-spin supercurrents} \label{section2}

The conformal  ${\cal N}=2$ supercurrent multiplets
$J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$ were introduced in \cite{KR21}
in a curved supergravity background.
For our purposes it suffices to work in $\cN=2$ Minkowski superspace where the algebra of covariant derivatives $D_A =(\pa_a , D_\alpha^i, \bar D^{\ad i})$ is determined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\{ D_\alpha^i , \bar{D}^\bd_j \} = - 2 {\rm i} \,\delta_j^i \pa_\alpha{}^\bd ~,
\label{2.1}
\end{eqnarray}
with all other graded commutation relations being trivial.

\subsection{$\cN=2$ conserved supercurrent multiplets}
\label{section2.1}

A conformal primary\footnote{See, e.g. \cite{KT,Park} for the definition of a primary tensor superfield in flat superspace.} tensor superfield $J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$, with $m,n \geq 1$, is said to be a conformal supercurrent if it obeys the constraints \cite{KR21}
\begin{subequations}
	\label{SC1}
	\begin{eqnarray}
	D_\beta^i J^{\beta \alpha(m-1) \ad(n)} &=& 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad D^{ij} J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)} = 0 ~, \\
	\bar{D}_\bd^i J^{\alpha(m) \bd \ad(n-1)} &=& 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \bar{D}^{ij} J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)} = 0 ~.
	\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Here we have employed the shorthand
\begin{eqnarray}
{D}^{ij} = {D}^{\alpha(i} \bar{D}_\alpha^{ j)} ~, \qquad
\bar{D}^{ij} = \bar{D}_{\ad}^{(i} \bar{D}^{\ad j)}
~.
\end{eqnarray}
In the special case $m=n=s$, the supercurrent $J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$
is restricted to be real. This case was first described in \cite{HST}.
Setting $n = 0$, the conformal supercurrents $J^{\alpha(m)}$ instead satisfy
\begin{subequations}
	\label{SC2}
	\begin{eqnarray}
	D_\beta^i J^{\beta \alpha(m-1)} &=& 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad D^{ij} J^{\alpha(m) } = 0 ~, \\
	\bar{D}^{ij} J^{\alpha(m)} &=& 0 ~.
	\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Finally, when $m=n=0$, $J$ is real and corresponds to the conformal supercurrent of \cite{HST,Sohnius,KT}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{SC3}
D^{ij} J = 0 ~, \quad \bar{D}^{ij} J = 0 ~.
\end{eqnarray}
The above constraints imply that, at the component level,
$J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$ contains a number of conserved currents.
The component analysis of $J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$ can be performed in two stages.
First, each supercurrent $J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$ can be decomposed as a collection of
conformal $\cN=1$ supercurrent multiplets, which
 is discussed in appendix \ref{appendixA}.
 Second, every conformal $\cN=1$ supercurrent can be reduced to components to result with several ordinary conformal currents. This stage is described in \cite{KR19}.

One can find a general local solution to the constraints  \eqref{SC1}, \eqref{SC2} and \eqref{SC3} using the $\cN=2$ superspin projection operators
\cite{Hutchings}.

\subsection{The hypermultiplet}

An on-shell massless hypermultiplet is described by a conformal primary isospinor $q^i$ (and its conjugate $\bar q_i$) subject to the constraints
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{HM1}
D_{\alpha}^{(i} q^{j)} = 0~, \quad \bar D_{\ad}^{(i} q^{j)} = 0~,
\end{eqnarray}
From $q^i$ and its conjugate, we construct the higher-derivative descendants \cite{KR21}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{HMSC}
J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)} &=& - \frac{{\rm i}^{s}}{2} \sum^s_{k=0} (-1)^k {s \choose k}^2 \pa^{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} q^i \pa^{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_s) \ad_s)} \bar{q}_i \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{{\rm i}^{s+1}}{16} \sum_{k=0}^{s-1} (-1)^k {s \choose k} {s \choose k+1} \nonumber \\
&&\qquad  \times
\bigg\{ \pa^{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} D^{\alpha_{k+1} i} q_i \pa^{\alpha_{k+2} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_s) \ad_{s-1}} \bar D^{\ad_s) j} \bar q_j \nonumber \\
&&\qquad \quad - \pa^{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} \bar D^{\ad_{k+1} i} q_i \pa^{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+2}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_{s-1} \ad_{s})} D^{\alpha_s) j}
\bar q_j
\bigg\} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
It may be shown that the superfield \eqref{HMSC} is conformally primary and satisfies the conservation equations \eqref{SC1} for $s>0$ and \eqref{SC3} when $s=0$. Thus,
$J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$ is a conformal supercurrent.
The $s=0$ case was studied in a supergravity background
in \cite{KT}.

\subsection{The vector multiplet}

Next, we consider an on-shell vector multiplet, which is described by a complex scalar $W$ (and its conjugate $\bar W$) subject to the constraints
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2.11}
\bar{D}_{\ad}^{i} W = 0~, \quad D^{ij} W = 0~.
\end{eqnarray}
From $W$ and its conjugate, one may construct the higher-derivative descendants\footnote{It should be noted that this supercurrent may be extended to general conformally-flat backgrounds by the replacement $D_A \rightarrow \nabla_A$, where $\nabla_A$ is the conformally covariant derivative, see e.g. \cite{ButterN=2,KRTM2}.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{VMSC}
J^{\alpha(s) \ad(s)} &=& {\rm i}^s \sum^s_{k=0} (-1)^k {s \choose k}^2 \pa^{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} W \pa^{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_s) \ad_s)} \bar{W} \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{{\rm i}^{s+1}}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{s-1} (-1)^{k} {s \choose k} {s \choose k+1}
\pa^{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} D^{\alpha_{k+1} i} W \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \qquad \times \pa^{\alpha_{k+2} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_s) \ad_{s-1}} \bar D^{\ad_s)}_i \bar W \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{{\rm i}^{s}}{16} \sum_{k=0}^{s-2} (-1)^{k} {s \choose k} {s \choose k+2}
\pa^{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} D^{\alpha_{k+1} \alpha_{k+2}} W \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \qquad \times \pa^{\alpha_{k+3} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_s) \ad_{s-2}} \bar D^{\ad_{s-1} \ad_s)} \bar W ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have made the definitions
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{\alpha \beta} = D_{(\alpha}^i D_{\beta)i} ~, \qquad \bar{D}_{\ad \bd} = \bar{D}_{(\ad i} \bar{D}_{\bd)}^i~.
\end{eqnarray}
The $s=0$ case was considered
in \cite{HST}. It may be shown that \eqref{HMSC} is primary and satisfies the conservation equations \eqref{SC1} for $s>0$ and \eqref{SC3} when $s=0$, hence it constitutes a conformal supercurrent.

 \subsection{Linear descendants}
 \label{section2.4}

 Given a conformal supercurrent $J_{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$,
 the conservation equations \eqref{SC1}, \eqref{SC2} and \eqref{SC3} imply the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\big[ D^{ij} , \bar{D}^{kl} \big] J_{\alpha(m) \ad(n)} =0~.
 \end{eqnarray}
 Its use allows one to demonstrate that the following
 descendant of $J^{\alpha(m) \ad(n)} $,
 \begin{eqnarray}
 J^{ij}_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)}
 := \frac12 \big[D_{(\alpha_1}^{(i} , \bar D^{j)}_{(\ad_1}\big]
 J_{\alpha_2 \dots \alpha_{m+1}) \ad_2 \dots \ad_{n+1} )}
 \label{2.12}
 \end{eqnarray}
 is Grassmann analytic,
\begin{subequations} \label{2.13}
 \begin{eqnarray}
 D_\beta^{(i}  J^{  jk)}_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1) }=0~, \qquad
 \bar D_\bd^{(i}  J^{jk)}_{ \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)  }=0~,
\label{2.13a}
 \end{eqnarray}
 and conserved,
 \begin{eqnarray}
 \pa^{\beta\bd} J^{ij}_{\alpha(m) \beta  \ad(n)\bd  }=0~.
 \label{2.13b}
 \end{eqnarray}
 \end{subequations}
 It is not difficult to check that, unlike $J_{\alpha(m) \ad(n)}$,
 the descendant $J^{ij}_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} $ is not a conformal primary superfield.
It follows from \eqref{2.13a} that $J^{ij}_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} $ is a linear multiplet with respect to its $\mathsf{SU}(2)$ indices.
Using the projective-superspace terminology
\cite{G-RRWLvU,K2010},  $J^{ij}_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} $ can also be called
an $\cO(2)$ multiplet with respect to its $\mathsf{SU}(2)$ indices.

As is well known  \cite{HST,BS}), given a linear multiplet $G^{ij} = G^{ji}$ constrained by
 $D_\beta^{(i}  G^{  jk)}=0$ and $ \bar D_\bd^{(i}  G^{jk)}=0$, it contains a transverse vector defined by $V_{\beta\bd} = \frac{{\rm i}}{2} [D^i_\beta, \bar D^j_\bd ] G_{ij}$ such that $\pa^{\beta\bd} V_{\beta\bd}=0$.
  Therefore, associated with the descendant \eqref{2.12} is the superfield
 \begin{eqnarray}
 J_{\beta\bd, \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} := \frac{{\rm i}}{2} [D_{\beta i}, \bar D_{\bd j}] J^{ij}_ {\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} ~,
 \label{2.144}
 \end{eqnarray}
 which is separately transverse in its $\beta \bd$ and $\alpha \ad$ indices,
\begin{subequations} \label{2.155}
 \begin{eqnarray}
 \pa^{\beta\bd} J_{\beta\bd, \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} &=&0~,  \label{2.155a}\\
 \pa^{\gamma{\dot\gamma}} J_{\beta\bd, \gamma \alpha(m) {\dot\gamma} \ad(n)} &=&0~. \label{2.155b}
 \end{eqnarray}
 \end{subequations}

For comparison with the results of \cite{BIZ3}, it is convenient to start using the harmonic superspace conventions \cite{GIKOS} (see \cite{GIOS} for a review).
 We introduce harmonics  $u^+_i$ and $u^-_i$ parametrising the group $\mathsf{SU}(2)$,
 \begin{eqnarray}
 \overline{u^{+i} } = u^-_i ~, \qquad u^{+i} u^-_i =1~,
 \end{eqnarray}
 and define a new basis for the spinor covariant derivatives,
 \begin{eqnarray}
 D^\pm_\alpha = D^i_\alpha \,u^\pm_i~, \qquad
{\bar D}^\pm_\ad = {\bar D}^i_\ad \,u^\pm_i~,
\end{eqnarray}
such that eq. \eqref{2.1}
 takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
 \{ {\bar D}^+_\ad , D^-_\alpha \}
= - \{ D^+_\alpha , {\bar D}^-_\ad \}
=2{\rm i}\, \pa_{\alpha \ad}~,
\end{eqnarray}
The operators  $D^+_\alpha$ and $\bar D^+_\ad$ anticommute with each other.
By definition, the analytic superfields $\phi^{(n)} (z,u^\pm)$ are annihilated by $D^+_\alpha$ and $\bar D^+_\ad$.
The superscript `$n$' of  $\phi^{(n)} $ denotes the harmonic $\mathsf{U}(1)$ charge of  $\phi^{(n)} $ defined by $D^0  \phi^{(n)} =n  \phi^{(n)} $,
where $D^0$ is one of
  the harmonic derivatives
\begin{eqnarray}
D^{++}=u^{+i}\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{- i}} ~,\quad
D^{--}=u^{- i}\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{+ i}} ~,\quad
D^0&=&u^{+i}\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{+i}}-u^{-i}
\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{-i}} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
which form a basis in the space of left-invariant vector fields on $\mathsf{SU}(2)$.

Associated with the descendant \eqref{2.12} is the harmonic superfield
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{++ \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} = u^+_i u^+_j  J^{ij \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)}
\label{2.18}
\end{eqnarray}
with the following properties:
\begin{subequations} \label{2.19}
\begin{eqnarray}
&D^+_\beta J^{++ \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} =0~, \qquad \bar D^+_\bd J^{++ \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} =0~,
\label{2.19a}\\
&D^{++} J^{++ \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} =0~, \label{2.19b}\\
&\pa_{\beta\bd} J^{++ \alpha(m)\beta  \ad(n) \bd} =0~. \label{2.19c}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}

In the case of the hypermultiplet supercurrent \eqref{HMSC}, its descendant
$J^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)} $ has the form:
\begin{align}
\label{analyticdescendant}
J^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)} = {\rm i}^{s+1} \sum_{k=0}^{s+1} (-1)^k {s+1 \choose k}^2 \pa^{(\alpha_1(\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} q^+ \pa^{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_{s+1}) \ad_{s+1})} \breve{q}^{+}~,
\end{align}
where $\breve{q}{}^+ = -{\bar q}^i u^+_i$ is the smile-conjugate of $q^+=q^iu^+_i$. It obeys the Grassmann analyticity constraints \eqref{2.19a}
since the on-shell hypermultiplet superfields $q^+$ and $\breve{q}^+$ are Grassmann analytic. It obeys the constraint \eqref{2.19b} since both $q^+$ and $\breve{q}^+$ are annihilated by $D^{++}$. Finally, the explicit dependence of $J^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)} $ on spacetime derivatives guarantees the fulfilment of \eqref{2.19c}.

Now we reproduce the current superfield for the massless hypermultiplet given in
\cite{BIZ3}
\begin{align}
J^{++ \alpha(s+1) \ad(s+1)}_{\rm BIZ} &= - \frac{{\rm i}^{\frac{1 - (-1)^s}{2}}}{2}
\Big \{ q^{+} \partial^{(\alpha_1(\ad_1} \dots \partial^{\alpha_{s+1})\ad_{s+1})} \breve{q}^+
- (-1)^s \breve{q}^{+} \partial^{(\alpha_1(\ad_1} \dots \partial^{\alpha_{s+1})\ad_{s+1})} {q}^+
\nonumber \\
&\phantom{=} + \xi (1 - (-1)^s) \partial^{(\alpha_1(\ad_1} \dots \partial^{\alpha_{s+1})\ad_{s+1})} (q^+ \breve{q}^+) \Big \} ~,
\label{2.21}
\end{align}
where $\xi$ is a real parameter. It satisfies only the equations \eqref{2.19a} and \eqref{2.19b}.
Therefore, at the component level it contains a single conserved current.
It is  defined to be the $\theta$-independent component of \eqref{2.144} and satisfies only the conservation equation
\eqref{2.155a}.

Actually, there are $2 \lfloor \frac{s+3}{2} \rfloor$ linearly independent real
 superfields of the given tensor structure,
 ${\mathfrak J}^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)}$,
  that satisfy the same equations \eqref{2.19a} and \eqref{2.19b}. Their general form is
\begin{align}
\label{2.24}
{\mathfrak J}^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)} =
\sum_{k=0}^{s+1}
c_k\,
\pa^{(\alpha_1(\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\alpha_k \ad_k} q^+ \pa^{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \pa^{\alpha_{s+1}) \ad_{s+1})} \breve{q}^{+} = \breve{\mathfrak J}^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)}
~,
\end{align}
with arbitrary coefficients $c_k$ modulo natural reality conditions.
It is natural to ask the question:
What is special about the supercurrent \eqref{2.21}?

The supercurrent \eqref{2.21} was derived in \cite{BIZ3}
via the Noether procedure, which involved making used of the rigid symmetries of the hypermultiplet introduced in \cite{BIZ2}.
Without requiring the hypermultiplet transformation laws to be compatible with the $\cN=2$ superconformal symmetry, there is a huge freedom in the structure of such rigid
symmetries of the hypermultiplet and, as a result, in the explicit form of cubic interaction vertices and associated conserved currents. In Refs. \cite{BIZ3,BIZ2}, the authors fixed a particular non-conformal family of rigid symmetries of the hypermultiplet.
Consequently,
the corresponding conserved currents \eqref{2.21} are non-primary, which is in contrast to the multiplet \eqref{HMSC}.\footnote{We refer the reader to \cite{KPR} for a study of the Noether procedure for matter coupled to (super)conformal higher-spin fields with manifest (super)conformal invariance.} Other currents \eqref{2.24} correspond to different choices of rigid symmetries of the hypermultiplet.

A general local solution to the equations \eqref{2.19} is given by \eqref{2.18}
in which $J^{ij \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} $ has the form
\begin{subequations} \label{2.23}
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{ij}_{ \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} &=& D^{ij} \Phi_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} +
\bar D^{ij} \bar \Psi_{ \alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} ~, \label{2.23a} \\
\bar D_j^\bd  \Phi_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} &=&0~, \qquad
\bar D_j^\bd  \Psi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m+1)} =0~,  \label{2.23b}\\
  \Phi_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)} &=& \pa^{\beta_1}{}_{\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\beta_{n+1}}{}_{\ad_{n+1}}
  \pa_{(\beta_1}{}^{\bd_1} \dots \pa_{\beta_{n+1}}{}^{\bd_{n+1}}
 \phi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{m+1}) \bd_1 \dots \bd_{n+1} }~, \label{2.23c}\\
 \Psi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m+1)} &=& \pa^{\beta_1}{}_{\ad_1} \dots \pa^{\beta_{m+1}}{}_{\ad_{m+1}}
  \pa_{(\beta_1}{}^{\bd_1} \dots \pa_{\beta_{m+1}}{}^{\bd_{m+1}}
 \psi_{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_{n+1}) \bd_1 \dots \bd_{m+1} }~,\label{2.23d}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
with $\phi_{\alpha(m+1) \ad(n+1)}$ and $  \psi_{\alpha(n+1) \ad(m+1)} $ being arbitrary chiral superfields.
In the $m=n$ case, these chiral superfields coincide.
The relations \eqref{2.23c} and \eqref{2.23d} are not included if only the constraints \eqref{2.19a} and \eqref{2.19b} are imposed, as in the case of \eqref{2.21}.

\section{Non-conformal higher-spin supercurrents} \label{section3}

This section is devoted to an analysis of non-conformal higher-spin supercurrents for the massive hypermultiplet. Additionally, by making use of the results of the previous subsection, the modified conservation law of the analytic descendant \eqref{analyticdescendant} is derived.

Before turning to the higher-spin story, it is worth recalling the explicit structure of the non-conformal supercurrent \cite{BK-AdS} in the $\cN=2$ supergravity formulation of \cite{deWPV}.
This supergravity formulation makes use of two compensators:
 the vector multiplet  and the tensor multiplet.
In the superspace setting, the Weyl multiplet is described in terms of the conformal prepotential $\cH $, which is real and unconstrained.  The vector multiplet is described using Mezincescu's prepotential $\cV_{ij}$, which is a real iso-triplet. The prepotentials for the tensor multiplet are a chiral scalar $\Psi$ and its conjugate. The supercurrent conservation equation, which corresponds to a matter model with action $S$, was derived in \cite{BK-AdS} and has the form
(with $\cW$ and $\cG^{ij}$ being the field strengths of the vector and tensor compensators, respectively)
\begin{align}
\label{N2current}
\frac{1}{4} (\bar \cD^{ij} + 4 \bar S^{ij}) \cJ = \cW \cT^{ij} - \cG^{ij} \cY~,
\end{align}
where $\cJ$ denotes the supercurrent, while $\cT^{ij}$ and $\cY$ are the trace multiplets.
\begin{eqnarray}
\cJ = \frac{{ \delta} S}{{ \delta}\cH }~, \qquad \cT^{ij} = \frac{{\delta} S}{{\delta} \cV_{ij} }~,
\qquad \cY = \frac{{\delta} S}{{\delta} \Psi }~.
\end{eqnarray}
The multiplet $\cJ$ and $\cT_{ij}$ must be real,  and $\cY$ covariantly  chiral.
In addition, $\cY$ and $\cT_{ij}$ must obey the constraints
\begin{subequations}
\begin{gather}\label{eq_CurrentConstraints}
\cD_\alpha{}^{(k} \cT^{ij)} = \bar\cD_\ad{}^{(k} \cT^{ij)} = 0 ~,\\
(\cD^{ij} + 4 S^{ij})\cY = (\bar \cD^{ij} + 4 \bar S^{ij})\bar\cY~.
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}

In the higher-spin case, we know the analogue of $\cH$, which is the superconformal prepotential
$H_{\alpha(s) \ad(s)}$, though we do not know yet the higher-spin analogues of the compensators $\cV_{ij}$ and $\Psi$. We hope to learn about their structure by analysing non-conformal higher-spin supercurrents.

\subsection{The massive hypermultiplet}

In flat superspace, it is possible to endow
a hypermultiplet with a mass by coupling it to a `frozen' vector multiplet \`a la \cite{BK97}. This approach is most useful to deal with off-shell hypermultiplets without intrinsic central charge, such as the $q^+$ hypermultiplet \cite{GIKOS} and the polar hypermultiplet (see \cite{G-RRWLvU,K2010} and references therein).
It can also be used for the Fayet-Sohnius hypermultiplet \cite{Fayet, Sohnius78}
which suffices for our goals.
To this end, we introduce the gauge covariant derivatives
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{D}_A = (\bm{D}_a,\bm{D}_\alpha^i,\bar{\bm{D}}^{\ad}_i) = D_A +V_A \Delta ~,
\label{3.1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta$ is a central charge operator, $[\Delta, \bm{D}_A] = 0$. The covariant derivatives $\bm{D}_A$ are characterised by the anti-commutation relations
\begin{subequations}\label{VMAlgebra}
\begin{eqnarray}
&\{ \bm{D}_\alpha^i , \bm{D}_\beta^j \} = - 2 \ve^{ij} \ve_{\alpha\beta}  \bar{\bm{W}}_0 \Delta ~,
\quad \{{\bar {\bm D}}_{\dot \alpha i} \, ,  {\bar {\bm D}}_{\dot  \beta j} \} = - 2
\ve_{ij}\, \ve_{\dot \alpha \dot \beta} {\bm W}_0 \Delta  ~,
\\
& \{ \bm{D}_\alpha^i , \bar{\bm{D}}^\bd_j \} = - 2 {\rm i} \delta_j^i \bm{D}_\alpha{}^\bd ~,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $\bm{W}_0$ is a constant non-zero parameter.
The gauge freedom may be used to bring the gauge-covariant derivatives to the form
\begin{subequations}\label{CCcovder1}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm D}_\alpha^i &=& \phantom{-} \frac{\pa}{\pa \theta^{\alpha}_i}
+ {\rm i} \,(\sigma^b )_{\alpha \bd} \, {\bar \theta}^{\dot \beta i}\, \pa_b
- \theta^i_\alpha \,\bar{\bm W}_0  \Delta  = D^i_\alpha - \theta^i_\alpha \,\bar{\bm  W}_0   \Delta~,
\\
{\bar {\bm D}}_{\dot \alpha i} &=&
- \frac{\pa}{\pa {\bar \theta}^{\dot \alpha i}}
- {\rm i} \, \theta^\beta _i (\sigma^b )_{\beta \dot \alpha} \,\pa_b
+{\bar \theta}_{\dot \alpha i} \,  {\bm W}_0  \Delta = {\bar D}_{\ad i}+ {\bar \theta}_{\dot \alpha i} \,{\bm W}_0   \Delta ~. ~~~
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Without loss of generality, it is possible to choose
\begin{equation}
\bm{W}_0 = {\rm i}~.
\end{equation}

To describe a massive hypermultiplet,  the constraints \eqref{HM1} should be replaced with
\begin{equation}
\label{HMVM}
\bm{D}_{\alpha}^{(i} q^{j)} = 0~, \quad \bar{\bm{D}}_{\ad}^{(i} q^{j)} = 0~.
\end{equation}
An important consequence of \eqref{HMVM} is
\begin{eqnarray}
(\bm{D}^a \bm{D}_a + \Delta^2 ) {q}^i = 0 ~.
\end{eqnarray}
This is just a different way of looking at the Fayet-Sohnius hypermultiplet \cite{Fayet, Sohnius78}.
Thus, requiring that $q^i$ is an eigenvector of $\Delta$ (with non-zero eigenvalue)
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta q^i = {\rm i} m q^i ~, \qquad m \in \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}~,
\end{eqnarray}
is equivalent to endowing the hypermultiplet with a mass,
\begin{eqnarray}
(\bm{D}^a \bm{D}_a - m^2 ) q^i = 0~.
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed, in the realisation \eqref{CCcovder1} we have ${\bm D}_a = \pa_a$.

Having formulated the massive hypermultiplet above,
its higher-spin supercurrents are derived from \eqref{HMSC} by performing the replacement $D_A \rightarrow \bm{D}_A$. They satisfy the conservation equations
\begin{subequations} \label{3.9}
\begin{eqnarray}
s=0:& \qquad {D}^{ij} J = {\rm i} \mathbb{T}^{ij} ~, \label{3.9a}\\
s>0:& \qquad {D}_\beta^i J^{\alpha(s-1) \beta \ad(s)} = {\rm i} \bar{{D}}^{(\ad_1}_j T^{ ij \,\alpha(s-1) \ad_2 \dots \ad_s)} + \bar{{D}}^{(\ad_1 i} S^{\alpha(s-1) \ad_2 \dots \ad_s)} ~, \label{3.9b}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where we have introduced the real supertrace multiplets\footnote{The supertrace $\mathbb{T}^{ij}$ was first derived in \cite{KT}.}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mathbb{T}^{ij} &= 4 m {\rm i} q^{(i} \bar{q}^{j)} ~, \\
T_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}^{ij} &= m {\rm i}^{s} \sum_{k=0}^{s-1} \frac{(-1)^{k+1} (2k-s+1)s(s+1)(s+2)}{6(k+1)(k+2)(s-k+1)(s-k)} {s-1 \choose k}^2  \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \times \bm{D}_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \bm{D}_{\alpha_k \ad_k} q^{(i}
\bm{D}_{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \bm{D}_{\alpha_{s-1}) \ad_{s-1})} \bar{q}^{j)} ~, \\
S_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)} &= m {\rm i}^{s-1} \sum_{k=0}^{s-1} \frac{(-1)^{k+1} s (s+1)(s+2)(s+3)}{4(k+1)(k+2)(s-k+1)(s-k)} {s-1 \choose k}^2  \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \times \bm{D}_{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1} \dots \bm{D}_{\alpha_k \ad_k} q^i
\bm{D}_{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \bm{D}_{\alpha_{s-1}) \ad_{s-1})} \bar{q}_i ~.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
These multiplets are neutral with respect to the central charge. They satisfy the following differential constraints:
\begin{subequations} \label{3.11}
\begin{align}
{D}_\beta^{(i} \mathbb{T}^{jk)} &= 0 ~, \qquad \bar{{D}}_\bd^{(i} \mathbb{T}^{jk)} = 0~,\label{3.11a} \\
{D}_\beta^{(i} T_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}^{ jk)} &= 0 ~, \qquad
\bar{{D}}_\bd^{(i}  T_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}^{ jk)} = 0~,
\label{3.11b} \\
{D}^{ij} S_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)} &= \bar{{D}}^{ij} S_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}
~.
\label{3.11c}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The latter implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{ij}_{\alpha (s-1) \ad(s-1) } :=
\frac{1}{4} D^{ij} S_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}
= \frac 14 \bar{D}^{ij} S_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}
\end{eqnarray}
is a linear multiplet with respect to its $\mathsf{SU}(2)$ indices
\begin{eqnarray}
{D}_\beta^{(i} S_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}^{ jk)} &= 0 ~,
\qquad
\bar{{D}}_\bd^{(i}  S_{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)}^{ jk)} = 0~.
\label{3.133}
\end{eqnarray}

It should be emphasised that there might be a different functional form for the right-hand side of \eqref{3.9b}. This will be discussed elsewhere.

\subsection{Linear descendants}

Let us analyse the massive hypermultiplet supercurrents introduced in the previous subsection.
 As in the massless case, we can introduce the descendant $ J_{ij}^{\alpha(s+1) \ad(s+1)}$, which is defined by the rule \eqref{2.12}, and the associated harmonic superfield $J^{++ \alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)}$,  eq. \eqref{2.18}.
 \begin{align}
	J^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)} = {\rm i}^{s+1} \sum_{k=0}^{s+1} (-1)^k {s+1 \choose k}^2 \bm{D}^{(\alpha_1(\ad_1} \dots \bm{D}^{\alpha_k \ad_k} q^+ \bm{D}^{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \bm{D}^{\alpha_{s+1}) \ad_{s+1})} \breve{q}^{+}~,
\end{align}
which is obtained from \eqref{analyticdescendant} upon the replacement $\partial_a \rightarrow \bm{D}_a$.
 Making use of the conservation equations \eqref{3.9} and \eqref{3.11},
it is seen that $J^{++ \alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)}$ still obeys the constraints \eqref{2.19a} and \eqref{2.19b}. However, the constraint \eqref{2.19c} does not hold anymore. It is replaced with
\begin{align}
\label{3.12}
\pa_{{\beta\bd}} J^{++ \alpha(s)\beta\ad(s)\bd} = \frac{s}{s+1}
\pa^{(\alpha_1 (\ad_1}S^{++\alpha_2 \dots \alpha{s})  \ad_2 \dots \ad_s)}~.
\end{align}
The relations \eqref{3.11a} and \eqref{3.11b} tell us that the harmonic superfields
$\mathbb{T}^{++} := u^+_iu^+_j \mathbb{T}^{ij}  $ and $T^{++\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)} := u^+_i u^+_j T^{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1) ij}  $ are analytic. For $s>0$ the trace multiplets $S^{\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)} $
and  $T^{++\alpha(s-1) \ad(s-1)} $ are related to each other as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
D^+_\beta \bar D^{+ (\ad_1} S^{\alpha (s-2)  \beta \ad_2 \dots \ad_{s-1}) }
+ 3 \pa_\beta{}^{(\ad_1} T^{++\alpha (s-2 ) \beta  \ad_2 \dots \ad_{s-1})} =0~.
\end{eqnarray}

These results should also be compared with those for the massive hypermultiplet given in
\cite{BIZ3}. In particular, we expect that they belong to the family of superfields
obtained from \eqref{2.24} upon the replacement $\partial_a \rightarrow \bm{D}_a$
\begin{align}
	{\mathfrak J}^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)} =
	\sum_{k=0}^{s+1}
	c_k\,
	\bm{D}^{(\alpha_1(\ad_1} \dots \bm{D}^{\alpha_k \ad_k} q^+ \bm{D}^{\alpha_{k+1} \ad_{k+1}} \dots \bm{D}^{\alpha_{s+1}) \ad_{s+1})} \breve{q}^{+} = \breve{\mathfrak J}^{++\alpha(s+1)\ad(s+1)}
	~.
\end{align}
It is clear that these multiplets obey the constraints \eqref{2.19a} and \eqref{2.19b}, though they do not satisfy an analogue
of \eqref{3.12}. Hence, it is not clear what is special about the non-conformal supercurrents employed in \cite{BIZ3}.

\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements:}
We are grateful to Michael Ponds for useful discussions.
The work of SK is supported in part by the Australian
Research Council, project No. DP200101944.
The work of ER is supported by the Hackett Postgraduate Scholarship UWA,
under the Australian Government Research Training Program.


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
We are interested in solving a multi-agent learning (MAL) problem related to the SMARTS environment~\cite{b1}. The main motivation for choosing this project was that despite the immense amount of deep learning architecture, the Autonomous Vehicle industry has yet to bring more Autonomous Vehicles on road. This majorly stems from the problems that arise when different agents interact with each other. This can further have a corresponding effect of the agents being non-cooperative with each other. Further, interpretability issues arise due to both of these which leads market stakeholders to invest less in the Autonomous Vehicle industry. This has been represented in fig.~\ref{fig:1}. Hence, till today there has been no fully automated vehicle on road. Further, only 54.2 million semi-Automated Vehicles~\footnote{Statistics taken from the website \url{https://www.statista.com/statistics/1230664/projected-number-autonomous-cars-worldwide/}} are projected to be there in 2024 which makes this a bleak future for the AV industry. Hence, we explore two different types of policies in the field of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) and propose a way to work their explainability for future use-cases. We plan to open-source the code after extending and getting this research published. The simulations will be made available at that time as well.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1.png}
\caption{Motivation}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
The SMARTS (abb. Scalable Multi-Agent RL Training School) environment actually creates several scenarios such as the ones given in fig~\ref{fig:2}. It also defines different levels for different types of RL agents in Autonomous Vehicle literature as given below in table~\ref{tab:1}.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2.png}
\caption{Scenarios}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure*}

\begin{table*}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{c @{\extracolsep{\fill}} cc}
\toprule
\textbf{Level} & \textbf{Description} & \textbf{Possible RL Approaches}\\
\midrule
\textbf{M0} & Rule-based Planning & Not Applicable\\
\textbf{M1} & Single-Agent Learning w/o coordinated learning & Agent implicitly learns to anticipate other agent's actions according to our car and then takes the next steps\\
\textbf{M2} & Multi-Agent Modelling w Opponent Modelling & MARL to model learning of our agent using other agents, e.g., ``how likely to our car is to yield if their lane starts to change''\\
\textbf{M3} & Coordinated MAL w/ independent execution & Coordinated Learning of what to expect of each other even if no explicit coordination, e.g., some cars will leave some gap\\
\textbf{M4} & Local Equilibrium oriented MAL & Learn as a local group towards a certain equilibrium for double merge scenarios, etc.\\
\textbf{M5} & Social Welfare-oriented MAL & Learning broader repercussions of the car's actions\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Different levels of Multi-Agent Learning in Autonomous Driving discussed in the SMARTS environment~\cite{b1}}
\label{tab:1}
\end{table*}

The contributions of this project are three-fold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We implement a Multi-Agent algorithm for Proximal Policy Optimization and Deep Deterministic Policy Gradients (using Prioritized Replay Buffers)
\item We compare their performance on the 4 evaluation metrics given in the SMARTS environment
\item Further, we discuss the explainability of the better algorithm for MARL
\end{enumerate}
The rest of the report is structured as follows. Section~\ref{sec:2} discusses the main problem statement of this research project effort. Section~\ref{sec:3} discusses the problems and challenges faced when working on this project. We discuss our solutions to this problem formulation in~\ref{sec:4}. We further list our results in section~\ref{sec:5} and compare them with the results obtained in the official challenge that NeurIPS organized. Then, we briefly discuss the explainability aspect that this problem can take from here on in section \ref{sec:6}. Conclusively, section \ref{sec:7} discusses the conclusions and reasons why our method falls short of the state-of-the-art results.

\section{Problem Definition}
\label{sec:2}
This project aimed to develop methods using different simulation environment data from SMARTS~\cite{b1} to innovate autonomous driving multi-agent that drive to their destination as safely and quickly as possible while following all the rules of the traffic system. For this formulation, the algorithms were evaluated on 4 different metrics, namely Completion, Time, Humanness, and Rules. All these metrics are discussed in detail in Section~\ref{sec:5}. This project leverages the SMARTS docker containers for simulations\footnote{\url{https://github.com/huawei-noah/SMARTS/tree/comp-1} (accessed: October 20, 2022)}. Further, a lot of different methods of environment setup (Docker, Singularity, and WSL direct setup) were tried for different reasons that have been mentioned in the next section.

\section{Technical Challenges}
\label{sec:3}
During working on this project, we faced several challenges which have been mentioned below.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item We were faced with the most striking requirement of GPU compute as the computation involved in any RL algorithm can take days to train on a normal CPU. For this, we had to further divide our approach into three steps.
    \begin{itemize}
    \item We first trained for 1000 episodes on the general system and ran a simulation while the model was training using Envision Sumo.
    \item Then, we took the model used for our approach to the Singularity on HPC.
    \item The model weights were then transferred to our system to check the model performance on the envision server since a GUI wasn't available on the HPC client.
    \end{itemize}
    \item Since there are multiple setups that can help us run the Envision Server, we were able to successfully run the competition environment but there were some files missing and version inconsistencies in different branches in the GitHub repository (till November 3, 2022; the competition end date ended up being postponed by a week due to this) and hence we weren't able to efficiently work at that time.
    \item With the baseline (Single Agent) that SMARTS proposes, there were issues with finding which approach works well. Further, the Ray package and TensorFlow packages can have conflicting dependencies for some versions. Hence, Version Control was vital for this research project.
\end{enumerate}

\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig3.png}
\caption{Schematic Diagram for MAPPO using  Ray and TensorFlow environments (taken from the blog in the footnotes)}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4.png}
\caption{Schematic Diagram for MADDPG taken from the research here~\cite{b14}}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure*}

\section{Proposed Solution and Methodology}
\label{sec:4}
This section discusses the solution that the authors of this research project proposed for training the policies for the SMARTS environment. The authors used 2 different types of algorithms, namely, MAPPO (Multi-Agent Proximal Policy Optimization) and MADDPG (Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient) for MAL and learning the policies. These have been discussed briefly below for the two algorithms mentioned in table~\ref{tab:2}.

\subsection{Multi-Agent Proximal Policy Optimization}
\label{sec:4.1}
Proximal Policy Optimization is a class of on-policy Reinforcement Learning algorithms that uses some of the advantages of Trust Region Policy Optimization (TRPO)~\cite{b2, b3, b4}. This set of algorithms alternates between sampling data from the environment through interactions, and optimizing a ``surrogate'' objective function that enables multiple epochs of minibatch updates. For more information about the algorithm, it is advised to read the original paper by OpenAI~\cite{b4}. Further, an adaptive clipping approach for PPO~\cite{b5} was developed later by building on prior works. After the inception of PPO, there have been various cooperative and Multi-Agent Proximal Policy Optimization implementations for various use cases such as targeted localization~\cite{b6}, Online scheduling for Production~\cite{b7}, Health-care~\cite{b8}. Moreover, there has been a combination of Convolutions with RL approaches such as CMAPPO (Convolutional Multi-Agent PPO)~\cite{b9} which learn an objective based on learning and exploring a new environment most effectively by combining various domains such as Convolutions (for RGBD+ information), Curriculum-based Learning, and Motivation-based Reinforcement Learning. Finally, there have been approaches that use the replay buffers approach from Deep Deterministic Policy Gradients (off-policy method)~\cite{b11} for the task of cooperative MARL\footnote{Github  source code can be found here \url{https://github.com/marlbenchmark/on-policy}}~\cite{b12}.
For implementing MAPPO, we referred to various sources to implement an architecture as given in the fig~\ref{fig:3}~\footnote{Blog read: \url{https://medium.com/analytics-vidhya/deep-multi-agent-reinforcement-learning-with-tensorflow-agents-1d4a91734d1f} and GitHub repository: \url{https://github.com/rmsander/marl_ppo.git}}. Further, OpenAI's Gym was used during the experiments for testing and tutorial purposes for understanding the various aspects of Multi-Agent Training and Self-Training for Open World Models~\cite{b13}\footnote{Github Page for the World Model which leverages MDN, CNN-VAE, and RL techniques for various RL-based simulations: https://worldmodels.github.io/}.

Apart from the approaches discussed above, there has been recent work on integrating the Actor-Critic method with the PPO RL paradigm that are beyond the scope of this project but should be able to guide this project in several future directions.

\subsection{Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradients (with Priority-based Replay buffers)}
\label{sec:4.2}
MADDPG is composed of various agents interacting cooperatively for MARL scenarios. It is composed of DDPG~\cite{b11} for multiple agents which interact with each other in a cooperative environment. It is an off-policy RL approach as opposed to MAPPO as it learns the value of the optimal policy independent of the agent's actions\footnote{Difference given here: \url{https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/184657/what-is-the-difference-between-off-policy-and-on-policy-learning}}. Before discussing the term MAPPO, it should be interesting to get some background for Q-learning since DDPG is based on Q-learning~\footnote{Blog Post for introduction to Q-Learning: \url{https://medium.com/intro-to-artificial-intelligence/q-learning-a-value-based-reinforcement-learning-algorithm-272706d835cf}}. Since it's a model-free off-policy actor-critic algorithm that integrates the benefits of Deterministic Policy Gradients~\cite{b15} with the Deep Q-Networks (DQNs). Being an off-policy algorithm, it separately learns stochastic behavior policy for exploration and deterministic policy for target updates~\cite{b16}. Further, according to the original article, it maintains a replay buffer based on the temporal difference. But in our use case, we keep a priority list for this temporal replay buffer based on the number of accidents, rule violations, completion time, and jerks much like what had been done for MAPPO~\cite{b17}.\\
There has been a considerable extension to the MADDPG paradigm where recurrent DPGs were used for complex environments like Cognitive Electronic Warfare~\cite{b18} and Partially Observable Environments for Communication systems~\cite{b19}. A mixed environment approach was taken for complex environments using MADDPG~\cite{b20}, whereas Decomposed Approach was introduced for learning multi-agent policies for UAV clusters to build a connected communication network~\cite{b21}. Further, these set of algorithms were also discussed in the context of working with smart grids for edge technology~\cite{b22} and have shown to perform considerably well when compared to the other state-of-the-art.

\section{Results and Comparative Analysis}
\label{sec:5}
For the evaluation of the algorithms introduced in section~\ref{sec:4}, we discuss the evaluation metrics we calculated using the evaluation subdirectory on the branch comp-1 under track-1 of the NeurIPS competition. Please note that these approaches are discussed in the context of only online learning (which is listed in task 1 of the NeurIPS competition). So, the evaluation metrics are as given below.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item \textbf{Completion} This represents the completion of the total scenarios and hence can be calculated as the total number of crashes for each episode
    \item \textbf{Time} This metric discusses the total number of steps used by each agent (red cars) for each episode
    \item \textbf{Humannness} It refers to how close are our agents to imitating human-level driving scenarios. It is the average of the total distance to obstacles, angular jerk, linear jerk, and lane center offset for each episode
    \item \textbf{Rules} It refers to the total number of rules violated such as lane changing, Wrong Way, Speed Overlimit for each episode.
\end{enumerate}
It is of importance to note that since we are taking the average for each episode, there can be multiple agents (red cars) in a single episode. This leads to higher values in our evaluation and similar is the case with all other participating teams in the competition. We list our results with both the algorithms in table~\ref{tab:2}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Algorithms} & \textbf{Completion} & \textbf{Time} & \textbf{Humanness} & \textbf{Rules}\\
\midrule
Speed-Direction Meta Controller Policies (TJUDRL lab) & \textbf{0.24 (1)} & \textbf{385.43 (1)} & 8161.24 (16) & 1.03 (12)\\
Waypoints-Trajectory Planning (CNN for Birdview) w/ Safety Score Learning & 0.31 (2) & 467.30 (4) & 4292.02 (12) & 16.96 (17)\\
Interaction-Aware Transformers & 0.32 (3) & 386.43 (2) & \textbf{641.86 (4)} & 0.43 (10)\\
\hline
\textbf{MAPPO (w Replay Buffer and fine-tuning)} & 0.72 (16*) & 723.1 (13*) & 4865.07 (13*) & 0.72 (12*)\\
\textbf{MADDPG (with Priority-based Replay Buffers \& fine-tuning)} & 0.64 (10*) & 746.29 (15*) & 1362.7 (9*) & \textbf{0.22 (9*)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Algorithms used and their comparison with the state-of-the-art winner solutions. The numbers in brackets are the ranks of the algorithm. The (*) represents projected ranks as we weren't able to submit our models to the official competition.}
\label{tab:2}
\end{table*}
It can be seen that MADDPG considerably outperforms MAPPO. This is because the priority experience buffers we explore for this problem statement take the gradients of speed, acceleration, and completion rate to define the priority queues. We further add a few screenshots for simulations for MADDPG in fig~\ref{fig:5}.

\section{On explainability of MADDPG}
\label{sec:6}
We go through several research~\cite{b23, b24, b25} to comment on  the explainability of these deep reinforcement learning approaches to understand the decisions made by MARL policy networks. In our approach, we have used various metric parameters to design the priority experience replay buffer which can help the MADDPG learn the prioritized experience for better results. This is visible in the table~\ref{tab:2}, where we see that our MADDPG approach is able to outperform the top 3 winners of the SMARTS challenge. Further, we also observe better values for \textbf{Humanness} when compared to Top-2 winners. This happens as the priority experience replay buffer encodes the information for implicit explainability (transparent explainability) of the algorithm and post-hoc explainability of the model can be depicted by the blue waypoints as depicted in fig~\ref{fig:5}. This can help appeal to various stakeholders about how the car is taking action in the evaluation scenarios over different periods.

\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
\label{sec:7}
As noted above the results depict that our model falls short of the state-of-the-art approaches. This might be due to several reasons as discussed below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The training for our model didn't converge when we stopped the training. We had to stop the training as the amount of time that we could query an HPC node was about to be exhausted and we had to save the results and get the evaluation scores for the same.
\item The top-2 approaches efficiently leverage Birdeyes view images from the simulation as feedback to change the directions of the car, which we haven't integrated into our model. This can lead to suboptimal performances.
\item Finally, suboptimal hyperparameters of the approaches that we leverage might lead to local minima rather than getting global minima.
\end{enumerate}
We plan to work on this project further and extend its scope twofold. First, we plan to implement a CV algorithm to reinforce the RL strategies with additional heuristics (left, right, keep) as is done in the best approach. Secondly, after getting feedback from the professor, we'd like to work on evolutionary computing for this approach. For example, these approaches can include Parameter-Exploring Policy Gradients with or without CV reinforcement~\cite{b26, b27}. We can also tune the hyperparameter search using evolutionary techniques like Genetic Algorithms, Particle Swarm Optimization, CMAES, Gray Wolf Optimization, etc (given enough GPU compute).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{fig5.png}
  \caption{Highway Merge scenario}
  \label{fig:sub1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{fig6.png}
  \caption{Zoo Intersection Scenario}
  \label{fig:sub2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Simulation results for MADDPG (w Priority Experience Replay Buffers)}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure*}

\section*{Acknowledgment}

We thank Prof Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh for his continuous support during the duration of the course CSCI513. We also thank the course TAs--Xin Qin and Aniruddh Puranic, for their continuous support and accommodation during the duration of the course CSCI513. We thank USC for providing the services for High-Performance Computing for the purpose of this project.


\section{History of the problems}\label{sec1}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

The distributions with heavy (power-like) tails in social sciences were used more than hundred years.

Relevant studies include the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] Distribution of big capital. Pareto, 1896 (see \cite{Pa})). The density is $p(x)=\frac{\alpha}{x_o}\Bigl(\frac{x_o}{x}\Bigr)^{\alpha+1}$, for $x\geq x_o$, $\alpha>0$.
\item[2.] Scientific production. The number of scientists who published one, two and so on $x$ papers ( the number $x$ published by scientist papers). Lotka (1926) (see \cite{Lo}) showed that $n(x) = n_1/x^a$, where $n_1>0$, $a \leq 2$  (in many cases  $a \approx 2$).
\item[3.] Lotka's law approximately holds for the number of citations of a paper by a scientist.
\item[4.] For a specific artistic text, the sequence of all words is written in descending order according to the frequency of their occurrence. Comparing the frequency of the word and the place in this sequence (rank) leads to  $x=B/r$, $B = const$ (see \cite{Zi}).
\end{itemize}

Why do these patterns emerge?
Probably, Laws 1 - 3 refer to some individual human abilities, while Law 4 refers to memory or other functions of the human brain.

\vspace{0.2cm}
We will not consider the 4th law in the paper and will focus on laws 1 and 3, more precisely on their qualitative explanation. It is so because Zipf explained his Law based on the least effort principle. Although there are no rigorous results on the existence of a mechanism related to this principle in the human brain, not wasting memory seems natural.
However, the application of the the least effort principle in cases 1-3 does not seem to be related to the essence of the issues under consideration.

\vspace{0.2cm}
At first glance, everything looks quite simple. The population of a country is heterogeneous. There are people more capable of business (in case 1) or scientific work (in cases 2, 3) and people who are not (or less capable) of such activities.

\vspace{0.2cm}
But how big is the difference in ability, and are all differences in "success" determined by ability?

\vspace{0.2cm}
Let's remember the epigraph!

\vspace{0.2cm}
Is there an effect of chance?
First, let's focus on the 1st law. Let's try to build a model that explains the reason for its occurrence.

However, the income and the capital distribution are subject to many factors not fully accounted for. Our interest is not in the whole mechanism of accumulation and distribution of capital but in the roles of human talent and chance in this process only. How essential are these roles? Therefore, we have to use a toy model which assumes all people have identical abilities. If the role of chance is small, then there will not be many variations in the model between different investors. In contradiction, if we see a large difference between investors, this will indicate a significant role of chance.

\section{Toy model for capital distribution}\label{sec2}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

Let us consider the first toy model of capital distribution leading to the Pareto law.

Suppose for simplicity that there exists only one business. All possible investors are equal in their talents and initial capital. Consider the case when each investor invests one unit of capital in the business. After one time-unit, the business outcome is $X_1$, where $X_1$ is a random variable. Suppose the investor left all this sum into business, and the conditions on the market remain the same during the following time interval. Then the outcome after the second-time interval is $X_1\cdot X_2$, where $X_1$ and $X_2$ are independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. In the same way, the outcome after the n-th time interval is $\prod_{i=1}^{n}X_ j$, and $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n$ are i.i.d. random variables. Let us suppose that the conditions on the market will change radically at a random moment $\nu_p$ so that investing in that business becomes not profitable.
Therefore, the final outcome is $\prod_{j=1}^{\nu_p}X_j$. We are interested in the outcome behavior for large $\nu_p$ values.
More precisely, we suppose that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbf{X}=\{X_1, X_2, \ldots , X_n, \ldots \}$ is a sequence of i.i.d. positive random variables, $a=\E \log X_1$;
\item $\nu=\{ \nu_p, p\in \Delta \subset (0,1)\}$ is a family of positive integer-valued random variables independent with the sequence $\mathbf{X}$, $\E \nu_p =1/p$.

\vspace{0.2 cm}
Generally, the information on the $\nu$--family is unavailable.  We shall consider a few cases starting with a simple one.
\item $\p\{\nu_p=k\}=p\cdot (1-p)^{k-1}$, $k=1,2,\ldots$ i.e. $\nu_p$ has geometric distribution.
\end{enumerate}

Define $Z_p=\prod_{j=1}^{\nu_p}X_j^p$.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{thm}\label{th1}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
Suppose that the items 1. -- 3. hold. Let $a\neq 0$. Then
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\[ \lim_{p \to 0}\p\{Z_p<x\} =1-x^{-1/a}, \; \text{for}\;x \geq 1,\; a>0 \]
\vspace{-0.2cm}
and
\[ \lim_{p \to 0}\p\{Z_p<x\} =x^{1/a}, \; \text{for}\;x \leq 1,\; a<0 .\]
\end{thm}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
In the case of $a>0$ (profitable business), we have a Pareto distribution which Wilfredo Pareto had proposed on the basis of empirical study (see \cite{Pa}).  For the proof of
Theorem \ref{th1} see \cite{KMR}. In the paper, \cite{KMR} is obtained the result for $a=0$. For this case $Z_p$ must be changed by $Z_p^{\prime}=\prod_{j=1}^{\nu_p}X_j^{\sqrt{p}}$. Under the condition of the existence of logarithmic second moment of $X_1$ the product $Z_p^{\prime}$ converges in distribution to the mixture of the given in Theorem \ref{th1} distributions. It is well-known that Pareto distribution has heavy tails. This fact implies that capital belongs to a relatively small number of people. Now we see Pareto distribution appears in a very natural way described as a limit distribution for a product of a random number $\nu_p$ of random variables $X_j$. The value of $\nu_p$, $p \in (0, 1)$ in 3. had a geometric distribution. What will happen with others ("natural") distributions? Below we consider two additional cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[4.] $\nu_p$ has a probability generating function
\[ \mathcal{P}(z,p,m) =\frac{p^{1/m}z }{(1-(1-p)z^m))^{1/m}}, \quad p\in (0,1), \quad m \in \mathbb{N}.\]
\item[5.] $\nu_p$ has a probability generating function
\[ \mathcal{P}(z,n) =\frac{1}{T_n(1/z)}, \]
where $T_n(u)$ is Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind and $n=1/\sqrt{p}$ is its degree. $\E \nu_p = 1/p$.
\end{enumerate}

Let us consider case 4. The following result holds.
\begin{thm}\label{th2} Suppose that the items 1., 2. and 4. hold. Let $a\neq 0$. Then
\[  \lim_{p \to 0}\p\{Z_p<x\} =\int_{1}^{x}\frac{1}{b^{1/m}\Gamma(1/m)u^{1+1/m}\log^{1-1/m}(u)}du, \; \text{for}\;x \geq 1, \]
where $b>0$ is a parameter.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Consider $\log Z_p = p \sum_{j=1}^{\nu_p} Y_j$, where $Y_j = \log X_j$. From the result of the paper \cite{Mel} it follows that the limit distribution of $\log Z_p$ as $p \to 0$ has the density
$ \exp\{-u/b\}/\bigl(u^{1-1/m}b^{1/m}\Gamma(1/m)\bigr)$, $u>0$. Now it is sufficient to pass the limit distribution of $Z_p$ from its logarithm density.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{th3}
Suppose that the items 1., 2. and 5. hold. Let $a= 0$ and the second logarithmic moment of $X_1$ exists. Then
\[  \lim_{p \to 0}\p\{Z_p^{\prime}<x\} = \frac{2}{\pi}\arctan(x^b), \quad \text{for}\quad x>0,\]
where $b>0$ is a parameter.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Similarly to the proof of the previous Theorem, we have to pass from $Z_p^{\prime}$ to its logarithm, apply the corresponding result from \cite{KKRT}, and went back to the limit distribution for initial random variables.
\end{proof}

All three models constructed above do not take into account any abilities of the investing in the given enterprise people but lead to heavy-tailed distributions. The difference between investors is only in the occurrence of some unfavorable event for them (moment $\nu_p$). Objection that this moment is the same for the whole store, i.e. it is insolvent for all investors at once because the investors invested in the business at different times. Therefore, the period for which the investment was made is different for each investor. So we see that the dependence on the moment and the case are really very high. I do not deny that the dependence on the talent of the investor is indeed significant, but it would be very difficult to separate this component from random.

\section{Citations distribution}\label{sec3}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

A similar situation occurs when studying the distribution of citations of scientific publications. Let us make some Assumptions.

\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Assumption 1.}

{\it All scientists under consideration are equal in their scientific and literary abilities.}

\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Assumption 2.}

{ \it Paper citations occur independently.}

\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Assumption 3.}
The probability that an article will be repeatedly cited depends on the number of previous citations. It is growing with the growing citations number. More precisely,

{\it Assuming the probability that an article having $\mathit{k-1(k\geq 1)}$ citations will have no further citations is }
\begin{equation*}
	p_{k}=\frac{1}{(a\,k+b)},
\end{equation*}
{\it where$a>0$ a $b\geq 0$ are real numbers satisfying  $a+b>1$}.

Let $Y$ be a random variable describing the number of citations during the considered period. Assumption 1 implicitly de-facto implies that $Y$ has the same distribution for different papers because the scientific abilities of the authors are supposed to be the same.

In view of citation independence, the probability that a paper is cited exactly $n$ times is
\begin{equation*}
	\mathrm{I}\kern-0.18em\mathrm{P}\{Y=n\}=p_{n}\prod_{k=1}^{n-1}(1-p_{k})=
	\frac{\Bigl(\frac{a+b-1}{a}\Bigr)_{n-1}}{(a\,n+b)\Bigl(\frac{a+b}{a} \Bigr)_{n-1}},
\end{equation*}
where $(a)_{n}=a(a+1)\ldots (a+n-1)$ is  Pochhammer symbol.

It is not difficult to calculate the probability
\begin{equation} \label{eq1}
	\mathrm{I}\kern-0.18em\mathrm{P}\{Y\geq m\}=\frac{\Bigl(\frac{a+b-1}{a}\Bigr)_{m-1}}{\Bigl(
		\frac{a+b}{a}\Bigr)_{m-1}} \stackrel[m \to \infty]{}{\thicksim} \frac{\Gamma((a+b)/a)}{\Gamma((a+b-1)/a)}\frac{1}{m^{1/a}} \; .
\end{equation}

Distribution of citations
The relation (\ref{eq1}) shows that the distribution of citations has a heavy tail, the severity of which depends on the value of the parameter $a$ responsible for the degree of influence of previous citations. Therefore, a larger value of $a$ corresponds to a heavier tail. In any case, the presence of such a tail makes it possible to conclude that the citation intensity of almost identical scientists can differ significantly, which leads to a significant stratification of the scientific community through various random circumstances that have nothing to do with research abilities. Thus, the citation number seems meaningless as an indicator of scientific value.

{\bf Make now some remarks on the Impact Factor distribution.}

Let us now consider the possibility of using the impact factor of a journal as an indicator of the scientific significance of a paper published in it. The impact factor of a journal is calculated as the ratio of the number of citations of papers published over a certain period to the number of these papers themselves. The idea of considering such an average value is connected with the idea that, according to the law of large numbers, the influence of chance will be leveled. However, we shall show, this is not true.

Mention that there exists a rather large literature stating the scientific journals' impact factor has essential value. Based on the observed data, the presence of asymmetry in the distribution of the impact factor and the presence of a heavy tail is noted. However, these circumstances are not analyzed from a theoretical point of view, and only comments are made on the advisability of replacing the arithmetic mean with some other statistics for the purpose of statistical data analysis. We note one of the typical works of this kind \cite{Bl}. True, the author notes the similarity of the distribution of some data with the Pareto distribution, but the mathematical analysis of the reasons for its occurrence is not carried out. In addition, not a mathematically strictly defined distribution is considered, but only its "naive" form. Below we will try to clarify the appearance of heavy tails of the impact factor distribution.

We assume that the number of papers submitted to the journal has a Poisson distribution. For simplicity, let us assume that the number of citations for each of the submitted papers has a Sibuya distribution. Then the citation distribution of all papers has a probability generating function that is a superposition of the generating functions of the Sibuya and Poisson laws.
Probability generating function of this superposition is $\mathcal P (z)= e^{ -\lambda (1-z )^{p}}$ for fixed $\lambda>0$ and $p\in (0,1)$. Clearly, this distribution has a heavy tail with index $p$. In view of the fact that $p <1$ the law of large numbers is inapplicable in this situation. Moreover, in this case, the impact factor increases with the number of publications without increasing their scientific significance. The observed increase (over time) in the impact factors of leading journals confirms this circumstance.

Now we can conclude the impact factor distribution has a heavy tail again and cannot be used as an indicator of scientific significance.

\section{Conclusions}\label{sec4}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

\begin{itemize}
	\item[I.] It is shown that distributions with heavy tails can arise in some manifestations of social inequality (the distribution of capital, the number of citations, the impact factor) due to purely random reasons. In this case, the spread in the magnitude of inequality is significant.
	\item[II.]  The circumstance specified in 1. makes it impossible to use such indices as the number of citations and/or the impact factor of a journal as an indicator of the scientific significance (scientific quality) of a published work.
\end{itemize}

\section*{Acknowledgment}\label{secA}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The work by Lev B. Klebanov was partially supported by GA \v{C}R Grant
19-28231X EXPRO.