\section{Introduction} \label{sec:Introduction}
Finding a connection between QCD and experiment is a conditio sine qua non for establishing whether a particular {description of the effects of non-perturbative QCD} is close to being correct or not, and a lot of effort has in last decades been put into doing it via comparing resonance spectra. While on {the} QCD side, a resonance spectrum is standardly predicted by lattice QCD and various {QCD-inspired phenomenological models}, on the experimental side it is standardly extracted by identifying poles of the scattering matrix~\cite{pdg}.  However, as resonances/poles must have definite quantum numbers, finding pole structure of experimental data must necessarily go through {a} partial wave decomposition where  {the} angular dependence at a fixed energy is represented by a decomposition over the complete set of Legendre polynomials which then define proper  {eigen}values of  {the} angular momentum operator. Combining good quantum numbers of angular momenta with  {the} known  {spins} of the reacting particles, resonance quantum numbers are fully defined.  However,  {one should} be aware that observables  {which are measured} are most generally given in terms of amplitudes, and not partial waves, and to obtain partial waves {one has} to invest some extra work.  Unfortunately, in that process  {the} single-channel partial wave decomposition turned out to be rather non-unique. For decades, it has been known that in  {the} single-channel case, even a complete set of observables is invariant with respect to the phase rotation of  {all} reaction amplitudes  {by the same} arbitrary real function of energy and angle (continuum ambiguity) \cite{Atk73,Bow75,Atk85}, and this free rotation either causes  {a} rearrangement of strength between real and imaginary parts of amplitudes and partial waves for energy dependent  {phase-rotation} functions, or  {it} even mixes  {partial waves} for angular dependent {phase-rotation functions}. These effects lead to unacceptable discontinuities in amplitudes and partial waves, and have been extensively discussed in  {refs~\cite{Svarc2018,Wunderlich:2017dby}}. The main conclusion is that at least one of the reaction amplitude phases must be forced to be continuous in energy and angle in order to restore  {a} continuous, unique solution. The open question is how to {accomplish this task} with minimal model dependence.  With all these issues at hand, finding an optimal method for extracting partial waves with minimal reference to a particular theoretical model for fixing the phase  {turns} out to be of utmost importance.

 {A} direct consequence of  {the} continuum ambiguity is that  {an} unconstrained single-channel, single energy partial wave analysis (SE PWA), in the sense that there is absolutely no correlation among SE PWA solutions at neighboring energies, must be discontinuous. This is the consequence of the fact that if a phase is unspecified at an isolated energy, then the free fit chooses a random phase value  as there is  {an} infinite number of phases which give {an} absolutely identical set of observables. So, the variation of  {the} phase between neighboring energies may be random and discontinuous. If the variation of  {the} phase between neighboring energies is discontinuous,  {the} redistribution of strength between real and imaginary part at each energy will be random, so the partial wave must be discontinuous too. The standard way of achieving the continuity was to  {implement} it on the level of partial waves, so one {resolved to constrain} partial waves directly to values originating from some particular theoretical model. In this case {, the} model dependence is strong. First ideas to use more general principles of analyticity for imposing the continuity instead of referring to a particular model were introduced in  {the mid 1980s} by  {the} Karlsruhe-Helsinki group for {Pion-Nucleon ($\pi N$)} elastic scattering in the form of fixed-$t$ analyticity~\cite{Hoehler84}. In this case instead of demanding the proximity of fitted partial waves to some model values, the continuity is imposed on the level of reaction amplitudes by requiring fixed-$t$ analyticity. In other words, the group was fitting the world collection of data requiring that the reaction amplitude for a fixed-$t$ have  {a} certain analytic, hence continuous form. In this way{, any} specific dependence on a particular model was reduced to the level of discussing what is the correct analytic structure of {the} reaction amplitudes, and this form is fairly well defined by the branch-points of  {the} analyzed reaction. Unfortunately, imposing analyticity in  {the Mandelstam-$t$ variable} opened quite some additional issues, and this is extensively discussed in~\cite{Osmanovic2018}.

The aim of this  {work} is to show that invoking  {analyticity in the} Mandelstam-$t$ variable is not really needed and raises unwanted complications; the required continuity can be obtained by amplitude analysis (AA) in the Mandelstam-$s$ variable, and the continuity is imposed by requiring the proper analyticity of amplitude phases only. So, everything is done in the Mandelstam-s variable, and by this the analysis becomes much simpler. To our knowledge, this is the first time that amplitude analysis and truncated partial wave analysis are joined into one compact, self-sustained {analysis-scheme}.

Let us stress that the continuum ambiguity problem, and all problems of  {the} continuity of  {the} phase related to it are typical and inherent for single-channel analyses where unitarity is violated in the sense that there exists the loss of {probability-}flux into other channels. Unitarity  {equations} become inequalities, and the free phase arises. However, in full coupled-channel formalisms where unitarity is at the end restored by summing up the flux in all channels, the invariance to phase rotations disappears as the phase is fixed, and uniqueness is automatically restored. {However}, this {work} analyzes only  {the} single-channel case.

Let us also warn the reader about another aspect of PWA: the number of partial waves involved. As  {the} partial wave decomposition is an expansion over the complete set of Legendre polynomials, it is inherently infinite, but in practice it must be finite, so all we can talk about is a truncated PWA (TPWA). A lot of effort has recently been put into analyzing the features of  {a} TPWA  {for pseudoscalar meson photoproduction}~ {\cite{TPWAall,YannickPhD}}.  {A} theoretical model was chosen, all observables were generated from this model with a fixed  {angular-momentum cutoff} $\ell_{\text{max}}$, and a complete set of observables generated this way was taken as intput to TPWA. In that way the outcome of TPWA is known in advance, and a lot of conclusion on the symmetries and inter-relation among  {the thus} formed pseudo-observables have been drawn. Unfortunately, as this is  {an idealized} case, most of {these conclusions are not applicable for our practical purposes}. Those pseudo-observables generated {from a} model by default possess explicit properties like unrealistically high precision, continuity in energy and angle, various inter-dependence among observables due to finite truncation order,  etc., which our real data do not necessarily have. This is in particular pronounced if the truncation order is too low. Therefore, we have to be very careful in our analysis of real data to take the truncation order high enough to avoid introducing additional, nonexisting symmetries into the analysis which may raise quite some problems. If we are careful enough, our obtained partial waves are not exact, but indeed are a good representation of  {the} amplitude analysis representing the process.

The paper is organized as follows: the main text goes directly into media res by proposing the new fit-method and showing applications to polarization data in $\eta$ photoproduction in a detailed way. Discussions on the necessary background knowledge concerning the photoproduction formalism, as well as a more elaborate mathematical discussion on the motivation of the proposed novel analysis-scheme, have been relegated to the appendices. In this way, we can present our main results quickly  {and} concisely, while the interested reader can read the more elaborate mathematical discussion in parallel.

\section{The novel approach to single-channel PWA and application to $\eta$ photoproduction} \label{sec:ProposalAndResults}
The main intention of  {our proposed scheme} is to obtain a continuous set of partial waves, directly from experimental data, with minimal involvement of theoretical models.

The 0-th step of our procedure is to perform an unconstrained single energy partial wave analysis (SE PWA); namely to fit the available set of measured data with  {a} chosen number of partial waves at each available energy independently (at each energy the fit is independent of the neighboring energy).  We know that such a process, due to  {the} continuum ambiguities on the level of reaction amplitudes, must  {produce a set of partial waves that are discontinuous in energy}, even for {a} complete set of pseudo-data with very high precision. However, this procedure gives the best possible fit to the data with {the} chosen number of partial waves, and directly measures the consistency of  {the} data. So, this gives us {a} benchmark-set of  {values for the goodness-of-fit} parameter chi squared  {- which we call $ \chi^{2}_{\text{unc.}} (W)$ ('unc.' for 'unconstrained') -} and any method of enforcing continuity of partial waves must be as close as possible to this set, but can never be better. Achieving the continuity of partial waves is, however, a demanding task. For the case of very precise pseudo-data, it has been shown that  {the task} is  {still relatively} simple: it is enough to impose the continuity only in one amplitude phase to achieve the goal that the SE PWA becomes continuous~\cite{Svarc2018}. However, for the real data we unfortunately have a serious problem.  The existing set of observables is incomplete, and errors are realistic, so the situation changes drastically.  Simple methods of imposing continuity on one phase only do not work anymore.

The standard way to impose continuity in discontinuous SE PWA is the penalty function  {methodology}. The idea is to require that the solution one obtains by fitting the data at one isolated energy SIMULTANEOUSLY reproduces the data AND is also close to some continuous function. So, out of  {an} in principle infinite number of solutions at isolated energy for {the} unconstrained SE PWA one picks only those which are also close to  {a} predetermined continuous penalization factor. Of course, the solution will depend on the  {size of the} penalization coefficient. The smaller the coefficient, the more the solution will tend to reproduce the fitted data; it will be more discontinuous and it will less satisfy the penalization function. On the other hand, if one increases the penalization coefficient, the more the fit will reproduce the penalization function and be continuous, but it will less describe the fitted data. In the final limit of extremely low penalization coefficient, the fit will ideally describe the data and be discontinuous, and in the final limit of extremely big penalization coefficient the fit will be continuous, perfectly describe the penalization function, and definitely disagree with the fitted data. The optimum lies somewhere in-between.

The  {first,} most standard approach  {found in the literature} was to penalize partial waves. We require that {the} fitted partial waves reproduce the observable $\mathcal{O}$ and are at the same time close to some partial waves taken from {a} theoretical model. So, for one observable we may at one fixed energy W write  {(for a literature-example of a penalization-scheme which acts on the level of partial waves, though not quite in the same way as in the definition given below, see for instance ref.~ {\cite{Workman:2011hi}})}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq1}
\chi^2(W) & = & \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{data}}}w^i \left[ {\cal O}^{\text{exp.}}_i (W,\Theta_i) - {\cal O}^{\text{th.}}_i ({\cal M}^{\text{fit}}(W,\Theta_i)) \right]^2 + \lambda_{\text{pen.}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{data}}}\left| {\cal M}^{\text{fit}}(W,\Theta_i)- {\cal M}^{\text{th.}}(W,\Theta_i) \right|^2
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M} & \stackrel{\text{def.}}{=} & \left\{ {\cal M}_0, {\cal M}_1, {\cal M}_2, ..., {\cal M}_j \right\} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
is the generic notation for the  {set of} all multipoles, $w_i$   is the statistical weight and $j$ is the number of  partial waves (multipoles). Here,  {$\mathcal{M}^{\text{fit}}$}  are fitting parameters and {$\mathcal{M}^{\text{th.}}$} are continuous functions taken from a particular theoretical model.
\\ \\ \noindent
In this case the procedure is strongly model-dependent.
\\ \\
 {A} possibility to make the penalization function independent of a particular model was first formulated in {the} Karlsruhe-Helsinki (KH) $\pi$N{-}elastic PWA  by G. H\"{o}hler  {and collaborators in the mid 1980s}~\cite{Hoehler84}.  Instead of using partial waves which are inherently model dependent, the penalization function was chosen to be constructed from reaction amplitudes which can be in principle directly linked to experimental data with only analyticity requirements  {imposed} in  {the} amplitude reconstruction procedure. So, the equation  {\eqref{Eq1}} was changed to:

\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq2}
\chi^2(W) & = &  \chi^{2}_{\text{data}} (W) + \chi^{2}_{\text{pen}} (W) \nonumber \\
 \chi^{2}_{\text{data}} (W) & = &  \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{data}}}w^i \left[ {\cal O}^{\text{exp.}}_i (W,\Theta_i) - {\cal O}^{\text{th.}}_i ({\cal M}^{\text{fit}}(W,\Theta_i)) \right]^2  \nonumber \\
 \chi^{2}_{\text{pen}} (W) & = &  \lambda_{\text{pen.}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{data}}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_{\text{amp}}}\left| {\cal A}_k({\cal M}^{\text{fit}}(W,\Theta_i))- {\cal A}_k^{\text{pen.}}(W,\Theta_i) \right|^2
\end{eqnarray}

where ${\cal A}_k$  is the generic name for any  {kind} of reaction amplitudes (invariant, helicity, transversity…) {. The amplitudes ${\cal A}_k({\cal M}^{\text{fit}}(W,\Theta_i))$ are} discontinuous ones obtained from fitted multipoles, and {the amplitudes} ${\cal A}_k^{\text{pen.}}(W,\Theta_i)$   {are} continuous ones obtained in  {the} penalization procedure. In this way, one is now responding to two challenges: to get reaction amplitudes which fit the data, and also to make them continuous. In Karlsruhe-Helsinki case{, this} was accomplished by implementing fixed-$t$ analyticity and fitting the data base for fixed-$t$ with reaction amplitudes whose analyticity is achieved by using  {the} Pietarinen expansion, and using the obtained, continuous reaction amplitudes as penalization functions  ${\cal A}_k^{\text{pen.}}(W,\Theta_i)$.\footnote{In their case they have chosen to use invariant amplitudes.}  So, the first step of the KH fixed-$t$ approach was to create the data base ${\cal O}(W)|_{t=\text{fixed}}$  using the measured  {data} base $ {\cal O}(\cos \, \theta)|_{W=\text{fixed}}$, and then to fit them with  {a} manifestly analytic representation of reaction amplitudes for a fixed-$t$. Then, the second step was to perform a penalized PWA defined by Eq.~ {\eqref{Eq2}} in a fixed-$W$ representation where the penalizing function  ${\cal A}_k^{\text{pen.}}(W,\Theta_i) $  was obtained in the first step in a fixed-$t$ representation.  In that way a stabilized SE PWA was performed.
\\ \\ \indent
This approach  was revived very recently for SE PWA of $\eta$ photoproduction by  {the} Main-Tuzla-Zagreb collaboration~\cite{Osmanovic2018}, and analyzed in details. The  {basic result} of that paper is that this fixed-$t$ method works very reliably, but is rather complicated. First it required the creation of a completely new data base   ${\cal O}(W)|_{t=\text{fixed}}$  from the measured data base $ {\cal O}(\cos \, \theta)|_{W=\text{fixed}}$, which introduced  {a} certain model dependence connected with  {the} interpolation, and second it involved quite some problems with the importance of  {the} unphysical regions.
\\ \\ \noindent
Therefore, we propose  {an} alternative.
\\ \\ \indent
We also use Eq.~ {\eqref{Eq2}}, but the penalizing  {function} ${\cal A}_k^{\text{pen.}}(W,\Theta_i) $ is  generated by the amplitude analysis in the same, fixed-$W$ representation, and not in the fixed-$t$ one. This simplifies the procedure significantly, and avoids quite some theoretical assumptions on the behaviour in the fixed-$t$ representation.
\\ \\ \noindent
We also propose a 2-step process:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2.cm]
  \item[\emph{Step 1:}] \hspace*{1.cm} \\
    {Complete experiment analysis/amplitude analysis (CEA/AA)} of experimental data in  {a} fixed- {$W$} {representation} to generate  {the} penalizing  {function}  ${\cal A}_k^{\text{pen.}}(W,\Theta_i) $
  \item[\emph{Step 2:}] \hspace*{1.cm} \\
   Penalized TPWA{, using} Eq.(2) with the penalty function from
         \emph{Step 1}.
\end{itemize}
 {One has to observe} one very important fact: \\ \\ \indent
The "main event" happens in \emph{Step 2};  \emph{Step 1} serves only to impose continuity of \emph{Step 2}.  Therefore, the reaction amplitudes obtained in \emph{Step 1} need not absolutely reproduce the data, it is important that they are close to the experiment, and that they are continuous. The best agreement is then achieved in \emph{Step 2}. Of course, finding the optimal value of  {the} penalization coefficient $\lambda_{\text{pen.}}$ is of utter importance.
\\ \\
\noindent
\underline{\emph{\textbf{Step 1:  CEA/AA}}} \\ \\ \indent
In Appendix~\ref{sec:PhotoFormalism}, we give the formalism of  {pseudoscalar meson} photoproduction, and in Appendix~\ref{sec:CEAandTPWAandNewMethod} we discuss the details of CEA/AA. Out of detailed presentation of the problem we stress the most important  {fact}: that  {the} unconstrained CEA/AA is non-unique and discontinuous because of {the} continuum ambiguity. In this step, therefore, we have to achieve two  {goals}: to find the amplitudes which achieve the best possible agreement with the data and are continuous at the same time. As we do not have a complete set of data of infinite precision at our disposal, it is by definition impossible to obtain the unique solution. We can only get the solution with errors generated by experiment; in other words these errors originate only in the uncertainty of data, and not in continuum ambiguity effects.  $Step \, 1$ is also a two-part procedure.  The best agreement with the data is achieved in  {the} first part, and the continuity is imposed in the second part.
 \\ \\ \noindent
 We adopt the following strategy:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2.cm]
\item[a.] The best agreement with experiment is achieved in the unconstrained fit of the absolute values of all reaction amplitudes to the data base  (observe that in fitting absolute values we do not have any phases involved)
\item[b.] The continuity of  {the} solution is achieved by fixing the phases of all reaction amplitudes to the analytic phase of our choice.
\end{itemize}
Observe that \emph{Step 1} is because of part  {'b.'} a model dependent step, but this model dependence will be additionally reduced in \emph{Step 2}. Namely, in \emph{Step 2} we fit the data with partial waves directly, so {the} phases of all reaction amplitudes are changed correcting the fact that the penalization which gives continuity is model dependent. We may safely say that the approach which is proposed here forces the phase of the final solution to be in-between  {the} exact and  {the} penalizing solution and  {to} be continuous at the same time. The situation may further improve by iteration, i.e. to repeat \emph{Step 1} with input from \emph{Step 2} as it was done in KH approach for fixed-$t$, but the final result so far does not require that.
\\ \\ \noindent
\textbf{a. Obtaining absolute values}
\\ \\ \indent
For obtaining absolute values it is extremely useful to use  {the} TRANSVERSITY REPRESENTATION. Namely, in {the} transversity representation for  {$\eta$ photoproduction,} all four absolute values  {$\left|b_{i}\right|$} are determined by  {a set of} four observables  {given by the unpolarized differential cross section} $d \sigma/d \Omega \stackrel{def}{=}\sigma_0$,  {the beam asymmetry} $\Sigma$,  {the target-asymmetry} $T$, and  {the recoil-polarization asymmetry} $P$  {(cf. Table~\ref{tab:PhotoproductionObservables} in appendix~\ref{sec:PhotoFormalism})}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_0 & = & \frac{\rho}{2}\left( |b_1|^2+ |b_2|^2+|b_3|^2+|b_4|^2 ) \right) \nonumber \\
\hat{\Sigma}  & = & \frac{ {\rho}}{2}\left( -|b_1|^2 - |b_2|^2+|b_3|^2+|b_4|^2 ) \right) \nonumber \\
\hat{T}  & = & \frac{ {\rho}}{2}\left( |b_1|^2 - |b_2|^2-|b_3|^2+|b_4|^2 ) \right) \nonumber \\
\hat{P}  & = & \frac{ {\rho}}{2}\left( -|b_1|^2 + |b_2|^2-|b_3|^2+|b_4|^2 ) \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where  {${\cal O} \, \sigma_0 \stackrel{def}{=} \hat{\cal O}$} and  $\rho$ is defined in appendices. Therefore, having all four observables with sufficient precision and in adequate number of angular points would enable us, up to discrete ambiguities, the unique extraction of  {the} absolute values  {$\left| b_{i} \right|$} in SE PWA. By adequate programming (taking into account similarity of solutions at neighboring energies, one can eliminate discontinuities due to discrete ambiguities. All remaining discontinuities will be of experimental origin.
\\ \\ \noindent
\textbf{b. Determining phases}
\\ \\ \indent
Up to this moment, our model is completely energy and angle independent, and depends only on experimental data. However, results are still not continuous. Introducing analytic phases in this step produces continuity. For  {a} single pole amplitude, the phase is smooth (in the vicinity of the pole the phase just quickly transverses through $\pi/2$ without producing any pronounced structure), but already two poles in the analyzed range produce phase interference, so some structures may be formed. In addition, we know that in our energy range of interest, some threshold openings are present, and this will also produce  {a rather un-smooth} phase behaviour. So, at first it looks  {as if} the phase may behave rather violently. On the other hand, we are not discussing partial waves where poles are directly visible, but reaction amplitudes which are a sum over all known resonances and thresholds, so the effect is smeared out. So, to the best of our knowledge, we can only say that phases are smooth and analytic. At this moment there is very little choice but to take the phase from a theoretical model. We have chosen  {the Bonn-Gatchina model solution}  BG2014-02~\cite{BoGa,BoGaweb}).
\\ \\ \indent
These phases are smooth, and do contain some structures which are introduced by the model. Just as an illustration, {we show in Fig.~\ref{b1phase}} the phase of  {the} $b_{1}$ amplitude. Other phases are very similar.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{T1BGa.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{T1BGb.png} \\
\caption{\label{b1phase}(Color online)  {The normalized transversity amplitude (phase) $e^{i \varphi_{1}} := b_{1} / \left| b_{1} \right|$ } from  {the} BG2014-2 solution  {is shown}.     }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\\ \\ \noindent
So, our first solution $Sol \, 1$ is obtained by using  {the theoretical BG2014-02 phases} directly.
\\ \\ \noindent
Unfortunately, we do not know how strong and model dependent this assumption is.
\\ \\ \noindent
As  {the} single-spin observables $d\sigma/d\Omega$, $\Sigma$, $T$ and $P$ are phase independent, and only {the double-polarization observables of type} beam-target- ($\mathcal{BT}$), beam-recoil- ($\mathcal{BR}$) and target-recoil- ($\mathcal{TR}$) are, we may hope that this dependence is weak. Using the fact that phases are analytic function offers us the possibility to test the size of this dependence.
\\ \\ \noindent
First, we confirm that all transversity amplitude phases indeed are analytic functions. To do  {this}, we fit all four phases with  {a $2$-dimensional} Pietarinen expansion,  {a} method which has not been formulated up to now. The method is {based} on Pietarinen expansion technique \cite{Svarc2013}, but extended to two variables: energy and angle (more precisely cosine of the angle  {$x := \cos \theta$}). Namely, in energy dimension we use standard Pietarinen expansion, but each of {the} coefficients  {also} depends on  {the} angle. Similar as for  {the} energy part, for  {the} angular dependence we also assume the expansion over a complete set of functions, in this case we use Legendre polynomials. So, one gets an analytic function which  {is} analytic in energy and angle  {and} with the analyticity we control.
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Eq:2D-Pietarinen}
PT(W,\theta) & = & \frac{\sum_{k=0}^{N}c_k(x)Z(W)^k}{\left|\sum_{k=0}^{N}c_k(x)Z(W)^k \right| } \nonumber \\
Z(W) & = & \frac{\alpha - \sqrt{W_0-W}}{\alpha + \sqrt{W_0-W}} \nonumber \\
c_k(x) & = & \sum_{l=0}^{M} c_{k,l}P_l(x) \nonumber \\
x & = & \cos \, \theta
\end{eqnarray}
 {$M$} and  {$N$} are small numbers (angular momentum index M is always around 3, and energy index can vary from 4 for very simple energy analyticity to 20 for a fairly complicated one), $P_l(x)$ are Legendre polynomials and $\alpha$ is {the} Pietarinen range parameter.  Then we make a  {2-dimensional} fit to the four normalized transversity amplitudes and get {the} coefficients $\alpha$, $W_0$, and  $c_{k,l}$  for all four absolute values.
\\ \\ \noindent
If we are able to fit the phases with such an expansion,  {the} phases  {have to be} analytic functions.
\\ \\ \noindent
We use  {a} very simple Pietarinen expansion, with only one branch-point at  {the} $\eta$ photoproduction {threshold} and only 4 terms in  {the} angular expansion. However, we see that the analytic structure of the fitted phase is rather complicated in energy, and we need as much as $N=20$ energy terms to obtain a decent fit. The result is {shown} in Fig.~\ref{b1fitted}
\\ \\ \noindent
We again show the result only for $b_{1}$ amplitude:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{b1fitteda.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{b1fittedb.png}  \\
\caption{\label{b1fitted}(Color online)  {The normalized transversity amplitude (phase) $e^{i \varphi_{1}}$} from {the BG2014-02} solution (Discrete symbols) and  {a 2-dimensional} Pietarinen fit (2D plane)  {are shown}.     }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\\ \noindent
The analyticity of  {the phases of} $b_{1}-b_{4}$ offers us the possibility of testing the sensitivity of our method to the phase. Instead of  {the} very physical phases $b_{1}-b_{4}$ of  {the} BG2014-2 model and illustrated for $b_{1}$ in Figs.(\ref{b1phase},\ref{b1fitted}), we shall use a phase with much simpler analyticity, and which is generated by a 2D fit to  {the BG2014-02} phases with  {$N=4$} terms only! This phase is again  {shown} as an illustration for {the} $b_{1}$ amplitude in Fig.~\ref{b1smoothphase}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{T1alla.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{T1allb.png}  \\
\caption{\label{b1smoothphase}(Color online)  {The normalized transversity amplitude (phase) $e^{i \varphi_{1}}$ } from {the} smoothed BG2014-02 solution  {is shown}.     }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\\ \\  \noindent
So, our second solution $Sol \, 2$ is obtained by using  {the smoothed theoretical BG2014-02} phases.
\\ \\ \noindent
We stress that this is a very unphysical phase as despite being anticipated no structures are allowed, so the amount of dissimilarity between $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$ will  {give} us the maximum model dependence of our assumption. It is clear that all structures in  {the} phases in $Sol \, 2$ are eliminated, the obtained functions are smooth, and {represent} the best fit to  {the BG2014-02} phases.

In this way, we complete the \emph{Step 1} by using  {the} original and smoothed analytic phases which are generated by the phases from  {the theoretical} Bonn-Gatchina model (used phases are the best fit of  {BG2014-02} input with 2-D Pietarinen expansion given in Eq.~\ref{Eq:2D-Pietarinen}).
\\ \\ \\ \noindent
\underline{\emph{\textbf{Step 2 : TPWA}}}
\\ \\ \indent
We perform  {a} standard penalized TPWA defined by Eq.~ {\eqref{Eq2}} with $\ell_{\text{max}}=5$. The only issue is finding {an} optimal  {value for the} penalty-function coefficient  {$\lambda_{\text{pen.}}$}.  {This issue will be discussed further below.}
\\ \\ \noindent
We, however, have to discuss two features of TPWA:  {the} threshold behaviour and  {the} data base.
\\ \\ \noindent
\textbf{\emph{\underline{Threshold behaviour:}}} \\ \\ \indent
We know that in the vicinity of  {a} threshold, partial waves have to behave like $q(W)^{L}$  where $q(W)$ is the {absolute value of the meson's} cm momentum, and in our procedure that has not been enforced up to now in any way. $Step \, 1$ is an unconstrained fit  {as far as the} absolute values  {$\left| b_{i} \right|$} are concerned, so no restrictions are coming through the penalty function. The  TPWA itself also does not require that our result obeys that rule. So, we have to impose that  {threshold-}behaviour somehow.
\\ \\ \noindent
 {A} very natural way to do it is, again, via penalty function technique, and we follow the method recommended by {the} KH group in ref.~\cite{Hoehler84}.
\\ \\ \noindent
The logic is the following: we add {another} penalty function to our total $\chi^2 (W)$, which is to be minimized:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Eq:threshold}
\chi^2_{\text{thr.}}(W)    & = & \lambda_{\text{thr.}} \sum_{l=1}^{\ell_{\text{max}}} |{\cal M}_{l \pm}|^2 F_{\text{thr.}}(W,b,l)^{2 \cdot l} \nonumber \\
              F_{\text{thr.}}  (W,b,l) &  =  & \tfrac{  b \cdot l}{ q(W)} \, \cdot \, e^{-\tfrac{ q(W)}{ 0.1 \, b} }  \nonumber \\
              {\cal M}_{l \pm}   & = & \left\{ E_{ l \pm}, M_{ l \pm} \right\}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{\text{thr.}}  (W,b,l)$ is a phenomenological function instead of  {the} theoretical function $R_2^{2l}$ of ref.~\cite{Hoehler84}, which is connected with convergence radius of the PWA expansion. We have used this function for the value $b=m_N$ where $m_N$ is  {the} nucleon mass, and $\lambda_{\text{thr.}} = 2$. The function  $F_{\text{thr.}}  (W,b,l)^{2\cdot l}$  behaves like $q(W)^{-2l}$ for small $q(W)$, and vanishes for big $q(W)$, so  {it} scales down all multipoles  {with} low $q(W)$, and leaves  {those} unchanged  {that have a big $q(W)$}. In  this way {, the} $q(W)^{l}$ power law is automatically enforced for low $q(W)$.
\\ \\ \noindent
\textbf{\emph{\underline{Data base:}}} \\ \\ \indent
The data selection is particularly important as we want to be as  {close} as possible to  {a} complete set of observables. At this moment {,} we take all available measured data, and we take them without any renormalization, exactly as they are published. In Table~\ref{tab:expdata} we give our data base.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:expdata} Experimental data from A2@MAMI,
GRAAL, and  CBELSA/TAPS  used in our PWA. Data from  CBELSA/TAPS are taken at the center of the energy bin.}
\bigskip
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
 Obs.        & $N$ & $E_{lab}$~[MeV] & $N_E$  & $\theta_{cm}$~[deg] & $N_\theta$ & Reference    \\
\hline
 $\sigma_0$ & $2400$ & $710 - 1395$ & $120$  & $18 - 162$ & $20$ & A2@MAMI(2010)~\cite{McNicoll:2010qk} \\
 $\Sigma$   & $ 150$ & $724 - 1472$ & $ 15$  & $40 - 160$ & $10$ & GRAAL(2007)~\cite{Bartalini:2007fg} \\
 $T$        & $ 144$ & $725 - 1350$ & $ 12$  & $24 - 156$ & $12$ & A2@MAMI(2016)~\cite{Annand:2016ppc} \\
 $F$        & $ 144$ & $725 - 1350$ & $ 12$  & $24 - 156$ & $12$ & A2@MAMI(2016)~\cite{Annand:2016ppc} \\
 $E$        & $ 64$  & $750 - 1450$ & $ 8 $  & $29 - 151$ & $8$ & CBELSA/TAPS(2020)~\cite{Muller:2020plb} \\
 $P$        & $ 66$  & $725 - 908 $ & $ 6 $  & $41 - 156$ & $11$ &  CBELSA/TAPS(2020)~\cite{Muller:2020plb} \\
 $G$        & $ 48$  & $750 - 1250$ & $ 6 $  & $48 - 153$ & $8 $ &  CBELSA/TAPS(2020)~\cite{Muller:2020plb} \\
 $H$        & $ 66 $ & $725 - 908 $ & $ 6 $  & $41 - 156$ & $11$ &  CBELSA/TAPS(2020)~\cite{Muller:2020plb} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

This  {selected} set of data is somewhat specific, and deserves our special attention.  The set is dominated by {the} very dense and very precise  {$\sigma_0$-data from A2@MAMI}, while other spin observables are measured only  at 6-15 energies, and much less angles. So the question arises how these sparse spin data will be combined with very precise results on $\sigma_0$. We shall solve  {this problem via} interpolation.
\noindent
We generate two sets of interpolated data:
\\ \\ \noindent
\emph{\underline{Set 1}}: \\ \indent
We use all $\sigma_0$  data, and all spin data are interpolated. So the whole minimization is performed on {a} set which consists of $\sigma_0$  data + observables interpolated at energies and angles where $\sigma_0$ is measured. These data are marked light grey.
Observe that all data are very dense, but in practice the only factually measured data are  {the} $\sigma_0$  values, all other data are obtained by interpolation from  {the} measured values. This set of data is somewhat model dependent, and serves only as an indication. This set will be used in \emph{Step 1} .
\\ \\ \noindent
\emph{\underline{Set 2}}: \\ \indent
We use only part of  {the} $\sigma_0$  data at energies where at least one additional spin observables is exactly measured.  This set is not so dense in energy, but  {the} model dependence is reduced.  We denote the results corresponding to this set with red discrete symbols. This set will be used in \emph{Step 2} .

\section{Results and Discussion} \label{sec:Results}
First we made an unconstrained fit to produce the bench-mark  {$\chi^{2}_{\text{unc.}}(W)$} function which represents the lowest possible $\chi^2$ value for any PW fit, and consequently indicates how consistent the data base actually is. However, let us remind the reader that  the resulting partial waves for such a fit are random and discontinuous. {Then, we performed two fits using the 2-step analysis-scheme introduced above, with the results being denoted as $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$ according to the corresponding sets of $b_{i}$-phases defined in section~\ref{sec:ProposalAndResults}. For both solutions, we adjusted the following value for the penalty coefficient: $\lambda_{\text{pen.}} = 10$. This value represents the lower boundary of the following roughly estimated optimal window of penalty-coefficient values around $\lambda_{\text{pen.}} \simeq 10, \ldots, 50$. This window of values has been determined by 'sweetspot'-fitting techniques similar in spirit, but not exactly equal, to those proposed in sections~II and~III of reference \cite{Landay:2016cjw}. The coefficient for the threshold-penalty~\eqref{Eq:threshold} was set to $\lambda_{\text{thr.}} = 2$.
 \newpage
  At this moment it is essential to show the difference among  {$\chi_{\text{unc.}}^2/ \text{ndf}$} for {the} unconstrained solution,  {as well as $\chi^{2}_{\text{data}} / \text{ndf}$ for} $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$ ($ndf$ is number of degrees of freedom). We show it in~Fig.\ref{Chi:comparison}.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Chi2comp}
\caption{\label{Chi:comparison}(Color online)  {A comparison} of  {$\chi_{\text{unc.}}^2/ \text{ndf}$} for {the} unconstrained solution,  {as well as $\chi^{2}_{\text{data}} / \text{ndf}$ for} $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$ at all measured energies {, is shown.}  }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

The {$\chi_{\text{unc.}}^2/ \text{ndf}$ from the unconstrained solution has by far the smallest values}, however multipoles for this solution are discontinuous. The {$\chi_{\text{data}}^2/ \text{ndf}$} for both solutions $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$ is somewhat worse, but still very good.
\\ \\ \noindent
However, {the $\chi_{\text{data}}^2/ \text{ndf}$} for $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$, solutions with two different phases,  is barely distinguishable! $\chi^2/ndf$ for  $Sol \, 1$, the solution with phase directly taken over from a very good, multichannel ED model BG2014-2, is systematically better than $\chi^2/ndf$ for  $Sol \, 2$ where the phase is ad hoc smoothed\footnote{There are several points where this is not the case, but this is just the reflection of the fact that the phase from BG2014-2 model is still only a model and not a genuine phase, so there is a possibility that smoothed phase is accidentally better.}. Somewhat more pronounced differences can be seen in the energy range 1600 MeV $\leq$ W $\leq$ 1700 MeV, but this is exactly the area of numerous threshold openings ($K \Lambda$, $K \Sigma$,...) where the phase is expected to have notable structure.
\\ \\ \noindent
Therefore, we in Figs.~\ref{Multipoles:Sol1} and \ref{Multipoles:Sol2} show the lowest multipoles for \emph{Sol 1} and \emph{Sol 2}  and corresponding predictions of BG2014-2 theoretical solution.
\\ \\ \noindent
As it was to be expected, differences are noticeable, but not big. In spite of small differences in $\chi^2/ndf$ for  $Sol \, 1$ and  $Sol \, 2$, the obtained multipoles are not identical.

\clearpage
\underline{\textbf{$Sol \, 1$, solution with BG 2014-2 phase.}}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ReEp0} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ImEp0}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ReMm1} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ImMm1}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ReEp1} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ImEp1}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ReMp1} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ImMp1}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ReEm2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S1ImEm2}  \\
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ReMm2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ImMm2}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ReEp2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ImEp2}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ReMp2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ImMp2}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ReEm3} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ImEm3}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ReMm3} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S1ImMm3}  \\
\caption{\label{Multipoles:Sol1}(Color online) Multipoles for L=0, 1 ,2 and 3 partial waves for Sol 1. Grey discrete symbols correspond to Set 1, and red discrete symbols correspond to Set 2. Orange full line is BG2014-2 solution for comparison.      }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\clearpage

\underline{\textbf{$Sol \, 2$, solution with smoothed BG2014-2 phase.}}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ReEp0} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ImEp0}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ReMm1} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ImMm1}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ReEp1} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ImEp1}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ReMp1} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ImMp1}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ReEm2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{S2ImEm2}  \\
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ReMm2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ImMm2}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ReEp2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ImEp2}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ReMp2} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ImMp2}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ReEm3} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ImEm3}  \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ReMm3} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S2ImMm3}  \\
\caption{\label{Multipoles:Sol2}(Color online) Multipoles for L=0, 1, 2 and 3 partial waves for Sol 2. Grey discrete symbols correspond to Set 1, and red discrete symbols correspond to Set 2. Orange full line is BG2014-2 solution for comparison.      }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\newpage
 In Fig.~\ref{Chi2:Sol1}  we repeat the plot of  $\chi^2/ndf$ for the whole process for $Sol \, 1$  from Fig.~\ref{Chi:comparison}, but in addition we give the  $\chi^2/N_{\text{data}}$ for the whole fit, and  $\chi^2/N_{\text{data}}$  for individual observables. The $\chi^2/N_{\text{data}}$  for individual observables is extremely important as it gives one the internal consistency of  used data base. We do not show the similar figure for  $Sol \, 2$  as two figures are practically indistinguishable.
 \begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2Allndf} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2Allndata} \\
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2DCS} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2Sigma} \\
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2T} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2F} \\
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2E} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2H} \\
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2P} \hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.35\textwidth]{S1Chi2G} \\
\caption{\label{Chi2:Sol1}(Color online) $\chi^2/N_{\text{data}}$ for Sol 1.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\clearpage

However, the fits to the data for both solutions $Sol \, 1$  and $Sol \, 2$ are practically indistinguishable. So, in Figs.~\ref{Sol1:DCS}-\ref{Sol1:H} we give the agreement of $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$ with the fitted observables, and compare it to the results of BG2014-2 solution.

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1DCS.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:DCS}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $\sigma_0$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at representative energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1Sigma.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:Sigma}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $\Sigma$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at representative energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1T.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:T}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $T$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at representative energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1F.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:F}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $F$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at representative energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1E.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:E}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $E$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at measured energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1P.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:P}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $P$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at measured energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\clearpage

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1G.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:G}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $G$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at measured energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{S1H.png}
\caption{\label{Sol1:H}(Color online) Comparison of experimental data for $H$ (discrete symbols) with results of Sol 1 (red full line) and BG2014-2 fit (blue dashed line) at measured energies.    }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

 So, we obtained almost identical fits of all observables in the present data base (indistinguishable when plotted, but different below drawing precision when  {a} detailed comparison of numbers is made) with two visibly different sets of multipoles!
\newpage
If the data base  {were more complete},  {the} two sets of  {$\chi_{\text{data}}^2/ \text{ndf}$} would be different {between $Sol \, 1$ and $Sol \, 2$}, and the we could refine $Step \, 1$ to include {the} phase fit as well, very similar as it has been done in fixed-$t$ analyisis\footnote{We could fit the theoretical {BG2014-02} phases with 2D Pietarinen expansion with at  least $N=20$ terms, and then make a global, energy dependent fit of all observables fixing the absolute values of reaction amplitudes to the values of the present fit with only four observables, and  using  {the} Pietarinen expansion coefficients as fitting parameters for improving phases. Then we would go to $Step \, 2$ with improved phases which are connected to BG 2014-2 values only by taking them as initial values.}.  So, improving the precision of existing experiments and {measuring additional observables} to get missing phases is definitely needed to distinguish between  {the} present solutions. On the basis of physics arguments we definitely claim that $Sol \, 1$ is much more favourable, but solely on the basis of measured data $Sol \, 2$ cannot be excluded.
\\ \\ \noindent
However, one thing is important:  {the proposed analysis-scheme} is good enough to  {accomplish the given task} staying only in {a fixed-$W$ representation}.
\\ \\ \noindent
Furthermore, from Figs.~\ref{Multipoles:Sol1}   and  \ref{Multipoles:Sol2} we see:
\begin{itemize}
\item The obtained multipoles are fairly smooth and do not significantly deviate from {the BG2014-02} predictions in the sense that there is no qualitative difference between the two sets of multipoles. They are of the same sign, they have similar shape, they have comparable structure. However, one  sees that both solutions \emph{Sol 1} and \emph{Sol 2}  have notably more structure than the  {energy-dependent BG2014-02} model, and that is to be expected as BG2014-2 is a multi-channel model, and does not ideally fit the data in one particular channel.
\item One does see some apparent discontinuities at certain energies in certain multipoles (i.e. “jump” in  {${\rm Im} E_{2+}$}  at 1687 MeV), but this is the result of  {inconsistencies of the data}, and not of the inability of the proposed {analysis-scheme} to enforce continuity.  Namely, as it has been shown in  {a} former publication~\cite{Svarc2018}, forcing the phase to be {a} continuous function is always resulting with continuity for the complete set of observables measured with sufficient precision ( {in reference~\cite{Svarc2018}, this has been shown} for pseudo-data with infinite precision).  So, if sudden discontinuities appear, they should be solely attributed to the inconsistency in  {the} data itself.
\item  As the low-energy behavior of  {the} multipoles is constrained by the penalty function technique to the $q^{L}$ behaviour, some low energy structure in  {the} multipoles (mostly structures below 1550 MeV) may result from this effect. However, it is clearly visible that  {low-energy} structures are more pronounced for the \emph{Sol 2} which is obtained with {the smoothed nonphysical set of phases}.  This should and will be discussed at length in future research when the pole structure will be analyzed using  {the} Laurent+Pietarinen formalism~\cite{Svarc2013}.
\item We see that both sets of multipoles corresponding to different  {choices} of interpolating techniques (Set 1 –light gray and Set-2 red) are in fair agreement.
\end{itemize}
From Fig.~\ref{Chi2:Sol1} we see:
\begin{itemize}
\item  {The values of} $\chi_{\text{data}}^2/\text{ndf}$  and $\chi_{\text{data}}^2/N_{\text{data}}$  are extremely good  but  notably non-uniform throughout the analyzed energy range. This indicates  {certainly inconsistencies} in data set as it will be discussed later.
\item   {The distributions of $\chi_{\text{data}}^2/N_{\text{data}}$-values} for particular observables notably differ.
     \begin{itemize}
           \item[*] It is uniform and very good (close to 0.5) in the complete energy range for $\sigma_0$.
           \item[*] It is very good  and close to 0.5 in most of the energy range for  {$\Sigma$, $T$, $F$ and $G$}, but each of {the} observables show energy ranges where this quantity suddenly increases:
               \begin{itemize}
                   \item[$\circ$] For  {$F$} it  {rises} from  {an} average value in  {the} ranges 1600-1650 MeV and 1750-1840 MeV; much more for the second range.
                   \item[$\circ$] For  {$T$} it jumps only slightly at lower and higher energies.
                   \item[$\circ$] For  {$G$} it also jumps in the ranges 1600-1650 Mev  and 1750-1840 MeV.
                \end{itemize}
            \item[*] It is uniform in the whole energy range,  but somewhat worse than typical  for  {$E$}.
            \item[*] It is somewhat worse for  {$P$} in the available energy range 1500-1650 MeV.
            \item[*] It notably worse for  {$H$} in the complete measured energy range 1500-1650 MeV.
      \end{itemize}
\item The quantities in  {these figures} indicate that there exist certain  {inconsistencies} among measured data in certain energy ranges. In particular,  {$H$} seems to deviate in the complete measured range and  {$F$} seem to be problematic at higher energies .
\end{itemize}
\noindent
In Figs.~\ref{Sol1:DCS}-\ref{Sol1:H} we  compare the quality of fit of \emph{Sol 1} and  {the theoretical BG014-02} model for all experimental data from Table~\ref{tab:expdata}. We conclude that the quality of fit  {for} \emph{Sol 1} is much better than the one of {BG2014-02}, and this is not surprising as this is a fit, and  {BG2014-02} is  {an energy-dependent} microscopic model. In addition, we have made some tests, and we strongly suspect that the agreement with the data given in Fig.~\ref{Chi2:Sol1} cannot be better even for the free fit. So, this solution is very close to  {the best result one can achieve}.  However, analyzing the details of these figures one can also trace the  {angular- and energy-}ranges which are problematic and have either big  {dissipation} or big uncertainty, and we can  very confidently predict where a particular observable is expected to be.  The need for new measurements is automatically suggested. Immediately, we may recommend that  {$H$ and $F$} should be remeasured towards the end of the measured energy range.  {In addition}, {the} energy range  {of the}  {$P$- and $H$-}observable is much  {smaller}, so we recommend to extend the energy range to at least 1800 MeV.

\section{Summary and Conclusions} \noindent
In this paper we have presented a new data analysis scheme for single-channel pseudoscalar
meson photoproduction. It combines the amplitude analysis CEA/AA of a complete experiment
with the truncated partial wave analysis TPWA of an idealistic case, where all higher partial
waves that cannot be fitted would be completely negligible.
\\ \\ \noindent
The strength of our scheme is its simplicity and minimal reference to any particular
theoretical model. But it is also robust enough that it can always extend the lack of data
by additional theoretical constraints.
\\ \\ \noindent
The possible weaknesses of the  {scheme} are that  {it} requires a lot of
experimental data, and that they should be measured with considerable reliability. The main
opportunities of the {method} are that it enables the direct extraction of resonance parameters
via Laurent-Pietarinen formalism \cite{Svarc2013}, and at the same time gives a direct
possibility to check the consistency of measured data sets. The {scheme} also allows to test
the importance of certain observable to the final result.
\\ \\ \noindent
The  {proposed fit-method yields} a continuous and reliable set of partial waves without
experiencing  {a} strong influence {to} any theoretical model.
\\ \\ \noindent
The new variable  {$P$}, measured by  {the} Bonn group~\cite{Muller:2020plb}, is extremely
important as it helps to pin-down the absolute values of {the} transversity amplitudes in
\emph{Step 1}.
\\ \\ \noindent
The present data set is insufficient to uniquely determine the reaction amplitude phase, so as
an example we  generate  two solutions with almost identical quality of the fit to the data, but
with notably different partial waves. More measurements are needed if one wants to better
specify  {the} pole structure of partial wave solutions.
\\ \\ \noindent
Fitting the relative phase with present data base is futile.
New measurements of well selected observables can improve the analysis a lot. With
them the {analysis scheme} can be extended to include fitting the relative phase too,
so a unique solution could be generated.
\\ \\ \noindent
The method offers the possibility to directly analyze the internal consistency of different data
sets, avoiding the influence of different theoretical models.
\\ \\ \noindent
The separate analysis of $\chi^2/N_{\text{data}}$ for 8 polarization observables in
Fig.~\ref{Chi2:Sol1}  suggest that certain
observables should be remeasured in certain energy ranges, and Figs~\ref{Sol1:DCS}-\ref{Sol1:H}
{imply} the ranges where the consistent data are expected to be.
\\ \\ \noindent
We believe that the central result of our work consists of the fact
that applying CEA/AA in practical data analyses is a very important technique, which should be
employed more and more in the future. The problem of the CEA/AA has been mostly studied as an
isolated mathematical problem in the past, yielding the well-known complete sets of 8
observables. However, the CEA/AA is also quickly applied to real data and it is a numerically
quite well-behaved procedure, due to the fact that it involes only 4 complex numbers for all
energies. The real power of the CEA/AA results emerges once they are combined with the TPWA.
There, they have a great constraining power and make the TPWA, an analysis which is known to
be very badly behaved on its own for the higher
$\ell_{\text{max}}$, a lot more stable. Using the CEA/AA in such a constructive way, we have
been able to derive SE PWA solutions for $\eta$ photoproduction, which have quite controlled
and small discontinuities in their energy dependence, even for the 'small' multipoles
(i.e. all multipoles other than $E_{0+}$).}

\clearpage


\section{Implementation Details} \label{implementation_details}

\section{Server} \label{implementation_server}
 Initially, a fixed number of Docker containers are spawned in the virtual machine. Each of these containers are kept constantly running with a pre loaded neural network.

\section{Introduction}

\begin{enumerate}
    \item describe importance of procedural modeling
    \item scientific uses of building models
    \item talk about domain in general & the resource requirements
    \item use of public data
    \item GPUs + ML requires training data
    \item role of the cloud & cyberinfrastructure for providing public access to scientific tools
    \item Photo2BUilding tool (original) & talk about the goals of this work i.e. to take it to the cloud + make it publicly accessible resource
    \item section xx will describe X, then in section xx describe Y
\end{enumerate}

In the world of Computer Vision, more often, there is a stringent need for high performance GPUs with high RAM bounds. Many industry standard tools advise the use of GPUs to decrease the computation time. These resources are expensive for an average user and the research groups working in this domain.

-- Add paragraph describing the use of GPUs in cloud environments

-- Add paragraph describing the use of P2B among the community. Expand it to further sub sections.

\section{Background}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item describe the original tool - computation + UI
    \item hint at what will be required to move this tool to the cloud + web
    \item mygeohub + its features
    \item hint at what features of Mygeohub can be leveraged here (e.g. data sharing, ability to publish web-accessible Jupyter tools, ability to connect to HPC + cloud from tool environment)
\end{enumerate}

\section{Design and Deployment}

\begin{enumerate}
    \item design
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Photo2Building Desktop tool}
\subsection{Original Tool}

The initial version of the tool \cite{Nishida2018ProceduralMO} offered users with an interactive GUI to load an image containing a building and draw a silhouette which would generate a procedural model of the building. This was part of a two step process: 1.) Generate the mass grammar by automatically estimating the camera parameters and 2.) Rectify the facade image to generate facade grammar. The end result is a 3D geometry of the building which can then be saved as an ".obj" file.

\subsection{Use for Item A (Building Energy Model)}
\begin{itemize}
    \item point 1
    \item point 2
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Use for Item B}
\begin{itemize}
    \item point 1
    \item point 2
\end{itemize}

\section{Related Work}

\begin{itemize}
    \item BigSur
    \item https://github.com/twak/chordatlas
    \item https://github.com/jfemiani/facade-segmentation
\end{itemize}
-- Needs further research and discussion

\section{Architecture}
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Architecture}
  \caption{P2B Architecture}
  \Description{P2B Architecture}
\end{figure}

-- Replace it with a more visually appealing image ??

-- External Tools Description

\subsection{MyGeoHub}

-- Description about the platform MyGeoHub.

\section{Implementation Details}

\subsection{Interfacing MyGeoHub with Cloud}

-- Use of Job Submission
-- Use of Docker
-- Horizontal Scaling

\section{Complications/Troubles ??}

\section{Cost Analysis}

\section{Future Work}

\section{Conclusion}

\begin{acks}
To Robert, for the bagels and explaining CMYK and color spaces.
\end{acks}

\subsection{Building-mass generation}
The first step is responsible for simultaneously determining the building mass style and camera parameters. This simultaneous determination has proven to be much more robust than performing them separately. To determine the building mass style and camera parameters, first a recognition CNN is used. Then, our approach uses a per-style parameter estimation CNN to estimate the actual grammar parameters. Finally, a distance is calculated between the input silhouette $S$ and the generated silhouette $\hat{S}$. The distance is minimized using a  bound-optimization-by-quadratic-approximation (BOBYQA) \cite{bobyqa} algorithm to refine the parameter values.

Each parameter estimation CNN is trained by using 300,000 synthetically created facades. From all these synthetic facades, a 300,000 subset is chosen to train the recognition CNN from many different camera poses.

\subsection{Facade generation} \label{Facade_gen}
The next step is the initial rectification of the visible facades of the building to get the best representation of the original facades. The rectified facades are then merged to form a single rectified image. The next steps involve facade simplification, refinement, grammar selection, and coloring.

The number of floors and columns of windows is determined by training another CNN using images from CMP facade dataset \cite{FacadeDataSet}. Further, the size of the dataset is increased by performing randomized translations, horizontal mirroring, blurring, and changes to luminosity. The generated grid is then refined using image gradients. The location of windows or doors is discovered using a window recognition CNN from each tile. A window parameter estimation CNN is used to estimate the 2D relative coordinates of the top-left corner of the window/door and the width and height of the window.

A facade recognition CNN is used to recognize the suitable grammar style from a set of 16 defined styles. As with the building-mass grammar styles, each facade grammar style contains multiple parameters such as floor height, window/door size, and appearance, which are estimated using a parameter estimation CNN. Similar to building-mass parameter estimation refinement, a BOBYQA algorithm is used to refine the estimated facade parameters.

The facade color is estimated using a K-Means clustering algorithm on the pixels excluding the detected windows. The centroid of the largest cluster is chosen to be the facade color. The size of the cluster was set to k=10 and the color clustering is performed in L*A*B color space.

\subsection{Window generation}
The estimated facade grammar is decomposed into windows and door tiles. A window/door grammar is selected out of 31 defined grammar styles using a window style recognition CNN. The CMP Facade Dataset, previously defined in Section \ref{Facade_gen}, is also used to generate training images for window tiles. The total number of images generated were 100,000 including augmentations.

The final output combines building-mass grammar, facade grammar and window/door grammars with their respective parameter values. The evaluation images were taken from ImageNet \cite{imagenet_cvpr09} and SUN \cite{SUNDataset}.

The trained CNN models are saved to local storage. At run-time, the container loads all the models into GPU memory sequentially before serving jobs. This approach saves time otherwise spent on loading the model for each job.

\subsection{Tool Usage}

\begin{figure}[]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth, ]{Sequence.png}
    \caption{Procedure for drawing a silhouette}
    a) Upload an input image. b) Enable draw mode. c) Draw a line along the building boundary. d) Plot additional lines using the previous as the reference and form the curvature. e) Complete the silhouette for the entire building.
    \label{fig:gui_01}
\end{figure}

The user starts by uploading a photograph containing the target building. On upload, the "Draw" mode is enabled, allowing the user to draw a silhouette around the building using the cursor. The client also provides options to perform a "Reset" as well as to "Save" the silhouette in the form of a text file containing coordinate information of the various line segments comprising the silhouette. The saved silhouettes can be re-used along with the corresponding building photograph in subsequent uses. The various pieces of the client GUI are illustrated in Figures \ref{fig:gui_01} and \ref{fig:gui_03}.

When the user is satisfied with the silhouette of the target building, the job for building model generation is initialized with "Run". Behind the scenes, HUBzero ``submit'' is used to package and send the input data (building image and silhouette files) to the server and to execute a job script on the server for processing this input data. On job completion, the server returns the output in the form of an object (".obj") file along with the required textures and materials for the walls, windows, and roof. The detailed implementation of server and building reconstruction are described in \ref{implementation_server} and \ref{implementation_building_rec}. The returned object file is rendered on the client GUI through the use of the Three.js Javascript 3D library. The user can freely interact with the rendered 3D model as well as download the object and material files. These files can be used with popular 3D graphics desktop tools such as Blender and MeshLab.

\begin{figure}[]
    \centering
    \frame{\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Gui_03.jpg}}
    \caption{Run Job and Report Progress}%
    {To run the 3D building reconstruction, the user clicks on "Run" and can track the status and progress of the job}
    \label{fig:gui_03}
\end{figure}

\section{Introduction} \label{introduction}

\iffalse
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Teaser Figure Here
    \item cyberinfrastructure for modelling buildings for urban design
    \item why is this important?
    \item WUDAPT
    \item role of the cloud \& cyberinfrastructure for providing public access to scientific tools
    \item scientific uses of building models
    \item talk about domain in general \& the resource requirements
    \item section xx will describe X, then in section xx describe Y
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Previous Work}
\begin{itemize}
    \item Manual Modeling
    \item Passive and Active Modeling\ Acquisition Modeling
    \item Procedural Modeling
    \item Photo2BUilding tool (original) \& talk about the goals of this work i.e. to take it to the cloud + make it publicly accessible resource
    \item use of public data
    \item GPUs + ML requires training data
\end{itemize}
\fi

\iffalse
\subsection{EUREKA}
\begin{itemize}
    \item Advantages of cloud computing
    \item General Cyber Infrastructures
\end{itemize}
\fi

\iffalse
\begin{itemize}
    \item 3 part system: client, server, deep learning
    \item User support for public availability, scalability
    \item Usage, Evaluation for 50+ buildings etc...
\end{itemize}
\fi

\input{p2b-introduction}

\iffalse
\begin{figure*}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=6cm]{Img2-1.jpg}
  \caption{Implementation of Client-Server model}
  \Description{Client-Server Model}
\end{figure*}
\fi

\section{Background} \label{background}
\iffalse
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Cloud Computing Infras - Google Cloud, AWS, Azure
    \item Prior Online
    reconstruction tools (Luc Van Gool, Univ. of Washington - PVM\ Internet Based Reconstruction)
    \item Single Image Reconstruction using deep learning
    \item Procedural Modeling
    \item describe the original tool - computation + UI
    \item mygeohub + its features
    \item hint at what features of Mygeohub can be leveraged here (e.g. data sharing, ability to publish web-accessible Jupyter tools, ability to connect to HPC + cloud from tool environment)
\end{enumerate}
\fi
\input{p2b-background}

\section{Design} \label{design}
\iffalse
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Figure of flow of overall system(client, server and building reconstruction)
    \item introduction to various pieces that need to be deployed and what is involved in moving each piece to the cloud + web
    \item need to \textbf{split} original code (server-client design)
    \item create a simple block diagram of client-server architecture
    \item talk about how we will leverage MyGeoHub
    \item what is needed to support multiple users (mygeohub already supports multiple users; on the server we have different choices, but we need some job management system)
\end{enumerate}
\fi
\input{p2b-design}

\section{Client} \label{implementation_client}
\iffalse
\begin{itemize}
    \item GUI
    \item submit
    \item rendering 3D -three.js
\end{itemize}
\fi

\input{p2b-client}

\section{Server} \label{implementation_server}
\iffalse
\begin{itemize}
    \item Containers
    \item Message Queue
    \item Creating the service inside the container. Also include OpenGL but with EGL, issues with containers running in cloud
\end{itemize}
\fi
\input{p2b-server}

\section{Building Reconstruction} \label{implementation_building_rec}
\iffalse
\begin{itemize}
    \item From an image a set of dn are used to produce a 3D model.
    \item 3 stages: building mass + camera, facade, window
    \item Misc. Details
    \item Deep Learning: Preloading of nn
\end{itemize}
\fi
\input{p2b-building-reconstruction}

\section{Results and Discussion} \label{results}
\newcolumntype{L}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{1cm}}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|Sc|Sc|c|c|c|c|Sc|Sc|c|c|c|c|}
        \hline
        Input & Output & Floors & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Time (In secs)} &  Input & Output & Floors & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Time (In secs)} \\
        \cline{4-6} \cline{10-12}
        & & & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Compute} & Total & & & & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Compute} & Total \\
        \cline{4-5} \cline{10-11}
        & & & Per Floor & Total & & & & & Per Floor & Total & \\ \hline
        \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_05_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_05_out.PNG}} & 14 & 1 & 14.2 & 38 &
        \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_06_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_06_out.PNG}} & 9 & 2 & 17.8 & 41.5  \\ \hline
        \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_03_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_03_out.PNG}} & 3 & 4.5 & 13.5 & 36.8 & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_02_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_02_out.PNG}} & 4 & 3.6 & 14.3 & 38 \\ \hline
        \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_04_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_04_out.PNG}} & 15 & 1.5 & 22.6 & 46.8 & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_07_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{Results_07_out.PNG}} & 6 & 2.1 & 12.8 & 36.2 \\ \hline
        \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_08_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{Results_08_out.PNG}} & 11 & 0.8 & 9 & 32.8 & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{Results_09_silh.PNG}} & \tabcell{\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{Results_09_out.PNG}} & 17 & 1.3 & 22 & 46.5 \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \raggedright \textbf{\textit{Average Reconstruction Time per Building: 15.8 sec}} \\
    \textbf{\textit{Average Total Time per Building: 39.6 sec}} \par
    \caption{A comparison of different types of 3D generated buildings. Total time includes time spent on network transfers, submit job scheduling and computations for reconstructing the 3D model. }
    \label{fig:results}
\end{figure*}

\iffalse
\begin{itemize}
    \item 1-2 figures of pictures, 1-2 tables
    \item Several example buildings
    \item Timings
    \item Cost Analysis
\end{itemize}
\fi

\input{p2b-results}

\section{Conclusions and Future Work} \label{conclusion}

\input{p2b-conclusion}

\begin{acks}

This research was funded in part by an Internet2 and National Science Foundation ECAS grant \textit{Building Clouds: Worldwide Building Typology Modeling from Images}, NSF \#10001387, \textit{Functional Proceduralization of 3D Geometric Models}, and NSF grant \#1835739, \textit{U-Cube: A Cyberinfrastructure for Unified and Ubiquitous Urban Canopy Parameterization}.

\end{acks}

\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}

\subsection{Challenges Encountered}

While migrating the original desktop version of the tool to a containerized environment in the cloud, the lack of a destination display surface (buffer) to render the image proved to be an issue. Our tool automatically estimates the camera parameters of the provided image. To do so, it repeatedly optimizes these parameters to minimize the distance between the input and target silhouette by rendering intermediary images on a destination surface buffer. Although, Qt5 supports functionality to run in an off-screen environment, configuring that alone is not enough. Qt5's OpenGL module, which is responsible for rendering the intermediate images, requires a destination surface buffer. EGL provides an interface between various OpenGL APIs and the underlying display window system. It handles the graphics context management as well as the bindings for surface buffer. EGL is supported by NVIDIA drivers and acts as a medium to create rendering surfaces where client APIs like OpenGL are allowed to draw and create graphics contexts. We solve the problem by creating a graphics context using EGL to handle all the OpenGL calls.

Another challenge was the design for sharing resources in a multi-GPU configuration. Our initial approach focused on sharing GPU resources equally between the Docker containers. In that case, the job picked up by a container used any available GPU with free memory. Consequently, the deep neural network model had to be loaded in the GPU memory for each job before reconstructing the 3D model. This loading resulted in extra time for computation spent on reloading the model. To reduce this lead time for each job, we decided to pre-assign GPUs to containers and always kept the model loaded in the GPU's memory. Strictly binding each container to a single GPU also helped in acquiring consistent results from across all containers by avoiding the possibility of multiple containers scrambling for the same resource.

\section{Introduction}
ACM's consolidated article template, introduced in 2017, provides a
consistent \LaTeX\ style for use across ACM publications, and
incorporates accessibility and metadata-extraction functionality
necessary for future Digital Library endeavors. Numerous ACM and
SIG-specific \LaTeX\ templates have been examined, and their unique
features incorporated into this single new template.

If you are new to publishing with ACM, this document is a valuable
guide to the process of preparing your work for publication. If you
have published with ACM before, this document provides insight and
instruction into more recent changes to the article template.

The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class can be used to prepare articles
for any ACM publication --- conference or journal, and for any stage
of publication, from review to final ``camera-ready'' copy, to the
author's own version, with {\itshape very} few changes to the source.

\section{Template Overview}
As noted in the introduction, the ``\verb|acmart|'' document class can
be used to prepare many different kinds of documentation --- a
double-blind initial submission of a full-length technical paper, a
two-page SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies abstract, a ``camera-ready''
journal article, a SIGCHI Extended Abstract, and more --- all by
selecting the appropriate {\itshape template style} and {\itshape
  template parameters}.

This document will explain the major features of the document
class. For further information, the {\itshape \LaTeX\ User's Guide} is
available from
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template}.

\subsection{Template Styles}

The primary parameter given to the ``\verb|acmart|'' document class is
the {\itshape template style} which corresponds to the kind of publication
or SIG publishing the work. This parameter is enclosed in square
brackets and is a part of the {\verb|documentclass|} command:
\begin{verbatim}
  \documentclass[STYLE]{acmart}
\end{verbatim}

Journals use one of three template styles. All but three ACM journals
use the {\verb|acmsmall|} template style:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|acmsmall|}: The default journal template style.
\item {\verb|acmlarge|}: Used by JOCCH and TAP.
\item {\verb|acmtog|}: Used by TOG.
\end{itemize}

The majority of conference proceedings documentation will use the {\verb|acmconf|} template style.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|acmconf|}: The default proceedings template style.
\item{\verb|sigchi|}: Used for SIGCHI conference articles.
\item{\verb|sigchi-a|}: Used for SIGCHI ``Extended Abstract'' articles.
\item{\verb|sigplan|}: Used for SIGPLAN conference articles.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Template Parameters}

In addition to specifying the {\itshape template style} to be used in
formatting your work, there are a number of {\itshape template parameters}
which modify some part of the applied template style. A complete list
of these parameters can be found in the {\itshape \LaTeX\ User's Guide.}

Frequently-used parameters, or combinations of parameters, include:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\verb|anonymous,review|}: Suitable for a ``double-blind''
  conference submission. Anonymizes the work and includes line
  numbers. Use with the \verb|\acmSubmissionID| command to print the
  submission's unique ID on each page of the work.
\item{\verb|authorversion|}: Produces a version of the work suitable
  for posting by the author.
\item{\verb|screen|}: Produces colored hyperlinks.
\end{itemize}

This document uses the following string as the first command in the
source file:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[sigconf,authordraft]{acmart}
\end{verbatim}

\section{Modifications}

Modifying the template --- including but not limited to: adjusting
margins, typeface sizes, line spacing, paragraph and list definitions,
and the use of the \verb|\vspace| command to manually adjust the
vertical spacing between elements of your work --- is not allowed.

{\bfseries Your document will be returned to you for revision if
  modifications are discovered.}

\section{Typefaces}

The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class requires the use of the
``Libertine'' typeface family. Your \TeX\ installation should include
this set of packages. Please do not substitute other typefaces. The
``\verb|lmodern|'' and ``\verb|ltimes|'' packages should not be used,
as they will override the built-in typeface families.

\section{Title Information}

The title of your work should use capital letters appropriately -
\url{https://capitalizemytitle.com/} has useful rules for
capitalization. Use the {\verb|title|} command to define the title of
your work. If your work has a subtitle, define it with the
{\verb|subtitle|} command.  Do not insert line breaks in your title.

If your title is lengthy, you must define a short version to be used
in the page headers, to prevent overlapping text. The \verb|title|
command has a ``short title'' parameter:
\begin{verbatim}
  \title[short title]{full title}
\end{verbatim}

\section{Authors and Affiliations}

Each author must be defined separately for accurate metadata
identification. Multiple authors may share one affiliation. Authors'
names should not be abbreviated; use full first names wherever
possible. Include authors' e-mail addresses whenever possible.

Grouping authors' names or e-mail addresses, or providing an ``e-mail
alias,'' as shown below, is not acceptable:
\begin{verbatim}
  \author{Brooke Aster, David Mehldau}
  \email{dave,judy,steve@university.edu}
  \email{firstname.lastname@phillips.org}
\end{verbatim}

The \verb|authornote| and \verb|authornotemark| commands allow a note
to apply to multiple authors --- for example, if the first two authors
of an article contributed equally to the work.

If your author list is lengthy, you must define a shortened version of
the list of authors to be used in the page headers, to prevent
overlapping text. The following command should be placed just after
the last \verb|\author{}| definition:
\begin{verbatim}
  \renewcommand{\shortauthors}{McCartney, et al.}
\end{verbatim}
Omitting this command will force the use of a concatenated list of all
of the authors' names, which may result in overlapping text in the
page headers.

The article template's documentation, available at
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template}, has a
complete explanation of these commands and tips for their effective
use.

Note that authors' addresses are mandatory for journal articles.

\section{Rights Information}

Authors of any work published by ACM will need to complete a rights
form. Depending on the kind of work, and the rights management choice
made by the author, this may be copyright transfer, permission,
license, or an OA (open access) agreement.

Regardless of the rights management choice, the author will receive a
copy of the completed rights form once it has been submitted. This
form contains \LaTeX\ commands that must be copied into the source
document. When the document source is compiled, these commands and
their parameters add formatted text to several areas of the final
document:
\begin{itemize}
\item the ``ACM Reference Format'' text on the first page.
\item the ``rights management'' text on the first page.
\item the conference information in the page header(s).
\end{itemize}

Rights information is unique to the work; if you are preparing several
works for an event, make sure to use the correct set of commands with
each of the works.

The ACM Reference Format text is required for all articles over one
page in length, and is optional for one-page articles (abstracts).

\section{CCS Concepts and User-Defined Keywords}

Two elements of the ``acmart'' document class provide powerful
taxonomic tools for you to help readers find your work in an online
search.

The ACM Computing Classification System ---
\url{https://www.acm.org/publications/class-2012} --- is a set of
classifiers and concepts that describe the computing
discipline. Authors can select entries from this classification
system, via \url{https://dl.acm.org/ccs/ccs.cfm}, and generate the
commands to be included in the \LaTeX\ source.

User-defined keywords are a comma-separated list of words and phrases
of the authors' choosing, providing a more flexible way of describing
the research being presented.

CCS concepts and user-defined keywords are required for for all
articles over two pages in length, and are optional for one- and
two-page articles (or abstracts).

\section{Sectioning Commands}

Your work should use standard \LaTeX\ sectioning commands:
\verb|section|, \verb|subsection|, \verb|subsubsection|, and
\verb|paragraph|. They should be numbered; do not remove the numbering
from the commands.

Simulating a sectioning command by setting the first word or words of
a paragraph in boldface or italicized text is {\bfseries not allowed.}

\section{Tables}

The ``\verb|acmart|'' document class includes the ``\verb|booktabs|''
package --- \url{https://ctan.org/pkg/booktabs} --- for preparing
high-quality tables.

Table captions are placed {\itshape above} the table.

Because tables cannot be split across pages, the best placement for
them is typically the top of the page nearest their initial cite.  To
ensure this proper ``floating'' placement of tables, use the
environment \textbf{table} to enclose the table's contents and the
table caption.  The contents of the table itself must go in the
\textbf{tabular} environment, to be aligned properly in rows and
columns, with the desired horizontal and vertical rules.  Again,
detailed instructions on \textbf{tabular} material are found in the
\textit{\LaTeX\ User's Guide}.

Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table~\ref{tab:freq} is included in the input file; compare the
placement of the table here with the table in the printed output of
this document.

\begin{table}
  \caption{Frequency of Special Characters}
  \label{tab:freq}
  \begin{tabular}{ccl}
    \toprule
    Non-English or Math&Frequency&Comments\\
    \midrule
    \O & 1 in 1,000& For Swedish names\\
    $\pi$ & 1 in 5& Common in math\\
    \$ & 4 in 5 & Used in business\\
    $\Psi^2_1$ & 1 in 40,000& Unexplained usage\\
  \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

To set a wider table, which takes up the whole width of the page's
live area, use the environment \textbf{table*} to enclose the table's
contents and the table caption.  As with a single-column table, this
wide table will ``float'' to a location deemed more
desirable. Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table~\ref{tab:commands} is included in the input file; again, it is
instructive to compare the placement of the table here with the table
in the printed output of this document.

\begin{table*}
  \caption{Some Typical Commands}
  \label{tab:commands}
  \begin{tabular}{ccl}
    \toprule
    Command &A Number & Comments\\
    \midrule
    \texttt{{\char'134}author} & 100& Author \\
    \texttt{{\char'134}table}& 300 & For tables\\
    \texttt{{\char'134}table*}& 400& For wider tables\\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\section{Math Equations}
You may want to display math equations in three distinct styles:
inline, numbered or non-numbered display.  Each of the three are
discussed in the next sections.

\subsection{Inline (In-text) Equations}
A formula that appears in the running text is called an inline or
in-text formula.  It is produced by the \textbf{math} environment,
which can be invoked with the usual
\texttt{{\char'134}begin\,\ldots{\char'134}end} construction or with
the short form \texttt{\$\,\ldots\$}. You can use any of the symbols
and structures, from $\alpha$ to $\omega$, available in
\LaTeX~\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}; this section will simply show a few
examples of in-text equations in context. Notice how this equation:
\begin{math}
  \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0
\end{math},
set here in in-line math style, looks slightly different when
set in display style.  (See next section).

\subsection{Display Equations}
A numbered display equation---one set off by vertical space from the
text and centered horizontally---is produced by the \textbf{equation}
environment. An unnumbered display equation is produced by the
\textbf{displaymath} environment.

Again, in either environment, you can use any of the symbols and
structures available in \LaTeX\@; this section will just give a couple
of examples of display equations in context.  First, consider the
equation, shown as an inline equation above:
\begin{equation}
  \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0
\end{equation}
Notice how it is formatted somewhat differently in
the \textbf{displaymath}
environment.  Now, we'll enter an unnumbered equation:
\begin{displaymath}
  \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} x + 1
\end{displaymath}
and follow it with another numbered equation:
\begin{equation}
  \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}x_i=\int_{0}^{\pi+2} f
\end{equation}
just to demonstrate \LaTeX's able handling of numbering.

\section{Figures}

The ``\verb|figure|'' environment should be used for figures. One or
more images can be placed within a figure. If your figure contains
third-party material, you must clearly identify it as such, as shown
in the example below.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sample-franklin}
  \caption{1907 Franklin Model D roadster. Photograph by Harris \&
    Ewing, Inc. [Public domain], via Wikimedia
    Commons. (\url{https://goo.gl/VLCRBB}).}
  \Description{The 1907 Franklin Model D roadster.}
\end{figure}

Your figures should contain a caption which describes the figure to
the reader. Figure captions go below the figure. Your figures should
{\bfseries also} include a description suitable for screen readers, to
assist the visually-challenged to better understand your work.

Figure captions are placed {\itshape below} the figure.

\subsection{The ``Teaser Figure''}

A ``teaser figure'' is an image, or set of images in one figure, that
are placed after all author and affiliation information, and before
the body of the article, spanning the page. If you wish to have such a
figure in your article, place the command immediately before the
\verb|\maketitle| command:
\begin{verbatim}
  \begin{teaserfigure}
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sampleteaser}
    \caption{figure caption}
    \Description{figure description}
  \end{teaserfigure}
\end{verbatim}

\section{Citations and Bibliographies}

The use of \BibTeX\ for the preparation and formatting of one's
references is strongly recommended. Authors' names should be complete
--- use full first names (``Donald E. Knuth'') not initials
(``D. E. Knuth'') --- and the salient identifying features of a
reference should be included: title, year, volume, number, pages,
article DOI, etc.

The bibliography is included in your source document with these two
commands, placed just before the \verb|\end{document}| command:
\begin{verbatim}
  \bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}