\section{Introduction}

            Self-supervised learning has been rising in popularity in computer vision, with many top methods using contrastive learning \cite{hadsell2006dimensionality}, a form of learning that optimizes feature representations for positive samples to be close together and for negative samples to be far apart. Self-supervised contrastive models such as SimCLR \cite{chen2020simple} and MoCo \cite{he2020momentum} have been shown to approach or surpass the performance of supervised models when representations are transferred to downstream image classification, object detection, and semantic segmentation tasks \cite{ericsson2021well}. This success is in part due to strategic data augmentation pipelines that these models use to create effective positive and negative \textit{views} (samples) for learning.

            Despite this progress, the out-of-distribution robustness of contrastive representations has been minimally studied, especially with regards to object detection. We hypothesize that existing data augmentation pipelines in contrastive learning may result in representations that \textit{lack} robustness in such domain-shifted detection scenarios. For example, as shown in Fig. \ref{intro_fig}, state-of-the-art pipelines (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  SimCLR, MoCo) create positive views with aggressive random cropping of a single image. Such use of this augmentation can lead to features for object regions being made similar to those for the background or co-occurring objects, potentially causing contextual bias and hurting in out-of-context scenarios. Random cropping may also result in texture-biased rather than shape-biased features, since the shapes of object parts may not be consistent across crops. A lack of shape in representations can lead to degraded performance when texture is shifted (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  appearance changes due to weather).

            \input{figures/intro_fig}

            In this work, we explore strategies to improve contrastive view design for enhanced robustness in domain-shifted detection. In particular, we conduct an empirical study of the state-of-the-art detection pretext task InsLoc \cite{yang2021instance} and strategically alter the views created from InsLoc's data augmentation pipeline by adjusting cropping, adding shortcut-reducing appearance augmentations, and integrating saliency-based object priors. These strategies are evaluated in-domain and out-of-domain in appearance-shifted and context-shifted detection scenarios. Experiments are also conducted following pretraining on both single-object and multi-object image datasets. From these experiments, we present these insights into contrastive view design:

            \begin{itemize}[itemsep=1mm, parsep=0pt]
                  \item Increasing the minimum \% of an image used for crops or adding an IoU constraint between views causes the model to learn from spatially consistent views with larger object parts. These strategies encourage the learning of shape and improve robustness to appearance shifts.
                  \item Shortcut-reducing augmentations enhance the effectiveness of non-aggressive cropping, exemplified by improvements over InsLoc both \textit{in-domain} (up to +2.73 AP) and \textit{out-of-domain} (up to +3.07 AP).
                  \item The use of saliency priors in views is effective for out-of-context robustness. Their use is best in a mechanism that removes background and tightens crops to object regions.
                  \item Applying shortcut-reducing augmentation to the non-salient regions in views, in combination with crop tightening and shape strategies, is effective for enhancing robustness to both appearance and context shifts.
            \end{itemize}

    \section{Background and Related Work}

        \subsubsection{Self-supervised and contrastive learning} Many top self-supervised methods in vision use contrastive learning and the instance discrimination pretext task \cite{wu2018unsupervised}, where each image is its own class, and the goal is to discern that two positive samples (or \textit{views}) are from the same image when considered versus a set of negatives. Typically, positives are generated through aggressive data augmentation of a single image, and they are compared to a large number of negatives from other images. While the representations for negatives have been stored in large memory banks \cite{wu2018unsupervised}, recent methods optimize the learning pipeline to rather use large batch sizes \cite{chen2020simple} or a dynamic dictionary \cite{he2020momentum}. Alternatively, the online clustering approach of \cite{caron2020unsupervised} avoids the need for pairwise comparisons entirely, and the iterative approach of BYOL \cite{grill2020bootstrap} avoids using negatives. In general, contrastive methods are evaluated by transferring representations to downstream tasks such as object detection, and \textit{domain shifts are not usually considered with detection}. General detectors have been shown to lack robustness to shifts, retaining only 30-60\% of performance when tested on natural corruptions \cite{michaelis2019benchmarking}, and contrastive detectors may similarly lack robustness. In this work, we fill in the need to more broadly characterize and improve the generalizability of contrastive representations through our study of view design strategies in domain-shifted detection.

        \subsubsection{Data augmentations and views in contrastive learning} Recent works have investigated how to construct positive and negative views for contrastive learning. In particular, topics explored include how to learn views \cite{tian2020makes}, how to mine hard negatives \cite{kalantidis2020hard, robinson2020contrastive}, how to handle false negatives \cite{chuang2020debiased}, and how to modify sample features to avoid shortcuts \cite{robinson2021can}. Positives have also been studied with regards to intra-image augmentations and instance discrimination. For instance, SimCLR \cite {chen2020simple} finds that creating positives with random cropping, color distortion, and Gaussian blur is effective for ImageNet classification. In this work, we also empirically explore augmentations for positives, but consider those specifically targeting domain robustness in detection, \textit{which include some previously unexplored in contrastive learning: Poisson blending, texture flattening, and elastic deformation}. We also show that modifying cropping to be less aggressive or use IoU constraints can improve out-of-domain robustness.

        \subsubsection{Robustness in contrastive learning} Neural network representations have been shown to not generalize well to various domain shifts (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  pose \cite{alcorn2019strike}, corruptions \cite{hendrycks2019benchmarking}) and to suffer from biases (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  texture \cite{geirhos2018imagenet}, context \cite{singh2020don}, background \cite{xiao2020noise}). Contrastive representations face similar issues, for instance versus viewpoint shifts \cite{purushwalkam2020demystifying} and texture-shape conflicts \cite{geirhos2020surprising}. \textit{Most works that strive to explicitly improve contrastive robustness either focus on image recognition \cite{ge2021robust, khosla2020supervised}, proxy recognition tasks like the Background Challenge \cite{xiao2020noise}, or evaluate only when transferring representations to object detection, but not on domain shifts in detection.} We alternatively consider contrastive robustness with respect to object detection and relevant domain shifts. One shift we consider is \textit{in context}, as research has identified contextual bias as an issue in contrastive pretraining on multi-object image datasets. For example, \cite{selvaraju2021casting} addresses contextual bias in COCO pretraining by constraining crops to overlap with saliency maps and using a Grad-CAM attention loss, leading to improvements over MoCo on COCO and VOC detection. Similarly, \cite{mo2021object} proposes two augmentations, object-aware cropping (OA-Crop) and background mixup (BG-Mixup), to reduce contextual bias in MoCo-v2 and BYOL. Notably, these cropping strategies have minimally been tested with detection (just in-domain), so it is unclear how such strategies perform in out-of-domain detection. We evaluate these strategies out-of-domain and show that they do not always result in  improvements. We thus propose a hybrid strategy of the methods and show that it substantially improves out-of-context robustness.

        \subsubsection{Pretext tasks for object detection} Our research also fits with recent works that tailor pretraining to downstream tasks besides image classification, such as object detection. In particular, we explore InsLoc, a pretext task in which detection-focused representations are built in contrastive learning through integration of bounding box information \cite{yang2021instance}. Other notable approaches exist which leverage selective search proposals \cite{wei2021aligning}, global and local views \cite{Xie_2021_ICCV}, spatially consistent representation learning \cite{roh2021spatially}, weak supervision \cite{Zhong_2021_CVPR}, pixel-level pretext tasks \cite{wang2021dense,xie2021propagate}, and transformers \cite{dai2021up}. \textit{Our work is orthogonal to such works as we provide contrastive view design insights that can guide future detection-focused pretext tasks to have greater out-of-domain robustness.}

    \section{Experimental Approach}

        In this study, our goal is to analyze how strategic changes to contrastive views impact downstream object detection robustness.
        In particular, we consider two families of domain shifts that cause drops in object detection performance: appearance and context. \emph{Appearance shift} in our study is defined as change in the visual characteristics of objects (such as color brightness and texture). \emph{Context shift} in our study is defined as when an object appears with different objects or in different backgrounds during train and test time.

        Formally, we view contrastive learning from a knowledge transfer perspective. There is a source (pretext) task \textit{$s$} and a downstream object detection task \textit{$d$}. Unsupervised, contrastive pretraining is performed in \textit{$s$} on dataset $\mathbf s$, then representations are transferred to \textit{$d$} for supervised finetuning on dataset $\mathbf d$. We explore strategies to adapt \textit{$s$} to \textit{$s'$}, which represents a task with views augmented to be robust to families of domain shifts (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  appearance, context). To evaluate the effectiveness of \textit{$s'$}, representations from $s'$ (after finetuning on $\mathbf{d}$) are evaluated on $\mathbf{d}$ and various $\mathbf{t_i}$, which represent target datasets domain-shifted from $\mathbf d$.

          \subsubsection{Base pretext task}

            We select \textit{s} to be Instance Localization (InsLoc) \cite{yang2021instance}, a state-of-the-art detection-focused, contrastive pretext task. In particular, InsLoc is designed as an improvement over MoCo-v2 \cite{chen2020improved} and uses the Faster R-CNN detector \cite{ren2015faster}. Positive views are created by pasting random crops from an image at various aspect ratios and scales onto random locations of two random background images. Instance discrimination is then performed between foreground features obtained with RoI-Align \cite{He_2017_ICCV}  from the two composited images (positive \textit{query} and \textit{key} views) and negatives maintained in a dictionary. This task is optimized with the InfoNCE loss \cite{van2018representation}.

            Outlining the specifics of InsLoc's augmentation pipeline further, the crops used for views are uniformly sampled to be between 20-100\% of an image. Crops are then resized to random aspect ratios between 0.5 and 2 and width and height scales between 128 and 256 pixels. Composited images have size 256$\times$256 pixels. Other augmentations used include random applications of Gaussian blurring, horizontal flipping, color jittering, and grayscale conversion. Notably, InsLoc's appearance augmentations and cropping are characteristic of state-of-the-art contrastive methods \cite{chen2020simple, he2020momentum}, \textit{making InsLoc a fitting contrastive case study}.

            \subsubsection{Strategies to enhance InsLoc}

            We propose multiple strategies to augment the InsLoc view pipeline (\textit{s'}) for enhanced robustness in appearance-shifted and out-of-context detection scenarios. First, we consider cropping since InsLoc, like other contrastive methods \cite{chen2020simple, he2020momentum}, uses aggressive random cropping to create positive views (see Fig. \ref{intro_fig}). As random cropping has been shown to bias a model towards texture \cite{hermann2019origins}, we reason that InsLoc may struggle when texture shifts in detection such as when it is raining or snowing. Models that learn shape on the other hand can be effective in such situations \cite{geirhos2018imagenet}. We thus explore simple strategies to encourage InsLoc to learn shape. In particular, we experiment with \textit{geometric changes to crops}, specifically increasing the minimum \% of an image used to crop \textit{m} and enforcing an IoU constraint \textit{t} between views. We expect such changes to increase the spatial consistency between crops and encourage the model to learn object parts and shapes. In turn, the model can become more robust to texture shifts.

            \input{figures/appear_aug}

            Furthermore, we consider adding \textit{shortcut-reducing appearance augmentations}, as we find that InsLoc may not adequately discourage the model from attending to shortcuts that are non-robust in appearance-shifted scenarios, such as high-frequency noise and texture or color histograms. One strategy we explore is \textit{Poisson blending} \cite{perez2003poisson}, which is a method to seamlessly blend crops into a background image. We use Poisson blending instead of simple copy-pasting in InsLoc to reduce contrast between foreground and background regions, effectively making the pretext task harder as the model cannot use contrast as a shortcut to solve the task. It is also found that Poisson blending can introduce random illumination effects from the background, which may be desirable to learn invariance towards for appearance shifts. Second, we explore the \textit{texture flattening} application of solving the Poisson equation, as it washes out texture and changes brightness while only preserving gradients at edge locations. We reason that this augmentation can be effective to teach the model to not overfit to high-frequency texture shortcuts. Last, we investigate \textit{elastic deformation} \cite{simard2003best}, an augmentation that alters images by moving pixels with displacement fields. This augmentation can help make features more invariant to local changes in edges and noise shortcuts. We illustrate our proposed use of these strategies in Fig. \ref{appear_aug}. Augmentations are applied 100\% of the time, unless otherwise noted. We use Poisson blending and texture flattening as provided in the OpenCV library \cite{opencv_library} and the algorithm of \cite{simard2003best} for elastic deformation.

            Lastly, we note that random cropping may result in the aligning of context (background and objects or objects and objects), which can lead to representations that are contextually biased and not robust in out-of-context detection. To address this problem, we experiment with \textit{strategies that use saliency-based object priors for crops}, as they can enable crops to refer to specific object regions rather than to background or co-occurring objects. In particular, we investigate two state-of-the-art approaches \cite{mo2021object, selvaraju2021casting}, as well as a hybrid of such approaches. We compare each strategy out-of-domain and also consider combining saliency strategies with shape and appearance strategies.

            \subsubsection{Pretraining and finetuning datasets}

             We identify two pretraining scenarios \textbf{s} to evaluate the robustness of contrastive view design strategies. First is ImageNet pretraining \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}, a standard scenario for contrastive approaches \cite{chen2020simple, he2020momentum}.  With the heavy computational nature of contrastive pretraining, along with our goal to conduct multiple experiments, we sample ImageNet from over 1 million to 50,000 images and call this set \textit{ImageNet-Subset}. Notably, most ImageNet images are \textit{iconic}, containing a single, large, centered object. For a dataset with different properties, we also consider pretraining on COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft}, which contains more \textit{scene} imagery, having multiple, potentially small objects. With the goal of self-supervised learning to learn robust representations on large, uncurated datasets, which are likely to contain scene imagery, COCO is a practical dataset to study. Also its multi-object nature makes it an apt test case for benchmarking contextual bias downstream. We pretrain specifically with COCO2017train and do not sample since its size is relatively small (118,287 images).

             We explore two finetuning datasets \textbf{d}: VOC  \cite{everingham2010pascal} when \textbf{s} is ImageNet-Subset and both VOC and COCO2017train when \textbf{s} is COCO. For VOC, we specifically use VOC0712train+val (16,551 images). We evaluate on COCO2017val (5,000 images) and VOC07test (4,952 images). In our sampling of ImageNet, we ensure semantic overlap with VOC by choosing 132 images for each of 379 classes from 13 synset classes that are related to VOC's classes: aircraft, vehicle, bird, boat, container, cat, furniture, ungulate, dog, person, plant, train, and electronics.
            \input{figures/example_shifts}

            \subsubsection{Domain shift datasets}

            We select various datasets $\mathbf{t_i}$ for out-of-domain evaluation. First, when \textbf{d} is VOC, we test on the challenging, abstract Clipart, Watercolor, and Comic object detection datasets \cite{inoue2018cross}, as they represent significant domain shifts in appearance. Clipart has the same 20 classes as VOC and 1,000 samples, while Watercolor and Comic share 6 classes with VOC and have 2,000 samples each. We take the average performance across the three sets and describe the overall set as \textit{Abstract}. When \textbf{d} is COCO, we test on the out-of-context UnRel dataset \cite{peyre2017weakly}. This set captures relations that are ``unusual"  between objects (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.  car under elephant), making this set useful for evaluating out-of-context robustness. We evaluate on 29 classes which overlap with COCO thing classes (1,049 images). Lastly, for both VOC and COCO, we consider Pascal-C and COCO-C \cite{michaelis2019benchmarking}, a collection of sets that are synthetically domain-shifted on natural corruption types. In particular, we explore the appearance-based Weather split at severity level 5, which consists of brightness, fog, frost, and snow shifts. We refer to the overall sets for VOC and COCO as VOC-Weather and COCO-Weather, respectively. Examples for the test sets are shown in Fig. \ref{ex_shifts}.

            \subsubsection{Training setup}

             Pretraining is performed with the provided InsLoc implementation \cite{yang2021instance}. Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster}, with a ResNet-50 backbone and FPN, serves as the trained detector. With high computational costs for contrastive pretraining, these experiments consider a fixed pretraining budget of 200 epochs. For COCO, pretraining is performed with per-GPU batch size 64 and learning rate 0.03 on 4 NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 GPUs with memory 16 GB. For ImageNet-Subset, pretraining is performed with per-GPU batch size 32 and learning rate 0.015 on 2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GPUs with memory 11 GB. All pretraining uses a dictionary size of \textit{K}=8,192. Full finetuning of all layers is performed within the Detectron2 \cite{wu2019detectron2} framework with a 24k iteration schedule, a learning rate of 0.02, and a batch size of 4 on 2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GPUs, unless otherwise noted.

        \section{Experiments and Analysis}

            In this section, we outline various strategies for contrastive view design and evaluate their effectiveness in the InsLoc pretext task, considering both pretraining on ImageNet-Subset and COCO. Evaluation metrics are AP and AP$_{50}$.

            \subsection{Pretraining on ImageNet-Subset}

            \subsubsection{How can we encourage contrastive learning to capture object shape and become more robust to appearance domain shifts?}

                \input{figures/crop_and_iou}

                First, we consider appearance domain shifts in detection, where object shapes are preserved and texture is distorted. We wish to encourage InsLoc to capture object shapes for such scenarios and thus propose two simple strategies: (1) increasing the minimum \% of an image sampled as a crop \textit{m} and (2) adding an IoU contraint \textit{t}, such that query and key crops must have at least such IoU. To evaluate these strategies, we pretrain InsLoc on ImageNet-Subset using two different values of \textit{m}, 45\% and 70\%, in addition to InsLoc's default value of 20\%, while keeping the maximum crop bound as 100\%. InsLoc is additionally pretrained with two IoU constraint values of \textit{t}, 45\% and 70\%. Then for each experiment, we perform finetuning  on VOC and evaluate in-domain on VOC and out-of-domain on Abstract and VOC-Weather (two sets with distorted texture).

                Results over three trials are shown in Fig. \ref{crop_and_iou}. Notably, we find that the default InsLoc settings (20-100\% crops, no IoU constraint) result in the best in-domain AP, but \textit{not the top} out-of-domain AP. In particular, \textit{m}$=$45 and \textit{t}$=$70 have the highest out-of-domain AP for their respective value comparisons (up to +1.19 AP on Abstract, +0.79 AP on VOC-Weather). In general, these results show out-of-domain benefits with having substantial overlap and higher minimum crop \%. \textit{Overall, these results highlight that including larger object regions in crops and encouraging spatial consistency between views are effective strategies to ensure greater robustness to appearance shifts.} We also note that the robustness sweet spot for \textit{m} may be related to an observed tradeoff with in-domain AP, which drops as \textit{m} or \textit{t} increases. We reason that while we are encouraging the model to learn shape features, we are also increasing the probability that the model can attend to natural, high-frequency shortcuts in images since crops that have more area and overlap more might share more of these signals. We next consider augmentations to remove shortcuts and improve these strategies.

            \subsubsection{Can shortcut-reducing augmentations make shape strategies more effective?}

                Though contrastive view pipelines typically have significant appearance augmentations like Gaussian blur, grayscale conversion, and color jitter \cite{chen2020improved}, we reason that even more aggressive augmentations may be beneficial with our \% crop and IoU strategies to further limit shortcuts and better learn shape. SimCLR \cite{chen2020simple} serves as motivation, as the authors explore augmentations to avoid color histogram shortcuts. We explore Poisson blending, texture flattening, and elastic deformation as stronger augmentations to similarly reduce shortcuts and enable InsLoc to learn robust features.

                \input{tables/pois}

                \input{tables/appearaugs}

                 To first test how augmentations interact with the \% crop and IoU strategies, we perform Poisson blending with various values of \textit{m} and \textit{t}, shown in Table \ref{pois}. Different from in Fig. \ref{crop_and_iou}, we find that the top domain robustness setting is \textit{m}=70 (rather than \textit{t}=70) and that \textit{significant} out-of-domain gains over the InsLoc baseline are achieved in such setting (+2.16 AP on Abstract, +3.07 AP on VOC-Weather). Moreover, we find that \textit{in-domain} AP also increases in this setting (+1.63 AP), indicating that \textit{shortcut augmentations can enable the learning of shape without tradeoffs in-domain}. Note also that Poisson blending at \textit{m}=20 is not effective in-domain and is less effective out-of-domain. \textit{These results indicate that shortcut-reducing augmentations may not be effective unless the model is encouraged to capture robust object features like shape}, which can be done at higher crop \%.

                We further use the top setting of \textit{m}=70 to test each of Poisson blending, elastic deformation, and texture flattening, shown over three trials in Table \ref{appearaugs_table}. We find that all augmentations help both in-domain and out-of-domain. In particular, Poisson blending is the top for VOC-Weather (+3.07 AP) and texture flattening is for Abstract (+2.73 AP). We reason that texture flattening simulates the flattened texture of digital Abstract imagery well, while Poisson blending's random illumination effects are helpful for the texture changes seen with weather. Also shown in Table \ref{appearaugs_table} is a scenario where we either apply one of the three augmentations or just use the default InsLoc setting, each with probability 25\%. We find even more substantial gains in-domain (+2.73 AP) in such scenario. \textit{These results demonstrate that the benefits of creating views  with shape-encouraging and shortcut-reducing strategies are not limited to out-of-domain robustness, and these strategies can lead to more robust object features overall.} To our knowledge, we are the first to demonstrate such effectiveness of Poisson blending, texture flattening, and elastic deformation as augmentations for contrastive views.

            \subsection{Pretraining on COCO}

             \subsubsection{How do saliency-based view strategies compare on out-of-context and appearance domain shifts?}

                Intra-image cropping in contrastive learning has been noted to be potentially  harmful when pretraining on multi-object images (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.   COCO) \cite{purushwalkam2020demystifying}. Approaches have aimed to reduce the impact of contextual bias in such case through using saliency-based object priors, with OA-Crop \cite{mo2021object} and CAST \cite{selvaraju2021casting} representing two more robust cropping methods. OA-Crop uses an initial pretraining of MoCo-v2 to gather Contrastive Class Activation Maps and creates a number of object crops for an image from bounding boxes around salient regions from these maps. During training, one randomly selected object crop, rather than the entire image, is used as the source from which to crop views. CAST alternatively ensures that crops overlap with saliency maps gathered with DeepUSPS \cite{nguyen2019deepusps}, an ``unsupervised" saliency detector (though it still uses ImageNet-supervised weights).
                \input{figures/cast_vs_ours}

                        \input{tables/context_compare}
                Notably, these methods have not been evaluated in out-of-domain detection, so we fill in this gap by comparing them within InsLoc. We also consider a hybrid approach called \textit{DeepUSPS-Tightened} crops, where DeepUSPS saliency maps, rather than ContraCAMs, are used to create object crops like OA-Crop, as we observe DeepUSPS's maps are higher quality. We emphasize that the difference between between CAST and DeepUSPS-Tightened crops is that maps are used with CAST to ensure that crops \textit{overlap} with objects, rather than to \textit{reduce} background area and \textit{tighten} crops to objects, which is the goal of the hybrid that we propose. We exemplify these differences in Fig. \ref{cast_ex}.

                In Table \ref{context_compare}, we compare each strategy following COCO pretraining and finetuning in terms of AP$_{50}$ on COCO, the out-of-context UnRel, and the appearance-shifted COCO-Weather. We use the saliency maps provided by \cite{mo2021object} and \cite{selvaraju2021casting}, as well as their top reported min \% crop (or default if not reported). We also test DeepUSPS-Tightened at  \textit{m}=8 and \textit{m}=20. A first observation is that there is a \textit{significant} domain gap (-3.56 AP$_{50}$) between COCO and UnRel without incorporating any saliency strategy, \textit{indicating contextual bias in downstream object detection}. The OACrop strategy improves AP$_{50}$ on UnRel, while CAST does not. Alternatively, CAST improves on COCO and COCO-Weather (slightly) while OA-Crop does not. Notably, \emph{our hybrid DeepUSPS-Tightened leads to the top gains} vs. InsLoc (+2.23 AP$_{50}$ on COCO, +3.51 AP$_{50}$ on UnRel, +1.80 AP$_{50}$ on COCO-Weather). The domain gap is much smaller than InsLoc as well (-2.28 vs. -3.56 AP$_{50}$).

          \input{figures/text_flat_fig}
                 \input{tables/explore_augs}

        \input{tables/voc_main}

                We infer that the high quality of DeepUSPS maps along with the \textit{removal} of background through cropping are potential reasons for  DeepUSPS-Tightened to have the top AP$_{50}$. In detection pretraining, we reason that it may not be important to include background in crops, and that \textit{strategic use of a quality saliency detector can enable detectors to be less biased and more robust out-of-context.}

             \subsubsection{Can shape and shortcut-reducing strategies further help robustness with saliency strategies?}

             While tightened crops remove many non-salient pixels, some remain inside crops. The pretext task can thus be solved by matching positives based on the background, rather than objects, which can hurt out-of-context robustness. Moreover, aggressive cropping of even object-based crops can still lead to representations that do not capture shape well, hurting appearance shift robustness. Inspired by the ImageNet-Subset experiments, we also explore shape and appearance strategies with COCO pretraining. In particular, we consider \textit{m}=70 as a shape strategy and texture flattening as a shortcut-reducing strategy. Since we have saliency maps, we also propose another strategy: texture flattening of non-salient regions only (TFNS). We specifically propose to distort the background (non-salient regions marked by DeepUSPS) of one InsLoc view to encourage background invariance between views during pretraining. We reason that TFNS may be effective for out-of-context robustness as shortcuts may come more significantly from the background rather than salient object regions. We illustrate this proposed augmentation in Fig. \ref{tfns}.

            In Table \ref{tf_vs_tfns}, we show results with \textit{m}=70, DeepUSPS-Tightened crops, and texture flattening (full and just non-salient regions). We observe that both strategies are effective, and TFNS leads to larger gains across all sets. We reason that learning some level of texture, even with shape, is important, and TFNS preserves important texture (of objects) while removing unimportant texture (high-frequency shortcuts which come from the background).

            For a more thorough evaluation of TFNS and DeepUSPS-Tightened, in Table \ref{main_voc_24k}, we present results of InsLoc with these strategies and various values of \textit{m}, in finetuning on both VOC and COCO. We find that the combination of DeepUSPS-Tightened, \textit{m}=70, and TFNS results in the top AP on VOC and Abstract and the top AP$_{50}$ on COCO and COCO-Weather. \textit{These results illustrate the high overall effectiveness of combining shape, shortcut-reducing, and saliency strategies.} We also observe that the top performance on UnRel (27.31 AP$_{50}$) is achieved at \textit{m}=8, along with TFNS and DeepUSPS-Tightened. We reason that since context is a ``natural" domain shift, where object texture is preserved, shape may less useful, and aggressive cropping at \textit{m}=8 of \textit{object crops with mostly salient pixels} can result in effective texture features. High performance is even achieved on VOC-Weather in this setting, demonstrating these features to be robust to some texture shift. A last note is that we find TFNS gains to be highest at \textit{m}=70, which makes sense as many non-salient pixels exist in such views.

            \subsubsection{How does texture flattening of non-salient regions compare to another strategy for context debiasing?}

                We gain further understanding of the effectiveness of TFNS through evaluating it versus replacing the query crop's non-salient pixels with a random grayscale value, a top background debiasing strategy \cite{ryali2021learning,zhao2021distilling}. Results are shown for COCO pretraining and VOC finetuning in Table \ref{tf}. We find that TFNS outperforms the grayscale strategy on all sets. We reason that TFNS is more beneficial for background debiasing as in distorting the background, it maintains continuity between an image's salient and non-salient pixels, making images seen in pretraining more natural and closer to those seen at test time.
                   \input{tables/tf}
                \input{tables/coco_2x}

            \subsubsection{How are results at a longer training schedule?}

                In Table \ref{2x}, we lastly show that our strategies maintain effectiveness on COCO even when using a longer finetuning schedule (the 2$\times$, 180k iteration schedule from \cite{yang2021instance}). Gains can notably be observed on \textit{both} out-of-domain test sets: +1.58 AP on UnRel and +0.27 AP on COCO-Weather.

    \section{Conclusion}

        In this work, we present contrastive view design strategies to improve robustness to domain shifts in object detection. We show that we can make the contrastive augmentation pipeline more robust to domain shifts in appearance through encouraging the learning of shape (with higher minimum crop \% and IoU constraints). Furthermore, combining these shape strategies with shortcut-reducing appearance augmentations is shown to lead to more robust object features overall, demonstrated by both in-domain and out-of-domain performance improvements. Finally, when pretraining on multi-object image datasets with saliency map priors, we find that tightening crops to salient regions, along with texture flattening the remaining non-salient pixels in a view, is an effective strategy to achieve out-of-context detection robustness. Overall, these strategies can serve to guide view design in future detection-focused, contrastive pretraining methods.

        \noindent \textbf{Acknowledgements:} This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2006885.


\section{Current correlator}

The starting point is the analysis of the three currents correlator in configuration space,
\begin{equation}
 \Pi_\mu(x,y,z)=-\langle 0|\,{\cal T}\,\eta_p(x)A_\mu(y)\,\bar\eta_n(z)\,|0\rangle,
\end{equation}
being $\eta_N$ the interpolating current of the nucleons and $A_mu$ the axial-vector current.
In the hadronic sector, the nucleonic and axial currents are defined by
\begin{align}
 \langle 0|\,\eta_p(x)\,|p',s'\rangle &= \lambda_p\, u_p^{s'}(p')\,e^{-ip'\cdot x},\label{eq.eta_p} \\
 \langle p,s|\,\bar\eta_n(z)\, |0\rangle &= \lambda_n\, \bar u_n^s(p)\, e^{ip\cdot z}\\
 \langle p',s'|A_\mu(y)|p,s\rangle &= \bar u_p^{s'}(p')\,T_\mu(q)\,u_n^s(p) \,e^{iq\cdot y},\label{eq.A}
\end{align}
 with $q=p'-p$, and where $\lambda_p$ and $\lambda_n$ are the current-proton coupling and the current-neutron coupling, respectively.
 The function $T$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
 T_\mu(q) =
 G_A(t)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 +G_P(t)\gamma_5 \frac{q_\mu}{2  m_N}
 +G_T(t)\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5  \frac{q_\nu}{2 m_N},
 \label{T_mu}
\end{equation}
 with $t=q^2$, and where $ m_N$ is the vacuum nucleon mass.
The axial coupling is defined as
\begin{equation}
g_A\equiv G_A(0).
\end{equation}

 In the QCD sector, the nucleon interpolating currents and the axial vector current are defined in terms of the quark fields as
\begin{align}
 \eta_p(x) &=\epsilon^{abc}\left[u^a(x)^T\,C\gamma^\mu \,u^b(x)\right]\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 \,d^c(x),\\
 \bar\eta_n(z) &= \epsilon^{abc}\left[\bar d^b(z)\,\gamma^\mu C\,\bar d^a(z)^T\right]\bar u^c(z)\,\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 \\
A_\mu(y) &= \bar d(y)\,\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\, u(y),
\end{align}
where $C=i\gamma_0\gamma_2$ is the charge conjugation operator.

The correlator in momentum space is defined as
\begin{equation}
 \Pi_\mu(p,p')=\int d^4y\, d^4z\, e^{-i(q\cdot y+p\cdot z)}\,\Pi_\mu(0,y,z),\label{Eq.Pi-momentum}
\end{equation}
where the energy-momentum is conserved as shown in the diagram on the left of Fig.\,\ref{diagrams}.
The idea is to obtain the $g_A$ by relating the hadronic sector to the QCD sector through the FESR using the quark-hadron duality principle.
But first we need to isolate the contribution of $G_A$ from the other contributions.

\subsection{Hadronic sector}

\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{diagrams.pdf}
 \caption{Feynman diagrams representing the current correlator in the hadronic sector (left) and in the QCD sector (right).}
 \label{diagrams}
\end{figure}

Inserting a complete set of intermediate states of nucleons, the correlator in momentum space for the hadronic sector leads to
\begin{equation}
 \Pi^\text{\tiny had}_\mu(p,p')=\lambda_n\lambda_p\frac{ (\slashed{p}+m_n)T_\mu(q)(\slashed{p}'+m_p)}{(p^2-m_n^2)(p'^2-m_p^2)}.
\end{equation}
This correlator is described by the left diagram in Fig.\,\ref{diagrams}, corresponding to an incoming neutron  current with momentum $p$, an outgoing axial current with momentum $q$ and an outgoing proton current with momentum $p'$.

To isolate the contribution of the axial coupling, we can decompose the correlator into the different structures relative to the Dirac matrices by tracing the correlator multiplied with the different Dirac structures, {\it i.e.}  $\mathrm{tr}[\Pi_\mu\,\Gamma]$ with  $\Gamma =I,\gamma_5,\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\mu\gamma_5,\sigma_{\mu\nu}$.
As a result, the different structures include combinations of $G_A$, $G_P$ and $G_T$.
In particular
\begin{equation}
 \mathrm{tr}\,[\Pi_\mu(p,p')\,\gamma_\nu]=-4i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^\alpha p'^\beta \Pi(s,s',t),
 \label{trace_corr}
\end{equation}
where $\Pi$ in the case of the hadronic correlator is
\begin{equation}
 \Pi^\text{\tiny had}(s,s',t)=\lambda_n\lambda_p\frac{G_A(t)+G_T(t)(m_n-m_p)/ m_N}{(s-m_n^2)(s'-m_p^2)},
 \label{Pi_had}
\end{equation}
with $s=p^2$, $s'=p'^2$.
The difference in nucleon masses can be neglected in vacuum.
If different nucleon masses are assumed, it is possible to completely isolate the axial coupling part with the appropriate combination of the other correlator structures, however it is more complicated and unnecessary, even in the presence of magnetic fields.

\subsection{QCD sector}

Once the appropriate operation to isolate $g_A$ is obtained in Eq.\,(\ref{trace_corr}), it can be applied in the QCD sector.
The projected correlator for the perturbative part of QCD in the chiral limit produces a two-loop contribution.
\begin{multline}
 \mathrm{tr}\,[\Pi^\text{\tiny pQCD}_\mu(p,p')\gamma_\nu]=  4i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}N_c(N_c-1)\times\\
 \int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4k'}{(2\pi)^4}\,   \frac{32\,q^\alpha k^\beta\,k'\!\!\cdot\!(p'-k-k')}{k^2\, k'^2\,(k-q)^2 \,(p'-k-k')^2}
\end{multline}
which is described diagrammatically on the right side of Fig.\,\ref{diagrams}.
After the integration of the internal momentum in the frame $t=0$ the result is
\begin{multline}
 \Pi^\text{\tiny pQCD}(s,s',0)=
 \frac{s^2\ln(-s/\mu^2)-s'^2\ln(-s'/\mu^2)}{(2\pi)^4\,(s'-s)}\\
 +\text{regular terms},
 \label{PI-pQCD}
\end{multline}
where $\mu$ is the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scale.
Terms without discontinuities on the real axes or singularities are omitted because they vanish when the FESR are applied.

The next contribution comes from the non-perturbative sector.
Considering the operator product expansion, the next contribution in the chiral limit corresponds to dimension 3 operators: the quark condensate.
However, this term vanishes when performing the projection described in Eq.\,(\ref{trace_corr}), as well as for all diagrams with odd-dimensional operators in the chiral limit.
Therefore, the next non-vanishing contribution comes from the dimension 4 operator, which in the chiral limit corresponds to the gluon condensate.
This diagram is complicated to handle and is not quite relevant.
Therefore, only the leading term, which corresponds to the perturbative part, will be considered.

\section{Axial coupling constant from FESR}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{pacman.pdf}
\caption{The FESR contour.  The integration is performed over the variables $s$ and $s'$.}
\label{pacman}
\end{figure}

The FESR in this case are applied for two momentum correlators: $s$ and $s'$.
The usual procedure corresponds to integrate the correlator multiplied by an analytical kernel $K(s)$ along the  {\it pacman} contour described in Fig.\,\ref{pacman}.
The radius of the circle is the hadronic continuum threshold.
Using Cauchy's theorem, quark-hadron duality is introduced by placing the hadronic sector at the discontinuity on the positive real axis, and the QCD sector on the complex circle:
\begin{equation}
 \int_0^{s_n}\frac{ds}{\pi}\,\mathrm{Im}_s\,\Pi^\text{\tiny had}(s,s',t)=-\oint\frac{ds}{2\pi i}\Pi^\text{\tiny QCD}(s,s',t)
 \label{FESR}
\end{equation}
where the variable $s$ is first integrated with the weight function $K(s)=1$, and where $s_n$ denotes the continuum threshold related with neutron-current.
The subscript introduced in the imaginary part is defined as
\begin{equation}
 \mathrm{Im}_s f(s)\equiv\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\mathrm{Im}f(s+i\epsilon).
\end{equation}
Of course, Eq.\,(\ref{FESR}) is valid in the absence of poles within the contour, otherwise the residues must be incorporated into the equation.
In particular we can see from Eq.\,(\ref{PI-pQCD}) that the pole in $s=s'$ in the denominator cancels with the numerator, so there is no singularity at all within the contour.

Proceeding in the same way, but now with the variable $s'$, the double FESR gives
\begin{multline}
 \int_0^{s_p}\frac{ds'}{\pi} \,\mathrm{Im}_{s'}\!\!\int_0^{s_n}\frac{ds}{\pi}\,\mathrm{Im}_s\Pi^\text{\tiny had} (s,s',t)\\
 =\oint_{s_p}\frac{ds'}{2\pi i}\oint_{s_n}\frac{ds}{2\pi i}\,\Pi^\text{\tiny QCD}(s,s',t),
 \label{eq.FESR_had=QCD}
\end{multline}
where $s_p$ is the continuum threshold related with the proton-current.

Once FESR are applied to the hadronic sector in Eq. \,(\ref{Pi_had}) and to the QCD sector in Eq. \,(\ref{PI-pQCD}), after setting $t=0$, the above equation gives the relation
\begin{multline}
 g_A\lambda_n\lambda_p\,\theta(s_n-m_n^2)\theta(s_p-m_p^2)\\
=\frac{1}{48\pi^4}\left[s_n^3\,\theta(s_p-s_n)
+s_p^3\,\theta(s_n-s_p)\right].
\label{FESR_had=QCD}
\end{multline}
In vacuum, all parameters are practically the same for protons and neutrons, so $s_p\approx s_n\equiv s_0$ and $\lambda_p\approx\lambda_n \equiv\lambda_N $
\begin{equation}
 g_A=\frac{1}{48\pi^4}\frac{s_0^3}{\lambda_N^2}.
 \label{eq.gA-vac}
\end{equation}

The nucleon-current coupling can be obtained from the nucleon-nucleon channel.
The most appropriate channel is the nucleon-nucleon current correlator \cite{Ioffe:1983ju,Chung:1981wm,Chung:1981cc,Chung:1982rd,Chung:1984gr,Dominguez:2020sdf}
\begin{equation}
\Pi_N(x)=\langle 0|\,{\cal T}\,\eta_N(x)\,\bar\eta_N(0)\,|0\rangle.
\end{equation}
In vacuum there are only two Dirac structures, so the FESR \cite{Dominguez:2020sdf} provide two equations:
\begin{align}
\lambda_N^2 &= \frac{s_0^3}{192\pi^4}+\frac{s_0}{32\pi^2}\langle G^2\rangle+\frac{2}{3}\langle\bar qq\rangle^2\\
 \lambda_N^2m_N &=-\frac{s_0^2}{8\pi^2}\langle\bar qq\rangle+ \frac{1}{12}\langle G^2\rangle\langle\bar qq\rangle,
 \label{Nuclear_FESR}
\end{align}
where in the last expression, vacuum dominance was considered.
The quark and gluon condensates are defined as
\begin{align}
\langle\bar qq\rangle &\equiv \frac{1}{N_f}\sum_f\langle 0| \bar q_fq_f |0\rangle\\
 \langle G^2\rangle &\equiv \langle 0 |\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}G_{\mu\nu}^a G^{a\mu\nu}|0\rangle.
\end{align}

The axial coupling constant depends strongly on the quark and gluon condensates.
The most often used values for these operators are  $ \langle\bar qq\rangle= -(0.24\text{ GeV})^3$  and $\langle G^2\rangle= (0.33\text{ GeV})^4$.
If these values are used, the axial coupling results in $g_A=1.52$.
Recent lattice results for 2+1 flavors at the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ renormalization scale of 2 GeV obtain on average $\langle -\bar qq\rangle^{1/3}\approx 0.272\text{ GeV}$ \cite{Gubler:2018ctz}.
Close results were obtained for 2-flavor FESR, which provide $ \langle -\bar qq\rangle^{1/3}\approx 0.267\text{ GeV}$ \cite{Bordes:2010wy}.

The gluon condensate is an scale invariant quantity.
In this case the situation is not so clear, where different estimations provide important variations: $\langle G^2\rangle^{1/4} =$ 0.3 -- 0.5 GeV \cite{Dominguez:2018zzi}

Actual estimates of the axial coupling fluctuate around $g_A\approx 1.275$  \cite{Czarnecki:2018okw}.
Figure\,\ref{gAfixed}, shows the relation between the gluon condensate and the quark condensate by fixing the axial coupling.
We can see that the range of values for the chiral condensate are those frequently used in the literature, and the values obtained for the gluon condensate are also in the range of accepted values.

The inclusion of more terms in the operator product expansion, as well as radiative corrections, is expected to limit solutions with more precise results.

 \bigskip
\begin{figure}
 \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{gAfixed.pdf}
 \caption{
 Range of values for the gluon condensate and the quark condensate for a fixed value of the axial coupling.}
 \label{gAfixed}
\end{figure}

\section{Axial coupling constant at finite external magnetic field}

The FESR result $ \langle -\bar qq\rangle^{1/3}= 0.267$\,GeV will be considered, and the gluon condensate will be set to  $\langle G^2\rangle^{1/4} = 0.3775$~GeV in order to obtain $g_A= 1.275$.
This choice of condensates generates, from Eq. (\ref{Nuclear_FESR}), $\lambda_N = 0.022\text{ GeV}^3$ and $s_0=1.429\text{ GeV}^2$.

As can be seen in \cite{Ayala:2015qwa,Dominguez:2018njv,Dominguez:2020sdf}, the magnetic field can be treated by considering the expanded fermion propagator in powers of $eB$, even for light quarks.
The series is truncated by the contour integral depending on the analytical kernel used in the FESR.
The expansion of the magnetic field allows reaching values of $eB$ higher than $10\,m_\pi^2$, which is enough to obtain the phenomenology of the strong magnetic field produced in relativistic HIC experiments and in the interior of magnetars.
In this sense, the lowest order contribution is the result obtained in vacuum in Eq. (\ref{FESR_had=QCD}), but replacing the different parameters by those dependent on the magnetic field.

Aforementioned approximation is evident in the QCD sector, and the result at the lowest order is just the right-hand side of Eq.\,(\ref{FESR_had=QCD}), but what about the hadronic sector?
Let us describe the currents in the hadronic sector in another way.
The nucleon current is the nucleon field times the nucleon-current coupling.
To reproduce the matrix elements described in Eqs. (\ref{eq.eta_p})-(\ref{eq.A}), the axial-vector current can be expressed through the nucleon fields in configuration space in the following way
\begin{align}
\eta_N(x) &= \lambda_N \psi_N(x) \label{eta_N}
\\
A_\mu(y) &= \int d^4\xi\, \bar\psi_p(\xi)T_\mu(\xi-y)\psi_n(\xi),
\end{align}
where $T_\mu(q)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq.A}) corresponds to the Fourier transform in the momentum space of the function $T_\mu(x)$ in the configuration space described in the previous equation.
The correlator in the configuration space is therefore
\begin{equation}
\Pi_\mu(x,y,z) = -\!\!\int \!\!d^4\xi~ e^{i\Phi(x,\xi)} \, S_p^B(x-\xi)\, T_\mu(\xi-y)\, S_n^B(\xi-z)
\end{equation}
where the magnetic field dependent proton propagator is described by the local part multiplied by the Schwinger phase.
The neutron propagator in the presence of the magnetic field contains the anomalous magnetic moment contribution.
The definition of the correlator in momentum space in Eq. (\ref{Eq.Pi-momentum}) is not arbitrary.
In fact, choosing the frame $x=0$, the Schwinger phase disappears if the Fock-Schwinger gauge ${\cal A}_\mu(x) = -\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu\nu}x^\nu$ is considered for the external electromagnetic vector field.
The correlator in momentum space is therefore
\begin{align}
\Pi_\mu(p',p)
&=-S_p^B(p')T_\mu(q)S_n^B(p).
\end{align}
Considering the expanded propagators in magnetic field power series \cite{Dominguez:2020sdf}, it is not difficult to see that, in the sum rule considered in Eq. (\ref{FESR}), only the lowest order term in the expansion will survive if we keep the same $T_\mu$ structure described in Eq. (\ref{T_mu}).
However, when a magnetized medium is present, the overall structure of $T_\mu$ must incorporate the external electromagnetic tensor $F_{\mu}$ which contributes to other structures, dividing the axial contribution of the form factor as
\begin{equation}
 G_A\gamma_\mu\to G_A^\parallel\gamma_\mu^\parallel
    + G_A^\perp\gamma_\mu^\perp
    + \tilde G_A F_{\mu\nu}\gamma^\nu,
\end{equation}
as well as the other form factor terms in Eq. (\ref{T_mu}) will be divided into several substructures.
The difference between $G_A^\parallel$ and $G_A^\perp$ will be of order $(eB)^2/s_0$.
Since we are considering the lowest term of the expansion, there will be no difference between $G_A^\parallel$ and $G_A^\perp$.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{s0-lambda.pdf}
\caption{Hadronic threshold (upper panel) and nucleon current coupling (lower panel) for proton (solid line) and neutron (dashed line)}
 \label{fig.s0-lambda}
\end{figure}

With all the above considerations, the axial coupling constant at finite magnetic field is given by Eq.\,(\ref{FESR_had=QCD}).
The hadronic thresholds and current-nucleus couplings are obtained from \cite{Dominguez:2020sdf}, changing the values of the quark and gluon condensates in vacuum to the values defined at the beginning of this section.
The resulting hadronic thresholds and nucleon-current couplings are plotted in Fig.\,\ref{fig.s0-lambda}.
The first thing to note is that $s_p>s_n$, and therefore the axial coupling constant of the relation in Eq.\,(\ref{FESR_had=QCD}) can be written as
\begin{align}
g_A=\frac{1}{48\pi^4}\frac{s_n^3}{\lambda_p\lambda_n}.
\end{align}

Both the hadronic threshold of the nucleons and the nucleon-current couplings increase with the magnetic field as can be seen in Fig.\,\ref{fig.s0-lambda}.
The evolution of the axial coupling constant as a function of external magnetic field is shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig.gA_B}.
The axial coupling constant decreases, as the magnetic field increases.
For lowest values of the magnetic field, this decrease is linear.

The decrease in axial nucleon coupling is due to flavor asymmetry.
Since there is competition between the smaller hadronic threshold of nucleons and the nucleon-current couplings, then the proton coupling dominates.
On the contrary, if we replace Eq.\,(\ref{eq.gA-vac}) by the average values of the nucleon-current couplings $(\lambda_n+\lambda_p)/2$ and the nucleon hadronic thresholds $(s_n+s_p)/2$, the result is totally different, increasing quadratically.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{gA_B.pdf}
\caption{Axial coupling constant as a function of an external magnetic field (solid line).
The dashed line corresponds to the case of Eq.\, (\ref{eq.gA-vac}) considering the magnetic field dependence through the average nucleon-current couplings and the average nucleon hadronic thresholds.}
 \label{fig.gA_B}

\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions and discussion}

The effects of an external uniform magnetic field on the axial coupling constant were obtained by finite energy sum rules.
By isolating the axial structure in the proton-axial-neutron current correlator, and performing a double contour integral, it is possible to match the hadronic part with the perturbative QCD part.
The relevant parameters in this case, the nucleon-current couplings and the hadronic thresholds are obtained through the nucleon-nucleon correlator at finite external magnetic field calculated in \cite{Dominguez:2020sdf}.

The axial coupling is then proportional to the neutron threshold cubed and inversely proportional to the proton-current and neutron-current couplings.
Both thresholds and couplings are increasing quantities as a function of magnetic field, but the proton-current coupling dominates, and the axial coupling constant decreases with $B$.
The change with the magnetic field about 10\% for $eB=0.1\text{ GeV}^2$.
In particular, the factor $1+3g_A^2$, which is proportional to the neutron decay width as well as the neutrino emissivity in the Urca process, decreases by 16\%.
This is an effect to take into consideration.
Unfortunately, since this is the first attempt to find the magnetic evolution of the axial coupling constant, there are no other solutions to compare with.
The axial coupling of pions with constituent quarks has been calculated for $eB\sim 0.01$\,GeV$^2$, presenting a linear behavior \cite{Braghin:2018drl}.
This could be a related form factor but not the same, so it is necessary to verify nucleon axial coupling constant under an external magnetic field using other models and techniques.

It is interesting to see what happens in high temperature scenarios, such as the relativistic HIC experiments and high density scenarios such as in magnetars.
Apparently temperature and baryon density effects tend to reduce axial coupling, but it is not clear what may happen with temperature or density effects in combination with the external magnetic field.
The case of baryon density and magnetic field effects will be addressed soon.

\begin{acknowledgments}
I would like to thank Ces\'areo Dom\'inguez and Marcelo Loewe for their fruitful discussions.
This article was funded by Fondecyt under grants 1190192, 1200483 and 1220035.
\end{acknowledgments}


\section{Introduction and circuit design}

While superconducting quantum computer architectures \cite{krantz2019quantum} have made enormous progress over the last few years, performance is generally still limited by the short coherence times of individual qubits. To address this, researchers have explored a range of more complex small logical qubit designs, which include both passive, topologically protected circuits \cite{PRXQuantum.2.010339,aghaee2022inas} and active error correction codes based on engineered dissipation or measurement and feedback \cite{ofekpetrenko2016,kapit2016,hu2019quantum,cai2021bosonic,ni2022beating,sivak2022real}. Alongside these approaches are continuously driven schemes such as the two-leg cat qubit, which can \emph{exponentially} suppress error along one axis at the cost of linearly increasing it along another \cite{lescanne2020exponential,berdou2022one}, requiring dissipation but no active measurement. However, these approaches all present serious challenges, including exotic circuit elements, physically large 3d devices, complex measurement and control sequences, and high symmetry requirements in fabrication. While surmountable, these obstacles make scaling these designs to large quantum computer systems difficult.

In this letter, we propose a new approach: a small logical qubit design based on strong interactions and continuous driving, which can suppress \emph{all} single qubit error channels fully autonomously, with no dissipative elements. We call our design the Cold Echo Qubit (CEQ). It consists of just two or three flux-type qubits (such as capacitively shunted flux qubit \cite{yangustavsson2015} or fluxonium \cite{manucharyan2009fluxonium,xiong2022arbitrary,somoroff2021millisecond,zhang2021universal} devices), coupled by strong, fixed longitudinal interactions and continuously driven through a strong charge drive. We will show that this circuit is robust to small variations in the device parameters, has a single tone control structure, and is compatible with tunable couplers, so that fast gates can be enacted.

Inspired by the fluxonium molecule circuit demonstrated in \cite{kou2017fluxonium}, we first analyze a minimal version of this device, with the same basic circuit topology, operated as a logical qubit via asymmetric flux biases and continuous driving. The circuit, shown in FIG~\ref{circuitfig}, consists of a pair of fluxonium qubits; the base qubits' inductances are shunted to ground through a common inductor $\gamma E_L$, with $\gamma \leq 1$. Using standard quantization methods, we arrive at phase basis Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray}
H &=& - 4 E_C \of{\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi_2^2}   } \\
& & - E_J \of{\cos \of{\phi_1 + \Phi_1} + \cos \of{\phi_2 + \Phi_2}   } \nonumber \\
& & + E_L \frac{1+\gamma}{2 \of{2+\gamma}} \of{\phi_1^2 + \phi_2^2} + \frac{E_L}{2+\gamma} \phi_1 \phi_2. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are external control fluxes, both of which are to be biased near $\pi$ for CEQ operation, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are the quantum phase variables and we assume $E_J \gg E_L$ and $E_J > E_C$.  While we assume these parameters are symmetric for simplicity, inevitable small variations will not significantly affect logical qubit performance.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=2in]{CEQ_new.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1.0in]{CEQ_new_L3.pdf}
\caption{Circuit diagrams for the logical qubits considered in this work. Left: two-node circuit inspired by \cite{kou2017fluxonium}; the central shunt inductance is reduced by a factor of $\gamma <1$ compared to the inductances in each component fluxonium. Equal and opposite flux biases break the degeneracy of the antiferromagnetic doublet ground state. Right: a three-node version, where the inductors create both the inductive potential for each fluxonium and maximize the (now ferromagnetic) couplings to the other fluxonia.}\label{circuitfig}.
\end{figure}

The CEQ is a strongly coupled device, and with two or three degrees of freedom it can be straightforwardly diagonalized numerically. However, it is much more illuminating--particularly for analyzing the noise model and choosing device parameters--to diagonalize each qubit separately to construct a reduced, two-spin Hamiltonian. In the limit $E_J \gg E_L$, with external flux $\Phi = \pi$ the fluxonium Hamiltonian consists of a double-well potential with minima $\phi_m \simeq \pm \of{\pi - E_{Ls}/E_J}$, where $E_{Ls} \equiv E_L \frac{1+\gamma}{2 \of{2+\gamma}} $ is the single fluxonium inductive energy. If we move away from the symmetry point by letting $\Phi = \pi + \delta \Phi$ (for small $\delta \Phi$), the two minima locations shift by $ \delta \Phi$, with corresponding energy shifts $\simeq \pm \pi E_{Ls} \delta \Phi$. If we let the persistent current states near $\pm \pi$ be $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, we can represent this bias term as $h \of{\Phi} \sigma^z$. Given an inter-well tunneling term $- \kappa \sigma^x$, we have $H_0 = - \kappa \sigma^x + h \of{\Phi} \sigma^z$. Here $\kappa$ can be computed in the WKB approximation and decreases exponentially in $\sqrt{E_J/E_C}$; at the symmetry point the single qubit excitation energy is $2\kappa$. Quantizing the system in a two-qubit basis, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{baseH}
\frac{E_L}{2+\gamma} \phi_1 \phi_2 \simeq \frac{E_L}{2+\gamma} \of{\pi - E_{Ls}/E_J}^2 \sigma_1^z \sigma_2^z \equiv J \sigma_1^z \sigma_2^z. \\
H_0 = - \kappa \of{ \sigma_1^x+\sigma_2^x} + h \of{\Phi_1} \sigma_1^z + h \of{\Phi_2} \sigma_2^z + J \sigma_1^z \sigma_2^z.
\end{eqnarray}
Higher levels are generally far enough away in energy to be ignorable here. The spectrum of $H_0$ consists of the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of $\ket{01}$ and $\ket{10}$, with energies $-J \pm \Omega_0$, separated from the equivalent combinations of $\ket{00}$ and $\ket{11}$ with energies $+J \pm \Omega_0$, where $\Omega_0 \simeq \kappa^2/J$. We let our logical states be the perturbatively dressed antiferromagnetic doublet, $\ket{0_L} \simeq \ket{01}$ and $\ket{1_L} \simeq \ket{10}$, and choose $h \of{\Phi_1} = - h/4$ and $h \of{\Phi_2} = +h/4$, detuning the logical states by $h$ so that they are nearly $z$ eigenstates. We assume $h \gg \Omega_0$. Note this is a significant difference from \cite{kou2017fluxonium}, where there only a single, global flux control was used. The $L=3$ design, detailed in the supplemental material, uses exactly the same principles and drive structure, though the interactions are ferromagnetic in that case.

To motivate this design, we now introduce noise. We use a noise model drawn from the detailed  spectroscopy reported in \cite{bylandergustavsson2011,yangustavsson2013,yangustavsson2015,quintana2017observation,dai2022dissipative} for flux qubits, which are phenomenologically similar to fluxonium devices. Every component qubit couples a thermal bath though a mix of $x$, $y$, and $z$ couplings. For flux-like qubits the $x$ coupling is generally neglible, and the $z$ coupling scales as the qubit's persistent current (see \cite{yangustavsson2015} for a survey); consequently for fluxonia $y$ error (the charge channel) is largest. These are entangling interactions with a thermal environment at temperature $T_{eff}$; this temperature is often larger than the nominal fridge temperature so $T_{eff}$ is the temperature seen by the qubits themselves.

In this DC form, the CEQ is well-protected against single spin flip excitations from the environment, since they cost $\sim 2J \gg k_B T_{eff}$ (where $T_{eff}$ is the effective bath temperature seen by the qubits) and are thus very strongly suppressed. It is also protected against low-energy transitions between the two logical states $\ket{0_L}$ and $\ket{1_L}$ by virtue of small perturbative matrix elements for $\bra{1_L} \sigma_j^y \ket{0_L}$ and $\bra{1_L} \sigma_j^z \ket{0_L}$.

However, it is \emph{not} protected at all against low-frequency flux noise dephasing. Alongside these bath couplings, each qubit experiences independent, classical $1/f$ noise along $z$, represented by fluctuating terms $\delta h_j \of{t} \sigma_j^z$ in the Hamiltonian. In flux qubits, this flux noise has been extensively studied, and is very well-described by $1/f^\alpha$ (with $\alpha \simeq 1$) until $f \sim 1$GHz, where it crosses over to ohmic-spectrum bath interactions \cite{yangustavsson2015,quintana2017observation,dai2022dissipative}. To remedy this, we resonantly Rabi drive \cite{martinisnam2003} between $\ket{0_L}$ and $\ket{1_L}$, echoing out this final remaining error channel. As target Rabi frequencies for this process are in the tens of MHz, we will remain firmly in the classical regime for this channel.

In principle, the AC variation of nearly any term can drive transitions between $\ket{0_L}$ and $\ket{1_L}$, including oscillating $Z$ biases, or the \emph{magnitude} of one or more transverse fields by replacing the single junctions in FIG.~\ref{circuitfig} with SQUIDs. However, the resulting flux crosstalk can introduce significant calibration challenges. To simplify things, we achieve similar results using single junctions and AC charge driving. We will now show that, for a given $\Omega_0$, the maximum achievable $\Omega_{AC} \simeq 0.6 \Omega_0$ is sufficient to produce long lifetimes given base coherences reported in the literature.

To derive this limit, we consider the Hamiltonian of a single fluxonium qubit, with an external charge offset $Q_{ext}$ across the junction. The Hamiltonian becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Hsingle}
H =  4 E_C \of{-i \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} + \frac{Q_{ext}}{2e} }^2 - E_J \cos \of{\phi + \Phi} + \frac{E_{Ls}}{2} \phi^2
\end{eqnarray}
Now, a \emph{static} $Q_{ext}$ has no physical consequences, as it can be eliminated by a simple unitary transformation. If we apply $\ket{\psi \of{\phi}} \to e^{-i  \frac{Q_{ext}}{2e} \phi } \ket{\psi \of{\phi}}$ then we can remove $Q_{ext}$ from Eq.~\ref{Hsingle} entirely;\footnote{This is only possible because the quadratic inductive potential has broken the periodicity of $\phi$; in superconducting qubits where this is not the case, this periodicity requirement makes such a unitary transformation impossible to construct and the qubit energies do become sensitive to offset charge as a result.} viewing Eq.~\ref{Hsingle} as a single particle in a double well potential, the charge offset acts as constant vector potential $\mathbf{A} = \frac{Q_{ext}}{2e} \hat{\phi}$. However, if $Q_{ext}$ varies in time, it cannot be eliminated in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation and yields nontrivial dynamics.

Identifying the two persistent current states as our $z$ basis, quantum tunneling between the wells creates a transverse field $x$ term. And while a charge offset does not change the \emph{magnitude} of this process, the ``particle" does accumulate a complex Peierls phase $\varphi$ as it tunnels between the two wells, where $\varphi \simeq \int \mathbf{A} \cdot d \phi \simeq 2 \phi_m Q_{ext}/2e$. This rotates our $x$ field about $z$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{H0rot}
H_0 \to \kappa \of{\cos \of{\varphi \of{t}} \sigma^x + \sin \of{\varphi \of{t}} \sigma^y} + h \of{\Phi} \sigma^z.
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, charge driving causes the transverse field to wobble back and forth in the $x-y$ plane. As shown in the supplemental material, this relationship holds even if $Q_{ext}$ is varied at frequencies that far exceed $\kappa$.

This is one way to implement the Hamiltonian in RFQA-D \cite{kapit2021noise}, the quantum optimization scheme that inspired the CEQ. Driving just one of the two qubits\footnote{In this simple setup, there is no benefit to driving both and the maximum achievable Rabi frequency $\Omega_{AC}$ does not appear to be increased by doing so. There are more exotic ways of engineering or operating this design that can overcome this limit, such as adding SQUIDs to the circuit and/or driving at very high frequencies, but those are beyond the scope of this writeup.} and the transverse field rotates in the $x-y$ plane with angle $\varphi \of{t}$; noting that $\Omega_0 \simeq \kappa^2/J$ the low-energy effective Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
H \of{t} \simeq \Omega_0 \sigma_1^x \of{\cos \varphi \of{t} \sigma_2^x + \sin \varphi \of{t} \sigma_2^y} + \frac{h}{4} \of{ \sigma_1^z - \sigma_2^z}
\end{eqnarray}
As shown in \cite{kapit2021noise}, if we let the angle $\varphi \of{t} = \bar{\alpha} \sin \of{2\pi h t}$, this produces a resonant drive term between the two logical states with an amplitude given by $\frac{\Omega_0}{2} f \of{\bar{\alpha}}$. $f \of{\bar{\alpha}}$ is a Bessel function that peaks at $\simeq 1.18$ around $\bar{\alpha} \simeq 1.84$, leading to a maximum Rabi rate $\Omega_{AC} \sim 0.6 \Omega_0$. The amplitude of the charge drive here is on the order of half a Cooper pair of offset charge across the junction; driving at higher amplitudes is counter-productive, decreasing $\Omega_{AC}$ while potentially introducing new error sources. This drive term strongly suppresses low-frequency phase noise, sampling it at $\sim 2 \Omega_{AC}$, mitigating the last error channel for a high coherence logical qubit.

\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TL_vs_kappa_final.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{opt_TL_final.pdf}
\caption{Logical state lifetimes, for an $L=2$ CEQ with $J= 2\pi \times 1.5$ GHz and $k_B T_{eff} = 2\pi \times 0.5$ GHz, assuming $\Omega_{AC} = 0.6 \Omega_{0}$ as described in the text. On the left, logical lifetimes as a function of transverse field $\kappa$ and off-sweet-spot $T_\phi$, for single-qubit $T_1 = 500 \mu$s, showing that $T_L$ does peak at finite $\kappa$ for a given $T_1$ and $T_\phi$, but not sharply so. On the right, best achievable lifetime (varying $\kappa$) as a function of $T_1$ and $T_\phi$. For simplicity, the energy-dependence of $T_1$ is ignored in low-energy relaxation and, appropriate to fluxonia, $\Gamma_z$ is considered to be negligible (it can be further suppressed by increasing the detuning $h$, which does not enter into the other error rates). For simplicity, $T_L$ is calculated as the inverse of the sum of all error rates in Eqs.~(\ref{thermerr}-~\ref{oneferr}); note that error is substantially anisotropic in some regions of these plots. As shown in the supplemental material, for $L=3$, due to reduced high and low energy error through the charge channel, lifetimes at the higher end of the base coherence range can be more than double those of the $L=2$ counterpart.}\label{TLfig}
\end{figure*}

\section{Logical Coherence estimates}

To prove these claims, we now consider each noise channel in detail, for $L=2$ and 3. Let the nominal relaxation rate through $y/z$ to the environment for a \emph{single component qubit} be $\Gamma_{y/z}^s$ (measured at the flux symmetry point). We begin with \textbf{Thermal excitation error}, where energy is absorbed from the environment to create single-flip excitations. This is predominantly through the $y$ channel. As a single excitation can scramble the logical state, our thermal error rate $\Gamma_{th}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{thermerr}
\Gamma_{th} \simeq L \Gamma_y^s  \frac{ c_L J}{2 \kappa } \exp \of{- \frac{c_L J}{k_B T_{eff}}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_L=2$ for $L=2$ and $4$ for larger $L$. The factor of $c_L J/\kappa$ comes from assuming ohmic charge noise and that the qubit's $T_1$ is measured at energy $2\kappa$ for single fluxonia at the symmetry point. This error rate thus decreases exponentially with linear increases in $J$.

\textbf{Low energy environmental error} arises from higher order perturbative corrections, as the matrix elements $\bra{1_L} \sigma_j^{x/y/z} \ket{0_L}$ are all generically nonzero. A simple perturbative analysis in the DC limit yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{leerr}
\Gamma_{z,le} \simeq  4 L \Gamma_z^s \of{ \frac{\Omega_0}{h}}^2, \; \; \Gamma_{y,le} \simeq  L \Gamma_{y}^s \of{\frac{\Omega_0}{\kappa}}^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\Omega_0$ enters this equation quadratically, the result of the perturbative matrix element being $\Omega_0/h$ and bath error rates being derived from Fermi's Golden Rule (where the interaction is squared). In AC operation, as derived in the supplemental material, there can be small shifts to these rates but the overall scaling is identical. To verify these claims, we have performed
numerical simulations of an $L=2$ CEQ coupled to a broad-spectrum bath; see the supplemental material for details.

$1/f$-\textbf{induced dephasing} is suppressed by the AC drives. We let the \emph{single qubit} pure dephasing time from $1/f$ noise be $T_\phi$, measured via Ramsey decay assuming $T_1 \to \infty$. Rabi driving converts the Gaussian decay of $1/f$ dephasing to simple exponential, and if the Rabi rate $\Omega$ is larger than $1/T_{\phi}$ the resulting $T_{2} \propto T_{\phi}^2 \Omega$. We sum the $1/f$ traces of each qubit to produce a single fluctuating $\delta h \of{t}$, which also has a $1/f$ spectrum; then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{oneferr}
\Gamma_{z,1/f} \simeq \frac{L}{5 T_{\phi}^2 \Omega_{AC} }.
\end{eqnarray}
The factor of $5$ in the denominator comes from numerical best fitting. Note that the $L=2$ CEQ is insensitive to ``common mode" flux noise (uniform for both qubits) \cite{kou2017fluxonium}.

Finally, \textbf{Readout error} is the error in measuring the full CEQ logical state. In the simplest implementations, this is done dispersively by capacitive coupling to a readout resonator \cite{PhysRevLett.95.060501}, with the AC charge drive turned off. As readout error is primarily limited by $T_{1}$ loss during the readout process itself, the increased effective $T_1$ (which does not depend on AC driving at all) should proportionally reduce readout error.

In FIG.~\ref{TLfig}, we plot the logical state lifetime for realistic $T_1$ and $T_\phi$ ranging from ``average" to a bit below the current state of the art. In all cases it is very easy for the CEQ to exceed the current state of the art for single fluxonium devices. This is intrinsically a simplified treatment, and ignores more complex and subtle relationships such as the dependence of $T_{\phi}$ on $J$ ($T_{\phi}$ decreases with increasing $J$, since it decreases with increasing $E_L$, but can vary widely from one design to the next); nonetheless, these plots give reasonable performance expectations for this device. For example, using base coherences $\cuof{T_1,T_\phi} = \cuof{315,4} \mu {\rm s}$ from \cite{zhang2021universal}, and the parameters in FIG.~\ref{TLfig} we obtain a maximum $T_L \simeq 2.5$ms for $L=2$ and $\sim 5$ ms for $L=3$. Interestingly, since $\Gamma_y \gg \Gamma_z$ in fluxonia, at the ``optimal" $T_L$ the CEQ has relatively isotropic \emph{logical} error; in contrast, error in a version based on another flux qubit type (with larger persistent current, and thus, $\Gamma_z$) can be strongly biased along $z$.

\section{Logical gates and outlook}

We now consider logical operations. The base gate set of CEQ
consists of single qubit logical $x$ and $z$ rotations, along with CPHASE/CZ. The drive terms that generate $\Omega_{AC}$ causes the logical qubit state to continuously rotate around the $x$ or $y$ axis (depending on convention; we choose $x$ in this section), at rates rapid enough to produce very high fidelity gates. So $x$ rotations are performed by simply letting the system evolve under the drive for appropriate amounts of time. Logical $z$ rotations can be performed by pulsing the individual $z$ biases. It may be desirable to momentarily weaken or turn off the $\Omega_{AC}$ field generating continuous $x$ rotations during this step. Note that this does \emph{not} interfere with the $1/f$ protection if the $z$ rotations are short (we expect 10-20 ns), since the duration will be so short that any $1/f$ noise will be sampled at very high frequency as a result, where it is weak.

CZ can be implemented through flux-tunable mutual inductances between pairs of logical qubits. As in logical $z$ rotations, we can either momentarily weaken or disable $\Omega_{AC}$ during this step, or oscillate the coupler at the appropriate frequencies. Unlike transmons, assuming crosstalk is mitigated, a single CEQ can participate in multiple CZ gates simultaneously. This is a potentially significant benefit when incorporating CEQs into a surface code \cite{fowlersurface}; it reduces the length of the error detection cycle and makes the decoding process easier. Note however that in fluxonium qubits, the persistent current is significantly reduced compared to traditional flux qubits, making the strengths of such mutual inductances much weaker, though even a few MHz is sufficient for a coherence limited error rate below $10^{-4}$. Gates of this type are also trivially error transparent \cite{kapit2018error} and error divisible \cite{perez2021error}. A variable \emph{capacitance} between two CEQs could also be implemented (for example by using a flux tunable qubit to mediate interactions as in \cite{sung2021realization}), though the analysis is more complex in that case.

In conclusion, we have proposed a strongly coupled and strongly driven circuit capable of achieving significant coherence improvements against the empirical flux qubit noise model. It requires no new circuit elements and could be tested immediately. The original idea for this design arose from a careful first-principles analysis of noise in AC-driven quantum annealing--hardly a system known for high coherence. We suggest that while the combination of strong coupling \emph{and} strong AC drives makes noise analysis considerably more difficult than the weak limit normally considered, if these results are borne out in experiments there are likely many more surprises to be found in this regime.

\section{Acknowledgements}

We would like to thank Michel Devoret, Steven Dissler, Paul Varosy, David Schuster and Steven Weber for useful discussions. EK's research in this area was funded by NSF grant PHY-1653820 and by ARO Grant No. W911NF-18-1-0125. EK and VO were jointly supported by DARPA under the Reversible Quantum Machine Learning and Simulations program, contract HR00112190068. The Flatiron Institute is a division of the Simons Foundation.

\section{Introduction and circuit design}

While superconducting quantum computer architectures \cite{krantz2019quantum} have made enormous progress over the last few years, performance is generally still limited by the short coherence times of individual qubits. To address this, researchers have explored a range of more complex small logical qubit designs, which include both passive, topologically protected circuits \cite{PRXQuantum.2.010339,aghaee2022inas} and active error correction codes based on engineered dissipation or measurement and feedback \cite{ofekpetrenko2016,kapit2016,hu2019quantum,cai2021bosonic,ni2022beating,sivak2022real}. Alongside these approaches are continuously driven schemes such as the two-leg cat qubit, which can \emph{exponentially} suppress error along one axis at the cost of linearly increasing it along another \cite{lescanne2020exponential,berdou2022one}, requiring dissipation but no active measurement. However, these approaches all present serious challenges, including exotic circuit elements, physically large 3d devices, complex measurement and control sequences, and high symmetry requirements in fabrication. While surmountable, these obstacles make scaling these designs to large quantum computer systems difficult.

In this letter, we propose a new approach: a small logical qubit design based on strong interactions and continuous driving, which can suppress \emph{all} single qubit error channels fully autonomously, with no dissipative elements. We call our design the Cold Echo Qubit (CEQ). It consists of just two or three flux-type qubits (such as capacitively shunted flux qubit \cite{yangustavsson2015} or fluxonium \cite{manucharyan2009fluxonium,xiong2022arbitrary,somoroff2021millisecond,zhang2021universal} devices), coupled by strong, fixed longitudinal interactions and continuously driven through a strong charge drive. We will show that this circuit is robust to small variations in the device parameters, has a single tone control structure, and is compatible with tunable couplers, so that fast gates can be enacted.

Inspired by the fluxonium molecule circuit demonstrated in \cite{kou2017fluxonium}, we first analyze a minimal version of this device, with the same basic circuit topology, operated as a logical qubit via asymmetric flux biases and continuous driving. The circuit, shown in FIG~\ref{circuitfig}, consists of a pair of fluxonium qubits; the base qubits' inductances are shunted to ground through a common inductor $\gamma E_L$, with $\gamma \leq 1$. Using standard quantization methods, we arrive at phase basis Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray}
H &=& - 4 E_C \of{\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi_2^2}   } \\
& & - E_J \of{\cos \of{\phi_1 + \Phi_1} + \cos \of{\phi_2 + \Phi_2}   } \nonumber \\
& & + E_L \frac{1+\gamma}{2 \of{2+\gamma}} \of{\phi_1^2 + \phi_2^2} + \frac{E_L}{2+\gamma} \phi_1 \phi_2. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are external control fluxes, both of which are to be biased near $\pi$ for CEQ operation, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are the quantum phase variables and we assume $E_J \gg E_L$ and $E_J > E_C$.  While we assume these parameters are symmetric for simplicity, inevitable small variations will not significantly affect logical qubit performance.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=2in]{CEQ_new.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1.0in]{CEQ_new_L3.pdf}
\caption{Circuit diagrams for the logical qubits considered in this work. Left: two-node circuit inspired by \cite{kou2017fluxonium}; the central shunt inductance is reduced by a factor of $\gamma <1$ compared to the inductances in each component fluxonium. Equal and opposite flux biases break the degeneracy of the antiferromagnetic doublet ground state. Right: a three-node version, where the inductors create both the inductive potential for each fluxonium and maximize the (now ferromagnetic) couplings to the other fluxonia.}\label{circuitfig}.
\end{figure}

The CEQ is a strongly coupled device, and with two or three degrees of freedom it can be straightforwardly diagonalized numerically. However, it is much more illuminating--particularly for analyzing the noise model and choosing device parameters--to diagonalize each qubit separately to construct a reduced, two-spin Hamiltonian. In the limit $E_J \gg E_L$, with external flux $\Phi = \pi$ the fluxonium Hamiltonian consists of a double-well potential with minima $\phi_m \simeq \pm \of{\pi - E_{Ls}/E_J}$, where $E_{Ls} \equiv E_L \frac{1+\gamma}{2 \of{2+\gamma}} $ is the single fluxonium inductive energy. If we move away from the symmetry point by letting $\Phi = \pi + \delta \Phi$ (for small $\delta \Phi$), the two minima locations shift by $ \delta \Phi$, with corresponding energy shifts $\simeq \pm \pi E_{Ls} \delta \Phi$. If we let the persistent current states near $\pm \pi$ be $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, we can represent this bias term as $h \of{\Phi} \sigma^z$. Given an inter-well tunneling term $- \kappa \sigma^x$, we have $H_0 = - \kappa \sigma^x + h \of{\Phi} \sigma^z$. Here $\kappa$ can be computed in the WKB approximation and decreases exponentially in $\sqrt{E_J/E_C}$; at the symmetry point the single qubit excitation energy is $2\kappa$. Quantizing the system in a two-qubit basis, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{baseH}
\frac{E_L}{2+\gamma} \phi_1 \phi_2 \simeq \frac{E_L}{2+\gamma} \of{\pi - E_{Ls}/E_J}^2 \sigma_1^z \sigma_2^z \equiv J \sigma_1^z \sigma_2^z. \\
H_0 = - \kappa \of{ \sigma_1^x+\sigma_2^x} + h \of{\Phi_1} \sigma_1^z + h \of{\Phi_2} \sigma_2^z + J \sigma_1^z \sigma_2^z.
\end{eqnarray}
Higher levels are generally far enough away in energy to be ignorable here. The spectrum of $H_0$ consists of the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of $\ket{01}$ and $\ket{10}$, with energies $-J \pm \Omega_0$, separated from the equivalent combinations of $\ket{00}$ and $\ket{11}$ with energies $+J \pm \Omega_0$, where $\Omega_0 \simeq \kappa^2/J$. We let our logical states be the perturbatively dressed antiferromagnetic doublet, $\ket{0_L} \simeq \ket{01}$ and $\ket{1_L} \simeq \ket{10}$, and choose $h \of{\Phi_1} = - h/4$ and $h \of{\Phi_2} = +h/4$, detuning the logical states by $h$ so that they are nearly $z$ eigenstates. We assume $h \gg \Omega_0$. Note this is a significant difference from \cite{kou2017fluxonium}, where there only a single, global flux control was used. The $L=3$ design, detailed in the supplemental material, uses exactly the same principles and drive structure, though the interactions are ferromagnetic in that case.

To motivate this design, we now introduce noise. We use a noise model drawn from the detailed  spectroscopy reported in \cite{bylandergustavsson2011,yangustavsson2013,yangustavsson2015,quintana2017observation,dai2022dissipative} for flux qubits, which are phenomenologically similar to fluxonium devices. Every component qubit couples a thermal bath though a mix of $x$, $y$, and $z$ couplings. For flux-like qubits the $x$ coupling is generally neglible, and the $z$ coupling scales as the qubit's persistent current (see \cite{yangustavsson2015} for a survey); consequently for fluxonia $y$ error (the charge channel) is largest. These are entangling interactions with a thermal environment at temperature $T_{eff}$; this temperature is often larger than the nominal fridge temperature so $T_{eff}$ is the temperature seen by the qubits themselves.

In this DC form, the CEQ is well-protected against single spin flip excitations from the environment, since they cost $\sim 2J \gg k_B T_{eff}$ (where $T_{eff}$ is the effective bath temperature seen by the qubits) and are thus very strongly suppressed. It is also protected against low-energy transitions between the two logical states $\ket{0_L}$ and $\ket{1_L}$ by virtue of small perturbative matrix elements for $\bra{1_L} \sigma_j^y \ket{0_L}$ and $\bra{1_L} \sigma_j^z \ket{0_L}$.

However, it is \emph{not} protected at all against low-frequency flux noise dephasing. Alongside these bath couplings, each qubit experiences independent, classical $1/f$ noise along $z$, represented by fluctuating terms $\delta h_j \of{t} \sigma_j^z$ in the Hamiltonian. In flux qubits, this flux noise has been extensively studied, and is very well-described by $1/f^\alpha$ (with $\alpha \simeq 1$) until $f \sim 1$GHz, where it crosses over to ohmic-spectrum bath interactions \cite{yangustavsson2015,quintana2017observation,dai2022dissipative}. To remedy this, we resonantly Rabi drive \cite{martinisnam2003} between $\ket{0_L}$ and $\ket{1_L}$, echoing out this final remaining error channel. As target Rabi frequencies for this process are in the tens of MHz, we will remain firmly in the classical regime for this channel.

In principle, the AC variation of nearly any term can drive transitions between $\ket{0_L}$ and $\ket{1_L}$, including oscillating $Z$ biases, or the \emph{magnitude} of one or more transverse fields by replacing the single junctions in FIG.~\ref{circuitfig} with SQUIDs. However, the resulting flux crosstalk can introduce significant calibration challenges. To simplify things, we achieve similar results using single junctions and AC charge driving. We will now show that, for a given $\Omega_0$, the maximum achievable $\Omega_{AC} \simeq 0.6 \Omega_0$ is sufficient to produce long lifetimes given base coherences reported in the literature.

To derive this limit, we consider the Hamiltonian of a single fluxonium qubit, with an external charge offset $Q_{ext}$ across the junction. The Hamiltonian becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Hsingle}
H =  4 E_C \of{-i \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} + \frac{Q_{ext}}{2e} }^2 - E_J \cos \of{\phi + \Phi} + \frac{E_{Ls}}{2} \phi^2
\end{eqnarray}
Now, a \emph{static} $Q_{ext}$ has no physical consequences, as it can be eliminated by a simple unitary transformation. If we apply $\ket{\psi \of{\phi}} \to e^{-i  \frac{Q_{ext}}{2e} \phi } \ket{\psi \of{\phi}}$ then we can remove $Q_{ext}$ from Eq.~\ref{Hsingle} entirely;\footnote{This is only possible because the quadratic inductive potential has broken the periodicity of $\phi$; in superconducting qubits where this is not the case, this periodicity requirement makes such a unitary transformation impossible to construct and the qubit energies do become sensitive to offset charge as a result.} viewing Eq.~\ref{Hsingle} as a single particle in a double well potential, the charge offset acts as constant vector potential $\mathbf{A} = \frac{Q_{ext}}{2e} \hat{\phi}$. However, if $Q_{ext}$ varies in time, it cannot be eliminated in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation and yields nontrivial dynamics.

Identifying the two persistent current states as our $z$ basis, quantum tunneling between the wells creates a transverse field $x$ term. And while a charge offset does not change the \emph{magnitude} of this process, the ``particle" does accumulate a complex Peierls phase $\varphi$ as it tunnels between the two wells, where $\varphi \simeq \int \mathbf{A} \cdot d \phi \simeq 2 \phi_m Q_{ext}/2e$. This rotates our $x$ field about $z$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{H0rot}
H_0 \to \kappa \of{\cos \of{\varphi \of{t}} \sigma^x + \sin \of{\varphi \of{t}} \sigma^y} + h \of{\Phi} \sigma^z.
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, charge driving causes the transverse field to wobble back and forth in the $x-y$ plane. As shown in the supplemental material, this relationship holds even if $Q_{ext}$ is varied at frequencies that far exceed $\kappa$.

This is one way to implement the Hamiltonian in RFQA-D \cite{kapit2021noise}, the quantum optimization scheme that inspired the CEQ. Driving just one of the two qubits\footnote{In this simple setup, there is no benefit to driving both and the maximum achievable Rabi frequency $\Omega_{AC}$ does not appear to be increased by doing so. There are more exotic ways of engineering or operating this design that can overcome this limit, such as adding SQUIDs to the circuit and/or driving at very high frequencies, but those are beyond the scope of this writeup.} and the transverse field rotates in the $x-y$ plane with angle $\varphi \of{t}$; noting that $\Omega_0 \simeq \kappa^2/J$ the low-energy effective Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
H \of{t} \simeq \Omega_0 \sigma_1^x \of{\cos \varphi \of{t} \sigma_2^x + \sin \varphi \of{t} \sigma_2^y} + \frac{h}{4} \of{ \sigma_1^z - \sigma_2^z}
\end{eqnarray}
As shown in \cite{kapit2021noise}, if we let the angle $\varphi \of{t} = \bar{\alpha} \sin \of{2\pi h t}$, this produces a resonant drive term between the two logical states with an amplitude given by $\frac{\Omega_0}{2} f \of{\bar{\alpha}}$. $f \of{\bar{\alpha}}$ is a Bessel function that peaks at $\simeq 1.18$ around $\bar{\alpha} \simeq 1.84$, leading to a maximum Rabi rate $\Omega_{AC} \sim 0.6 \Omega_0$. The amplitude of the charge drive here is on the order of half a Cooper pair of offset charge across the junction; driving at higher amplitudes is counter-productive, decreasing $\Omega_{AC}$ while potentially introducing new error sources. This drive term strongly suppresses low-frequency phase noise, sampling it at $\sim 2 \Omega_{AC}$, mitigating the last error channel for a high coherence logical qubit.

\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TL_vs_kappa_final.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{opt_TL_final.pdf}
\caption{Logical state lifetimes, for an $L=2$ CEQ with $J= 2\pi \times 1.5$ GHz and $k_B T_{eff} = 2\pi \times 0.5$ GHz, assuming $\Omega_{AC} = 0.6 \Omega_{0}$ as described in the text. On the left, logical lifetimes as a function of transverse field $\kappa$ and off-sweet-spot $T_\phi$, for single-qubit $T_1 = 500 \mu$s, showing that $T_L$ does peak at finite $\kappa$ for a given $T_1$ and $T_\phi$, but not sharply so. On the right, best achievable lifetime (varying $\kappa$) as a function of $T_1$ and $T_\phi$. For simplicity, the energy-dependence of $T_1$ is ignored in low-energy relaxation and, appropriate to fluxonia, $\Gamma_z$ is considered to be negligible (it can be further suppressed by increasing the detuning $h$, which does not enter into the other error rates). For simplicity, $T_L$ is calculated as the inverse of the sum of all error rates in Eqs.~(\ref{thermerr}-~\ref{oneferr}); note that error is substantially anisotropic in some regions of these plots. As shown in the supplemental material, for $L=3$, due to reduced high and low energy error through the charge channel, lifetimes at the higher end of the base coherence range can be more than double those of the $L=2$ counterpart.}\label{TLfig}
\end{figure*}

\section{Logical Coherence estimates}

To prove these claims, we now consider each noise channel in detail, for $L=2$ and 3. Let the nominal relaxation rate through $y/z$ to the environment for a \emph{single component qubit} be $\Gamma_{y/z}^s$ (measured at the flux symmetry point). We begin with \textbf{Thermal excitation error}, where energy is absorbed from the environment to create single-flip excitations. This is predominantly through the $y$ channel. As a single excitation can scramble the logical state, our thermal error rate $\Gamma_{th}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{thermerr}
\Gamma_{th} \simeq L \Gamma_y^s  \frac{ c_L J}{2 \kappa } \exp \of{- \frac{c_L J}{k_B T_{eff}}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_L=2$ for $L=2$ and $4$ for larger $L$. The factor of $c_L J/\kappa$ comes from assuming ohmic charge noise and that the qubit's $T_1$ is measured at energy $2\kappa$ for single fluxonia at the symmetry point. This error rate thus decreases exponentially with linear increases in $J$.

\textbf{Low energy environmental error} arises from higher order perturbative corrections, as the matrix elements $\bra{1_L} \sigma_j^{x/y/z} \ket{0_L}$ are all generically nonzero. A simple perturbative analysis in the DC limit yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{leerr}
\Gamma_{z,le} \simeq  4 L \Gamma_z^s \of{ \frac{\Omega_0}{h}}^2, \; \; \Gamma_{y,le} \simeq  L \Gamma_{y}^s \of{\frac{\Omega_0}{\kappa}}^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\Omega_0$ enters this equation quadratically, the result of the perturbative matrix element being $\Omega_0/h$ and bath error rates being derived from Fermi's Golden Rule (where the interaction is squared). In AC operation, as derived in the supplemental material, there can be small shifts to these rates but the overall scaling is identical. To verify these claims, we have performed
numerical simulations of an $L=2$ CEQ coupled to a broad-spectrum bath; see the supplemental material for details.

$1/f$-\textbf{induced dephasing} is suppressed by the AC drives. We let the \emph{single qubit} pure dephasing time from $1/f$ noise be $T_\phi$, measured via Ramsey decay assuming $T_1 \to \infty$. Rabi driving converts the Gaussian decay of $1/f$ dephasing to simple exponential, and if the Rabi rate $\Omega$ is larger than $1/T_{\phi}$ the resulting $T_{2} \propto T_{\phi}^2 \Omega$. We sum the $1/f$ traces of each qubit to produce a single fluctuating $\delta h \of{t}$, which also has a $1/f$ spectrum; then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{oneferr}
\Gamma_{z,1/f} \simeq \frac{L}{5 T_{\phi}^2 \Omega_{AC} }.
\end{eqnarray}
The factor of $5$ in the denominator comes from numerical best fitting. Note that the $L=2$ CEQ is insensitive to ``common mode" flux noise (uniform for both qubits) \cite{kou2017fluxonium}.

Finally, \textbf{Readout error} is the error in measuring the full CEQ logical state. In the simplest implementations, this is done dispersively by capacitive coupling to a readout resonator \cite{PhysRevLett.95.060501}, with the AC charge drive turned off. As readout error is primarily limited by $T_{1}$ loss during the readout process itself, the increased effective $T_1$ (which does not depend on AC driving at all) should proportionally reduce readout error.

In FIG.~\ref{TLfig}, we plot the logical state lifetime for realistic $T_1$ and $T_\phi$ ranging from ``average" to a bit below the current state of the art. In all cases it is very easy for the CEQ to exceed the current state of the art for single fluxonium devices. This is intrinsically a simplified treatment, and ignores more complex and subtle relationships such as the dependence of $T_{\phi}$ on $J$ ($T_{\phi}$ decreases with increasing $J$, since it decreases with increasing $E_L$, but can vary widely from one design to the next); nonetheless, these plots give reasonable performance expectations for this device. For example, using base coherences $\cuof{T_1,T_\phi} = \cuof{315,4} \mu {\rm s}$ from \cite{zhang2021universal}, and the parameters in FIG.~\ref{TLfig} we obtain a maximum $T_L \simeq 2.5$ms for $L=2$ and $\sim 5$ ms for $L=3$. Interestingly, since $\Gamma_y \gg \Gamma_z$ in fluxonia, at the ``optimal" $T_L$ the CEQ has relatively isotropic \emph{logical} error; in contrast, error in a version based on another flux qubit type (with larger persistent current, and thus, $\Gamma_z$) can be strongly biased along $z$.

\section{Logical gates and outlook}

We now consider logical operations. The base gate set of CEQ
consists of single qubit logical $x$ and $z$ rotations, along with CPHASE/CZ. The drive terms that generate $\Omega_{AC}$ causes the logical qubit state to continuously rotate around the $x$ or $y$ axis (depending on convention; we choose $x$ in this section), at rates rapid enough to produce very high fidelity gates. So $x$ rotations are performed by simply letting the system evolve under the drive for appropriate amounts of time. Logical $z$ rotations can be performed by pulsing the individual $z$ biases. It may be desirable to momentarily weaken or turn off the $\Omega_{AC}$ field generating continuous $x$ rotations during this step. Note that this does \emph{not} interfere with the $1/f$ protection if the $z$ rotations are short (we expect 10-20 ns), since the duration will be so short that any $1/f$ noise will be sampled at very high frequency as a result, where it is weak.

CZ can be implemented through flux-tunable mutual inductances between pairs of logical qubits. As in logical $z$ rotations, we can either momentarily weaken or disable $\Omega_{AC}$ during this step, or oscillate the coupler at the appropriate frequencies. Unlike transmons, assuming crosstalk is mitigated, a single CEQ can participate in multiple CZ gates simultaneously. This is a potentially significant benefit when incorporating CEQs into a surface code \cite{fowlersurface}; it reduces the length of the error detection cycle and makes the decoding process easier. Note however that in fluxonium qubits, the persistent current is significantly reduced compared to traditional flux qubits, making the strengths of such mutual inductances much weaker, though even a few MHz is sufficient for a coherence limited error rate below $10^{-4}$. Gates of this type are also trivially error transparent \cite{kapit2018error} and error divisible \cite{perez2021error}. A variable \emph{capacitance} between two CEQs could also be implemented (for example by using a flux tunable qubit to mediate interactions as in \cite{sung2021realization}), though the analysis is more complex in that case.

In conclusion, we have proposed a strongly coupled and strongly driven circuit capable of achieving significant coherence improvements against the empirical flux qubit noise model. It requires no new circuit elements and could be tested immediately. The original idea for this design arose from a careful first-principles analysis of noise in AC-driven quantum annealing--hardly a system known for high coherence. We suggest that while the combination of strong coupling \emph{and} strong AC drives makes noise analysis considerably more difficult than the weak limit normally considered, if these results are borne out in experiments there are likely many more surprises to be found in this regime.

\section{Acknowledgements}

We would like to thank Michel Devoret, Steven Dissler, Paul Varosy, David Schuster and Steven Weber for useful discussions. EK's research in this area was funded by NSF grant PHY-1653820 and by ARO Grant No. W911NF-18-1-0125. EK and VO were jointly supported by DARPA under the Reversible Quantum Machine Learning and Simulations program, contract HR00112190068. The Flatiron Institute is a division of the Simons Foundation.