\section{Introduction:}
The coexistence of competing phases in spatially separated regions is a common phenomenon across first order phase transitions. Such coexistence has been studied in the context of various class of promising  materials, for instance, multiferroics showing strong magnetodielectric coupling,  Mott insulators, artificial spin ice etc. and of course manganites, shape memory alloys showing colossal magneto-resistance, magnetocaloric effects {\color{blue}\cite{Dagotto2002, Ahn2004,SBR2004,Dagotto2005,Lin2018,Zhu2016}}. The increasing research interest in this direction is driven firstly, due to a possibility of technological application arising from tunability of contrasting phases and secondly, these phenomena are not yet fully understood. Control over the volume fraction of the competing phases and identification of the critical parameters are required to rein in their physical properties {\color{blue}\cite{Zang2015,Pandey2003,Lourembam2014,Song2021}} and utilize them in spin valves, memory devices etc {\color{blue}\cite{Yang2019}}. In this context, besides magnetic and electric fields, external pressure can be a very good control parameter due to strong involvement of the underlying lattice in these systems, which has been recently exemplified using strain in La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ {\color{blue}\cite{Hong2020}}. In recent times, advancement in experimental techniques have turned pressure (P) into an additional, as well as important state-of-the-art experimental tool. However, investigation involving the variation of both magnetic field (H) and P along with necessary quantitative understanding is still missing. In this backdrop, manganites can serve as an excellent prototype {\color{blue}\cite{Hong2020,Yang2019,Baldini2012,McLeod2017,Joseph2019,Hong2018,Udalov2020,Zhou2020}}.

Colossal magnetoresistance in Manganites, large magnetocaloric and magnetostriction in various alloys and intermetallics are directly related to the coexistence of metallic-ferromagnetic (FM) and insulating-antiferromagnetic (AFM) phases appearing due to the first order magnetic transition (FOMT) {\color{blue}\cite{SBR2013, Markovich2017,Banik2018}}. In our study, we have combined both H and P to tune and determine the origin of the tunability of the phase coexistence in two well known manganites Pr$_{0.5}$Ca$_{0.5}$Mn$_{0.975}$Al$_{0.025}$O$_{3}$ (PCMAO) and La$_{0.5}$Ca$_{0.5}$MnO$_3$ (LCMO). Our aim is twofold:  How simultaneous application of H and P influence the phase coexistence across the first order transition i.e., across the H-T region where magnetization exhibits thermal hysteresis due to supercooling and superheating phenomena. It is interesting to note further that PCMAO and LCMO show phase coexistence even below the thermal hysteresis which persists down to lowest temperature due to kinetic arrest of the first order phase transition. Therefore, we are also interested on the effect of P and H at the low temperature regime below the hysteresis. Throughout the study, we emphasize on an important fact that in both of these regions (across and below the thermal hysteresis), the phase coexistence is a nonequilibrium phenomenon and the time scale associated with the non-equilibrium dynamics can be tuned by H and P. In addition, a detail quantitative understanding of the volume fraction of the coexisting phases is necessary to exploit the phase coexistence as a device. Here, we have used bulk magnetization value to estimate the volume fraction of the FM-metal and AFM-insulator phases. It may be noted that, until now mostly the surface sensitive techniques, like Hall probe, scanning tunneling microscopy, magnetic force microscopy, photo electron spectroscopy etc. have been used as a probe of phase coexistence {\color{blue}\cite{SBR2004,Dagotto2005,Lin2018,Zhu2016}}, but the surface often contains additional disorder and strain. As a result, the nature of the phase coexistence in the bulk may be different.

A first order transition can be distinguished from a continuous transition by the appearance of supercooling (H$^*$, T$^*$)  and superheating (H$^{**}$, T$^{**}$)  lines which give rise to a hysteresis across the transition in the H-T plane. However, quenched disorder present in the sample broadens these lines into bands {\color{blue}\cite{Imry1979}} and results into the phase coexistence in a wide range of the control parameters. In several materials, the kinetics of a FOMT gets arrested below a heuristic band, called kinetic arrest band (H$_K$, T$_K$).  The transformation from the high-T phase to low-T phase is arrested below that part of the [H$_K$, T$_K$] band which lies above the [H$^*$, T$^*$] band and the system below the thermal hysteresis remains as a composite of the transformed fraction of the low-T phase and untransformed fraction of the high-T phase {\color{blue}\cite{Chattopadhyay2005, AB2006,AB2008,Chaddah2008,Dash2010, AB2011, EPL2013,Sudip2021,Pal2021}}. The phenomena is called as the ``kinetic arrest'' (KA) and the magnetic state at low temperature is called as the magnetic glass. In this state, the high-T phase persists down to lowest temperature because of KA, and the phenomenon of KA provides a systematic framework to understand the bizarre properties of phase separation in many systems. This phenomenon has been observed across various transitions, including magnetic, structural, metal-insulator transitions, in multiferroics etc {\color{blue}\cite{SWC2006,Choi2010,MnFePSi,Mn2PtGa,Cakir2020,Pampi2020}}.

PCMAO is in the paramagnetic state at room temperature and undergoes transition to CE type antiferromagnetic (AFM) phase with decrease in temperature {\color{blue}\cite{AB2006}}. The high-T AFM state is eventually followed by a FOMT to low-T FM phase on further cooling. At low strength of the magnetic field, the AFM to FM phase transition is partially arrested during cooling and the system contains a large fraction of the AFM phase down to lowest temperature {\color{blue}\cite{AB2006}}. On the other hand, in LCMO, it undergoes a first order transition from high-T FM to low-T CE type AFM phase which is arrested at high fields {\color{blue}\cite{AB2008}}. The arrested FM fraction increases with increase in H.  Present work includes the magnetization measurements under simultaneous application of P and H and a quantitative investigation on the effects of H and P on the volume fraction and the non-equilibrium dynamics of the competing phases associated with the first order transition. We explain the observation in terms of the interplay of H and P induced changes in the supercooling and superheating across the first order transition and the kinetic arrest. We also underline that the interface between the two competing phases plays a crucial role in controlling the dynamics of the phase coexisting state.
\section{Experimental details:}
Polycrystalline bulk samples of PCMAO and LCMO have been prepared by standard solid state method and chemical route, known as pyrophoric method, respectively {\color{blue}\cite{Chaddah2008, AB2006}}. Further details on the sample preparation and characterization can be found in Ref. {\color{blue}24} and {\color{blue}26}. Magnetic measurements have been carried out in commercial 7 Tesla superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer (M/S Quantum Design, USA). For the measurements under pressure, a Cu-Be cell (Mcell 10, easy lab) has been used, where a fixed pressure was applied and locked at room temperature. The pressure cell can be mounted inside the magnetometer to carry out the magnetization measurements, which have been performed at different H at a fixed pressure. Daphne oil has been used as the pressure transmitting medium to maintain the hydrostatic condition of pressure on the sample. Pressure values have been determined from the variation of  superconducting transition temperature of Sn wire that has been loaded inside the pressure cell {\color{blue}\cite{Dash2010}}. Field cooled cooling (FCC) magnetization (M) versus T curves are recorded while cooling the sample is presence of a constant magnetic field. The field cooled warming (FCW) curves are recorded in the subsequent warming cycle without changing the field. For zero field cooled (ZFC) measurements, the sample has been cooled down to T = 5 K in absence of external field. Then, M versus T data has been recorded during warming after applying external field at the lowest temperature. Time ($t$) dependent magnetization (M) data have been recorded in field cooling (FC) mode where the sample is first cooled from T = 320 K to the measurement temperature in presence of the external field. After temperature becomes stable, then isothermal variation of M with time recorded keeping the field unchanged.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace{-0.8cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{Fig_1}
\caption{(a) Temperature variation of magnetization of PCMAO at H = 2, 5 and 7 Tesla recorded in FCC and FCW modes. The thermal hysteresis indicates the transition between high-T AFM and low-T FM phases and it shifts towards higher temperature with magnetic field. $\Delta$T is the width of the thermal hysteresis. (b) Variation of FM volume fraction ($f_{FM}$) with H at T = 5 K. The line is a guide to eye.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace{-0.8cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{Fig_2}
\caption{Temperature variation of magnetization in different pressure of (a) PCMAO at H = 2 Tesla. In the FCC curve at P = 5 kbar, we have drawn a straight line to determine the slope of the curve, which should be propertional to the transformation rate from high-T AFM to low-T FM phase across the thermal hysteresis. (b) LCMO at H = 1 Tesla. The legends indicate the P values applied on the sample in the unit of kbar. In case of LCMO also, the transformation rate from high-T FM to low-T AFM phase can be found from the slope of the FCC curves at respected pressure values.}
\end{figure}

\section{Results:}
Fig. {\color{blue}1(a)} presents the temperature variation of M (FCC and FCW) across the transition between high-T AFM and low-T FM phases in PCMAO at three different magnetic fields. Magnetization shows thermal hysteresis across the transition and the hysteresis shifts towards higher temperature with increase in H. Also note that, the width of the thermal hysteresis ($\Delta$T, see Fig. {\color{blue}1(a)}) varies non-monotonically with H. At H = 5 Tesla, the width $\Delta$T $\approx$ 20 K, which is significantly larger than $\Delta$T $\approx$ 12 and 10 K at H = 2 and 7 Tesla respectively. On the other hand, the value of M at low temperatures, say at T = 5 K increases by a large amount with increase in H which can only be explained with the phase separation scenario. It should be mentioned here that the saturation field of the FM phase in PCMAO is a few hundred Oe {\color{blue}\cite{AB2006}}. At low temperature, the system contains both FM and AFM volume fractions, and the amount of the FM phase increases with H at the expense of the competing AFM phase {\color{blue}\cite{AB2006}}. In Fig. {\color{blue}1(b)}, we have estimated the variation of the FM phase fraction at T = 5 K with the applied magnetic field. It has been estimated from the magnetization value at T = 5 K ($M_{5K}$) following the method described in Ref. {\color{blue}30}. If the FM volume fraction is $f_{FM}$ at T = 5 K [so the AFM volume fraction is (1-$f_{FM}$)], then $M_{5K}$ is given by the relation-
\begin{equation}
M_{5K} = f_{FM} (M_0 + \alpha \times H_m) + (1 - f_{FM}) \times \beta \times H_m
\end{equation}
Here, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the dc susceptibility (dM/dH) of the FM and AFM phases respectively which are obtained from the slope of the M-H curve at T = 5 K. $M_0$ is the spontaneous magnetization of the FM phase. As H increases from H = 2 to 7 Tesla, $f_{FM}$ also increases by more than eight folds from around 7 to 60 \%.\\
In Figs. {\color{blue}2(a)} and {\color{blue}2(b)}, we have shown the FCC and FCW curves of PCMAO and LCMO respectively. Different curves correspond to the different applied pressure at a constant H = 2 and 1 Tesla for PCMAO and LCMO respectively. It may be mentioned here that a part of this data of LCMO has been reported earlier in Ref. {\color{blue}28} but has been reproduced here to make this paper self content.  The broad thermal hysteresis between the FCC and FCW curves evince the coexistence of the high and low temperature phases across the hysteresis. Besides, due to kinetic arrest, the phase coexistence prevails down to the lowest temperature in both these systems. In PCMAO, the M at T = 5 K ($M_{5K}$) shows non-monotonic variation with pressure. It initially decreases as we increase the pressure from ambient to P = 2.5 kbar. As pressure increases further, $M_{5 K}$ starts to increase again. On the other hand in LCMO, $M_{5 K}$ monotonically increases with pressure. Such variation of $M_{5 K}$ indicates that the volume fraction of the two coexisting phases (FM and AFM) change with pressure in both systems, but the dependence is qualitatively very much different. In the next section, we will estimate the volume fraction of the FM phase at T = 5 K in H-P landscape and show that the efficiency of pressure in tuning the volume fraction of the coexisting phases also depends upon the applied magnetic field.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{Fig_3}
\caption{ Change in volume fraction of the metallic-FM phase ($f_{FM}$) with H and P in (a) PCMAO and (b) LCMO. Note that in case of PCMAO, $f_{FM}$ initially decreases and finally starts to increase again with pressure. On the other hand in LCMO, $f_{FM}$ monotonically increases.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effect of pressure and magnetic field on the FM and AFM phase fractions at low temperature:}

In Figs. {\color{blue}3(a)} and {\color{blue}3(b)}, we present the variation of the FM volume fraction ($f_{FM}$ in \%) at T = 5 K in PCMAO and LCMO, respectively at different P and H, which we have calculated using eqn. {\color{blue}1}. It is interesting that in case of PCMAO [Fig. {\color{blue}3(a)}], pressure initially suppresses the FM phase fraction. At higher pressure, $f_{FM}$ increases again. Moreover, the change in phase fraction with the application of pressure is small. For example (see H = 5 Tesla, Fig. 3(a), black filled square), at H = 5 Tesla $f_{FM}$ is around 50.8\% at ambient pressure which is consistent with Fig. {\color{blue}1(b)}. As pressure is increased to P = 2.5 kbar, $f_{FM}$ reduces to $f_{FM}$ = 48\% which is followed by monotonic rise to 50.1\% at P = 9.1 kbar. Such kind of non-monotonic dependence of $f_{FM}$ on pressure is interesting. It points towards the existence of two competing mechanisms occurring simultaneously, one trying to enhance the $f_{FM}$ and the other mechanism tending to reduce the $f_{FM}$ at each pressure. As we will show later that this is actually the situation and the net volume fraction of the two phases is decided by which of these two mechanism is dominant.  On the other hand, in case of LCMO as shown in Fig. {\color{blue}3(b)}, the change in the FM volume fraction is comparatively large and it monotonically increases with increase in the pressure. For example, at H = 1 Tesla, $f_{FM}$ = 21.1\% at ambient pressure which monotonically rises to 34.5\% at P = 9.12 kbar. Also note that at low fields say H = 1 Tesla, $f_{FM}$ varies rather smoothly as a function of pressure.  However at higher H say 4 Tesla, $f_{FM}$ initially increases sharply and tends to saturate with increase in the applied pressure. The variation of $f_{FM}$ in both PCMAO and LCMO reveal a complex dependence of the volume fraction of the competing metallic-FM and insulating-AFM phases on H and P.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace {1.5 cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{Fig_4}
\caption{(a) and (b) shows the variation of the T$^{*}$ and T$^{**}$s with P at different applied field in PCMAO. (c) and (d) shows the same in case of LCMO. The solid lines are guide to eye.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effect of pressure on the supercooling, superheating and kinetic arrest temperatures:}
Thermal hysteresis in PCMAO progressively shifts toward higher temperature as P increases [see Fig. {\color{blue}2(a)}] i.e., the supercooling (T$^*$) and superheating (T$^{**}$) temperatures increase with P. We want to mention here that we have performed magnetization measurements at different P and H, but have not shown here for conciseness. Some data on LCMO can be found in Ref. {\color{blue}28}. The variation of the T$^*$ and T$^{**}$ with H and P are shown in Figs. {\color{blue}4(a)} and {\color{blue}4(b)}. There are different ways to define T$^*$ and T$^{**}$ because the thermal hysteresis is broad. In case of PCMAO, we have considered  the temperature where the (dM/dT) in FCC (FCW) shows the minima as T$^*$ (T$^{**}$).   In the FCC curve, M start to increase rapidly at T$_{NC}$, which indicates the rapid nucleation and growth of the FM phase below T$_{NC}$. Similarly, in the FCW curve, nucleation of the AFM phase has started above T$_{NW}$. Interestingly note that,  T$_{NC}$ $>$ T$_{NW}$, which means that onset of the nucleation of the AFM phase during heating has started at a lower temperature than the onset temperature of nucleation of FM phase during cooling. This indicates towards a wide distribution of the T$^*$ and T$^{**}$ in the material, such that they form bands instead of lines in H-T plane, and overlap with each other. This occurs due to presence of quenched disorder, which results into a landscape of the transition temperature, and thereby broadening of the first order transition {\color{blue}\cite{SBR2004,Imry1979}}. In LCMO, the thermal hysteresis shifts towards lower temperature as higher P is applied. In this case, we have taken a different approach to find out the T$^*$ and T$^{**}$ values. In the FCC curve, the temperature where M shows peak i.e., M is maximum is taken as the T$^*$. Similarly, T$^{**}$ has been taken where M has a peak in the FCW curve. We have shown the variation of T$^*$ and T$^{**}$ in Figs. {\color{blue}4(c)} and {\color{blue}4(d)}. The effect on T$^{*}$ by P and H is quite dramatic in case of LCMO. T$^{*}$ falls sharply at very tiny pressure of P = 0.68 kbar (Fig. {\color{blue}4(c)}, remains comparatively unaffected at higher pressure. It is important to note that, there are a few common features if we compare the effect of pressure on PCMAO and LCMO. First of all, application of P suppresses the AFM phase in both the systems, which is evident from the variation of T$^*$ and T$^{**}$ with pressure. Secondly, the variation of these transition temperatures are not linear in P. \\

Besides, T$^*$ and T$^{**}$, the temperature T$_K$ corresponding to kinetic arrest band is also important in case of both PCMAO and LCMO. The phase coexistence persist even below the thermal hysteresis down to lowest temperature due to kinetic arrest band, [H$_K$, T$_K$], and therefore, it is necessary to check the position of the [H$_K$, T$_K$]  band at higher pressure. In case of PCMAO, the effect of P on the [H$_K$, T$_K$] band at a fixed H can be found from the measurement of the ZFC curves as shown in the Fig. {\color{blue}5} {\color{blue}\cite{Lakhani2010}}. In the case of zero field cooling, as T is increased, magnetization sharply increases with temperature due to transformation of arrested AFM phase into the FM phase-which is called dearrest. M increases up to the end point of  [H$_K$, T$_K$] band, where the value of M is maximum, which we have marked as vertical line in Fig. {\color{blue}5}. Note that, this temperature is not significantly affected by pressure. Above this temperature, no significant conversion of the phase fraction happens until [H$^{**}$, T$^{**}$] band is reached, where the FM phase converts into AFM phase and M sharply decreases. We have also indicated the T$^{**}$ values by the downward arrows for the ambient and highest applied pressures. This data reveals that the external pressure does not affect the [H$_K$, T$_K$] band significantly as compared to the [H$^{**}$, T$^{**}$] band. It should be mentioned here that [H$_K$, T$_K$] is practically a band, i.e. it is spread over certain H-T window and the ZFC curve as shown Fig. {\color{blue}5} only gives one end of the band. Nonetheless, it can be shown that pressure does not significantly affect the width of the band as well (data no shown here). In case of LCMO also, P does not affect the [H$_K$, T$_K$] band significantly. The data has not been shown here for conciseness.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{Fig_5}
\caption{ZFC curves of PCMAO at different P. The measurement H = 5 Tesla. The vertical line marks the end of KA band. It indicates that [H$_K$, T$_K$] remains unaffected by P. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effect of pressure on the nucleation and growth across the thermal hysteresis: }
A first order transition during cooling proceeds through the nucleation and subsequent growth of the low-T phase at the cost of the high-T parent phase. Therefore, in case of PCMAO, as we gradually reduce the sample temperature, the high-T AFM phase transforms into the FM phase through the creation and growth of the FM droplets which are larger than a critical size {\color{blue}\cite{Rawat2013}}. This is manifested as the increase in M with decrease in temperature across the thermal hysteresis shown in Figs. {\color{blue}1(a)} and {\color{blue}2(a)}. Therefore, legitimately, the transformation rate of the FM phase should be proportional to the slope of the M-T curve in the hysteresis region. The slope of the FCC curves shown in Fig. {\color{blue}2(a)} in the hysteresis region decreases with the increase in P. The decrease in the slope indicates that the transformation rate of the FM phase declines with increasing P at a fixed temperature and field. To further confirm this, we have measured the isothermal relaxation of M with time at a fixed T in the hysteresis region, but at different P.  We have recorded the time dependence of M in the field cooled state, i.e. the sample has been cooled to the probing temperature in presence of the field and after stabilizing the temperature, magnetization has been recorded for next few hours at the same field. The data has been shown in Fig. {\color{blue}6(a)} for T = 65 K at H = 4 Tesla. First of all, note that M increases with time, which confirms that high-T AFM phase transforms into the FM phase during cooling across the hysteresis region, which is expected. Now the important observation is, as P increases the relaxation rate, i.e. how fast M changes with time, becomes slower, which indicates that the growth rate of the FM phase fraction decreases at higher pressure. This is consistent with the fact that the slope of the M-T curve decreases with P. Similarly, in LCMO, the transition during cooling proceeds through the transformation of the high-T FM phase into the low-T AFM phase. It can be shown that the slope of the M-T curves in Fig. {\color{blue}2(b)} decreases with increasing P, which indicates towards the suppression of the growth of the AFM phase with increase in the pressure. In Fig. {\color{blue}6(b)}, we have also shown the time dependence of M after the sample has been cooled in the field cooled protocol to T = 100 K in presence of H = 6 Tesla, which is within the thermal hysteresis region. In this case also, the transformation rate reduces at  higher pressure, and hence conforms that P suppresses the transformation rate from FM to AFM phase across the thermal hysteresis. Now, note that  these observations are consistent with the fact that pressure favors the FM phase in both the systems, which we have concluded in the last section (Fig. {\color{blue}4}).

Now, we will probe the effect of pressure on the metastable behaviour across the entire thermal hysteresis region in case of LCMO. In Fig. {\color{blue}6(c)}, we have shown the time dependence of M (relaxation) at different temperatures within T = 100 to 40 K at ambient pressure and H = 6 Tesla which is the thermal hysteresis region. To measure these relaxation curves, we have cooled the sample from room temperature (i.e. paramagnetic state) to the measurement temperatures in presence of the H = 6 Tesla magnetic field. After the temperature becomes stable, magnetization has been recorded for next few hours without changing the field. First of all note that, M decreases with time at all the temperatures because the high-T FM phase transforms into the AFM phase. Now, the change of M with time i.e. the relaxation rate initially increases as we reduce the temperature from 100 K. For example, the relaxation at T = 80 K is faster than at 100 K. However, the relaxation again decreases with further decrease in the temperature down to 40 K. The increase in the relaxation rate with decreasing temperature can be understood in the framework of kinetically arrested first order transition {\color{blue}\cite{Chaddah2008,Pal2021}}. As temperature reduces, the free energy barrier between the high and low-T phases decreases, which results into the initial increase in the transformation rate {\color{blue}\cite{Chaikin1994,Chaddah2008}}. However, the suppression of the relaxation rate on further reduction of temperature can be understood by the interplay between kinetic arrest and the free energy landscape {\color{blue}\cite{Chaddah2008,Pal2021}}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{Fig_6}
\caption{Variation of M with time (a) of PCMAO at T = 65 K (b) of LCMO at 40 K measured in the FC protocol. The measurement fields are, H = 4 and 6 Tesla for PCMAO and LCMO respectively. Solid lines are fitted curve using eq. 2. D is the rate constant. The legends are the P values in the unit of kbar (c) the relaxation of M at various temperature across the thermal hysteresis at H = 6 Tesla and P = 0 in the FC protocol. The legends indicate the measurement temperatures. The curves are fitted using eqn. {\color{blue}2} and temperature dependence of D is shown in (d). It also presents the D(T) at higher P. The solid lines in (d) are guide to eye. }
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace{-1cm}
\vspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{Fig_7}
\vspace{-1 cm}
\caption{Relaxation in the magnetic glass state in (a) PCMAO measured at T = 25 K and H = 4 Tesla and (b) LCMO measured at T = 40 K and H = 6 Tesla. Solid lines are the fitted curves using eqn. 2. The inset of (a) shows the D values at different P at T = 25 and 30 K in PCMAO obtained from fitting. The solid line in the inset is guide to eye. For LCMO, the curves at P = 0 and 1.94 kbar are fitted using same equation.}
\end{figure}
The relaxation curves can be satisfactorily described by logarithmic dependence of M on time, which is given by:
\begin{equation}
M (t) = M(0) [1+ D log (1 + t/\tau)]
\end{equation}
Here, M(0) is the magnetization at time $t$ = 0, and $D$ is known as the rate constant which defines the relaxation time {\color{blue}\cite{Amir2009,Kustov2010, AB2011,Sudip2017,Sudip2019,Sudip2022}}. Such logarithmic function has been successfully used earlier to investigate the metastable behavior of the nonequilibrium state in spin glasses, structural glasses, magnetic glass etc.,{\color{blue}\cite{AB2011, Kustov2010, Sudip2017, Sudip2019,Sudip2022}}. We have fitted all the time dependence of M data in Figs. {\color{blue}6(a)} and {\color{blue}6(b)} using eqn. {\color{blue}2}. We have shown the fitted curves as the solid lines and mentioned the $D$ values in the respective figures. As can be observed here, in both PCMAO and LCMO, $D$ decreases with increasing P which further confirm that higher pressure inhibits the growth dynamics of the low temperature phases in both the systems in the course of the FM-AFM first order transition. Similarly, we have fitted the relaxation curves at various temperatures which are shown in Fig. {\color{blue}6(c)} for ambient P and plotted the obtained $D$ values in Fig. {\color{blue}6(d)}(black filled circles). Also, we have measured the relaxation of M at higher pressure, but we have not shown here for conciseness. We have fitted those data by using eqn. {\color{blue}2} and plotted only the $D$ values at a few selected higher P in Fig. {\color{blue}6(d)}. The variation of $D$ with temperature at different P is qualitatively similar. But, quantitatively,it is evident that external  P suppresses the growth rate in the entire temperature range of thermal hysteresis.

\subsection{Effect of pressure on the transformation kinetics in the magnetic glass state: }
In the magnetic glass state, the non-equilibrium high-T phase which persists because of the KA gradually transforms into the equilibrium phase with time. The rate of transformation depends on the H and T. In Figs. {\color{blue}7(a)} and {\color{blue}7(b)}, we have shown the change in M as a function of time at temperatures T = 25 and 40 K following field cooled (FC) protocol in PCMAO and LCMO respectively. To record the M($t$) curves, the sample is initially cooled from T = 320 K to the measurement temperatures at different P in presence of the cooling fields of H = 4 and 6 Tesla for PCMAO and LCMO respectively. After temperature becomes stable, M has been recorded as a function of time for the next few hours without changing the temperature and field. The thermal hysteresis at H = 4 and 6 Tesla in PCMAO and LCMO close at T = 30 and 56 K respectively (data are not shown here for conciseness). Therefore, the measurement temperatures lie below the closer of the thermal hysteresis and situate in the magnetic glass regime of the respective materials. The relaxation of M with time indicates the non-equilibrium nature of the low-T state which can not be described in the framework of the metastable supercooled high-T phase. In case of PCMAO, M increases with time at ambient P which indicates that the AFM phase is unstable at this temperature and it transforms to the equilibrium FM phase. As P increases, the increase in M with time i.e., the relaxation rate monotonically decreases. It implies that the transformation rate monotonically reduces with the increase in P. On the other hand, in case of LCMO, the M decreases with time. It means that here the FM phase is the unstable phase and it gradually transforms into the equilibrium AFM phase. In this case, as P increases, the relaxation rate strongly decreases and becomes negligible at higher P. Therefore, P stabilizes the phase coexisting state in both the systems because it suppresses the relaxation rate of the FM-AFM transformation. However, at these field and temperatures, the suppression of the relaxation rate by P is pronounced in LCMO, compared to PCMAO. The relaxation curves can be fitted by using eqn. {\color{blue}2}. We have mentioned the obtained $D$ values for PCMAO in the main panel of Fig. {\color{blue}7(a)}. In the inset, we have shown the the variation of $D$ with P at T = 30 and 25 K. At T = 30 K, P suppresses the relaxation and $D$ decreases with increase in P. However, the effect of P is more pronounced at T = 25 K, which indicates that P strongly suppresses the transformation kinetics at lower temperatures. $D$ values for LCMO at P = 0 and 1.94 kbar have been mentioned in the Fig {\color{blue}7(b)}. At higher P, there is no appreciable relaxation of M.

\section{Discussion:}
In case of PCMAO, P monotonically  increases the supercooling and superheating temperatures which indicate that P favours the FM phase. However, P does not significantly affect the [H$_K$, T$_K$] band. It implies that the temperature window, where the first order transition occurs before it is arrested, expands with increasing P. This should increase the equilibrium FM volume fraction at low temperature, say T = 5 K. However, the transformation rate from the high-T AFM to the low-T FM phase across the thermal hysteresis is simultaneously suppressed by P [see Fig. {\color{blue}6(a)}]. Therefore, two competing mechanism acting together decides the phase fraction of the competing phases at any temperature.  The variation of  volume fraction of the FM phase at T = 5 K indicates that initially the second mechanism must be dominating over the first, so that the FM phase fraction initially decreases at low P but finally increases, when the first mechanism dominates. Note that, because of these two competing interactions, the change in the volume fraction with pressure is also small. On the other hand, in case of LCMO, $T^*$ reduces with increasing P and the $T_K$ band is unchanged. Hence, the temperature window where the first order transition from the high-T FM to low-T AFM phase occurs reduces with the increase in P. In addition, the nucleation and growth of the AFM phase is also suppressed by P. Therefore, both of these mechanisms together should result into the increase in the FM phase fraction at T = 5 K, which is observed in Fig. {\color{blue}2(b)}. Note that, in this case the change in the volume fraction is very large, which further support this scenario.

We would like to mention here that in PCMAO, the suppression of the transformation rate from the high-T AFM to low-T FM phase across the thermal hysteresis [see Fig. {\color{blue}6(a)}] by P is nontrivial. Because, as P increases the transition temperatures, the size of the critical nucleus of the FM phase at a particular temperature should be smaller at higher P {\color{blue}\cite{Chaikin1994,Chaddah}}. This should, in principle, increase the growth rate of the FM phase. We believe that this contradiction can be understood from the extremely different spin structure of the FM and AFM phases in PCMAO. In the course of the transition, the nucleus of a critical size (R$_C$) grows in the matrix of CE-AFM phase. The interface, where the two extremely different kind of spin structure co-exist, is expected to have considerable spin disorder that may cause hindrance to growth. Now, with increase in P, the R$_C$ decreases, the number of the FM nucleus as well as the interface will increase, which may suppress the growth rate at higher P. Note that, in LCMO, where AFM is also CE type and grows within the FM matrix, the transformation rate decreases with P. The same thing has been found at low temperatures i.e., in the magnetic glass state [see Figs. {\color{blue}7(a)} and {\color{blue}7(b)}]. In PCMAO, the transformation from the AFM to FM phase at T = 30 K is suppressed by P. Whereas, in LCMO the transformation from FM to AFM is hindered by P at T = 65 K. This reveals that higher P suppresses the transformation kinetics of the phase coexisting state in both systems. Basically,  the growth of one phase in the matrix of other phase appears to be suppressed at the interface of FM and CE-AFM. This conjecture needs to be verified by some other microscopic techniques.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace{-1cm}
\vspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{Fig_8}
\vspace{-1 cm}
\caption{(a) Isothermal M-H loop of PCMAO at T = 2 K. The sample has been cooled at H = 2 Tesla, and the hysteresis loop has been measured between $\pm$ 4 Tesla (b)  Isothermal M-H loop of LCMO at T = 2 K. The sample has been cooled at H = 1 Tesla, and the hysteresis loop has been measured between $\pm$ 3 Tesla. In the insets, we have shown the close view of the loop near origin.}
\end{figure}
Nonetheless, the importance of the AFM-FM interface is evident from the observation of significant horizontal shift of the field cooled M-H loop in the phase coexistence region of both PCMAO and LCMO. Such shift in the M-H loop is popularly known as the exchange bias, and occurs due to pinning of the surface spins at the interface {\color{blue}\cite{EB1999}}. In Fig. {\color{blue}8(a)}, we have shown isothermal variation of magnetization with field (M-H curves) of PCMAO recorded after the samples has been cooled down to T = 2 K in presence of H = 2 Tesla, and the field cycle has been performed between $\pm$4 Tesla. Similarly, Fig. {\color{blue}8(b)} presents the field cooled M-H curve of LCMO at T = 2 K where the sample has been cooled at H = 1 Tesla, and the loop has been recorded between $\pm$3 Tesla. In the inset of the figures, we have shown the close view of the hysteresis loop near origin, which shows that the loop is not symmetric with respect to origin along the field axis, rather it is shifted towards the negative field axis. The exchange bias defined as $H_{EB}$ = $|(H_{C1}+H_{C2})|$/2, where $H_{C1}$ and $H_{C2}$ are the coercive fields along the positive and negative field axes respectively. In case of PCMAO and LCMO, the $H_{EB}$ has been found to be around $H_{EB}$ $\sim$ 350 and 245 Oe respectively. Such shift in the hysteresis loop arises due to coexistence of FM and AFM volume fractions in close proximity with each other.

\section{Summary:}
In brief, we have studied the effect of simultaneously applied hydrostatic pressure and magnetic field on the phase coexistence in two well known perovskite manganites Pr$_{0.5}$Ca$_{0.5}$Mn$_{0.975}$Al$_{0.025}$O$_{3}$ and La$_{0.5}$Ca$_{0.5}$MnO$_3$. These two samples undergo first order phase transition between AFM and FM phases. In addition to the phase coexistence across the thermal hysteresis associated with conventional first order transition, the FM and AFM phases coexist even below the thermal hysteresis due to the phenomenon of kinetic arrest. During cooling, PCMAO undergoes transition from  high-T AFM to low-T FM phase. External P increases the supercooling and superheating temperatures, however, the kinetic arrest band is not significantly affected. The nucleation and growth rate of the FM phase from the AFM across the transition during cooling reduces at higher pressure. All these effects in combination results into a non-monotonic variation of the volume fraction of FM-metal and AFM-insulator phases at low temperature. At low temperature, i.e. below the thermal hysteresis, the AFM phase gradually transforms into the FM phase, and the transformation rate is suppressed at higher pressure. On the hand, LCMO has opposite phase diagram and it undergoes  a transition from high-T FM phase to low-T AFM phase while cooling. Pressure lowers the supercooling and superheating limits and increases the FM to AFM transformation rate across the transition, i.e. favors the AFM phase. With increase in P, the FM volume fraction at T = 5 K rises monotonically. In addition, the FM phase gradually transforms to the AFM phase and the transformation rate from FM to AFM slows down with increase in the pressure. The coexistence of different lattice and spin structure at the interface may be a possible reason behind such similar effect on two contrasting systems. Observation of exchange bias in both PCMAO and LCMO under field condition indicates the coupling of the FM and AFM phase at the interface.\\


\section{Introduction}

\section{Introduction}
J. Pollard \cite{jp} established the following theorem: \textit{Let $X$ and $Y$ be complete, nowhere locally compact, zero-dimensional separable metric spaces, and let $P$ and $K$ be closed nowhere dense subsets of $X$ and $Y$, respectively. If $f$ is a homeomorphism between $P$ and $K$, then there exists a homeomorphism between $X$ and $Y$ extending $f$}.

Pollard's result is not anymore true for uncountable powers of the irrationals. For example, if $P$ and $K$ are two homeomorphic closed nowhere dense subsets of $\mathbb N^{\aleph_1}$  such that only one of them is $G_\delta$, then no homeomorphism between $P$ and $K$ admits an extension to an autohomeomorphism on $\mathbb N^{\aleph_1}$. But a non-metrizable analogue of Pollard's theorem remains valid for compact subsets of $\mathbb N^\tau$.
The technique developed in recent papers \cite{sv1} and \cite{sv2} allows to prove the following theorem, where $\pi_1:Y\times\mathbb N^\tau\to Y$ is the projection (by a 0-dimensional space we mean a Tychonoff space having a compactification of covering dimension 0).
\begin{thm} \label{analogue} Let $Y$ be a 0-dimensional Tychonoff space and $P$ and $K$ be compact subsets of $Y\times\mathbb N^\tau$ with $\tau\geq\aleph_0$. Then every homeomorphism $f:P\to K$ with $\pi_1\circ f=\pi_1|P$
 can be extended to a homeomorphism $\widetilde f:Y\times\mathbb N^\tau\to Y\times\mathbb N^\tau$ such that $\pi_1\circ\widetilde f=\pi_1$.
\end{thm}
Theorem 1.1 implies a non-metrizable analogue of mentioned above Pollard's result \cite{jp}.
\begin{cor}
Let $P$ and $K$ be compact subsets of $\mathbb N^\tau$ with $\tau\geq\aleph_0$. Then every homeomorphism between $P$ and $K$ can be extended to a
homeomorphism of $\mathbb N^\tau$.
\end{cor}

\section{Proof of Theorem 1.1}
For any space $X$ let $\mathcal H(X)$ denote the set of all autohomeomorphisms of $X$.
If $d$ be a bounded complete metric on $\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$ we equip
$\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$  with the metric
$\widetilde d=\hat{d}(f,g)+\hat{d}(f^{-1},g^{-1})$, where $\hat{d}(f,g)=\sup\{d(f(x),g(x)):x\in\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}\}$. It is well known that
$\widetilde d$ is a complete metric on $\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$.

Next lemma is an analogue of \cite[Lemma 3.1]{sv1}.
\begin{lem}
Let $X$ be a 0-dimensional space and $P, K$ be compact subsets of $X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$. If $f:P\to K$ and $g\in\mathcal H(X)$ are homeomorphisms with $g\circ\pi_X=\pi_{X}\circ f$, then $f$ can be extended to a homeomorphism
$\widetilde f\in\mathcal H(X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ such that $g\circ\pi_X=\pi_{X}\circ\widetilde f$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Obviously, $g(P_X)=K_X$, where $P_X=\pi_X(P)$ and $K_X=\pi_X(K)$.
Denote by $\pi:X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}\to\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$ the projection. For any $x\in P_X$ let $\Phi(x)$ be the set of all $h\in\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ such that $f(x,c)=(g(x),h(c))$ for every $c\in\pi_X^{-1}(x)\cap P$. Since $f|(\pi_X^{-1}(x)\cap P)$ is a homeomorphism between the compact subsets $\pi((\{x\}\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})\cap P)$ and  $\pi((\{g(x)\}\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})\cap K)$
of $\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$, the Pollard's theorem \cite{jp} cited above yields a
a homeomorphism $h_x\in\mathcal{H}(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ extending $f|(\pi_X^{-1}(x)\cap P)$. Hence,
$\Phi(x)\neq\varnothing$ for all $x\in P_X$.
Moreover, the sets $\Phi(x)$ are closed in $\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ equipped with the metric $\widetilde d$. So, we have a set-valued map
$\Phi:P_X\rightsquigarrow\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$. One can show that if $\Phi$ admits a continuous selection $\phi:P_X\to\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$,
then the map $f_1:P_X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}\to K_X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$, defined by $f_1(x,c)=(g(x),\phi(x)(c))$, is a homeomorphism between $P_X\times \mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$ and $K_X\times \mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$ extending $f$ (see \cite[Proposition 2.6.11]{en}) with
$\pi_X\circ f_1=g\circ\pi_X$. On the other hand, since $X$ is 0-dimensional and $P_X$ is a compact subset of $X$, the map $\phi$ has a continuous extension $\widetilde\phi:X\to\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$. This is true because $\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ is a metric space.
Indeed, then $\phi(P_X)$ is a compact subset of $\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$, hence $\phi(P_X)$ is itself a compact metric space. So,
it is an absolute extensor for 0-dimensional spaces in the sense of Chigogidze \cite{ch}, and we can extend $\phi$ to a map
$\widetilde\phi:X\to\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$.
 Next, let $\widetilde f:X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}\to X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$ be the map defined by $\widetilde f(x,c)=(g(x),\widetilde\phi(x)(c))$. Then $\widetilde f$ is a homeomorphism extending $f$.
Therefore, according to Michael's \cite{em} zero-dimensional selection theorem, it suffices to show that $\Phi$ is lower semi-continuous.

To prove that, let $x^*\in P_X$ be a fixed point and $h^*\in\Phi(x^*)\cap W$, where $W$ is open in $\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$. We can assume that
$W$ is of the form $\{h\in\mathcal H(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}): \{x^*\}\times h(U_i)=\{g(x^*)\}\times V_i{~}, i=1,2,..\}$, where $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ and $\{V_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ are clopen disjoint countable covers of
$\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$.
Because $P(x^*)=(\{x^*\}\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})\cap P$ and $K(g(x^*))=(\{g(x^*)\}\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})\cap K$ are compact, there is $k$ such that $(\{x^*\}\times U_i)\cap P(x^*)\neq\varnothing$ and $(\{g(x^*)\}\times V_i)\cap K(g(x^*))\neq\varnothing$ if and only if $i\leq k$.

We extend each of the sets $\{x^*\}\times U_i$ and $\{g(x^*)\}\times V_i$, $i\leq k$, to clopen sets $\widetilde U_i\subset P_X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$ and $\widetilde V_i\subset K_X\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $\widetilde U_i=O(x^*)\times U_i$ and $\widetilde V_i=g(O(x^*))\times V_i$, where $O(x^*)$ is a clopen neighborhood of $x^*$ in $P_X$
such that $P(x)\subset\bigcup_{i=1}^k\widetilde U_i$ for all $x\in O(x^*)$;
\item[(2)] $O(x^*)$ is so small that $f(\widetilde U_i\cap P)\subset\widetilde V_i\cap K$.
\end{itemize}
We are going to show that for every $x\in O(x^*)$ there exists $h_x\in\Phi(x)\cap W$. We fix such $x$ and observe that all sets
$\widetilde U_i(x)=\widetilde U_i\cap(\{x\}\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ and $\widetilde V_i(x)=\widetilde V_i\cap(\{g(x)\}\times\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ are nowhere locally compact and complete. Moreover, $\widetilde U_i(x)\cap P$ and  $\widetilde V_i(x)\cap K$ are compact sets in $\widetilde U_i(x)$
and $\widetilde V_i(x)$, respectively, and $f^x_i=f|(\widetilde U_i(x)\cap P)$ is a homeomorphism between them for every $i\leq k$.
Hence, by Pollard's theorem \cite{jp}, there exist homeomorphisms $\widetilde f^x_i:\widetilde U_i(x)\to\widetilde V_i(x)$ extending $f^x_i$, $i\leq k$. For every $(x,c)\not\in\bigcup_{i=1}^k\widetilde U_i(x)$ there is exactly one $i>k$ with $c\in U_i$, and we define
$\widetilde f^x_i(x,c)=h^*(x^*,c)$.
The homeomorphisms $\widetilde f^x_i$, $i=1,2,..$, provide a homeomorphism $h_x'$ between $\pi_X^{-1}(x)$ and
$\pi_X^{-1}(g(x))$ extending $f|\pi_X^{-1}(x)\cap P$. Then the equality $h_x(c)=h_x'(x,c)$, $c\in\mathbb N^{\aleph_0}$, defines a homeomorphism
from $\mathcal{H}(\mathbb N^{\aleph_0})$ with $h_x\in\Phi(x)\cap W$. Therefore, $\Phi$ is lower semi-continuous.
\end{proof}

Everywhere below we suppose that $P,K$ are compact subsets of $Y\times \mathbb N^A$ and $f:P\to K$ is a homeomorphism such that
$\pi_1|P=\pi_1\circ f$, where $Y$ is a 0-dimensional space. A set $B\subset A$ is called {\em $f$-admissible} if
there exists a homeomorphism $f_B:P_B\to K_B$ such that  $(f_B\circ p_B)|P=p_B\circ f$ and
${_B}\pi_1|P_B={_B}\pi_1 \circ f_B$, where $\pi_B:\mathbb N^A\to\mathbb N^B$, $p_B:Y\times \mathbb N^A\to Y\times \mathbb N^B$,
and ${_B}\pi_1:Y \times \mathbb N^B\to Y$ denote the projections, $P_B=p_B(P)$ and $K_B=p_B(K)$.
\begin{lem}
If $A$ is an uncountable set, then for every $\alpha\in A$ there is an $f$-admissible countable set $B(\alpha)\subset A$ containing $\alpha$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\pi_1|P=\pi_1\circ f$, $f(y,x)=(y, h_1(y,x))$ for all $(y,x)\in P$, where $h_1:P\to\mathbb N^A$.
Similarly, $f^{-1}(y,x)=(y, h_2(y,x))$ for all $(y,x)\in K$ with $h_2:K\to\mathbb N^A$.

\begin{claim}
For every $i=1,2$ and a countable set
$C\subset A$, there is countable $D(i)\subset A$ containing $C$ and a continuous maps $g_1:P_{D(1)}\to\mathbb N^C$, $g_2:K_{D(2)}\to\mathbb N^C$
with
$(g_1\circ p_{D(1)})|P=\pi_C\circ h_1$ and $(g_2\circ p_{D(2)})|K=\pi_C\circ h_2$.
\end{claim}
Let $\mathcal B$ be a countable base for $\mathbb N^C$. Then $G_U=h_1^{-1}(\pi_C^{-1}(U))$ is a $\sigma$-compact open subset of $P$ for every $U\in\mathcal B$. So, there is a sequence $\{W_U(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ of standard open sets in $Y\times \mathbb N^A$ such that $G_U$ is the union of all $W_U(n)\cap P$, $n\geq 1$. Therefore, for every $U$ there exists a countable set $C_U\subset A$ with
$p_{C_U}^{-1}(p_{C_U}(W_U(n)))=W_U(n)$, $n\geq 1$. We can assume that each $C_U$ contains $C$. Then $D(1)=\bigcup_{U\in\mathcal B}C_U$ is a countable set containing $C$ and $p_{D(1)}(y,x)=p_{D(1)}(y',x')$ implies $\pi_C(h_1(y,x))=\pi_C(h_1(y',x'))$, where $(y,x), (y',x')\in P$.
Because $P_{D(1)}$ is compact, this yields the existence of a map $g_1:P_{D(1)}\to\mathbb N^C$ with $(g_1\circ p_{D(1)})|P=\pi_C\circ h_1$.
Similarly, we can find a countable set $D(2)\subset A$ which contains $C$ and a map $g_2:K_{D(2)}\to\mathbb N^C$ satisfying the claim.

Using Claim 2.3, we construct by induction an increasing sequence $\{B(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ of countable sets $B(n)\subset A$ and maps
$\varphi_n:P_{B(n+1)}\to \mathbb N^{B(n)}$ for $n=2k$ and $\psi_n:K_{B(n+1)}\to \mathbb N^{B(n)}$ for $n=2k+1$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $B(0)=\{\alpha\}$;
\item $\pi_{B(n)}\circ h_1=(\varphi_n\circ p_{B(n+1)})|P$ if $n=2k$;
\item $\pi_{B(n)}\circ h_2=(\psi_n\circ p_{B(n+1)})|K$ if $n=2k+1$.
\end{itemize}
Let $B(\alpha)=\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty B(n)$. Then we have maps $\varphi_{B(\alpha)}:P_{B(\alpha)}\to \mathbb N^{B(\alpha)}$ and
$\psi_{B(\alpha)}:K_{B(\alpha)}\to \mathbb N^{B(\alpha)}$
such that $\pi_{B(\alpha)}\circ h_1=(\varphi_{B(\alpha)}\circ p_{B(\alpha)})|P$ and
$\pi_{B(\alpha)}\circ h_2=(\psi_{B(\alpha)}\circ p_{B(\alpha)})|K$.
Observe that $P_{B(\alpha)}$ and $K_{B(\alpha)}$ are subsets of $Y\times\mathbb N^{B(\alpha)}$. Then $f_{B(\alpha)}:P_{B(\alpha)}\to Y\times\mathbb N^{B(\alpha)}$, defined by $f_{B(\alpha)}(y,x)=(y,\varphi_{B(\alpha)}(y,x))$ for every $(y,x)\in P_{B(\alpha)}$, is a homeomorphism between
$P_{B(\alpha)}$ and $K_{B(\alpha)}$ whose inverse is the map $g_{B(\alpha)}:K_{B(\alpha)}\to Y\times\mathbb N^{B(\alpha)}$, defined by $g_{B(\alpha)}(y,x)=(y,\psi_{B(\alpha)}(y,x))$ for $(y,x)\in K_{B(\alpha)}$. Therefore, $B(\alpha)$ is $f$-admissible.
\end{proof}

{\em Proof of Theorem $1.1$.}
We identify $\mathbb N^\tau$ with $\mathbb N^A$, where $A$ is a set of cardinality $\tau$.
The case $\tau=\aleph_0$ follows from Lemma 2.1.
So, let $A=\{\alpha:\alpha<\omega(\tau)\}$ be uncountable.
By Lemma 2.2, we can cover $A$ by a family $\{B(\alpha):\alpha<\omega(\tau)\}$ of countable $f$-admissible sets. Since any union of $f$-admissible sets is also $f$-admissible, from the family $\{B(\alpha):\alpha<\omega(\tau)\}$ we obtain an increasing family of $f$-admissible sets $A(\alpha)$ and homeomorphisms
$f_{A(\alpha)}:P_{A(\alpha)}\to K_{A(\alpha)}$ such that:

\begin{itemize}
\item[(3)]$A(1)$ is countable, and the cardinality of each $A(\alpha)$ is less than $\tau$;
\item[(4)]$A(\alpha)=\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}A(\beta)$ if $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal;
\item[(5)]$A(\alpha+1)\backslash A(\alpha)$ is countable but infinite for all $\alpha$;
\item[(6)]$\displaystyle p_{A(\alpha)}\circ f=(f_{A(\alpha)}\circ p_{A(\alpha)})|P$.
\end{itemize}
We need to prove that each $f_{A(\alpha)}$ can be extended to a homeomorphism
$\widetilde f_{A(\alpha)}:Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha)}\to Y\times\mathbb N^{A(\alpha)}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(7)] $p_{A(\alpha)}^{A(\alpha+1)}\circ\widetilde f_{A(\alpha+1)}=(\widetilde
f_{A(\alpha)}\circ p_{A(\alpha)}^{A(\alpha+1)})$;
\item[(8)] ${_\alpha}\pi_1={_\alpha}\pi_1\circ\widetilde f_{A(\alpha)}$, where ${_\alpha}\pi_1:Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha)}\to Y$ denotes the projection.
\end{itemize}

The proof is by transfinite induction.
The first extension $\widetilde f_{A(1)}$ exists by Lemma 2.1 because $P_{A(1)}$ and $K_{A(1)}$ are compact subsets of $Y\times \mathbb N^{A(1)}$ and ${_1}\pi_1|P_{A(1)}={_1}\pi_1\circ f_{A(1)}$.
If $\beta$ is a limit ordinal and $\widetilde f_{A(\alpha)}$ is already defined for all $\alpha<\beta$, then item (4) implies the existence of
$\widetilde f_{A(\beta)}$. Therefore, we need only to define $\widetilde f_{A(\alpha+1)}$ provided $\widetilde f_{A(\alpha)}$ exists.

To this end, we apply again Lemma 2.1 for the space
$Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha+1)}=Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha)}\times\mathbb N^{A(\alpha+1)\backslash A(\alpha)}$, the sets
$P_{A(\alpha+1)}, K_{A(\alpha+1)}$, the projection
$\pi:Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha)}\times\mathbb N^{A(\alpha+1)\backslash A(\alpha)}\to Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha)}$, and the homeomorphisms $f_{A(\alpha+1)}$ and  $\widetilde f_{A(\alpha)}$. Moreover, $Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha)}$ has a 0-dimensional compactification because both $Y$ and $N^{A(\alpha)}$ have such compactifications.
Hence, there is a homeomorphism
$\widetilde f_{A(\alpha+1)}\in\mathcal H(Y\times \mathbb N^{A(\alpha+1)})$ extending $f_{A(\alpha+1)}$ and satisfying condition $(7)$.
Since ${_\alpha}\pi_1 ={_\alpha}\pi_1\circ\widetilde f_{A(\alpha)}$, we also have ${_{\alpha+1}}\pi_1 ={_{\alpha+1}}\pi_1\circ\widetilde f_{A(\alpha+1)}$. $\Box$

{\em Proof of Corollary $1.2$.} The corollary is obtained from Theorem 1.1 by letting $Y$ to be the one-point space.   $\Box$


\section*{Introduction}

Biological systems, such as vascular networks \cite{ieva2014}, hyphal networks \cite{BOSWELL201230, dikec2020hyphal}, neurons \cite{ieva2014, smith2021neurons}, slime molds \cite{fessel2012}, and bacterial colonies \cite{benjacob1997}, display complex structures rich in branched or tree-like spatial features. The morphology of these systems seem to solve an adaptive exploration problem related to the maximization of the space that a connected structure can cover in order to retain or gain conditions for survival given limited amounts of matter, energy and information, and according to the demands and restrictions of the environment \cite{fricker2009adaptive, bejan2013, bejan2017, torsten2020}.

One characteristic of these systems is their physical fractality, often quantified by the fractal dimension \cite{ieva2014, vicsek2001fluctuations, lennon2015, nicolas2020}. However, although the fractal dimension is a good measure of morphological complexity, it does not provide a comprehensive account of the micro structural features that could make branched morphologies relevant at the macro level for the system's biological function \cite{smith2021neurons, banavar1999, motoike2010, rocks2020}. Therefore, here we considered the structural analysis of bio-inspired spatial systems based on fractal and network theory approaches in order to identify the morphological and topological features that could make tree-like systems better at exploring space under limited amounts of matter, energy and information. In the following and to avoid confusion, the term \textsl{morphology} refers to the physical or space-dependent structure (how things are distributed in space), while the terms \textsl{topology} and \textsl{network} refer to the space-independent structure (how things are connected with each other). In this way, structure is comprised of both physical and topological properties \cite{stephenson2017topological, naoya2018}.

Our approach to the modelling of biological spatial systems taps into the universality of fractal growth processes. The fractal branching observed in biological systems has been also observed in out-of-equilibrium physical phenomena, such as dielectric breakdown, viscous fingering, mineral deposition and colloidal aggregation \cite{meakin1998, vicsek1992, ben1990formation, Sander2011}. In particular, the growth dynamics of these phenomena fall into the Laplacian growth model, also known to belong to the Diffusion-Limited Aggregation (DLA) universality \cite{Sander2011, nicolas2019}. DLA is a simple particle aggregation model of random walkers that generates branching structures with a well-defined fractal dimension according to embedding space \cite{witten1981, nicolas2019}, that has been used for the modelling of biological systems, such as neurons \cite{luczak2010}. Similarly, the Ballistic Aggregation (BA) model considers particles that follow straight-line trajectories up to aggregation to a branched cluster with a fractal dimension close to the dimension of the embedding space \cite{VOLD1963684, nicolas2016}. Therefore, in our analysis we considered two-dimensional clusters of identical particles assembled by stochastic and deterministic processes as models of biological spatial systems with complex morphology. Furthermore, to simulate limited assembly resources regarding matter and energy, we considered the same number of particles for each system and assumed that the creation of any connection requires the same amount of energy. In addition, to simulate limited environment information, we considered systems with different levels of radial symmetry (no preferential direction of growth).

Under the previous considerations, the models chosen for analysis are: the DLA and BA fractals, as examples of complex stochastic systems; the Vicsek and Hexaflake fractals, as examples of complex deterministic systems; and the Hexagonal and Kagome lattices, as examples of simple deterministic systems. The analysis is divided into three parts. In the first one, we focused on the morphological analysis with the objective of quantifying the system's capabilities to explore the plane in terms of the \textsl{range} (the maximum linear extension with respect to the origin), the \textsl{coverage} (the ability to cover the plane in all directions), and the \textsl{structural cost} (assembly connections). In the second, we focused on the network analysis mainly under a spatial networks or geometric graphs approach \cite{BARTHELEMY2011, daqing2011, Papadopoulos2018, barthelemy2018} with the objective of quantifying the topological features that would allow the best flow of information in terms of \textsl{configurational complexity} (local connectivity) and \textsl{efficiency} (overall network communication). In the third part, we deal with the analysis of the network efficiency of tree-like systems (BA, DLA, and Vicsek). The specific metrics used are presented in the Results and introduced in the Methods. Finally, we present a discussion on our main findings.

\section*{Results}

\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig1.png}
\caption{\small \textbf{Models.} Stochastic fractals: (a) Ballistic Aggregation (BA) and (b) Diffusion-Limited Aggregation (DLA). Deterministic fractals: (c) Hexaflake and (d) Vicsek. Deterministic lattices: (e) Hexagonal and (f) Kagome. In (a)-(f) we show: the number of particles, $N$; radius, $\langle R_{max}\rangle$ or $R_{max}$; radius of gyration, $\langle R_g\rangle$ or $R_g$; fractal dimension, $D$ (estimated), and $D^*$ (theoretical); and the sixfold bond-orientational parameter, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle$. The insets show the characteristic local structure.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}

The spatial systems are presented in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}. In all models, particles have a diameter equal to one unit and are in contact with each other forming connected structures. This is equivalent to sets of non-overlapping disks with centers at one unit of distance between neighbors, or to point distributions where the shortest distance between two neighboring points is one unit. All systems contain $N=1.5\times 10^4$ particles. For further details on the systems' characteristics and generating processes, please see Methods.

\subsection*{Range, coverage and structural cost}

\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig2.png}
\caption{\small \textbf{Spatial Analysis.} (a) The radius, $R_{max}$; the inset shows the fraction of particles, $n$, required in order to have the same range as the Hexagonal lattice, $R_{HEX}$. (b) The radius of gyration, $R_g$, as function of $N$; the inset shows the fractal dimension, $D$. (c) $R_{max}/R_{HEX}$ as function of $D$. (d) The number of connections, $L$, as function of $N$. (e) $L$ as function of $D$. (f) The sixfold bond-orientational parameter, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle$, as function of $D$.}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}

This part of the analysis focuses in the characterization of the systems' capacity to explore the plane in terms of the \textsl{range}, \textsl{coverage}, and \textsl{structural cost}, given the same amount of resources (or particles). Here, the \textsl{range} is considered as the maximum linear extension of the system with respect to the origin; the \textsl{coverage} is regarded as the ability to cover the plane in all directions, that is, a space-filling property. As a measure for the \textsl{range} we considered the radius, $R_{max}$, defined as the distance of the furthest particle in the cluster with respect to the origin. For the \textsl{coverage} we considered the fractal dimension, $D$. Let us recall that, $D\to 1$ would be associated to anisotropic linear structures, while $D\to 2$ to isotropic plane-filling structures. This dimension is calculated from the radius of gyration, $R_g$, as long as, $R_g\propto N^\beta$, where $\beta=1/D$ (see Methods).

We found that the linearity induced by the branching morphology of tree-like systems (BA, DLA, and Vicsek) provides them with a range greater than that of the lattices (Hexagonal, Kagome, and Hexaflake), that have the advantage of filling the plane more homogeneously due to their tight packing, see Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}a-\ref{fig:fig2}b. Notably, the Hexagonal, Kagome and BA systems have similar dimensions despite having very different structures. The Hexaflake and DLA cover the plane with relative similar scalings, $D=1.75$ and $D=1.73$, respectively, while Vicsek with $D=1.47$ reflects its more linear morphology. These results are put together in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}c, where we compare $R_{max}/R_{HEX}$ to the fractal dimension, $D$. Here, one can observe that although lattice systems have a high coverage, they have a short range. On the other hand, tree-like structures are more versatile, they have a longer range and can span different dimensions, including that of the embedding space.

The \textsl{structural cost} is quantified by considering that particles form one macro-structure via direct contact interactions. Then, in a first approximation, the cost is measured by the number of contacts, $L$. In Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}d, we show $L$ as function of $N$. All systems have a linear dependency, with $L\approx N$ for BA, DLA, and Vicsek; $L\approx 2N$ for Kagome and Hexaflake; and $L\approx 3N$ for the Hexagonal lattice. This difference in the cost is more notable by considering the fraction of particles, $n$, that each system needs in order to have the same range as the Hexagonal lattice. Specifically, tree-like systems require approximately less than 80\% of the particles (inset of Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}a). Even more, by considering $L$ as function of $D$, we found that the number of connections required to build any tree-like system of the same size is independent of its fractal dimension (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}e).

\subsection*{Configurational complexity and efficiency ($r=1$)}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig3.png}
\caption{\small \textbf{Network analysis for $r=1$.} (a) Degree distribution, $p_k$, for each system. Network metrics as function of the fractal dimension, $D$: (b) average degree, $\langle k \rangle$; (c) average clustering coefficient, $\langle C \rangle$; (d) the center-perimeter communication ratio, $\delta_{max}$; (e) average shortest-path length, $\langle l \rangle$; and (f) efficiency, $\langle E \rangle$. (g) Efficiency as function of the average shortest-path length.}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure}

The objective of this part of the analysis is to characterize the topological features that would allow the best flow of information in terms of \textsl{configurational complexity} (local connectivity) and \textsl{efficiency} (network communication). For this analysis, undirected and unweighted networks are created under a geometric graphs approach: links are established pair-wise for all $N$ particles in the system if the euclidean distance between two particles (nodes), $d_{ij}$, is equal or less than a given distance, $r$, this, is, $d_{ij}\leq r$ (see Methods). First, we consider the case for $r=1$, which provides the exact network representation for direct contact interactions. Also, notice that in this case, the number of links corresponds to the number of connections, $L$, presented in Figs. \ref{fig:fig2}d and \ref{fig:fig2}e.

As measures of \textsl{configurational complexity} we considered the degree distribution, average degree, average sixfold bond-orientational parameter, and average clustering coefficient (see Network Analysis in Methods). For any particle, the degree, $k$, goes from one ($k_{min}=1$) to six ($k_{max}=6$). In this range, particles exhibit different local connectivity configurations that can be characterized by the degree distribution, $p_k$, see Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}a. The average degrees of tree-like systems are statistically equivalent ($\langle k \rangle=2$), despite their very different global morphology, and as well as those of the non-fractal Kagome lattice and the Hexaflake fractal ($\langle k \rangle=4$), despite their very different fractal/non-fractal nature, see Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}b. Variations in local complexity were also measured considering the the average sixfold bond-orientational parameter, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle$, which for ordered hexagonal systems, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle =1$, whereas for non-hexagonal or disordered systems, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle \to 0$ \cite{zangi1998, mazars2008, ledesma2021} (see Methods). We found that for the Hexagonal, Kagome and Hexaflake systems $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle =1$, whereas for the BA, DLA, and Vicsek systems $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle = 0$, regardless of their fractal dimension (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}f) and \ref{fig:fig3}c). Furthermore, the average clustering coefficient, $\langle C \rangle$, is zero for tree-like morphologies (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}d). This is understood considering that tree-like networks do not form loops \cite{vandewalle1997}. Consequently, these systems are very fragile, that is, the network can become disconnected very easily.

As measures of \textsl{efficiency}, we considered the network center-perimeter ratio, the average shortest-path length, and the average communication efficiency (see Network Analysis in Methods). The network center-perimeter communication ratio, $\delta_{max} = l_0^{max}/R_{max}$, where $l_0^{max}$ is defined as length of the path that connects the particle at the origin (center) of the system with the particle whose distance is $R_{max}$ (at the perimeter). From Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}e, we found that for BA and DLA fractals, $\delta_{max}>1$, due to their stochastic branched morphology (center-perimeter paths highly deviate from a straight-line), whereas for deterministic fractals and the lattices $\delta_{max}=1$, given their ordered morphology (center-perimeter paths form straight-lines). For the average shortest-path length, $\langle l \rangle$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}f), we found that tree-like systems have long shortest-path lengths due to their branches and centralized structure, this is, in order for two particles in different branches to communicate, a path must go through the origin; whereas for lattice systems, the average shortest-path lengths are smaller due to their decentralized structure. This is in good correspondence with the average communication efficiency \cite{latora2001}, $\langle E \rangle$ (see Methods). This is a metric that depends on the inverse of the pair-wise distances in the network, and considers that the further two points are in the network, the less efficient they are to communicate. Results for $\langle E \rangle$ as function of the fractal dimension, $D$, are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}g.

\subsection*{Configurational complexity and efficiency ($r \geq 1$)}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig4.png}
\caption{\small \textbf{Network visualizations for $r\geq 1$}. (a) BA-, (b) DLA-, and (c) Vicsek-based networks for $r=\{1,2,3\}$ as indicated. Nodes are colored according to the clustering coefficient. Below each network visualization is the corresponding degree distribution, $p_k$.}
\label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig5.png}
\caption{\small \textbf{Network analysis for $r\geq 1$.} Metrics as function of the parameter, $r$: (a) efficiency, $\langle E \rangle$; (b) average shortest-path length, $\langle l \rangle$; (c) center-perimeter communication ratio, $\delta_{max}$; (d) clustering coefficient, $\langle C \rangle$; (e) average degree, $\langle k \rangle$; and (f) structural cost function, $L/L_{HEX}$. In (a)-(e), the dotted horizontal line indicates the corresponding value for the Hexagonal lattice.}
\label{fig:fig5}
\end{figure}

The efficiency of tree-like networks can be improved by adding connections among nodes beyond contact interactions or euclidean first-neighbors. Following our geometric graphs approach, we introduced more links by allowing the value of the connectivity parameter to be greater than one unit, this is, $r\geq 1$. This criterion is uniformly applied pair-wise to all $N$ particles in the system (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig4}). However, adding more links implies an additional structural cost. As such, we are interested in the cut-off value, $r_c$, for which, the efficiency of tree-like systems (BA, DLA, and Vicsek) becomes equal or greater than the efficiency of the Hexagonal lattice at $r=1$, this is, $\langle E \rangle - \langle E \rangle_{HEX}=0$; and the additional structural cost that this improvement entails.

In Fig. \ref{fig:fig5}a we show the efficiency, $\langle E \rangle$, of the BA, DLA, and Vicsek fractals compared to the efficiency of the Hexagonal lattice (for $r=1$), $\langle E \rangle_{HEX}$. As expected, the efficiency increases for $r>1$ due to the reduction of the all length paths in the network (see \ref{fig:fig5}b and \ref{fig:fig5}c). Notably, the cut-off values for the efficiency occur at small values of the connectivity parameter: BA at $r_c\approx 2$, DLA at $r_c\approx 4$, and Vicsek at $r_c\approx 5$. Additionally, at these cut-off values, the average shortest-path length, $\langle l \rangle$, the center-perimeter ratio, $\delta_{max}$, and the clustering coefficient, $\langle C \rangle$, are equal or even better than the corresponding values of the Hexagonal lattice (see Figs. \ref{fig:fig5}b-\ref{fig:fig5}d). Even more, notice that the introduction of links beyond contact neighbors causes the tree networks to lose their pure hierarchical-tree structure, thus providing them with robustness, as captured by the clustering coefficient that becomes different from zero (Fig. \ref{fig:fig5}d).

Finally, we found that the average degree increases exponentially as function of the connectivity parameter, $r$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:fig5}e). This exponential behavior has important consequences in the structural cost given that, $L=N\langle k \rangle$/2 \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020}, therein, small changes in $r$ could lead to big changes in $L$. This is observed in Fig. \ref{fig:fig5}f, where we show $L$ relative the number of edges of the Hexagonal lattice, $L_{HEX}$, as function of $r$. Considering the cut-off values, $r_c$, for the efficiency (BA at $r_c\approx 2$, DLA at $r_c\approx 4$, and Vicsek at $r_c\approx 5$), we have that the number of edges needed to build BA, DLA or Vicsek-based networks with the same or better efficiency than the Hexagonal lattice requires: almost the same number of edges of an Hexagonal grid for BA ($L/L_{HEX}\approx 1$), at least twice the number of edges for DLA ($L/L_{HEX}\approx 2.5$), and four times for Vicsek ($L/L_{HEX}\approx 4$).

\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{\small \textbf{Numerical results of the spatial and network analysis for $r=1$.}}
\label{tab:tab1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
                               & \textbf{HEX} & \textbf{KGM} &  \textbf{HFK} & \textbf{BA}         &\textbf{DLA}           & \textbf{VSK} \\ \hline
\textbf{$N$}                   &   15000            &        15000    &      15000          &   15000             &   15000               &       15001     \\ \hline
\textbf{$R_{max}$}             &   64               &        74       &      106            & $122 \pm 1.27$      & $234 \pm 4.07$        &       334       \\ \hline
\textbf{$R_{g}$}               &   45               &        53       &      75             & $ 74 \pm 0.17 $     & $126 \pm 0.86 $       &       224       \\ \hline
\textbf{$D$}                   &   2.00             &        2.00     &      1.75           & $1.97\pm 0.015 $    & $1.72 \pm 0.0067$     &       1.47      \\ \hline
\textbf{$\langle\Psi_6\rangle$}&   1                &        1        &      1              &$0.0088 \pm 0.002$   & $0.0087 \pm 0.001$    &       0         \\ \hline
\textbf{$L$}                   &   44553            &        29744    &      29854          & $15006 \pm 0.89$    & $15092 \pm 2.59$      &       15000     \\ \hline
\textbf{$\langle k \rangle$}   &   5.9404           &       3.9658    &       3.9805	    & $2.0008\pm 0.0001$  & $2.0122 \pm 0.0003$   &       1.9998    \\ \hline
\textbf{$\langle C \rangle$}   &   0.4035           &       0.3382    &       0.4367        & $0.00049\pm0.00005$ & $0.00541 \pm 0.002$   &       0.0       \\ \hline
\textbf{$l_{0}^{max}$}         &   64               &       74        &      106            & $161.4 \pm 3.04 $   & $321.2 \pm 6.92$      &       334       \\ \hline
\textbf{$\langle l \rangle$}   &   64.2009          &       74.1370   &      113.3715       & $173.4341 \pm 0.38$ & $289.5194 \pm 1.19$   &       408.9502  \\ \hline
\textbf{$\langle E \rangle$}   &   0.0237           &       0.0205    &       0.0137        & $0.0077\pm 0.00001$ & $0.00553 \pm 0.00001$ &       0.00479   \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section*{Discussion}

The objective of the first part of the analysis was to characterize the systems' capacity to explore the plane in terms of the \textsl{range} (the maximum distance a system advances with respect to the origin), \textsl{coverage} (the ability to cover the plane in all directions), and \textsl{structural cost} (assembly connections), given the same amount of resources (or particles). We found that:

\begin{itemize}

    \item The linearity induced by the branching morphology of tree-like systems (BA, DLA, and Vicsek) provides them with a range greater than that of the lattices (Hexagonal, Kagome, and Hexaflake), that have the advantage of filling the plane more homogeneously due to their tight packing.

    \item Tree-like structures (Vicsek, DLA and BA) are more versatile, they have a long range and span different dimensions, including those close to the dimension of the embedding space.

    \item Assuming that the amount of energy required to create any assembly connection is the same, the structural cost to create any tree-like structure is the same regardless of their fractal dimension.

\end{itemize}

These results suggest that tree-like structures have the best balance between range, coverage and cost, and, therefore, would be best for the task exploring space. However, the structural cost would not only be associated to the amount of particles and connections (matter and energy), but also to functionality under uncertainty of the environment (lack of information). As such, information flow within the network (from perimeter to center, or any two points) is crucial and an important factor that weights-in in the cost. This problem is addressed by the network analysis in terms of configurational complexity (local connectivity) and efficiency (overall network communication). We found that:

\begin{itemize}

    \item Small variations in the micro configurations lead to the emergence of very different macro structures; morphological macro-properties (tree-likeness and fractality) cannot be predicted from the micro-properties of the particles alone.

    \item Although tree-like structures are more versatile and have a low structural cost regardless of their fractal dimension, they are quite fragile (zero clustering).

    \item Lattice systems have the best efficiency (shorter length paths) due to their decentralized structure, whereas tree-like structures (despite their low structural cost) are inefficient (bigger length paths) due to their branched and centralized morphology.

    \item The efficiency of tree-like systems can be improved by adding links beyond contact neighbors, at a cost that can be similar to that of the Hexagonal lattice, and that includes the same or even better improvements in other topological properties, such as the average shortest-path length, center-perimeter communication ratio and the clustering (which leads to an increase robustness).

\end{itemize}

An unambiguous characterization of complex spatial systems is still an open mathematical and physical problem. A good understanding of the fundamental physical, chemical, and biological aspects behind the development of such systems could provide valuable insights into fields such as medicine (e.g. cancer) \cite{ieva2014, lennon2015, curtin2021}, engineering and technology \cite{bejan2017, ziaei2015, demis2015}, biomimetic materials \cite{gruber2011biomimetics}, and the design of sustainable cities and transportation systems \cite{fessel2012, kay2022stepwise, auerbach2021}.

\section*{Methods}

\subsection*{Models}

Our analysis considers systems of identical particles forming simple and complex structures on the plane. In order to have a good representation of the order-disorder range of spatial distributions and configurations, we chose the following models:

\begin{itemize}
    \item the \textsl{Hexagonal} and \textsl{Kagome lattices}, as examples of simple deterministic systems;
    \item the \textsl{Vicsek} and \textsl{Hexaflake fractals}, as examples of complex deterministic systems;
    \item the \textsl{Ballistic Aggregation} and \textsl{Diffusion-Limited Aggregation fractals} (BA and DLA, respectively), as examples of complex stochastic systems.
\end{itemize}

A visualization of each system is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}. In all the simulations, particles have a diameter equal to one unit and are in contact with each other forming a global connected structure. This is equivalent to a set of non-overlapping disks with centers at one unit of distance, or point distributions where the shortest distance between two neighboring points is one unit. In addition, all systems are centered at the origin and contain $1.5\times 10^4$ particles. This number is large enough to generate precise measurements of spatial quantities, such as the fractal dimension, as well as robust statistics for the network analysis (see Table 1).

\begin{itemize}

    \item The \textsl{Hexagonal lattice} is composed of points distributed on the plane forming an hexagonal grid. In infinite systems, particles are in contact with 6 neighbors. In finite systems, particles at the border region can have less than 6 neighbors.

    \item The \textsl{Kagome lattice} or trihexagonal tiling is composed of points distributed on the plane forming equilateral triangles and hexagonal voids. In infinite systems, all particles are in contact with 4 neighbors. In finite systems, particles at the border region can have less than 4 neighbors.

    \item The \textsl{Hexaflake fractal} is constructed by iteratively exchanging hexagons (scaled by a factor of 1/3) at the position of the vertices and centers of previous hexagons. These hexagons can also be approximated by points (one for each vertex, including the center) in such a way that the hexaflake can be generated using the iterated function system defined by \cite{mendivil2003fractals}:
        \begin{align*}
            w_0 &= \frac{1}{3}(x, y),\\
            w_k &= \frac{1}{3}(x + \cos\theta_k, y + \sin\theta_k) ,
        \end{align*}

    where $\theta_k=k\pi/3$ and $k=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$. As initial seed we considered $(x_0,y_0)=(1,1)$. There are $7^{n-1}$ points in the $n$-th iteration, each at a distance smaller by $1/3$ than in the previous iteration. In order to have a spatial distribution centered at the origin where the shortest distance between two neighboring points is one unit, all points are re-scaled using $(x^*,y^*)=3^n(x,y)-(1,1)$, where $(x,y)$ are the points at the $n$-th iteration. Its fractal dimension is given by $D=\log7/\log3\approx 1.771$.

    \item The \textsl{Vicsek fractal} is constructed by iteratively exchanging squares (scaled by a factor of 1/3) at the position of the vertices and centers of previous squares. These squares can also be approximated by points (one for each vertex, including the center) in such a way that the fractal can be generated using the same iterated function system of the Hexaflake, with $\theta_k=k\pi/2$ and $k=\{1,2,3,4\}$. As initial seed we considered $(x_0,y_0)=(1,1)$. There are $5^{n-1}$ points in the $n$-th iteration, each at a distance smaller by $1/3$ than in the previous iteration. In order to have a spatial distribution centered at the origin where the shortest distance between two neighboring points is one unit, all points are re-scaled using $(x^*,y^*)=3^n(x,y)-(1,1)$, where $(x,y)$ are the points at the $n$-th iteration. Its fractal dimension is given by $D=\log5/\log3\approx 1.465$.

    \item The \textsl{BA fractal} emerges from the aggregation of particles, moving in ballistic or straight-line trajectories, to a static cluster \cite{VOLD1963684}. We followed a standard procedure for particle-cluster aggregation in which particles are launched at random from the circumference of a circle of radius $L = r_{max} + \delta$, with equal probability in position and direction. Here, $r_{max}$ is the distance of the farthest particle in the cluster with respect to a seed particle placed at the origin and $\delta=1000$ particle diameters is used to avoid screening effects \cite{nicolas2016, nicolas2017}. Its fractal dimension in the plane has been estimated at $D\approx 2$ \cite{nicolas2016, nicolas2017}.

    \item The \textsl{DLA fractal} emerges from the aggregation of particles, moving in random trajectories, to an static cluster \cite{witten1981}. We followed a standard procedure for particle-cluster aggregation in which particles are launched from a circle of radius $L = r_{max} + \delta$. Here, $r_{max}$ is the distance of the farthest particle in the cluster with respect to a seed particle placed at the origin and $\delta=100$ is used to avoid screening effects \cite{nicolas2016, nicolas2017}. The mean free path is then set to one particle diameter. We also used a standard scheme that modifies the mean free path as the particles wander at a distances greater than $L$ or in-between branches, and set a killing radius at $L_k = 2L$ in order to speed up the aggregation process. Its fractal dimension in the plane has been estimated at $D\approx 1.71$ \cite{nicolas2016, nicolas2017}.

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{Spatial Analysis}

\begin{itemize}

    \item The maximum radius, $R_{max}$, is defined as the maximum (furthest) distance to the origin of the $N$ particles in the cluster,

    \begin{align} \label{eq:radius}
         R_{max}=\mathrm{max}\{r_i\},
     \end{align}

    with $r_i^2=x_i^2+y_i^2$, where $(x_i,y_i)$ are the coordinates of the $i$th-particle.

    \item The radius of gyration, $R_g$, is defined as the root-mean-square distance of all the particles in the cluster \cite{vicsek1992, meakin1998},

     \begin{align} \label{eq:rg}
         R_g^2 = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N |\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_{cm}|^2.
     \end{align}

    For the fractal dimension estimation we considered that clusters are centered at the origin and have radial symmetry, therefore, $\vec{r}_{cm}\to 0$. For large enough $N$ ($>10^3$) \cite{nicolas2016}, the size of the cluster scales with the number of particles as the power law, $R_g(N) \propto N^\beta$, and the clusters can be considered as self-similar fractals with a fractal dimension, $D =1/\beta$ \cite{vicsek1992, meakin1998}. This is computed from a linear fit in log-log scale.

    \item The average sixfold bond-orientational order parameter, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle$, is given by \cite{zangi1998, mazars2008, ledesma2021},

    \begin{align}
        \langle \Psi_6 \rangle &= \frac{1}{N} \Biggl| \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{1}{k_i} \sum_{j=1}^{k_i} \exp(\mathrm{i}6\theta_{ij}) \Biggr|
    \end{align}

    where, $k_i$ is the number of first (contact) neighbors of the $i$-th particle, and $\theta_{ij}$ is the angle between the vector connecting the $i$-th particle with its $j$-th neighbor, with respect to an arbitrary axis (which in our analysis corresponds to the $x$-axis). For ordered hexagonal systems, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle =1$, whereas for disordered systems, $\langle \Psi_6 \rangle \to 0$.

\end{itemize}

\subsection*{Network Analysis}

For the network analysis we considered undirected and unweighted networks \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020, newman2018networks}. These were created under a geometric graphs approach in which links are established pair-wise if the euclidean distance between two particles (nodes) is equal or less than a certain distance $r$ (the connectivity parameter), this is, nodes $i$ and $j$ get connected if $d_{ij}\leq r$, where $d_{ij}=\sqrt{(x_i-x_j)^2+(y_i-y_j)^2}$. The metrics used in the analysis consider undirected and unweighted networks and are the following:

\begin{itemize}

    \item Degree. The degree, $k_i$, of a node, $i$, is defined as the number of links (or neighbors) connected to it \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020}.

    \item Average degree. The average degree is the arithmetic mean of degrees \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020},

    \begin{align} \label{eq:avdeg}
        \langle k \rangle = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}k_i.
    \end{align}

    In addition, since each link connects two nodes, the total number of links, $L$, can be expressed as, $2L = \sum_{i=1}^{N}k_i$. This allows to connect the degree with the number of links and the density, $d = L/L_{max}$, where $L_{max}=N(N-1)/2$ is the maximum number of possible links \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020},

    \begin{align} \label{eq:avdegden}
        \langle k \rangle = 2L/N = d(N-1),
    \end{align}

    \item Degree distribution. The degree distribution, $p_k$, provides the probability of randomly finding a node in the network with degree $k$. For a network of $N$ nodes the degree distribution is given by \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020},

    \begin{align} \label{eq:degdist}
        p_k = N_k/N,
    \end{align}

    where $N_k$ is the number of degree-$k$ nodes.

    \item Clustering coefficient. The clustering coefficient, $C_i$, is a measure of the level to which the neighbors of node $i$ are neighbors as well (formation of triangles or triads) \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020}. It is defined as,

    \begin{align} \label{eq:clust}
        C_i = \frac{\tau_i}{\tau_{i,max}} = \frac{2\tau_i}{k_i(k_i - 1)},
    \end{align}

    where $\tau_i$ is the number of pairs of neighbors or triangles involving the node $i$. The maximum number of triangles of $i$, $\tau_{i,max}$, is the number of pairs formed by their neighbors $k_i$. The clustering coefficient is only defined for $k_i > 1$.

    \item Average clustering coefficient. The average clustering coefficient is the arithmetic mean \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020, newman2018networks},

    \begin{align} \label{eq:avclust}
        \langle C \rangle = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i}C_i,
    \end{align}

    where the nodes of degree $k<2$ are excluded of the mean.

    \item Shortest-path length. A path is a sequence of links that are traversed to get from one node to another. The number of links in the path is the path length. A simple path is one that does not intersect itself (links are not repeated). The distance between two nodes is defined as the minimum number of links that are traversed in a simple path connecting two nodes. Such path is known as shortest path and its length as shortest-path length \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020}.

    \item Average shortest-path length. The average shortest-path length, $\langle l \rangle$, is the mean of the shortest-path lengths between pairs of nodes in the network, $l_{ij}$. It is defined as \cite{menczer_fortunato_davis_2020},

    \begin{align} \label{eq:avpath}
        \langle l \rangle = \frac{2}{N(N-1)}\sum_{i,j} l_{ij}.
    \end{align}

    \item Efficiency. The efficiency of a network measures the effectiveness of the exchange of information through the network \cite{latora2001}. The efficiency, $E_{ij}$, between the nodes, $i$ and $j$, is defined as inversely proportional to the distance, $E_{ij} = 1/l_{ij}$. If there is no path connecting the nodes, $l_{ij}=\infty$, and $E_{ij} = 0$; but if they are connected, $l_{ij}\geq 1$, and the value of the efficiency is bounded between $0$ and $1$.

    \item Average efficiency. The average efficiency is defined as \cite{latora2001},

    \begin{align} \label{eq:aveff}
	    \langle E \rangle = \frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{i\neq j}\frac{1}{l_{ij}}.
    \end{align}

\end{itemize}

Due to the stochastic nature of the BA and DLA fractals, we considered an ensemble of 10 clusters which provides a good estimation of spatial quantities and very robust network metrics (see Table 1). The data (particle's spatial coordinates) for each model is available online, see Data Availability. All computations were done using custom \textsl{Python} code and the \textsl{NetworkX} library \cite{networkx}.

\section*{Data Availability}

The spatial data used in this article is available in the following repository: \url{https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12692009}

\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}