\section{Motivations}

There is increasing concern around us about the impact of using automatic
devices making decisions for several aspects of our life, including credit
scoring, admissions to Universities, pricing of goods, recommender systems, up
to automatic vehicles or predictive justice (see \cite{AbuElyounes2020},
\cite{Citron2008}, \cite{Krolletal2017}). However, the use of algorithms in
order to automatise decision making is not recent (\cite{DavenportHarris2005});
actually algorithms exist even before computer science became the industry we
know. We can summarise the situation today under the following observations:

 \begin{itemize}
   \item We are creating and using autonomous artifacts with increasing
       decision autonomy.
   \item We have autonomous artifacts with increasing learning capacities.
   \item There is evidence of biased decisions, of counterintuitive
       decisions, of inappropriate use of personal and sensible data, of
       unforeseen consequences, when such devices are largely adopted and
       used\footnote{The best known controversy is the ``COMPASS'' case:
       \url{https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing}}.
   \item Software editing and data services are concentrated to few
       industrial players.
 \end{itemize}

The aim of this paper is to clarify a number of issues which affect both
researchers and practitioners interested in decision support (decision
analysts). It turns out that many of the concerns we are discussing today,
already existed in the literature (see for instance \cite{WinogradFlores86})
and are less ``new'' and ``urgent'' from what they appear to be. On the other
hand, the extension today of designing, testing and actually using autonomous
artifacts represents a real challenge for the community of decision analysts.
The paper aims at identifying which are these challenges and how can we
appropriately handle them.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we make a brief survey of the
literature with no pretention to be exhaustive, essentially in order to
identify the principal trends. Section 3 introduces the principal concepts
through which we can establish a common framework. Section 4 presents two brief
examples which help understanding the topics discusses in th previous section.
Finally, Section 5 summarises the challenges we have in front of us the next
years.

\section{Historical background}

The literature about Decision Support Systems dates back to the 70s: see the
seminal paper \cite{GoryScottMorton1971} and the two well known books
\cite{KeenScottMorton78} and \cite{SpragueCarlson82}. This literature builds
upon already existing research and practice with ``Management Information
Systems'' (see \cite{MasonMitroff73}). The idea is simple: exploit the
information existing and circulating within an organisation in order to improve
decision making under different types of requirements (see also the interesting
discussion in \cite{LandryPascotBriolat83}).

In more recent days the same idea came alone under the concept of ``analytics''
(or business analytics or business intelligence; see \cite{DavenportHarris07}).
The ``new'' idea is to extend the use of data in order to support decision
making creating and assessing massive data bases (more or less open), thanks to
a large increase of computing capacity. However, the application of these ideas
remains bounded at supporting ``human decision makers'' within organisations,
the scope of ``analytics'' being to produce suitable information for decision
makers.

A relatively innovative idea has been instead to increase the decision capacity
of ``autonomous artifacts'' in order to improve the overall performance of
complex systems. However, once again automatising decisions is not a totally
new idea; we can see how this evolved through the following topics.

\begin{itemize}
  \item Automatically conducted vehicles have been designed since a century
      ago: automatic pilots for aircrafts date at the beginning of the 20th
      century (see \cite{AstromMurray2008} or \cite{StevensLewis1992}).
      Automatically controlled devices and robots exist since the middle of
      the 20th century (\cite{Hunt1985}, \cite{Wiener48}) and represent today
      a very important scientific and industrial area.
  \item Multi-Agent systems started being designed in the 80s (see
      \cite{RusselNorvig95} or \cite{Wooldridge2002}) allowing software
      agents to perform with increasing decision autonomy.
  \item Recommender Systems appeared soon after as software platforms where
      consumers could be automatically guided among huge catalogs of goods
      and being advised about their choices matching their preferences with
      products features and the behaviour of similar consumers (see
      \cite{Aggarwal2016} or \cite{Riccietal2011}).
  \item Blockchains introduced the possibility to decentralise trust
      construction procedures through distributed cryptography on the web
      (see \cite{Nakamoto2008}, \cite{Narayananetal2016}).
\end{itemize}

As can be noted the idea of increasing the decision capacity of autonomous
artifacts already has several decades of development, including commercial and
industrial applications of large scale (virtually any aircraft today is
automatically driven and most e-commerce platforms include a recommender
system). There have been though two breakthroughs: \\
 - the increasing availability and accessibility to data (of any type and
 quality, including personal and sensible ones); \\
 - the massive expansion of ``deep learning algorithms'' allowing high level
 correlations among data with excellent accuracy and predictive capacity (for a
 presentation see \cite{Goodfellowetal2016}, while for an interesting
 discussion about correlation and causality see \cite{Pearl2009}).

Such developments fuelled a literature about the impact and the consequences of
automated decision making. This literature has been essentially focussed around
three areas.

\begin{enumerate}
  \item \textbf{Fairness}. Since the seminal paper \cite{Dwork2012}, there
      have been several tentatives in order to establish a general definition
      of ``fairness'' for decisions taken by algorithms. This notion of
      fairness assumes the existence of ``protected'' groups within the
      society, which are potentially threaten by biased algorithmic decision
      making processes (see also \cite{HajanDomingoFerrer2013} and
      \cite{Leprietal2018}). However, such ``protected groups'' are only
      recognised within certain countries and it soon appeared that there are
      several formal and substantial difficulties in establishing a model of
      general validity (see \cite{Friedleretal2016}).
  \item \textbf{Accountability and Explicability}. Not independent from the
      fairness issue there has been the discussion about the accountability
      of algorithms (see \cite{STUD2019} and \cite{Wieringa2020}). The issue
      here is the possibility to provide convincing explanations on why an
      algorithm would end taking a certain type of decisions (possibly
      unfair, biased or counterintuitive). The topic includes explicability
      of data mining and machine learning algorithms (see
      \cite{Guidottietal2018}) with specific emphasis to the case where the
      algorithms behave as black boxes with unpredictable behaviour (such as
      deep neural networks).
  \item \textbf{Ethics}. Finally there has been discussion about the ethical
      dimension of automated decision making. The issue arises essentially in
      the case of automatically conducted and/or unmanned vehicles and
      devices which may need to take decisions with high ethical impacts
      (such as impacting human life: see \cite{Bonnefonetal2016} and
      \cite{Rahwan2018}). The topic however, has gone beyond this specific
      area questioning the possibility and/or opportunity to endow algorithms
      with ethical principles (see for instance \cite{Greeneetal2016}).
\end{enumerate}

The result of such discussions has been the creation of new scientific
communities, possibly interdisciplinary ones, the largest for the moment being
the ACM-FAccT series of conferences (see \\
\url{https://facctconference.org/index.html}).

\section{What is the problem?}

The survey presented in the previous section, far from being exhaustive,
highlights the fast growth of an area of scientific investigation, but also of
public concern. In reality there exist several different problems which both
scientific paper and press and blogs tend to put together under different
``titles'' basically sharing a number of keywords: Artificial Intelligence,
Data Protection, Algorithmic Transparency etc. (see \cite{Leprietal2017},
\cite{ONeil2016}). Most of them tend to raise concerns of the general public of
how such technologies could impact our life. It pays, however to clarify a
number of issues starting with establishing precisely the object of scientific
investigation.

From our perspective this object is the \textit{``design, implementation and
systematic use of autonomous artifacts with enhanced decision capacity}. In the
following we are going to analyse which are the different problems this object
includes.

In conducting our analysis we will adopt an industrial production perspective
because we are talking about the evolution of an industry whose raw material
are data. Under such a perspective we are going to focus upon the raw material
itself (the data), the transformation process (the algorithms), the
implementation (the software), the outcome and the impact to the society.
However, before analysing the components of this industrial process we may
analyse a number of fundamental topics.

\subsection{Fundamentals}

The first fundamental topic to remember is that automation is not a
straightforward perspective, but a choice. There are plenty of examples around
us of processes which are not automated and nobody thinks to automatise them.
If automation is a choice then there is somebody who makes the choice and there
should be reasons for which this choice has been done. Automation for certain
types of production has been decided by the industry and their management
essentially in order to increase profits (although several times quality of the
products has been used as a reason). Automation of certain industrial processes
has been decided for safety purposes or in order to alleviate workers from
unhealthy or dangerous activities. If automatising a decision process is a
choice, we should always ask ourselves who decides to automatise, for which
reasons and who is going to pay the cost of it. If the process to automatise
concerns the public (such as college admissions or predictive justice) there is
a matter of democracy and citizens' participation to such decisions.

The second fundamental topic to remember is that decisions imply responsibility
and responsibility implies liability for the consequences of any decision. Each
time we consider automatising a decision process we should always ask ourselves
who is liable for the decisions taken by the autonomous artifact we create. In
the flying industry this issue has been long time solved: liable are the
airlines who use aircrafts with automatic pilot and there is a chain of
responsibilities, certifications and training in order to keep such liability
clear. The liability issue does not concern solely the principle, but also the
practical aspect: be sure that responsibilities can be traced, recognised and
affected to those who could be liable. Automatising a decision process means
that we have a clear idea of how the liability issue is going to be considered.

The third fundamental topic concerns the fact that algorithms can mirror how
our societies are, but cannot change them. It is clearly annoying discover
through what an algorithms learns that our societies are unfair, discriminate
minorities, behave aggressively, in other terms are politically incorrect. But
these are the societies as our democracies shaped them. If we do not like them,
there are democratic paths for changing our societies, but algorithms will
always mirror what our societies actually are. We cannot introduce innovation
in society just designing innovative algorithms.

\subsection{The raw material}

The raw material of the type of processes we are concerned are data. Data are
collected, stored, retrieved and manipulated and each single step of these
processes could have an impact upon the whole decision process to automatise.
There are two basic topics to consider as far as the use (term resuming all the
above steps) of data is concerned.

The first topic concerns the rights an individual (a citizen) and/or a group
have upon certain data. Data (of any type) do not belong specifically to
somebody and for certain types of data we could consider them as ``commons''.
However, we can have certain rights upon certain data and as soon as these
rights are established we can consider whether these can be traded. However,
trading rights implies establishing clear contracts. The problem today is that
there is an absolute information asymmetry (see \cite{Mas-Colelletal1995})
between each single citizen and his rights on the one side and the data
industry on the other side. Besides, there is a value scaling about data
availability: the value of the rights I have upon my personal data alone is an
extremely small fraction of the value of owing the rights of millions of
individuals.

The second topic concerns the certification of the data used within automated
decision processes. Biased data will result in biased outcomes. Noisy data will
result in bad quality outcome. Corrupted data will result in unverifiable
outcomes. There is necessity to certify the whole pipeline of collecting,
storing and retrieving data used for any automated decision process (see
\cite{Christophidesetal2020}).

\subsection{The outcome}

First of all we need to make an important distinction. Autonomous artifacts can
provide two types of outcomes: ``decisions'' and ``recommendations''. For this
purpose we may define a decision as an \textit{irreversible allocation of
resources to tasks or actions}. In the first case is the artifact that makes
such an allocation which results in some action being undertaken, while in the
second case the artifact only makes a recommendation (generally to a human
agent) which ``decides''.

From a practical point of view there are very few autonomous artifacts which
actually have full decision autonomy and generally this concerns ``low level''
actions in automatic controlled devices (such as in self-conducted vehicles).
Most of the automated decision processes concern in reality artifacts which
suggest a certain action to be undertaken. It can be the case of credit
scoring, of predictive justice scores, college admissions, job candidates
screening etc.. However, this ``final decision freedom'' of the human agent is
far from being a warranty about the controllability of the final outcome. Most
automatically formulated recommendations are rarely contested and usually are
followed by the human decision makers, which essentially explains why such
\textit{suggestions} are regularly considered as \textit{decisions}. In the
following we will focus on automated ``recommendation'' processes, since these
are the most frequent (and complex).

A first issue to consider is the fact that the result of information
manipulation is never straightforward: there is no (and will never exist)
universal procedure through which we can obtain from raw data a synthesis. Data
manipulation ought being \textit{meaningful} (see \cite{roberts79}),
\textit{useful} (see \cite{Thebook00}) and \textit{legitimate} (see
\cite{Tsoukias07aor}), these requirements still allow for plenty different
procedures. It is a matter of choice for the designers and users.

The second issue, following from the previous one, is that we may desire adding
further properties to the outcome: we may desire having a recommendation which
is \textit{fair, unbiased, neutral etc.}. The fact is that there is no unique
definition to such concepts. Both economists in mechanism design theory
(\cite{HurwiczReiter2006}, \cite{Maskin2008}) and computer scientists more
recently (\cite{Friedleretal2016}) realised that there are several different
ways to define notions such as ``fairness'', each corresponding to different
hypotheses about the society, the inequalities within the society and the ways
to prevent or to correct them. This means we need to establish both the
requirement of a feature to meet and a formal definition for each requirement
and how to test it.

Establishing which requirements the recommendations needs to meet is a matter
of choice. The third issue is to know who decides which requirements an outcome
of a given autonomous artifact have to be satisfied. Several of such
requirements might be inconsistent one with respect to another. Somebody (who?)
has to make a choice resulting in satisfying a certain property and thus,
failing to satisfying another one. Under such a perspective it is important
when designing an autonomous artifact to know which
properties/requirements/axioms an automated recommendation procedure satisfies
and which not. This is rarely the case today (the reader can check that no
recommender systems specifies how notes are aggregated among users and products
and thus nobody knows which properties are satisfied by such procedures).

What happens in case the autonomous artifact is ``data driven'': in other terms
the outcome depends essentially upon the data feeding process, but the data
manipulation is unknown (as happens for many black-box automated procedures)?
The fourth issue related to the quality of the outcome concerns the ``hidden
values'' embedded within many autonomous artifacts. Decisions and
recommendations are never based directly on raw data. Between these and any
decision there are ```preferences'' or ``values'' which allow to compute a
``choice'' (or whatever else a decision or a recommendation may mean; see
\cite{ColorniTsoukias2013}). Preferences and values are always subjective and
represent an individual or a society of individuals. If an autonomous artifact
is able to make a decision or to compute a recommendation it means that
somebody embedded within the artifact his/her preferences. And these are
independent from how the artifact turns to learn out from the data feeding it.
It turns out that is of paramount importance to know how values are actually
embedded in any of such systems and/or how these are learned (see
\cite{FurnkranzHullermeier2010}).

\subsection{The process}

It is often the case that not only the outcome of a process matters, but also
the process itself. This is both the case for automated decisions and automated
recommendations. The former might need to be explained, justified, tested and
proven to be ``correct'' in case of accidents, misbehaviour, unforeseeable
consequences etc. The latter might need to be trusted, defended, argued,
recused, might need to be convincing, trustworthy, understandable, etc.. In all
such cases we need to check whether the autonomous artifact is
\textit{accountable}. However, there are several different levels of
\textit{accountability}.

  \begin{enumerate}
   \item Given an algorithm or to be more precise a bundle of algorithms
       setting an automatic decision procedure can we trace precisely what
       these algorithms do?
   \item Provided that we can trace the execution of the algorithms, can we
       provide ``explanations'' (interpretable, understandable, usable) to
       any type of stakeholder about the choices done and the obtained
       results?
   \item Provided we can trace and explain the behaviour of an algorithm can
       we provide the ``ultimate reasons'' for which the algorithm/automatic
       device made a precise decision or recommendation? If it is the case
       can we replicate the decision providing the same input?
   \item Supposing the algorithm cannot guarantee replicability (for instance
       in case the algorithm learns each time is executed we cannot guarantee
       that for a given input the output will remain the same) what type of
       explanations/justi\-fi\-cations/reasons would be considered satisfying
       in case of a dispute?
  \end{enumerate}

Besides the above introduced aspects of accountability there are also long term
consequences to take into account when a certain type of autonomous artifact is
largely used in the real world. How should we define accountability for the
long term impact of e-commerce platforms using recommender systems (using
certain types of algorithms) for promoting their business?

\subsection{The implementation}

Autonomous artifacts are essentially software. Certainly in the case of robots
and other autonomous devices there are physical parts which are equally
important, but the essential of what we are talking is software. Indeed
algorithms and procedures not necessarily are implemented in software, but we
are concerned with the ones who actually are used under form of computer
programs.

The first issue to consider is the formal verification that a given software
implementation of a bundle of algorithms endowing an autonomous artifact,
actually does what these algorithms are expected to do. This is far from being
self-evident and the more complex the artifact is, the more difficult the
verification becomes.

The second issue concerns security. Any software implementation can be attacked
and/or manipulated. We can certainly choose safer, redundant and highly
protected implementations (as the stakes of the artifact scope increase; see
the case of e-voting), but this comes at a price which needs to be
commensurable to the benefits and the value of the automation.

The third issue concerns the use of open source software. While this apparently
could be inconsistent with straight security requirements, open source software
remains the ultimate possibility to analyse why an autonomous artifact actually
acts as observed. While security issues can easily be handled even when using
open source code, being able to check the code through collective intelligence
processes remains a fundamental warranty for most accountability issues.

\subsection{The impact to society}

Introducing a drug to a living system has expected and unexpected consequences.
It is exactly for this reason that new drugs before being cleared and allowed
to be used are extensively tested under rigid protocols, are permanently
checked and submitted to scrutiny and possibly can be retired from commerce.
Usually there is an independent authority which takes care of this process. We
are going to use this ``metaphor'' (introducing a new drug to a living system)
in order to consider the long term impact of introducing an autonomous artifact
in handling some aspect of our everyday life.

Should we demand a certification for the whole process (raw material, outcome,
process and implementation) before allowing to release an autonomous artifact
in the society? Should we create an independent agency or authority for this
purpose? While many of the known unknowns can be handled through appropriate
design and preliminary testing, the only way to discover the unknown unknowns
is to do extensive testing and monitoring.

The use of autonomous artifacts for some types of business implies modifying
the business model of the enterprise and/or the organisation introducing this
``innovation''. The issue is whether, stakeholders, consumers, users are aware
of the consequences such a modification will introduce upon the goods and
services delivered by that type of business. Organisational studies are plenty
of innovation failure cases (\cite{RhaiemAmara2019}) for businesses,
organisations and markets, because the process was poorly designed, not
understood, not fitting the expectations, undesired etc. and this includes the
choices about automatising decisions and processes.

The industry of automated decisions and recommendations is dominated by few big
players, both with respect to the collection, storage, retrieval and use of
data and services and with respect to software editing and engineering.
Monopolies never benefited consumers and this case will not be an exception.
This market, as many others, needs regulations and these need to be global.

If we need to audit autonomous artifacts and monitor their long term impact and
if we need to establish global rules for this market we need to bear in mind
that the life cycle of these products can be short (even very short) compared
to the length of audits and regulations. It might make sense to be innovative
as far as the timing of regulation is concerned if we do not want to miss any
real opportunity to control.

\section{Examples}

The following examples are voluntarily not among the typical ones used within
the Artificial Intelligence literature just in order to show that several
issues discussed in this paper are far beyond the AI challenges.

\subsection{Automatic pricing}

Automatic pricing became popular since the late 70s because of the innovation
introduced by American Airlines: yield management. The simple idea consists in
adjusting prices and seats offered on commercial flights following the demand
prediction and possible capacity of the airline (see \cite{Smithetal1992}).
Today is a regular practice, not only for the airlines industry: many retailers
practice automatic pricing in order to optimise revenue management. That said,
we can make a number of observations.

 \begin{enumerate}
   \item Implementing the automatisation of this activity has been a choice,
       both for profit maximisation purposes and for gaining competitive
       advantages for the first runners. It is less obvious whether this
       resulted in better and less cheap services for the customers. In any
       case it was not a choice of the users who can find exactly the same
       product at several, significantly different, prices (see
       \cite{Mauri2007}).
   \item There exist several different economic models helping to compute
       automatically prices, depending upon the type of product, the type of
       the market and the hypotheses about the consumers' behaviour (see
       \cite{CrossR1997}). It is actually unknown whether the choice of any
       among such models has been discussed before using them.
   \item We know instead that adopting a precise model of pricing,
       considering the density of the competition (on the retailers market),
       can lead to unforeseen consequences, as in the famous ``Stapler''
       case\footnote{\url{https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578\\189391813881534}},
       where the same object (a stapler) was sold at different prices in
       different neighbours. The use of competition density resulted in
       discounting the object in the ``rich neighbours'' (high density) and
       sell it at full price in the ``poor neighbours'' (low density). Not
       necessarily this was the policy and will of the retailer.
   \item Automatic pricing strongly depends upon the quality and timing of
       the necessary data feeding the economic and decision models of yield
       management. However, there is no warranty that the data pipeline for
       any of the retailers adopting such tools is reliable and trustworthy.
       This is all the more important in case part of the data feed a
       black-box learning procedure for which we may have no convincing
       justifications available. On the other hand, the liability for any
       ``wrong'' decision remains internal to the retailer who will just have
       to absorb the consequences in their business.
   \item Automatic pricing modified how the travel industry is organised and
       influenced how people travel and organise their leisure time. In other
       terms it had a huge impact upon the whole society (as often happens
       when industries introduce new products or services). On the other hand
       what is the long term impact of such new patterns of mobility and
       leisure time consumption? Are these sustainable at a long run? Nobody
       ever discussed that, when yield management models and algorithms have
       been introduced (more than 40 years ago).
 \end{enumerate}

\subsection{Voting}

Voting is not an automatic decision procedure, or at least is not perceived as
such. However, the reader will note that when we adopt the term voting we
implicitly consider voting procedures (algorithms) which ``compute'' a
``winner'' of an electoral contest. There exist several such algorithms and
generally they may yield totally different results even when the preferences of
the voting society are clear. The fact is that we (the society) need to make
choices of which among such algorithmes should be used and possibly we (the
society) have to trust that the result is legitimate. For a presentation of
electoral systems see \cite{Reynoldsetal2005}, while a theoretical
investigation about social choice theory can be found in \cite{arrow1book51} or
in \cite{Sen86}. For an interesting survey about such methods being considered
under a computational aspect see \cite{Brandtetal2016}. Once again we make a
number of observations.

 \begin{enumerate}
   \item We vote in order to elect representatives, presidents, committees,
       chairs etc. and this is done for legitimating governing. However,
       ``electing'' is not the only way to appoint representatives,
       committees, chairs ... Our societies (after centuries of struggles)
       decided to use such procedures (which might result in less efficient
       decision procedures, but certainly more legitimated). We vote because
       we want to.
   \item As already mentioned there exist many different voting procedures
       and algorithms computing the winner(s). It is well known that it does
       not exist and it will never exist an universal procedure, because even
       simple ``democratic'' requirements are inconsistent among them and
       cannot be satisfied simultaneously. This means we need to choose one.
       In doing that it pays knowing which requirements are satisfied and
       which not and this has been the scope of large part of the social
       choice theory literature.
   \item Different voting procedures promote different views about our
       societies, the ways to govern the society and about citizens'
       participation (see \cite{Rae1971}). Moreover, each of such systems
       need to make choices on how ``fair representation'' should be
       interpreted (proportionality among citizens, among regions, among
       ethnic groups are typical topics which are typically impossible to
       satisfy all together). These are political choices which need to be
       discussed as such and not as technical problems.
   \item Electronic vote is increasingly popular, but has been tested to be
       easily hacked, corrupted and manipulated, while manual procedures are
       far more complicated to alter (at least under usual democratic
       institutions operating). As already noted previously, the software
       version of an algorithm does not coincide with the algorithm itself.
 \end{enumerate}

\section{Conclusion}

Let us try to summarise our overview. Does it make any sense to talk about the
\textit{social responsibility of algorithms}? Technically speaking, no, since
algorithms cannot be liable for what they compute. Designers, clients demanding
for algorithms, software editors can be considered responsible (and thus,
liable), but not the algorithms. On the other hand, the use of algorithms in
order to improve our decision making is older that computer science itself and
the demand for extending their use, for creating further autonomous artifacts
with decision capacity is never lasting.

As decision analysts we share part of the responsibility of how such autonomous
artifacts are shaped, designed, implemented and used in the real world. Under
such a perspective we should pay attention and further develop our theoretical
research as well as our reflection about our practices around the following
topics: \\
 - characterising algorithms and procedures through the properties they satisfy
 or do not satisfy; \\
 - remembering that each time we choose a precise procedure in order to solve a
 given decision problem this is rarely a straightforward choice, but one among
 many options and as such needs to be justified and considered for its impact
 beyond that precise problem; \\
 - characterising and specifying the data to be used by algorithms, reflecting
 the three basic requirements: meaningfulness, usefulness and legitimacy; \\
 - analyse how our methods, procedures and protocols are used and adopted
 within real organisations and within our societies.

Algorithms and formal models will never stop being used in order to improve how
decisions are taken both by humans and machines. It is upon the designers
define what improvement means and for whom. This is our social responsibility.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

This document follows discussions which took place during the two workshops
about this topic in Paris, December 2017 and 2019
(\url{www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/sra}) and I am indebted to the participants for
their contributions. Although several ideas are due to these discussions, I
remain the sole responsible for this essay.

\bibliographystyle{plain}


\section{Introduction}

Over the many years since the pioneering studies \cite{Levitt75, McCammon77}, biomolecular molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have become a valuable source of scientific data. They capture functional motions of biomolecules with high spatial and temporal resolution and bring information about dynamics and energetics. They complement classic biophysical techniques for structure determination \cite{Trabuco08, Igaev19}, facilitate drug design \cite{Sledz18} or successfully tackle important questions of molecular biology \cite{Lindorff-Larsen11, Kohlhoff14, Kopec18}.

Routinely, microsecond-long trajectories of systems up to few tens of thousands atoms can be achieved on workstations equipped by the customer-class graphical processor units \cite{Kutzner19}. However, simulating larger assemblies and multi-component biomolecular complexes, such as ribosome \cite{Bock18} or proteasome \cite{Wehmer17}, remains a challenge, and can only be done on high-performance supercomputers \cite{Nagel19}, or through distributed computing \cite{Lane13a, Chen19}.

Here, we present results of atomistic MD simulations of human proteasome on a multi-microsecond time scale. The proteasome is a stochastic 2.5 MDa nanomachine responsible for protein degradation in eukaryotic cells via the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway \cite{Saeki12}. It helps maintaining the delicate balance of protein concentrations, and thus plays a fundamental role in cell life cycle. Modulation of proteasome function has a direct effect on cell homeostasis, disruption of which often leads to the cell death \cite{Rechsteiner05}.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics{proteasome.eps}
    \caption{Anatomy of the human proteasome. In the legend, numbers of protein subunits are given in parentheses. Prepared from PDB 5m32 \cite{Haselbach17}.}
    \label{fig:proteasome}
\end{figure}

The proteasome contains two major functional parts: a 20S core particle (CP) and a 19S regulatory particle (RP), which together form the 26S particle depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:proteasome}. The CP is a barrel-shape complex of several protein subunits organized in four rings - two $\alpha$-rings and two $\beta$-rings in a stacked $\alpha\beta\beta\alpha$ arrangement. Three $\beta$-subunits ($\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, and $\beta_5$) have been shown to catalyze the proteolysis. The RP consists of a base and a lid. The base is formed by a ring of six distinct ATPases associated with diverse cellular activities (AAA+), so called regulatory particle triple A proteins. The AAA+ works as an engine that pushes the substrate into the CP \cite{Bar-Nun12}. In addition, several non-ATPase subunits belong to the base and are involved in the recognition of proteasome substrates. Overall, the RP lid consists of eleven different subunits, which recognize and pre-processes protein substrate before it is transferred into CP for degradation.

Large amounts of structural information have been gathered since the proteasome discovery. Recently, several groups have determined the 26S proteasome structure at atomic or near-atomic resolution \cite{Haselbach17,Schweitzer16,Huang16,Chen16}. Despite the continuous efforts, some parts of RP still remain unresolved, mostly due to their high inherent mobility. Understanding the proteasome structure and function poses a fundamental scientific challenge. However, the proteasome is under intensive investigation also due to a tremendous potential for medicinal applications \cite{Bedford11,Kisselev12}.

Oprozomib (OPR) \cite{Demo07} is one of the ligands which have already reached the market as potent anti-cancer agents. The X-ray crystal structure of the CP-OPR complex, resolved at resolution of 1.8 \AA, revealed two OPR molecules in the CP -- one per each of the two $\beta_5$-subunits. Remarkably, the inhibited CP structure is highly similar to the structure of native CP (at 1.9 \AA) \cite{Schrader16}. The protein backbone root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) is only 0.4 \AA, hence the inhibitors do not induce marked structural changes of the CP.

However, based on cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures of the 26S proteasome, it has been recently suggested that the RP undergoes a large conformational change upon inhibition \cite{Haselbach17}. When OPR is bound to the CP $\beta$5-subunits, the RP rotates by about 25$^\circ$ into a non-productive state. Intriguingly, the drug binding triggers an allosteric signal which is transferred and amplified over a distance larger than 150 \AA{}, while keeping the (average) structure of the CP almost intact. Our main objective is to understand the atomic details of the CP-RP mutual motion possibly triggered by the OPR binding.

Here we present the computational details of our MD simulations performed on HLRS Hazel Hen, and assess the quality of the trajectories obtained.

\section{Methods}

\subsection{Simulated Systems}

We have built four proteasome constructs: native CP, inhibited CP, native AA, and inhibited AA, where AA stands for a CP with one AAA+ ring (Fig. \ref{fig:constructs}). The inhibited AA structure was prepared from the available cryo-EM data (PDB 5m32 \cite{Haselbach17}). The dangling N-terminal $\alpha$-helices of the AAA+ regulatory subunits 6A, 6B, 8 and 10 (UniProt naming convention) were omitted. Where needed, the CP subunits were completed by missing amino acids to keep the up-down sequence symmetry of the pairs of $\alpha$- and $\beta$-rings. By removing the two inhibitors from the inhibited AA, we prepared the native AA structure. Experimentally determined coordinates of water molecules, K$^+$, Mg$^{2+}$ and Cl$^-$ ions were taken from the X-ray data (PDB 5le5 \cite{Schrader16}) and added after superimposing the backbone atoms of the CP. Each of the six AAA+ subunits contained one adenosine diphosphate as found in the cryo-EM model.

Each construct was placed into a periodic rhombic dodecahedron box of sufficient size such that the distance between the solute and box faces was not shorter than 1.5 nm. The system was dissolved in a solution of K$^+$ and Na$^+$ ions of the excess concentrations of 139~mM and 12~mM, respectively, and neutralized by Cl$^-$ anions. In total, the simulations contained about 0.8 and 1.6 million atoms, for the CP and AA constructs, respectively.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics{constructs.eps}
    \caption{A scheme of the four proteasome constructs simulated.}
    \label{fig:constructs}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Simulation Setup}

Molecular dynamics simulations were carried out using classical interaction potentials. A standard version of the Amber force field was used for the proteasome \cite{Lindorff-Larsen10}. The OPR was parametrized together with its covalently bound N-terminal threonine in the spirit of the Amber family of force fields, using fitted partial atomic charges from the Restricted Electrostatic Potential method \cite{Bayly93}, and General Amber Force Field parameters \cite{Wang04a}. The TIP3P water model \cite{Jorgensen83} and ion parameters by Joung and Cheatham \cite{Joung08} were used.

Newton's equations of motion were integrated using the leap-frog algorithm. All bonds were constrained to their equilibrium lengths using the parallel LINCS algorithm of the sixth order \cite{Hess08}. Hydrogen atoms were converted into virtual sites \cite{Berendsen84} which allowed using 4-fs integration time step in the production simulations. Electrostatic interactions were treated by the Particle Mesh Ewald method \cite{Darden93} with the direct space cut-off of 1.0~nm and 0.12~nm grid spacing. Van der Waals interactions, described by the Lennard-Jones potential, used a cut-off of 1.0~nm.

The systems were equilibrated in several steps. First, each system was thoroughly energy minimized. In some instances, the virtual-site model caused crashes, thus for the minimization a model with explicit hydrogen atoms and flexible water molecules was used. Second after minimizing water molecules in roughly 50,000 steps of the steepest descent algorithm, the water was heated from 10 K to 300 K in a 5-ns long constant-volume MD simulation, where two thermostats were used separately for the solute and solvent. Velocities were selected randomly from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at the given temperature. Moreover during heating, the solute heavy atoms were restrained by harmonic potential to their starting coordinates with the force constant of 5000 kJ\,mol$^{-1}$\,nm$^{-2}$. Next, the density of the system was equilibrated in a 20-ns long constant-pressure MD simulation at 300~K and 1~bar, where v-rescale thermostat \cite{Bussi07} and Berendsen barostat \cite{Berendsen84a} were used. During this step, the solute was still restrained. Finally, the position restraints were gradually released in a 50 ns-long simulation, where the force constant was interpolated between its initial value and zero.

In production runs, the isobaric-isothermal statistical ensembles were generated at 300 K and 1 bar using the v-rescale thermostat and Parrinello-Rahman barostat \cite{Parrinello81}, respectively. We simulated roughly 4 microseconds per trajectory with the exception of the CP-INH, where the length was increased up to 5.6 microseconds. For validation of the observed phenomena, another set of simulations was carried out. This started from the final conformation of the inhibited proteasome simulations, where the inhibitor was removed. Due to technical reasons, only the coordinates of the solute were kept, whereas the water and ions were added from scratch in the same manner as with the simulations initiated from the experimental conformation.

\subsection{Software Details}

The simulations were carried out in the GROMACS 2016 package \cite{Abraham15}. It is a well-established, highly-optimized C/C++ code released under Lesser General Public License. Initially, we used the standard module available on HLRS Hazel Hen supercomputer. After removal of version 2016 from the list of supported modules, we used a self-compiled version with very similar performance characteristics.

GROMACS uses a mixed MPI/OpenMP parallelization which may scale down to ``few tens of atoms per core'' \cite{Abraham15}. In our case, the scaling was better for the larger AA than smaller CP construct (Fig. \ref{fig:scaling}). For the production runs, we employed 128 or 256 nodes with two 12-core Intel Xeon (Haswell gen.) processors each. For each system, four independent trajectories initiated with different velocities from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution were generated. To improve scaling, bundles of the four simulations were run as a single \emph{aprun} argument.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics{scaling-hh-gmx16.eps}
    \caption{Performance of GROMACS 2016 on the Hazel Hen supercomputer.}
    \label{fig:scaling}
\end{figure}

Memory requirements were rather low, our system consumed about 600 MB of memory per MPI task (for the AA construct) comprising several OpenMP threads.

The simulations generated large amounts of data compressed to a high degree at the level of GROMACS output routines. GROMACS allows checkpoint-file dependent restarts of the simulations so the simulations were run as chained jobs to fit the maximum runtime of 24 hours on Hazel Hen. Due to our interest in the solute behavior and limited disk space, we saved the water coordinates less frequently (100 ps) than the coordinates of the solute (10 ps). Each chain step produced a portion of solute trajectory of about 5.5 GB. Due to the limited disk space, these portions were downloaded frequently to our local servers, and concatenated before the final analysis.

\section{Results and Discussion}

For all trajectories, we calculated the root-mean-square deviations (RMSDs) of the backbone atoms with respect to the starting proteasome conformation according to Eq.~\ref{eq:rmsd}. The analysis was performed after a least-square alignment of the trajectory to the starting conformation using the backbone atoms of the CP subunits.

\begin{equation}
\mathrm{RMSD}(t) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_a} \sum_a^{N_a}
\left ( \mathbf{r}_a(t) - \mathbf{r}_a(0) \right )^2},
\label{eq:rmsd}
\end{equation}
where $N_a$ is the number of atoms in a trajectory, the $\mathbf{r}_a(0)$ is position vector at time 0, i.e.  the experimental structure, and $\mathbf{r}_a(t)$ is the position vector at time $t$.

All of the trajectories appear stable within the limits of such a simple measure as RMSD. Fig.~\ref{fig:rmsdTimeAA} shows the RMSD profiles with the averages over respective trajectories between 0.30 and 0.35 nm. These values are expected, given the size of the system (over 6,000 amino acids) and no significant drift. Similar plots for AA constructs are in Fig.~\ref{fig:rmsdTimeAA}. Here the RMSD values averaged over the trajectories are around 0.40 nm, with two instances higher than 0.45 nm. The profiles show no significant drift. Higher RMSD values are related to the size of the system (over 8300 amino acids), and to the fact that only the CP subunits were used for the alignment.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics{rmsd-time-cp.eps}
    \caption{Time evolution of the backbone root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and the respective probability density functions (pdf) obtained for the CP constructs. Four independent trajectories of the inhibited constructs are shown in red, the native in blue. The pale blue traces started from the experimental conformation, whereas the dark blue started from the final conformations of the inhibited constructs.}
    \label{fig:rmsdTimeCP}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics{rmsd-time-aa.eps}
    \caption{Time evolution of the backbone root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and the respective probability density functions (pdf) obtained for the AA constructs. Four independent trajectories of the inhibited constructs are shown in red, the native in blue. The pale blue traces started from the experimental conformation, whereas the dark blue started from the final conformations of the inhibited constructs.}
    \label{fig:rmsdTimeAA}
\end{figure}

The natural sequence symmetry of the CP allowed us to assess the convergence of the simulations. The CP is free to move in the simulation box, so the structure and dynamics of the subunits in the upper and lower halves should converge to common values if the free-energy minimum is well defined.

For the CP constructs, we calculated the average conformation between 1600 and 3600 ns of each trajectory, i.e. the mean position vector x of all heavy atoms. We aligned the upper and lower halves using the backbone atoms. Then for each pair of equivalent subunits in the upper and lower half, the $\mathrm{RMSD_{u-l}}$ was calculated as follows.

\begin{equation}
\mathrm{RMSD_{u-l}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_a} \sum_{a}^{N_a}
\left ( \mathbf{r}_{a,u} - \mathbf{r}_{a,l} \right )^2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{r}_{a,u}$ is the position vector of atom $a$ in the upper half, the $\mathbf{r}_{a,l}$ is the position vector of the equivalent of atom $a$ in the lower half, and the sum runs over $N_a$ atoms on one proteasome half. If the mean structures were identical as proposed by the sequence symmetry, the $\mathrm{RMSD_{u-l}}$ would be zero. Non-zero values indicate structural variation between equivalent subunits.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics{rmsd-chains-cp.eps}
    \caption{The $\mathrm{RMSD_{u-l}}$ of the CP constructs. Values from the crystal structure are shown in green. The gray bars represent error bars represent standard errors of the mean obtained from four independent trajectories.}
    \label{fig:rmsdChains}
\end{figure}

Fig. \ref{fig:rmsdChains} shows the $\mathrm{RMSD_{u-l}}$ of CP constructs obtained from the experimental structure and from the simulations. The non-zero values in the experimental structures may be related to crystal-packing effects. Moreover, there are number of surface protein loops and terminals which are flexible. Thus, the free-energy surface is expected to feature many shallow minima, so their conformation in the upper and lower halves may vary. The $\mathrm{RMSD_{u-l}}$ values from the simulations are higher, for $\beta$-units by factor of about 3, for $\alpha$-units by factor of about 2.

Further after the least-square alignment of the backbone atoms of the two proteasome halves, we calculated distances $d_{u-l}$ between equivalent atoms in upper and lower halves. The histogram of $d_{u-l}$ shows (Fig. \ref{fig:distHisto}) a maximum about 0.05 nm for the crystal. For simulation, the maximum lies slightly beyond 0.1 nm and is broader. This indicates that the proteasome conformations averaged over a trajectory are structurally less symmetric than the crystal. A projection of the simulation $d_{u-l}$ onto the proteasome structure (Fig. \ref{fig:distProj}) reveals that the largest structural variations are located in the surface loops and terminal chains. In the course of simulation time, the $d_{u-l}$ profiles do not diverge (Fig. \ref{fig:distProj}), or even slightly improve towards shorter values.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics{dist-histo.eps}
    \caption{Histogram of distances between equivalent backbone atoms of the upper and lower halves in the crystal structure (green) and simulation (gray). Data from various parts of one trajectories are shown in shades of gray.}
    \label{fig:distHisto}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics{dist-proj.eps}
    \caption{Projection of the distance $d_{u-l}$ between equivalent atoms of the upper and lower halves onto the crystal structure of the proteasome oriented towards the $\alpha$-ring (A), front face (B) and $\beta$-ring (C). Each sphere represents one amino acid and the color scale goes from blue (low $d_{u-l}$) through white to red (high $d_{u-l}$). }
    \label{fig:distProj}
\end{figure}

\section{Concluding Remarks}

Using the Cray XC40 supercomputer, we have performed atomistic MD simulations of the proteasome, a multi-protein complex responsible for protein degradation recently used as an anti-cancer drug target. We obtained trajectories totalling 100 $\mu$s in length of several systems with 0.8 and 1.6 million atoms.

Here, we have presented a technical report focused on the simulation setup, run-time performance and basic analyses. Next, we will focus on proteasome function and its regulation and will present such biochemical aspects in future texts. The trajectories obtained through the MD simulations are likely of sufficient quality to explain at atomic level what changes the inhibitor OPR triggers and how these can modulate proteasome function.


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

Direct imaging of exoplanets requires both high-angular resolution, to be able to resolve the planet from its star, and high-contrast, to be able to detect the much fainter signal of the planet\cite{Oppenheimer2009}. In this field, the new generation of high-contrast imagers such as VLT/SPHERE\cite{Beuzit2008}, Gemini/GPI\cite{Macintosh2008} or Palomar/P1640\cite{Hinkley2008} have seen their first light\cite{Macintosh2014,Vigan2016} and now regularly produce high-quality scientific results\cite{Oppenheimer2013,Macintosh2014,Boccaletti2015}. However, the next generation of instruments on extremely large telescopes (ELTs) will have to deal with additional caveats, the first one being the segmentation of the primary mirrors of these telescopes. While it is reasonable to assume that the ELTs will be coarsely cophased at the level of a few hundreds of nanometers RMS using dedicated optical cophasing techniques\cite{Chanan1998,Chanan1999,Chanan2000,Gonte2009,Gonte2011,Surdej2010,Vigan2011}, high-contrast imaging requires an improved measure and control of the cophasing errors, at the level of a few nanometers RMS.

To investigate these problems as well as develop new high-contrast imaging and wavefront sensing concepts, we have developed the Marseille Imaging Testbed for HIgh Contrast (MITHIC) at \emph{Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille} (LAM). MITHIC was developed\cite{NDiaye2012} over the past 5 years to validate wavefront control strategies such as the Zernike sensor for Extremely accurate measurements of Low-level Differential Aberrations (ZELDA)\cite{NDiaye2013} and COronagraphic Focal-plane wave-Front Estimation for Exoplanet detection (COFFEE)\cite{Paul2013}.

To continue these developments in the context of the new generation ELTs, we have recently acquired an atmospheric turbulence simulation module that offers both static phase patterns representing segmented primary mirrors and continuous phase strips representing atmospheric turbulence filtered by an AO or an XAO system. In this work, we present the characterization of the module using different instruments and wavefront sensors, and the first coronagraphic measurements obtained on MITHIC. In Sect.~\ref{sec:definition_phase_screen} we present the definition and manufacturing of the phase screen, in Sect.~\ref{sec:optical_characterization} the characterization using an interferometer and an interferometric microscope, and in Sec.~\ref{sec:first_results_mithic} the first results obtained on the MITHIC testbed with ZELDA and with a Roddier coronagraph.

\section{Definition and manufacturing of the phase screen}
\label{sec:definition_phase_screen}

\subsection{Definition}
\label{sec:definition}

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/screens_definition}
  \caption{Complete definition of the phase screen. The outer part contains two strips with simulated AO-filtered turbulence residual phase corresponding to VLT/SPHERE-like and E-ELT/HARMONI-like systems. The inner part contains 11 static phase patterns corresponding to the following cases: (A) segments with piston; (B) segments with piston, tip and tilt; (C) segments with piston, tip, tilt and low-order NCPA; (D) segments with piston, tip, tilt, low-order NCPA and AO-filtered turbulance for a E-ELT/HARMONI-like system; (E) low-wind effect on a VLT-like pupil; (F) pure focus; (G) influence functions; (H) NCPA 10 terms; (I) NCPA 36 terms; (J) NCPA 200 terms. See text for more details.}
  \label{fig:definition}
\end{figure}

The phase screen was defined to serve different purpose in the high-contrast R\&D activities on-going at Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM): investigation of the VLT/SPHERE ultimate performance, development of high-contrast instrumentation for E-ELT instruments, and in particular for the HARMONI projects, development of focal-plane wavefront sensing and co-phasing techniques. In order to be more versatile, we included simulation of both AO-filtered residual turbulence and various static phase patterns.

For the residual turbulence, we considered two cases representing an extreme AO system (similar to VLT/SPHERE) and a more conventional AO system (similar to E-ELT/HARMONI). For the static patterns, the following cases were considered:

\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Non-common path aberrations (NCPA)}: Zernike coefficients randomly drawn according to a decreasing profile in 1/radial\_order$^2$. This behaviour is representative of typical NCPA residuals. Three different patterns are included in the phase screens, with 10, 36 and 200 Zernike modes;
    \item \textbf{segments}: simulated 10$\times$10 segemented telescope with 4\% gap. At the scale of the VLT, this simulates 0.8~m segments with 3.2~cm gap, while at the scale of the E-ELT, this simulates 3.7~m segments with 15~cm gap. While not realistic in the latter case, this is the best that could be done with a 5~mm pupil on MITHIC and 10~$\mu$m\xspace pixel size (see Sec.~\ref{sec:manufacturing}). Four different patterns were included with different contributions: piston, tip, tilt, low-order NCPA and AO-filtered turbulence with an E-ELT/HARMONI like system;
    \item \textbf{low-wind effect (LWE)}: the low-wind effect is a dome-seeing effect that affects the VLT when very low external wind speeds are on-going\cite{Sauvage2016}. The main effect is to create differential piston between parts of the VLT pupil separated by the spider vanes (see Sauvage et al., this conference). The pattern included in the phase screen correspond to typical values that have been observed in real observing conditions with the VLT/SPHERE instrument;
    \item \textbf{influence function}: a specific pattern was included with influence functions for a 70$\times$70 actuator deformable mirror. This pattern also includes an "F" to determine the orientation of the spatial axes in the system.
\end{itemize}

\noindent The complete definition of the phase screens, including detailed view of the static patterns, is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:definition}.

The amplitude and spatial scale of the filtered turbulence and static patterns were calculated to correspond to the desired physical properties, while taking into account the size and properties of the phase screens as well as the setup of the MITHIC bench:

\begin{itemize}
    \item pupil diameter: 5~mm
    \item wavelength: 677~nm
    \item phase screen diameter: 100 mm
    \item phase screen pixel size: 10~$\mu$m\xspace
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Manufacturing}
\label{sec:manufacturing}

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Figures/mount}
  \caption{Phase screen in its rotating opto-mechanical mount as delivered by SILIOS. The screen is designed to work in transmission. Rotation is performed using a stepper motor controlled over USB using a dedicated software.}
  \label{fig:mount}
\end{figure}

The phase screen and it rotating mechanical mount were provided by the SILIOS Technologies SA, a company created in 2001 in Peynier (near Aix-en-Provence, France). The company is expert in passive micro-structured optics. SILIOS takes benefit from semiconductor manufacturing equipments, processes and methods to produce its optical components in clean room (ISO 5 to 3). The main part of its production is diffractive optics manufactured using a cumulative etching technology.

The cumulative etching technology allows reaching multilevel stair-like topologies directly into fused silica substrates\cite{Caillat2014}. Such surface topologies are used to produce phase functions for gratings, diffractive laser beam shapers and turbulence phase screens for example. The technology is based on successive masking photolithography and reactive ion etching steps (i.e. successive etching steps through resin masks). Thus, the whole phase pattern is engraved at the same time, resulting in a very high uniformity over the full engraved area.

The cumulative etching of N mask levels allows reaching depth profile discretized over $2^N$ steps. For instance, a process involving six levels (i.e. four masking photolithography and etching individual steps) leads to a 64 phase level profile. The etched depth of each level is given by:

\begin{equation}
    d_{i} = d_{max}\frac{2^{N-1}}{2^{N}-1}\frac{1}{2^{N-i}}
\end{equation}

where $i$ is the number of the mask level, $d_{max}$ is the maximum achievable depth of the profile, and $N$ is the total number of mask levels.

The photolithography tool is a contact photo-masker with an UV400 source. The reachable critical dimension (smallest lateral feature size) is about 1~$\mu$m\xspace, but for our phase screen we used 10~$\mu$m\xspace pixel size, which is sufficient for our laboratory setup. To provide a smooth variation of the phase, six masks are used, providing 64 discretization levels.

Two main manufacturing inaccuracies can lead to distortion of the profile and thus to the reduction of its efficiency: inaccuracy on the etched depths and inaccuracy on the alignment of each mask pattern with the others:

\begin{itemize}
    \item The etching accuracy on each depth level has to be much lower than the smallest step to avoid strong distortion in the profile. Specific fused silica processes have been developed by SILIOS during the past 10 years with an etching accuracy in the range of $\pm$5 to 10~nm insuring a very small profile deviation. To control the depths, several test patterns are positioned all around the grating useful aperture on each mask. These test patterns give access to the measurement of each individual etching depth, as well as some cumulative etching depths. The depth for one mask is updated from the previous mask depth measured. Therefore these test patterns allow controlling every etching depth during the process and at the end of the manufacturing task. The depth measurements are performed using a contact mechanical profilometer, whose accuracy is $\pm$3~nm.
    \item The inaccuracy on the alignment of each mask pattern with the others is potentially a much bigger source of error. Misalignment in between masks levels produces unwanted hollows or spikes located on the edges of the steps. This issue was previously identified in the manufacturing of high-precision gratings for the Euclid mission\cite{Caillat2014}. For our phase screens, these sharp features will create high-spatial frequency artifacts in the coronagraphic images.
\end{itemize}

The phase screen was provided with an opto-mechanical mount designed by SILIOS, which includes a rotating part and a stepper motor that allows a steps below $10^{-4}$ turn/step. Continuous rotation is possible between 0.1 and 6 turn/min. The motor is controlled over USB using a dedicated software provided by SILIOS.

\section{Interferometric characterization of the phase screens}
\label{sec:optical_characterization}

\subsection{Interferometer}
\label{sec:interferometer}

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Figures/interferogram}
  \caption{Interferogram covering the full phase screen. The spatial resolution is approximately 200~$\mu$m\xspace/pixel.}
  \label{fig:interferogram}
\end{figure}

Before being engraved with the phase patterns, the fused silica plate was characterized by SILIOS with a Zygo interferometer. They measured an optical surface quality of $\lambda/37$~rms, and a parallelism of 0.3''.

After the phase screen was received at LAM, a first measurement was performed with a M\"oller interferometer (Fig.~\ref{fig:interferogram}). With a spatial resolution of $\sim$200~$\mu$m\xspace/pixel, this type of interferogram does not provide a spatial resolution sufficient to measure accurately the static patterns or the simulated turbulence, but it provides a good view of the general optical quality of the phase screen. We can clearly identify the two AO-filtered turbulence regions on the outer part of the phase screen, as well as the 11 static phase patterns. The circular markings around the center correspond to markings used by SILIOS to align the manufacturing masks and to control the depth of the etching at each step of the manufacturing process. Measurements of the flatness in the central, non-engraved area (yellow part on Fig.~\ref{fig:interferogram}) are compatible with the values reported by SILIOS before etching.

\subsection{Interferometric microscope}
\label{sec:interferometric_microscope}

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/screens_microscope}
  \caption{Measurements of static patterns using an interferometric microscope. Top, from left to right: segments with piston; segments with piston, tip and tilt; segments with piston, tip, tilt and low-order NCPA. Bottom, from left to right: NCPA with with 10, 36 and 200 Zernike modes. The contour lines corresponding to the levels engraved by the manufacturing process are clearly visible in these measurements. The spatial resolution of these data is $\sim$3.65~$\mu$m\xspace/pixel.}
  \label{fig:screens_microscope}
\end{figure}

The phase screen was then measured using an interferometric microscope. We acquired measurements of all of the static patterns and the turbulence with the Vertical Shifting Interfometer (VSI) mode in white light, which provides a spatial resolution of 3.65~$\mu$m\xspace and a vertical accuracy of $\sim$20~nm. The measurements were done over 5$\times$5~mm$^2$ areas (using stitching) to cover the full patterns. In addition, we also acquired high-vertical accuracy ($<1$~nm) and high-spatial resolution (0.2~$\mu$m\xspace) measurements with the Phase Shifting Interferometer mode (PSI, green light) on smaller areas ($\sim$100~$\mu \mathrm{m}^2$).

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/defect}
  \caption{Zoom on the 30~nm manufacturing defect that appears in areas with continuous specified slopes. The origin of the problem is under investigation by SILIOS.}
  \label{fig:defect}
\end{figure}

Global measurements of 6 static patterns in VSI mode are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:screens_microscope}. In these measurements, the pixelated structure inherent to the manufacturing process using binary masks is clearly visible, in particular at the edges of the segments. The contour lines corresponding to the different etching levels are also well defined and visible in the NCPA patterns. Within these images, we detected a possible manufacturing defect that appears in areas with continuous specified slopes, which would correspond to one etching level not deep enough. At the level of the surface, it translates into a jump of $\sim$30~nm (Fig.~\ref{fig:defect}). The problem is being investigated by SILIOS to understand its origin and how to solve it. Since it probably corresponds to one level that has not been etched deep enough, a possible solution would be to reprocess the phase screen with the corresponding manufacturing mask, etching an additional 30~nm.

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Figures/screens_microscope_detail}
  \caption{Detailed measurements in PSI mode inside the AO-filtered turbulence residuals corresponding to a VLT/SPHERE-like instrument. The spatial resolution in the right and left images is respectively 0.2 and 1.0~$\mu$m\xspace/pixel.}
  \label{fig:screens_microscope_detail}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figures/cut}
  \caption{Vertical cut in the detailed measurement presented in the left of Fig.~\ref{fig:screens_microscope_detail}. This cut shows one of the typical manufacturing inaccuracy, which creates spikes and hollows at the edges of pixels because of small errors on the manufacturing masks alignment. The size of such spikes/hollows is $\sim$1~$\mu$m\xspace.}
  \label{fig:cut}
\end{figure}

A much finer view taken inside the AO-filtered turbulence residuals corresponding to a VLT/SPHERE-like instrument is visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:screens_microscope_detail}. In these data, the pixel structure is clearly apparent and we can see one of the typical manufacturing inaccuracies presented in Sect.~\ref{sec:manufacturing}: a slight misalignment of the manufacturing masks will create spikes and hollows at the edge of the pixels that define the phase profile. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:cut} where we present a vertical cut of the fine measurement presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:screens_microscope_detail} (left). The spikes/hollows have a size of $\sim$1~$\mu$m\xspace, corresponding to an equivalent misalignment of the mask during manufacturing. Such defects were anticipated and should not have a significant impact for our high-contrast applications since they correspond to very high-spatial frequencies that will create structures in the focal plane images very far from the optical axis.

\section{First results on MITHIC}
\label{sec:first_results_mithic}

\subsection{Presentation of the bench}
\label{sec:presentation_bench}

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Figures/mithic}
  \caption{Setup of the MITHIC bench at LAM.}
  \label{fig:mithic_setup}
\end{figure}

The MITHIC testbed was previously described in N'Diaye et al. (2012)\cite{NDiaye2012}, but we briefly describe the setup that was used for the characterization of our phase screens. The light source on the bench is a laser diode emitting at 677~nm through a single mode fiber. The end of the fiber is placed in the focal plane of high-quality lens, which produces a collimated beam into which we insert a diaphragm of diameter 5~mm, which defines the pupil of our system, with respect to which the rest of the bench is aligned. The 5~mm collimated beam is then sent to another lens after which we insert a beam-splitter. The splitter splits the beam between the ZELDA channel and the coronagraphic channel. In the ZELDA channel, we have a Zernike phase mask of radius $\sim$\hbox{$\lambda/D$}\xspace in the focal plane of the beam. The mask is designed to convert the small phase aberrations into intensity variations (see N'Diaye et al. 2013\cite{NDiaye2013} and Sec.~\ref{sec:zelda_measurements}) by introducing a phase shift of $\pi/2$. After the mask, another lens allows reimaging the pupil on a PixeLINK camera. In the coronagraphic channel, we insert a Roddier coronagraphic phase mask in the focal plane. Then a lens allows to produce again a collimated beam in which a Lyot stop is placed in the plane conjugated with the entrance pupil. A final lens is then used to produce a focal plane image of the PSF on a Photometrics CoolSNAP HQ$^2$ camera. The full setup is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:mithic_setup}.

\subsection{ZELDA measurements}
\label{sec:zelda_measurements}

The ZELDA concept\cite{NDiaye2013} has been originally proposed to solve the problem of non-common path aberations (NCPA) at the level of the coronagraph, since these aberrations have been identified as a significant limitation for the detection of planets through direct imaging at very small angular separations. N'Diaye et al. (2013)\cite{NDiaye2013} proposed the use of a Zernike phase mask sensor to calibrate the NCPA seen by the coronagraph in exoplanet direct imagers. This phase-contrast method uses a phase-shift mask to modulate the phase differential aberrations into intensity variations in the pupil plane. Since differential aberrations in exoplanet imagers are small, a linear or quadratic relation between the wavefront errors and the pupil intensity enables reconstructing the differential aberrations at nanometric accuracy with a simple, fast algorithm, making calibration in real time possible.

Zernike sensors have been explored in astronomy to address various instrumentation aspects, such as wavefront sensing in adaptive optics systems or cophasing of telescope segmented primary mirror\cite{Bloemhof2003,Bloemhof2004a,Dohlen2004,Surdej2010,Wallace2011,Vigan2011}. Recently, the Zernike sensor has been adopted for the WFIRST mission to measure low-order aberrations in its coronagraphic instrument and control pointing errors and focus drifts on the coronagraphic mask\cite{Spergel2013a,Spergel2015,Zhao2014}. Laboratory demonstration of the concept have been carried out in this context\cite{Shi2015}. We have also performed preliminary tests and obtained encouraging results of the Zernike sensor on the coronagraphic testbed in Marseille\cite{NDiaye2012,NDiaye2014b,Dohlen2013}. Finally, we recently achieved an important milestone by validating the ZELDA concept for the measurement and correction of NCPA inside VLT/SPHERE\cite{NDiaye2016}.

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Figures/zelda}
  \caption{ZELDA measurements of some of the static patterns and one area in the VLT/SPHERE-like filtered turbulence.}
  \label{fig:zelda}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/zelda_focus}
  \caption{Cut through the OPD map measured with ZELDA on the defocus pattern. The manufacturing defect identified in Sec.~\ref{sec:interferometric_microscope} is visible as a $\sim$15~nm jump on the wavefront on both sides of the focus pattern. It is also easily identifiable in Fig.~\ref{fig:zelda} as an annulus in the focus pattern.}
  \label{fig:zelda_focus}
\end{figure}

The ZELDA sensor on MITHIC was used to obtain data with our phase screen. We refer the reader to N'Diaye et al. (2013, 2016)\cite{NDiaye2013,NDiaye2016} for the full theoretical treatment and the data analysis. For the MITHIC measurement, we acquired data on the static patterns and turbulence areas, as well as on a flat area of the phase screen. This latter measurement is used as a reference to measure the static aberrations of the testbed. This reference is subtracted to the OPD maps obtained on the other areas to remove the contribution of the static patterns.

These high-spatial resolution measurements (190 pixels over the pupil) confirm the high-quality of the phase screen (Fig.~\ref{fig:zelda}). They also confirm the presence of the small defect identified in Sec.~\ref{fig:zelda}, which will hopefully be solved by etching again the corresponding manufacturing mask. Figure~\ref{fig:zelda_focus} presents a cut through the defocus pattern, where the defect is visible as a $\sim$15~nm jump on the wavefront.

\subsection{Focal-plane measurements}
\label{sec:focal_plane_measurements}

The MITHIC bench includes an apodized Roddier coronagraph, which we used in it non-apodized version to obtain first coronagraphic images with some of the static patterns. The results for the piston-tip-tilt pattern are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:coro_images} where we see the Lyot plane pupil image downstream of the Roddier phase mask, the focal-plane coronagraphic image and a comparison of the coronagraphic profile with simulation. These initial measurements are encouraging for the future since we see that the measured profile is a factor $<$10 above the theoretical level obtained in simulation with the specified phase pattern. The main difference probably originates in the static aberrations of the testbed, which are not taken into account in the simulation.

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/coro_images}
  \caption{\emph{Left:} pupil-plane image of the piston-tip-tilt pattern in the plane of the Lyot stop, after a Roddier coronagraph. \emph{Center:} focal-plane coronagraphic image. \emph{Right:} Coronagraphic profiles corresponding to the measurement (blue), the theoretical profile with the specified phase pattern (red) and the theoretical performance of a perfect Roddier coronagraph (green).}
  \label{fig:coro_images}
\end{figure}

\section{Prospects}
\label{sec:prospects}

The phase screen that we acquired from SILIOS Technologies are of very high-quality, despite a small defect that is currently under investigation and will hopefully be solved in the coming months. This phase screen is going to be used in several of the high-contrast imaging projects that are we are currently developing at LAM. These projects include:

\begin{itemize}
    \item dark hole generation with ZELDA
    \item coronagraphic performance in presence of residual segmentation errors
    \item coronagraphic phase diversity (COFFEE\cite{Paul2013}) estimation of segmentation errors
    \item combining ZELDA and COFFEE
    \item E-ELT/HARMONI: high-contrast applications with the pyramid WFS at LAM
\end{itemize}

\acknowledgments

AV acknowledges support from R\'egion Provence-Alpes-C\^ote d'Azur, under grant agreement 2014-02976, for the ASOREX project.