\section{Introduction}

Multi-domain image-to-image translation \cite{choi2017stargan} refers to image translation among multiple domains, where each domain is characterized by different attributes.
For example, the face aging task, with age groups as domains, aims to translate a given face into other age groups using a single translator.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:first_fig} Row 1, the input face image is translated into different age groups.

\begin{figure}[t]
 \begin{center}
  \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{gif/description/first_figure.pdf}
 \end{center}

 \caption{The phenomenon of source retaining in image translation.

 The first column shows input images.
 In the face aging case, when changing a face from $31\sim40$ to $0\sim10$, the result of StarGAN still looks like an adult while that of UGAN is more like a child with big eyes and smooth skin. When translating the face to $11\sim18$, the result of UGAN also looks more like a juvenile. Similar observations can be made in expression and makeup editing tasks.
 }

 \label{fig:first_fig}
\end{figure}

Although prior works \cite{choi2017stargan,zhao2018modular,he2019attgan} have made significant progress, the translated results still suffer from retaining the characteristics of the source domain (incompatible with the target domain), which is the so-called \emph{phenomenon of source retaining}.
As illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:first_fig} Row 1,
when StarGAN translates a female face from the age group 31$\sim$40 to 0$\sim$10, the translated image still looks like an adult.
In makeup editing shown in Figure~\ref{fig:first_fig} Row 2, StarGAN fails to eliminate the eye shadows in makeup removing.
For expression editing, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:first_fig} Row 3, the results of StarGAN show visible teeth shadows around the mouth region.

The reason for \emph{phenomenon of source retaining} is that the explicit and effective mechanisms to erase the characteristics of the source domain have not been explored in the prior works.
Most of them just simply apply a domain classifier, which is only trained to recognize the domain class of real data, to guide the image translation. However, the domain classifier is not sensitive to the non-qualified synthesized image containing incompatible characteristics.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:story} Row 1, the discriminator correctly judges an adult face to be within 31$\sim$40 age group. Translating the adult face into a child face (0$\sim$10), the translated face heavily retains adult characteristics, e.g., beard and expression wrinkles (Figure \ref{fig:story} Row 2). However, the discriminator judges it to be within 0$\sim$10 age group with the confidence of $1$.
That is, the synthesized image containing incompatible characteristics has almost no punishment from the domain classifier, which results in the \emph{phenomenon of source retaining}.

\begin{figure}[t]
 \begin{center}
  \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{gif/description/story.pdf}
 \end{center}

 \caption{The domain classifier of the discriminator in StarGAN is easily deceived on face aging task. First row: Given an adult face within 31$\sim$40 age group from the test set, the domain classifier of the discriminator can successfully recognize the corresponding age. Second row: The adult face is translated into 0$\sim$10 years old, and the translated face heavily retains adult characteristics including beard and expression wrinkles. However, the classifier still doesn't identify the incompatible characteristics and is completely fooled by the translated face.}

 \label{fig:story}
\end{figure}

To tackle the problem of source retaining, we propose a new method untraceable GAN (UGAN), which introduces \textit{untraceable constraint} and \textit{prototype injection}.
The untraceable constraint is employed to encourage the translator to erase all the source-only characteristics and synthesize certain target-only ones.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:story}, the process of an image from 31$\sim$40 years old (source domain) translated to 0$\sim$10 years old (target domain),
the beard and wrinkles (source-only characteristics) need to be erased, while a smooth skin and round face (target-only characteristics) should be synthesized.
To endow the proposed UGAN with the above capabilities, a discriminator is trained to \textit{track} which domain the synthesized image is \textit{translated from}, while the translator is trained to make the source domain of the synthesized image being untraceable for the discriminator.
Furthermore, To effectively synthesize the target-only characteristics, we take the prototype \cite{Kemelmacher2014Illumination} of the target domain as the guidance for the translator. The prototype is a statistic of the target domain, which aims to provide the essential characteristics, like the round face of 0$\sim$10 years old domain.

Our contributions include:
\begin{itemize}
 \item To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to present the phenomenon of source retaining in multi-domain image-to-image translation, and propose a novel UGAN to explicitly erase the characteristics of the source domain for improving the image translation.
 \item A novel source classifier is introduced to differentiate which domain an image is translated from, and determines whether the translated image still retains the characteristics of the source domain.
 \item The propose UGAN is the first work to take the target prototype into the translator for synthesizing the target domain characteristics.
 \item Extensive qualitative and quantitative experiments are conducted for three face editing tasks that demonstrate the superiority of our proposed UGAN.
\end{itemize}

\section{Related Work}

In this section, we give a brief review on three aspects related to our work: Generative Adversarial Network, Conditional GANs and Image-to-Image Translation.

{\bf Generative Adversarial Networks} (GANs) \cite{Goodfellow2014Generative} are popular generative models that employ adversarial learning between a generator and discriminator to synthesize the realistic data, which have gained astonishing successes in many computer vision tasks, such as image-to-image translation \cite{isola2017image}, domain adaptation \cite{liu2018cross} and super-resolution \cite{ledig2017photo}.
In this work, the proposed UGAN enjoys the adversarial learning \cite{arjovsky2017wasserstein,gulrajani2017improved}, which approximately minimizes the Wasserstein distance between the synthesized distribution and real distribution.

{\bf Conditional GANs} \cite{mirza2014conditional} are variants of GANs, which aim to controllably synthesize examples under the given condition.
Many prior works focus on generating samples under different forms of conditions, such as category label in the form of one-hot code \cite{mirza2014conditional} or learnable parameters \cite{miyato2018spectral}, and text with word embedding \cite{zhang2017stackgan}, etc.
Different from these works, for synthesizing the required characteristics, we introduce the prototype of the condition to provide prior information, where the prototype is one of the statistics of the target domain.

{\bf Image-to-Image Translation}
is first defined in pix2pix~\cite{isola2017image}, which is improved from various aspects, such as
skip connection for maintaining useful original information \cite{zhang2018generative,liu2017face,pumarola2018ganimation}, cascade training from coarse to fine \cite{wang2017high,dekel2018sparse}, extra relevant data \cite{choi2017stargan}, buffer of history fake image~\cite{shrivastava2017learning}, multi-discriminator~\cite{wang2017high}, 3D technology~\cite{yao20183d}, variational sampling~\cite{zhu2017toward,esser2018variational}.
If the translator only models directed translation between two domains, $C\cdot (C-1)$ translators are required among $C$ domains. A single conditional translator for multi-domain translation is seriously demanded. Thus we focus on multi-domain translation with such a single translator.
The current multi-domain image translation methods \cite{choi2017stargan,zhao2018modular,he2019attgan} using the vanilla one-hot condition for the translator, without considering the information contained in each domain.
We are the first to adopt the statistics of each domain as a condition of the translator to efficiently inject the essential characteristics.
Furthermore, the prior methods apply the domain classifier for condition constraints. However, limited by the classifier, they often suffer from the \emph{phenomenon of source retaining}.
Thus, we change the role of this auxiliary classifier in UGAN and make it classify which source domain the given datum is translated from, instead of classifying which domain the given datum is sampled from.
\begin{figure*}[t]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{gif/description/framework.pdf}
  \end{center}

  \caption{An overview of UGAN. a) The discriminator D should not only distinguish whether the input sample is real or fake but also determine which domain the sample is translated from. b) Translator G is trained to fool D by synthesizing realistic images of the target domain. We take the average image as a ``prototype'' to inject prior information of the target domain. c) The adaptive prototype injection is introduced for injecting essential characteristics of the prototype into the source image.}

  \label{fig:framework}
\end{figure*}

\section{Our Approach}
\label{sec:method}

The framework of UGAN is shown in Figure \ref{fig:framework}. The input image and the target condition are fed into the translator $G$.
The discriminator $D$ has two heads: one head is named as the authenticity classifier to distinguish whether the input sample is real or fake; the other is called the source classifier, aiming to determine which domain the sample is translated from, where the real data are supposed to be translated from themselves.
For erasing source-only characteristics and synthesizing the target-only characteristics, translator $G$ is trained to fool the source classifier of $D$ to believe that the synthesized image is translated from the target domain.
Moreover, to effectively synthesize the target characteristics, we introduce the ``prototype'' of the target domain and inject it into the translated image.

For convenience, we then introduce the used mathematical annotations.
Discriminator $D$ here contains two heads including the authenticity classifier $D_a$ and the source classifier $D_s$, where $D_a$ and $D_s$ share the same feature extraction module $D_f$. $D_a(D_f(\cdot))$ and $D_s(D_f(\cdot))$ are abbreviated as $D_a(\cdot)$ and $D_s(\cdot)$ respectively. $\{x_s, y_s\}$ is a sample pair from the source domain, where $x_s$ represents the image and $y_s$ is its label. By feeding the image $x_s$ and the target label $y_t$ into $G$, it produces $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}=G(x_s,y_t)$.
We use $q(x,y)$ to denote the joint distribution of image $x$ and domain label $y$. $q(x)$ and $q(y)$ are the marginal distribution of images and labels, respectively.

\subsection{Untraceable Constraint}

To tackle the problem of source retaining, the source classifier $D_s$ is trained to classify which domain image $x$ is {translated} from.
For an real image-label pair $\{x_s,y_s\}$, we regard $x_s$ as translated from domain $y_s$ to domain $y_s$. Since $D_s$ aims to classify where an image is translated from, the real datum $x_s$ should be classified into $y_s$, meaning $x_s$ is {translated from} domain $y_s$. The synthesized image $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ should be classified into $y_s$, meaning $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ is translated from $y_s$.
Translator $G$ is trained to fool $D_s$ to classify $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ into the $y_t$.
In this way, $G$ is trained to make the source domain of $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ is untraceable and the target domain characteristics are injected to $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$.
The adversarial training is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
L_{D}^{S_1}=-E_{(x_s,y_s)}[logD_s(x_s,y_s)] \\
-\lambda_{u} E_{(x_s,y_s),y_t}[logD_s(G(x_s,y_t),y_s)],
\end{array}
\label{equ:dec-D}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{G}^{S_1}=-\lambda_{u} E_{(x_s,y_s),y_t}[logD_s(G(x_s,y_t),y_t)],
\label{equ:dec-G}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{u}$ is the penalty coefficient of source retaining. For space limit, $E_{(x,y){\sim}q(x,y)}[\cdot]$ and $E_{y{\sim}q(y)}[\cdot]$ are abbreviated as $E_{(x,y)}[\cdot]$ and $E_{y}[\cdot]$, respectively.

Note that the $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ should be injected with certain target-only characteristics.
Recall that in Eq.~(\ref{equ:dec-G}), $G$ is trained to fool $D_s$ to classify $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ into $y_t$.
However, the class $y_t$ here is not pure that mixed with the characteristics of $x_t$ and synthesized data $\tilde{x}_{t\rightarrow{?}}$.
Refer to Eq.~(\ref{equ:dec-D}), the source classifier $D_s$ treats the real sample $x_t$ sampled from $y_t$ and fake sample $\tilde{x}_{t\rightarrow{?}}$ translated from $y_t$ as the same class $y_t$.
To accurately synthesize the characteristics of the target domain, the number of categories of $D_s$ is augmented as $2C$. The first $C$ categories are real data and those sampled (translated) from the corresponding domain. The latter $C$ categories are fake data, and those translated from the corresponding domain. $y_s+C$ means input datum is fake and translated from $y_s$. In addition, the translator $G$ is trained to fool $D_s$ to classify $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ into the $y_t$ category. The untraceable constraint conducted via optimizing the following:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
L_{D}^{S_2}=-E_{(x_s,y_s)}[logD_s(x_s,y_s)] \\
-\lambda_{u} E_{(x_s,y_s),y_t}[logD_s(G(x_s,y_t),y_s+C)],
\end{array}
\label{equ:dec-D-2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{G}^{S_2}=-\lambda_{u} E_{(x_s,y_s),y_t}[logD_s(G(x_s,y_t),y_t)].
\label{equ:dec-G-2}
\end{equation}
In this process, $D_s$ is trained to identify whether $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ is a fake image and the source domain. $G$ is trained to approximate the true untraceable translator.

\subsection{Prototype Injection}
The statistics of the target domain can provide guidance information for image translation. Refer to Figure \ref{fig:framework} (b), the average image of each age group shows the essential characteristics, like round face and flat nose characteristics of age group 1 (0$\sim$10).
Thus, We leverage the statistics of the target domain to further inject the essential characteristics of the target domain into the translated image, where we call the statistic, containing the essential characteristics, as the ``prototypes'' following the classic aging method \cite{Kemelmacher2014Illumination}.
However, the posture of the source image and target prototype may be misaligned. Thus, concatenating or summing up the image feature and prototype feature will hurt the performance.
To naturally inject these essential characteristics, we design an adaptive prototype injection (API) module inspired by non-local operation \cite{wang2018non,vaswani2017attention}.

Refer to Figure \ref{fig:framework} (c), the injection process of API is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
  \begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
  \mathcal{A}_{ij} = \frac{
    exp(
      \phi (f^x_i)
      \cdot
      \phi (f^p_j)
      )
    }{
      \sum_{\forall k}
      exp(
        \phi (f^x_i)
        \cdot
        \phi (f^p_k)
        )
    }, \\

  f^{inject}_{i} = f^x_i + \sum_{\forall j}\mathcal{A}_{ij} \cdot f^p_j,
  \end{array}
  \label{equ:WGANgp-D}
\end{equation}
where $f^x$ and $f^p$ are the feature maps of the source image and target prototype, respectively. $i$ is the index of an feature map position. $\phi$ is a linear mapping to reduce the dimension.
Since the computation of the correlation matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is computationally expensive, we apply the API module on the low-resolution feature maps.
To simultaneously maintain resolution and inject the prototype, the translator $G$ is designed with two parallel networks, with parameter sharing at both ends (gray color, Figure \ref{fig:framework}). For maintaining the resolution, one network is a common architecture in image translation \cite{Zhu2017Unpaired}. The other one applies the API module on the low-resolution feature maps. Finally, the outputs of these two networks are fused by element-wise sum to generate the translated image.

\subsection{Objective Function}
\textbf{Authenticity constraint:} The adversarial loss of WGAN-gp \cite{gulrajani2017improved} is adopted to constrain the synthetic joint distribution to approximate the real distribution.
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
L_{D}^{A}=&-E_{x_s}[D_a{(x_s)}]
+E_{x_s,y_t}[D_a(G(x_s,y_t))] \\
&+{\lambda_{gp}}E_{\hat{x}}[(\left\|{\nabla}_{\hat{x}}[D_a(\hat{x})\right \|_{2}-1)^2],
\end{array}
\label{equ:WGANgp-D}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{G}^{A}=-E_{x_s,y_t}[D_a(G(x_s,y_t))],
\label{equ:WGANgp-G}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{x}=\alpha\cdot{x_s}+(1-\alpha)\cdot{G(x_s,y_t)}$, and $\alpha\sim{U(0,1)}$. The third term in Eq.~(\ref{equ:WGANgp-D}) is a gradient penalty term that enforces the discriminator as a 1-Lipschitz function.

\textbf{Cycle Consistency:} The input and output are regularized to satisfy the correspondence \cite{Zhu2017Unpaired}:
\begin{equation}
L_{G}^{C}=\lambda_{c} E_{(x_s,y_s),y_t}[\|G(G(x_s,y_t),y_s)-x_s\|_1].S
\label{equ:cycle-G}
\end{equation}

\textbf{Overall loss function:} $D$ and $G$ are trained by optimizing
\begin{equation}
L_{D}^{U}=L_{D}^{A}+L_{D}^{S},
\label{equ:full-D-SE}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{G}^{U}=L_{G}^{C}+L_{G}^{A}+L_{G}^{S},
\label{equ:full-G-SE}
\end{equation}
where $L^{S}$ could be $L^{S_1}$ or $L^{S_2}$. The Eq. (\ref{equ:full-D-SE}) and Eq. (\ref{equ:full-G-SE}) are optimized alternatively.

\begin{table*}[t]
  \centering
  \caption{Intra FID on CFEE dataset.}
  \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.3pt}
  \begin{tabular}{llllllllllllllllllllllll}
    \toprule
    Method & A & B & C & D & E & F & G & H & I & J & K & L & M & N & O & P & Q & R & S & T & U & V & Mean \\
    \midrule
    StarGAN & 52.1 & 52.6 & 61.4 & 51.5 & 55.9 & 64.1 & 57.8 & 54.1 & 42.6 & 52.5 & 61.7 & 69.3 & 55.2 & 51.9 & 55.0 & 63.2 & 68.0 & 60.6 & 69.9 & 61.0 & 59.1 & 61.3 & 58.2 \\
    UGAN$^\dag$ & 44.5 & 44.4 & 53.8 & 46.9 & 49.9 & 59.0 & 47.8 & 48.5 & 37.7 & 43.2 & 52.9 & 59.1 & 53.4 & 50.4 & 53.0 & \textbf{45.6} & 56.6 & 52.7 & 48.4 & 49.0 & 47.0 & 46.4 & 49.6 \\
    UGAN$^\ddag$ & 42.8 & 45.3 & 48.3 & 43.7 & 47.5 & \textbf{56.0} & 43.6 & 44.7 & 37.6 & 41.4 & 47.4 & \textbf{52.4} & 42.9 & 43.1 & 48.5 & 46.3 & \textbf{52.1} & \textbf{46.6} & 46.6 & \textbf{46.8} & 45.4 & \textbf{45.0} & 46.1 \\
    UGAN & \textbf{39.7} & \textbf{40.8} & \textbf{47.9} & \textbf{39.7} & \textbf{43.8} & 57.6 & \textbf{42.0} & \textbf{43.1} & \textbf{33.5} & \textbf{40.8} & \textbf{45.7} & 55.4 & \textbf{40.8} & \textbf{40.9} & \textbf{46.9} & \textbf{43.4} & 52.3 & 47.3 & \textbf{44.9} & 48.1 & \textbf{42.0} & 48.5 & \textbf{44.8} \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}

  \label{tab:intra FID on CFEE}
\end{table*}

\begin{table}[t]
  \centering
  \caption{Intra FID on face aging dataset.}
  \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4pt}
  \begin{tabular}{lcccccccr}
    \toprule
    method & 0$\sim$10 & 11$\sim$18 & 19$\sim$30 & 31$\sim$40 & 41$\sim$50 & 51$\sim$60 & 60+ & Mean \\
    \midrule
    CAAE & 63.8 & 64.1 & 67.6 & 69.8 & 75.9 & 78.7 & 87.2 & 72.4 \\
    C-GAN & 83.9 & 60.7 & 54.9 & 54.7 & 57.4 & 61.7 & 70.2 & 63.4 \\
    StarGAN & 59.9 & 38.2 & 29.9 & 41.4 & 37.3 & 40.0 & 46.9 & 41.9 \\
    \midrule \midrule
    UGAN$^\dag$ & \textbf{42.0} & 33.6 & 25.2 & 27.2 & 28.9 & 34.4 & 40.4 & 33.1 \\

    UGAN$^\ddag$ & 44.0 & 29.5 & 21.1 & 21.3 & 25.4 & 28.2 & 34.7 & 29.2 \\
    UGAN & 42.7 & \textbf{28.4} & \textbf{19.4} & \textbf{18.9} & \textbf{22.8} & \textbf{26.9} & \textbf{32.5} & \textbf{27.4} \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \label{tab:intra FID on aging}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[t]
  \centering
  \caption{Intra FID on MAKEUP-A5 dataset.}
  \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.2pt}
  \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
    \toprule
    method & Retro & Korean & Japanese & Non-makeup & Smoky & Mean \\
    \midrule
    StarGAN   & 110.9 & 86.2 & 74.5 & 84.4 & 91.9 & 89.6 \\
    UGAN$^\dag$ & 109.4 & 70.9 & 61.8 & 72.8 & 74.8 & 78.0 \\
    UGAN$^\ddag$ & 101.7 & \textbf{65.9} & 58.1 & 64.5 & \textbf{66.3} & 71.3 \\
    UGAN & \textbf{89.6} & 73.3 & \textbf{57.1} & \textbf{62.1} & 68.8 & \textbf{70.2} \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \label{tab:intra FID on makeup}

\end{table}

\iffalse
\begin{algorithm} [th]
  \label{alg}
  \SetAlgoNoLine

  \caption{Training details of UGAN. All experiments use the default setting $\alpha=0.0001$, $\beta_1=0.5$, $\beta_2=0.999$, $n_D=5$, $B=16$, $\lambda_{c}=10$, $\lambda_{u}=0.1$.}

  \algorithmicrequire{ images $x$, category $y$, discriminator $D$, generator $G$, number of iterations $N$. }\\
  \algorithmicrequire{ initial discriminator parameters $\theta_0$, initial generator parameters $\omega_0$. }\\
  $\theta\gets\theta_0, \omega\gets\omega_0$\\
  \For{$t = 1, \cdots, N$}{
    \For{$i = 1, \cdots, n_D$}{
    Sample data $\{x_{i}, y_{i}\}_{i=1}^B\sim{q(x,y)}$, \\
    Sample target labels $\{\tilde{y}_{i}\}_{i=1}^B\sim{q(y)}$, \\
    Sample coefficient $\{\epsilon_{i}\}_{i=1}^B\sim{U[0,1]}$. \\

    $\{\tilde{x}_i \gets G(x_i, \tilde{y}_i)\}_{i=1}^B$, \\
    $\{\hat{x}_i\}_{i=1}^B\gets\{\epsilon_i{x_{i}} + (1-\epsilon_i){\tilde{x}_i}\}_{i=1}^B$. \\

    compute $L^{U}_D$ using Eq.~(\ref{equ:full-D-SE}) \\
    $\theta\gets Adam_{\alpha, \beta_1, \beta_2}(\theta, {\nabla}_{\theta}L^{U}_D)$ \\
    }

    compute $L^{U}_G$ using Eq.~(\ref{equ:full-G-SE})\\

    $\omega\gets Adam_{\alpha, \beta_1, \beta_2}(\omega, {\nabla}_{\omega}L^{U}_G)$ \\
  }

\end{algorithm}
\fi
\iffalse
\subsection{Discussions}
We now explain why \emph{phenomenon of source retaining} happens and how UGAN effectively handles it.
We briefly review one of the most representative multi-domain translation model StarGAN. It also has an authenticity classifier and a cycle consistency constraint $L_{G}^{C}$.
The only difference between StarGAN and UGAN is that the discriminator $D_{\hat{s}}$ of StarGAN classifies which domain the real image is \emph{sampled from}.
For StarGAN, the following loss is optimized:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
L_{D}^{\hat{S}}=-E_{(x,y){\sim}q(x,y)}[logD_{\hat{s}}{(x,y)}],
\end{array}
\label{equ:cls-D}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{G}^{\hat{S}}=-E_{x{\sim}q(x),y{\sim}q(y)}[logD_{\hat{s}}{(G(x,y),y)}],
\label{equ:cls-G}
\end{equation}
where Eq.~(\ref{equ:cls-D}) trains $D_{\hat{s}}$ to distinguish different domains while  Eq.~(\ref{equ:cls-G}) trains $G$ to fool $D_{\hat{s}}$ to classify $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ as $y_t$. $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ is expected to increasingly fit $y_t$.
To take the authenticity classifier and the cycle consistency constraint into consideration, the overall loss of $D$ and $G$ of StarGAN is
\begin{equation}
L_{D}^{ST}=L_{D}^{A}+L_{D}^{\hat{S}},
\label{equ:full-D-ST}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{G}^{ST}=L_{G}^{C}+L_{G}^{A}+L_{G}^{\hat{S}}.
\label{equ:full-G-ST}
\end{equation}

StarGAN suffers from the source retaining for the following reasons.
First, the first two terms in Eq.~(\ref{equ:full-G-ST}) may result in lazy editing. This is because $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}=x_s$ is a trivial solution to satisfy the cycle consistency loss $L_{G}^{C}$ and adversarial loss $L_{G}^{A}$ terms.
Second, $D_{\hat{s}}$ in StarGAN is easy to be deceived.
$L_{G}^{\hat{S}}$ is the only term that constrains the translated image towards the target domain. However the value of $L_{G}^{\hat{S}}$ quickly drops, while $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ still does not look like sampled from $y_t$ and instead like the adversarial example \cite{goodfellow6572explaining} of $D_{\hat{s}}$.
Third, $D_{\hat{s}}$ is just like a whitelisting system to inject the characteristics of $y_t$ into $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$, without explicitly erasing the source-only characteristics.
That is, StarGAN only knows what characteristics the translated images should contain, and does not know what should not be contained.

Compared with StarGAN, our proposed UGAN has its unique $L_G^{S}$ and $L_D^{S}$. $D_{s}$ can tell $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ is translated from $y_s$ until all source-only characteristics have been erased from $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$. Analogically, $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ will not be judged as translated from $y_t$ until $\tilde{x}_{s\rightarrow{t}}$ is injected with some target-only characteristics.
The configuration not only reduces the source-only characteristics but also forces the translated samples towards the target domain.
\fi
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Datasets}

\begin{table*}[t]
  \centering
  \small
  \caption{AMT results on CFEE dataset($\%$).}
  \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.5pt}
  \begin{tabular}{lllllllllllllllllllllll}
    \toprule
    Method & A & B & C & D & E & F & G & H & I & J & K & L & M & N & O & P & Q & R & S & T & U & V \\
    \midrule
    StarGAN & 17.0     & 8.7      & 13.7     & 14.7     & 29.0     & 13.7     & 33.3     & 14.7     & 22.0     & 19.0     & 18.7     & 22.7     & 31.3     & 29.0     & 17.0     & 13.3     & 18.3     & 27.0     & 37.7     & 19.0     & 19.3     & 7.3 \\
    UGAN & \textbf{83.0} & \textbf{91.3} & \textbf{86.3} & \textbf{85.3} & \textbf{71.0} & \textbf{86.3} & \textbf{66.7} & \textbf{85.3} & \textbf{78.0} & \textbf{81.0} & \textbf{81.3} & \textbf{77.3} & \textbf{68.7} & \textbf{71.0} & \textbf{83.0} & \textbf{86.7} & \textbf{81.7} & \textbf{73.0} & \textbf{62.3} & \textbf{81.0} & \textbf{80.7} & \textbf{92.7} \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \label{tab:AMT on CFEE}

\end{table*}

\begin{figure*}[t]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{gif/results/aging.jpg}
  \end{center}

  \caption{Comparison of face aging synthesis results on the face aging dataset. }

  \label{fig:aging}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[t]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{gif/results/makeup.jpg}
  \end{center}

  \caption{Makeup synthesis results on the MAKEUP-A5. }
  \label{fig:makeup}

\end{figure*}

\begin{table}[t]
  \centering
  \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
  \caption{AMT results on face aging dataset ($\%$).}
  \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
    \toprule
    Method & 0$\sim$10 & 11$\sim$18 & 19$\sim$30 & 31$\sim$40 & 41$\sim$50 & 51$\sim$60 & 60+   \\
    \midrule
    StarGAN  & 13.0     & 34.3     & 34.3     & 42.3     & 39.7     & 10.7     & 13.0     \\

    UGAN & \textbf{87.0} & \textbf{65.7} & \textbf{65.7} & \textbf{57.7} & \textbf{60.3} & \textbf{89.3} & \textbf{87.0} \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \label{tab:AMT on aging}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[t]
  \centering
  \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
  \caption{AMT results on MAKEUP-A5 dataset ($\%$).}
  \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
    \toprule
    Method & Retro & Korean & Japanese & Non-makeup & Smoky \\
    \midrule
    StarGAN & 28.7     & 40.3     & 21.3     & 16.7     & 30.7     \\
    UGAN & \textbf{71.3} & \textbf{59.7} & \textbf{78.7} & \textbf{83.3} & \textbf{69.3} \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \label{tab:AMT on makeup}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{10.5pt}
\caption{Cosine similarity on hidden feature of ResNet-18 between source images and the corresponding translated images.}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
  \toprule
  \multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Age Group Gap}                   \\ \cmidrule{2-5}
              & $\geq3$ & $\geq4$ & $\geq5$ & $\geq6$ \\ \midrule
  StarGAN         & 0.757        & 0.742        & 0.745        & 0.719        \\
  UGAN         & \textbf{0.740}    & \textbf{0.714}    & \textbf{0.712}     & \textbf{0.696} \\
  \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \label{tab:similarity}

\end{table}

{\bf Face aging} dataset is collected by C-GAN \cite{liu2017face} including $15,030$ face images. Ages are divided into $7$ age groups including $0\sim{10}$, $11\sim{18}$, $19\sim{30}$, $31\sim{40}$, $41\sim{50}$, $51\sim{60}$ and $60+$. $10\%$ of the dataset is randomly selected as the test set, and the rest is the training set.

{\bf MAKEUP-A5} is a makeup-labeled dataset \cite{li2018beautygan} containing $6,095$ aligned Asian woman faces with $5$ makeup categories including retro, Korean, Japanese, non-makeup and smoky. The training set contains $5,485$ images and the remaining is the test set.

{\bf CFEE} is an expression dataset \cite{du2014compound} of $22$ expressions with $5,060$ images. The categories of facial expressions include (A) neutral, (B) happy, (C) sad, (D) fearful, (E) angry, (F) surprised, (G) disgusted, (H) happily surprised, (I) happily disgusted, (J) sadly fearful, (K) sadly angry, (L) sadly surprised, (M) sadly disgusted, (N) fearfully angry, (O) fearfully surprised, (P) fearfully disgusted, (Q) angrily surprised, (R) angrily disgusted, (S) disgustedly surprised, (T) appalled, (U) hatred and (V) awed. We randomly select $23$ identities ($506$ images) as the test set and use the other images for training.
All images are aligned and resized to $256\times256$ resolution.

\subsection{Measurements}
{\bf Intra FIDs} \cite{heusel2017gans,miyato2018cgans,dowson1982frechet} on each domain and mean of them are used for evaluation. FID is a common quantitative measure for generative models, which measures the 2-Wasserstein distance between the two distributions $q$ and $p$ on the features extracted from InceptionV3 model. It is defined as \cite{dowson1982frechet}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
F(q, p) = \left \|{\mu}_{q}-{\mu}_{p}\right \|_2^2 +\mathop{tr}(\sigma_{q}+\sigma_{p}-2(\sigma_{q}\sigma_{p})^{1/2}),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $q$ and $p$ are feature distributions of real data and synthesized data, $({\mu}_{q},\sigma_{q})$ and $({\mu}_{p},\sigma_{p})$ are the mean and the covariance of $q$ and $p$. The mean intra FID is calculated by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
m{F}_{intra}(q, p) = \frac{1}{C} \sum_{i=1}^{C} F(q(\cdot|y_i), p(\cdot|y_i)),
\end{array}
\label{m_intra_fid}
\end{equation}
where $y$ is the domain label for the total $C$ domains.

{\bf User studies by Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT): } Given an input image, target domain images translated by different methods are displayed to the Turkers who are asked to choose the best one.

{\bf Cosine similarity:} For the face aging task, cosine similarity between the features of real images and the corresponding translated images is used to measure the degree of source retaining. Features are extracted by a ResNet-18 model \cite{he2016deep} trained on the same training set.

\subsection{Implementation Details}
We perform experiments with three versions of our methods named as UGAN$^\dag$, UGAN$^\ddag$ and UGAN, where the methods with superscripts ($^\dag$ and $^\ddag$) mean adopting the same translator as StarGAN (without prototype), ``UGAN$^\dag$'' means adopting $L^{S_1}$ as untraceable constraint, while ``UGAN$^\ddag$'' adopting $L^{S_2}$. ``UGAN'' means the final method that adopting $L^{S_2}$ as an untraceable constraint and the proposed translator with an API module.
For a fair comparison, our learning rate is fixed as $0.0001$, while the other hyper-parameters are kept the same as StarGAN.
All experiments are optimized by Adam with $\beta_{1}=0.5$ and $\beta_{2}=0.999$. The discriminator is iterated $5$ times per iteration of the translator. All baselines and our methods are trained $200$ epochs. The mini-batch size is set to $16$. All images are horizontally flipped with a probability of $0.5$ as data augmentation.

{\bf Baselines:} StarGAN \cite{choi2017stargan} has shown the best performance than DIAT \cite{li2016deep}, CycleGAN \cite{Zhu2017Unpaired} and IcGAN \cite{perarnau2016invertible}. We, therefore, select StarGAN as our baseline to verify the superiority of our method. For the face aging task, we additionally compare two classic GAN-based methods of face aging, including CAAE \cite{zhang2017age} and C-GAN (without transition pattern network) \cite{liu2017face}.

\begin{figure*}[t]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{gif/results/expression.jpg}
  \end{center}

  \caption{Comparison of facial expression editing results on the CFEE dataset. }

  \label{fig:expression}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Quantitative Experiments}
Given the domain label $y_i$, we traverse all images in the test set to generate fake images. All the synthetic images of each domain are adopted to calculate intra FID, while
$300$ synthetic images of each domain are randomly sampled to be evaluated by AMT.

\textbf{Face aging:} The comparison of results on face aging dataset is shown in Table \ref{tab:intra FID on aging}. Face aging involves deformations and texture synthesis. For example, deformation, such as the face shape and eye size, are the main differences between babies and adults. Texture synthesis, like adding wrinkles, is also essential when translating a middle-aged man to a senior man.
In Table \ref{tab:intra FID on aging}, both UGAN$^\dag$ and UGAN$^\ddag$ are significantly better than StarGAN on all age groups, where UGAN$^\ddag$ are better than UGAN$^\dag$.
The mean intra FID drops from $41.9$ (StarGAN) to $29.2$ (UGAN$^\ddag$). The relative drop is more than $30\%$. Furthermore, UGAN achieves the best performance with mean intra FID $27.4$.

\textbf{Makeup editing:} The comparison of results on MAKEUP-A5 dataset is shown in Table \ref{tab:intra FID on makeup}. Both texture and color need to be altered in makeup editing.
UGAN has the best performance in all categories.
The mean intra FID has declined from $89.6$ (StarGAN) to $71.3$ (UGAN).

\textbf{Expression editing:} The comparisons on CFEE dataset are shown in Table \ref{tab:intra FID on CFEE}. The expression editing task aims to change the emotion of a face by deformation. The CFEE dataset contains $22$ kinds of fine-grained expressions, which makes the expression editing problem very challenging. From the results,
we can conclude that UGAN again achieves the best performance.
The mean intra FID is $58.2$ (StarGAN), $49.6$ (UGAN$^\dag$), $46.1$ (UGAN$^\ddag$), and $44.8$ (UGAN), respectively. It can be seen that the reduction is significant.

\textbf{AMT user studies:}
For further evaluation, user studies are conducted on AMT \footnote{https://www.mturk.com/} to compare StarGAN and our method. Since UGAN outperforms UGAN$^\dag$ and UGAN$^\ddag$ for mean intra FID, only UGAN is compared. With datasets mentioned above, we synthesize $300$ pairs of images per domain by UGAN and StarGAN. All image pairs are shown to $102$ Turkers who are asked to choose the better one considering image realism and satisfaction of target characteristics.
Table \ref{tab:AMT on CFEE}, \ref{tab:AMT on aging} and \ref{tab:AMT on makeup} show the percentage of our method beating StarGAN.
For example, in Table \ref{tab:AMT on aging}, when changing a face to $0\sim10$ years old, StarGAN wins in $13.2\%$ cases while our method wins in $86.8\%$ cases. It again shows the advantages of our method when transforming a face into childhood.
Generally, our method is better than StarGAN in every category of each dataset.

\textbf{Tackling the phenomenon of source retaining:}
The effect of erasing source characteristics on face aging is shown in Table~\ref{tab:similarity}.
A well-trained ResNet-18 (for age recognition) is adopted to extract features (the second last layer). We calculate average cosine similarity on the neural feature of all source images and translated image pairs from the test set.
Intuitively, the smaller the similarity, the more thoroughly source characteristics are erased.
Since the images of adjacent age groups are similar, we only consider translation across a large age gap, e.g., across three age groups. In Table~\ref{tab:similarity}, we perform the experiments on multiple age group gaps, and the similarities of UGAN are smaller on all age group gaps.

\subsection{Qualitative Experiments}
The visualization results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:aging}, \ref{fig:makeup} and \ref{fig:expression}. More results are provided in supplementary material.

\textbf{Face aging:}
Results on the face aging dataset are shown in Figure \ref{fig:aging}. In the first example, an input image is a woman.
By comparing the results of $0\sim10$ years old (second column), our result has obvious childish characteristics, \emph{e.g.} round face, big eyes, and small nose, while the result of StarGAN does not look like a child.
Another example is the $60+$ years old case (last column). Our result has white hair, wrinkles, while StarGAN produces a middle-aged face.
These results show that UGAN can explicitly erase the characteristics of the source image by the source classifier in the discriminator.

\textbf{Makeup editing:} Two exemplary results on MAKEUP-A5 dataset are displayed in Figure \ref{fig:makeup}. For the first woman, by comparing the results of the second (retro) and last (smoky) columns, we find that blusher and eye shadows of UGAN are more natural, while StarGAN draws asymmetrical blusher and strange eye shadows.
The result of UGAN is relatively natural when translating it to a non-makeup face. Therefore, we conclude that UGAN has learned the precise color and texture characteristics of different makeups.

\textbf{Expression editing:} Results on CFEE dataset are demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:expression}. We have the following observations. First, UGAN can well edit $22$ kinds of fine-grained facial expressions. Also, UGAN captures the subtle differences between basic and compound expressions. For example, ``Happily surprised'' has bigger eyes and raising eyebrows compared to ``Happy''. Besides, the results of StarGAN under various expressions still retain the original expressions. For example, when changing the man from ``Hatred'' to ``Happy'', the result of StarGAN still has tight brows.
Comparatively, UGAN can effectively synthesize the ``Happy'' expression by generating a grin and relaxed brows and erasing the tight brows.

\section{Conclusion}
The phenomenon of source retaining often occurs in the image-to-image translation task.
To address it, the Untraceable GAN (UGAN) model has been proposed, where the discriminator estimates the source domain.
The translator $G$ is trained to fool the discriminator $D$ to believe that the generated data is translated from the target domain.
In this way, the source domain of the synthesized image is untraceable.
In addition, we have further presented the prototype of each domain and inject it into the translated image to generate the target characteristics.
Extensive experiments on three tasks have proven the significant advantages of our method over the state-of-the-art StarGAN.

The source retaining phenomenon is common in various fields, where the UGAN idea may be widely used to alleviate the issue.
For example, language translation \cite{lample2017unsupervised} often preserves the grammatical structure of the source language. UGAN may serve as a solution to improve translation quality. Furthermore, the prototype injection idea also can be introduced to the universal conditional generation. We plan to study these ideas in-depth and apply them to broader applications.

\small{
\bibliographystyle{ieee}


\section{\label{sec:level1}I. INTRODUCTION}
Bernal stacked bilayer graphene exhibits a significantly different band structure compared to single-layer graphene. The conduction and valence bands split into two subbands with a separation of 0.4 eV between the two conduction subbands edges, and the linearity near the Dirac point is broken, accompanied by a reduction in the Fermi velocity. By breaking the inversion symmetry of the two layers, a band gap is induced and can be tuned through chemical doping \cite{yu2011} or gating \cite{zhang2009direct}, suggesting potential applications in transistors, optoelectronics and photonics \cite{bonaccorso2010graphene,bao2012graphene}. The performance of some of these devices depends strongly on the efficiency of carrier photoexcitation and subsequent hot carrier relaxation processes \cite{tielrooij2013photoexcitation}. The purpose of this work is to develop a model for the coupling of electrons and phonons that can predict electron relaxation processes due to phonon interactions from first principles. A secondary objective is to compare these predictions to the commonly used deformation potential scattering approach.

Photoexcited carriers thermalize rapidly over a timescale of 100 to 200 fs and thus can be described by an effective electron temperature $T_e$. The hot carriers thereafter then scatter with phonons and transfer energy to the lattice. This process lasts for tens of picoseconds until the system returns to thermal equilibrium. Optical pump terahertz probe spectroscopy \cite{george2008ultrafast,kar2018ultrafast} and angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy \cite{ohta2007interlayer,tanaka2013investigation} are the most often used methods for measuring electron-phonon coupling and carrier transport properties. The pump-probe method directly relates the measured optical transmission with and without photoexcitation to the photo-induced conductivity change in the material under study. The transition from negative to positive differential transmission has been observed in graphene sheets by changing electrostatic gating and the Fermi level \cite{shi2014controlling, frenzel2014semiconducting}. The transition is explained as an interplay between Drude weight and scattering rates. Photoexcitation generates more electron-hole pairs in intrinsic graphene but only modifies the Fermi distribution in doped graphene and therefore increases absorption in the former case while inducing more scattering in the latter case. However, only phenomenological scattering rates have been used in prior studies, leaving details of the scattering processes unresolved \cite{shi2014controlling,frenzel2014semiconducting,heyman2015carrier}.

Prior theoretical work on bilayer graphene's electrical conductivity has focused on short-range scattering from impurities using tight-binding Hamiltonians \cite{adam2008boltzmann,ferreira2011unified}. Viljas et al.\ \cite{viljas2010electron} calculated electron-phonon heat transport based on a two-temperature model, with scattering rates obtained from an empirical deformation potential approach. Park et al.\ \cite{park2008electron} calculated electron-phonon coupling strengths from first principles; however, they focused on phonon lifetimes. Details of electron-phonon scattering mechanisms and their contributions to the electro-thermal transport properties of bilayer graphene are still not well understood.

\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics [width=6 in]{el_ph.png
\caption{Electron band structure and phonon dispersion of bilayer graphene. (a) Bilayer graphene electron band structure. (b) Bilayer graphene phonon dispersion. The inset of (b) shows a magnified view of the box at the bottom left corner. Two low energy branches which are absent from single-layer graphene, LA$^\prime$ and TA$^\prime$, are lifted and separated from the LA and TA modes near the $\Gamma$ point.}

\label{fig:F1}
\end{figure*}

In this paper, we adopt a first-principles approach to obtain electron-phonon coupling constants and scattering rates from which effective acoustic and optical deformation potentials are extracted. A two-temperature heat transfer model is developed to predict the electron and lattice temperatures at different times, based on which we calculate photoconductivity using a Drude model. We explain the trends for real and imaginary parts of photoconductivity by analyzing the effects of doping levels and electron-phonon scattering, and further compare photoconductivity from DFT and the deformation-potential approach with previous experimental data.

\section{\label{sec:level2}II. Electron phonon interactions, deformation- potential and heat transfer}

The development of density functional perturbation theory(DFPT) \cite{baroni2001phonons}  has made first-principles calculations of electron-phonon coupling feasible in recent years. The temperature-independent electron-phonon coupling matrix $g$ describes the coupling strength of the transition from an initial electron state $\ket{m,\textbf{k}}$ to a final state $\ket{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}}$, and is calculated as \cite{lam1986self}:

\begin{equation}
g_{mn\upsilon}(\textbf k,\textbf q) = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2M\omega_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}}}\bra{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}}\Delta V_{\textbf{q},\upsilon} \ket{m,\textbf{k}}
\label{eqng}
\end{equation}

\noindent
Here, $\ket{m,\textbf k}$ and $\ket{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}} $ are wavefunctions for the initial and final Bloch states, $\Delta V_{\textbf{q},\upsilon} $ is the self-consistent potential change experienced by electrons due to interaction with a  phonon of wavevector $\textbf{q}$ in branch $\upsilon $, $M$ is the mass of carbon atoms, and $\omega_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}$ is the phonon frequency.

After obtaining the electron-phonon coupling matrix, electron scattering rates are calculated based on Fermi's golden rule and the relaxation time approximation \cite{allen1987theory}:

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\tau_{m\textbf{k}}^{-1}&(T_e,T_{ph}) = \frac{2\pi}{\hbar} \sum_{n,\textbf{q},\upsilon}|g_{mn\upsilon}|^2 \\
\{&(f_{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}}+n_{\textbf{q},\upsilon})
\delta(\epsilon_{m,\textbf{k}}+\hbar\omega_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}-\epsilon_{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}}) \\
+&(1+n_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}-f_{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}})\delta({\epsilon_{m,\textbf{k}}-\hbar\omega_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}-\epsilon_{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}}})\}
\label{eqntau}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent
In Eq.\@ \ref{eqntau}, the first and second terms on the right side denote phonon absorption and emission. $f$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution at the electron temperature $T_e$, and $n$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution at the phonon temperature $T_{ph}$. The summation extends over all electronic bands with a final state momentum $\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}$, phonon wavevectors and phonon branches.

Similarly, the heat transfer rate per unit area from electrons to the lattice is computed as \cite{low2012cooling, vallabhaneni2016reliability}:

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Q&_{e-ph} = \frac{4\pi}{\hbar A} \sum_{\textbf{k},\textbf{q},m,n,\upsilon}\hbar\omega_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}|g_{m,n,\upsilon}(\textbf{k},\textbf{q})|^2 \\
\{&f_{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}}(1-f_{m,\textbf{k}})(n_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}+1)
-(1-f_{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}})f_{m,\textbf{k}}n_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}\} \\
\delta&(\epsilon_{m,\textbf{k}}+\hbar\omega_{\textbf{q},\upsilon}-\epsilon_{n,\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}})
\label{eqnenergy}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent
Here, $A$ is the unit cell surface area. The dynamic temperature evolution is governed by energy conservation as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
C_e(T_e)\frac{dT_e}{dt} = -Q_{e-ph}\\
C_{ph}(T_{ph})\frac{dT_{ph}}{dt} = Q_{e-ph}
\end{cases}
\label{eqnevol}
\end{equation}

\noindent
where $C_e$ and $C_{ph}$ are electron and phonon specific heats, respectively, and diffusive heat conduction has been neglected.

Even though first-principles calculations can be applied to any system in theory, the computations are extremely time-consuming. While Wannier function interpolation reduces computational cost greatly, the disentanglement procedure for complex material systems is quite involved, especially for interfaces consisting of dissimilar materials and having strong interactions.

For electron-phonon coupling calculations, the deformation-potential approach provides an alternative. Assuming that the perturbation of the potential felt by electrons is proportional to the change in unit cell volume, the deformation-potential approach is semiclassical and often obtained by fitting experimental mobility values. Here, we briefly discuss the derivation of the deformation potential for acoustic phonons. The development highlights the connection between the deformation potential and scattering rates, thus providing an explanation of how to extract the widely used deformation potential from our first-principles calculations.

The potential perturbation $\Delta V(\textbf{r})$ is related to the relative volume change $\Delta (\textbf{r})$ by \cite{bardeen1950deformation}:

\begin{equation}
\Delta V(\textbf{r}) = E_1 \Delta (\textbf{r})
\label{eqndp}
\end{equation}
where $E_1$ is the deformation potential, and $\textbf{r}$ denotes lattice sites. $\Delta(\textbf{r})$ is calculated in the long wavelength limit as:

\begin{equation}
\Delta(\textbf{r}) = \frac{\partial \textbf{u}(\textbf{r})}{\partial \textbf{r}}
\label{eqnderive}
\end{equation}

\noindent
Here, $\textbf{u}(\textbf{r})$ is the phonon displacement:

\begin{equation}
\textbf{u}(\textbf{r})=\sum_{\textbf{q}}{\textbf{e}_\textbf{q}}(A_{\textbf{q}}e^{i\textbf{q}\boldsymbol{\cdot}\textbf{r}}+A_{\textbf{q}}^{\ast}e^{-i\textbf{q}\boldsymbol{\cdot}\textbf{r}})
\label{eqndisp}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{e}_\textbf{q}$ is the normalized phonon eigenvector, and $2|A_{\textbf{q}}|$ is the oscillation amplitude. Considering equipartition in which all phonons are excited and  $\hbar \omega_{\textbf{q}} \ll k_B T_L$, we can simplify the amplitude as  $\displaystyle |A_{\textbf{q}}^2| = \frac{k_B T}{2\rho A \omega_{\textbf{q}}^2}$ ($\rho$ is the mass density) by connecting the classical wave energy to the quantum harmonic oscillators' energy \cite{lundstrom2009fundamentals}. Combining Eqs.\@ \ref{eqndp}, \ref{eqnderive} and \ref{eqndisp}, we find:
\begin{equation}
|\Delta V|^2 = \frac{{E_1}^2k_B T_L}{2\rho A v_{\textbf{q}}^2}
\label{finalgkk}
\end{equation}
where $v_\textbf{q}$ is the acoustic phonon group velocity. The  transition probability $W_{\textbf{kk'}}$ from state $\ket{\textbf{k}}$ to state $\ket{\textbf{k}^\prime}$ is calculated as:

\begin{equation}
W_{\textbf{k,k}^\prime} = \frac{2\pi}{\hbar} |\Delta V|^2\delta(\epsilon_\textbf{k}\pm \hbar\omega_{\textbf{q}}-\epsilon_{\textbf{k}^\prime})\delta(\textbf{k}\pm \textbf{q}-\textbf{k}^\prime)
\label{transit}
\end{equation}

\noindent
The momentum relaxation rate then becomes:
\begin{equation}
\tau_{ADP}^{-1}(\epsilon_{\textbf{k}}) = \sum_{\textbf{k}^\prime}(1-\cos\theta(\textbf{k},\textbf{k}^\prime)) W_{\textbf{k},\textbf{k}^\prime}\frac{1-f(\epsilon_{\textbf{k}^\prime})}{1-f(\epsilon_{\textbf{k}})}
\label{relax}
\end{equation}
where $\cos\theta$ is the angle between $\textbf{k}$ and $\textbf{k}^\prime$. We assume that acoustic deformation potential scattering is elastic and therefore use the momentum relaxation rate to approximate the scattering rate. The subscript in $\tau_{ADP}^{-1}(\epsilon_{\textbf{k}})$ indicates that the scattering rate is derived based on the acoustic deformation potential.

Inserting Eqs.\@ \ref{finalgkk} and \ref{transit} into Eq.\@ \ref{relax} and considering valley and spin degeneracy, we obtain the scattering rate under the high-temperature and elastic-acoustic deformation approximations \cite{hwang2008acoustic}:

\begin{equation}
\tau_{ADP}^{-1}(\epsilon_{\textbf{k}}) = \frac{1}{4\hbar^3}\frac{\epsilon_{\textbf{k}}}{V_F^2}\frac{{E_1}^2}{\rho v_{\textbf{q}}^2}k_B T_L
\label{taufinal}
\end{equation}
where $V_F$ is the Fermi velocity. We assume an isotropic Fermi velocity $V_F = 6 \times 10^5 $ m/s in our calculations.

The average scattering rate is expressed as \cite{hwang2008acoustic}:

\begin{equation}
\langle\tau_{ADP}^{-1}\rangle = \frac{\int{d\epsilon D(\epsilon)\frac{1}{\tau(\epsilon)}(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon})}}{\int{d\epsilon D(\epsilon)(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon})}}
\label{avg}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $D(\epsilon)$ is the density of states expressed as $\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon}{\pi\hbar^2V_F^2}$. Eq.\@ \ref{avg} can be further reduced using Eq.\@ \ref{relax} as:
\begin{equation}
\langle\tau_{ADP}^{-1}\rangle = \frac{E_1^2}{4 \rho v_{\textbf{q}}^2}\frac{k_B T_L}{\hbar^3V_F^2}\frac{\int{d\epsilon \epsilon^2 (-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon})}}{\int{d\epsilon \epsilon (-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon})}}
\label{redavg}
\end{equation}
By equating the average scattering rates from DFT and the deformation-potential framework, effective deformation potentials can be extracted.

The optical deformation potential can be derived similarly with its scattering rate expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\tau_{ODP}^{-1}(\epsilon_{\textbf{k}}) = \frac{{D_o}^2}{4\rho \omega_o \hbar^2 {V_F}^2}[(\epsilon_\textbf{k}-\hbar \omega_o)(n_q+1)+(\epsilon_\textbf{k}+\hbar \omega_o) n_q]
\label{tauopt}
\end{equation}
where $\hbar \omega_o$ is the optical phonon frequency and $D_o$ is the optical deformation potential. The first term in the square bracket denotes the phonon emission, and only electrons with energies greater than $\hbar\omega_o$ are involved.

\section{\label{sec:level3}III. PHOTOCONDUCTIVITY AND DRUDE MODEL}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{gamma_300K.png
\caption{Intrinsic bilayer graphene electron scattering rates near the phonon $\Gamma$ point at $T_e = 300$ K and $T_{ph}$ = 300 K. (a) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0-0.013}\ 2\pi/a$. LA$^\prime$ and TA$^\prime$ modes dominate for electron energies less than 200 meV. (b) Phonon wavectors $\mathrm{0.013-0.026}\ 2\pi/a$. (c) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.026-0.04}\ 2\pi/a$. (d) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.04-0.06}\ 2\pi/a$. Optical modes only participate in phonon emission processes.
}

\label{fig:F2}
\end{figure}

In pump-probe experiments, the variation of light transmission at a given frequency $\Delta T(\omega)$ is directly related to the photoconductivity $\Delta\sigma(\omega)$ via $\displaystyle \Delta\sigma(\omega)=-\frac{n_s+1}{Z_0}\Delta T(\omega)/T(\omega)$, where $T(\omega)$ is the transmission without photoexcitation, $\Delta T$ is the difference in transmission with and without photoexcitation, $n_s$ is the substrate's index of refraction, and $Z_0$ is the impedance of free space.

We use the Drude model for calculating photoconductivity. This model has proven to work well for bulk materials. Here, we consider bilayer graphene without defects throughout the paper; therefore the Drude model is a reasonable choice. According to this model, conductivity is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\omega)=\frac{ne^2}{m^{\ast}}\frac{1}{\tau^{-1}-i\omega}=ne\mu\frac{\tau^{-1}}{\tau^{-1}-i\omega}
\label{eqncond}
\end{equation}

\noindent
Here, $n$ is the carrier density, $e$ is the elementary charge, $m^\ast$ is the effective mass, and $\tau$ is the scattering rate.
We compare our simulations to experiments in which bilayer graphene with low defects was placed above the $\mathrm{SiO_2}$ substrate. Our current photoconductivity calculations do not consider surface optical phonon scattering as its contribution to the overall scattering rate is significantly smaller than intrinsic phonon scattering due to strong screening effects \cite{kar2018ultrafast}. These terms are related to electron mobility via $\displaystyle \mu=\frac{e\tau}{m^\ast}$, and $\mu$ can be calculated from:
\begin{equation}
\mu = \frac{eV_F^2}{2n}\int_{0}^{\infty}D(\epsilon)(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon})\tau(\epsilon)d\epsilon
\label{eqnmu}
\end{equation}

\noindent
where $D(\epsilon)$ is the density of states. Inserting Eq.\@ \ref{eqnmu} into Eq.\@ \ref{eqncond} gives:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\omega)=\frac{e^2V_F^2}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty}D(\epsilon)(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \epsilon})\frac{1}{\tau^{-1}-i\omega} d\epsilon
\label{eqncond2}
\end{equation}

Since photoexcitation is fast for electrons to establish a hot-carrier distribution, we assume an effective electrononic temperature $T_e$ higher than the lattice temperature $T_{ph}$ for the pump-on case and equal to the lattce temperature $T_{ph}$ for the pump-off case. Photoconductivity is therefore the difference between the pump-on and pump-off conductivities $\displaystyle \Delta \sigma(\omega)= \sigma(T_e \neq T_{ph},\omega)-\sigma(T_e = T_{ph},\omega)$. By converting the integral over energy space to a summation over the $k$ space, we find:

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{\Delta\sigma(\omega)}{G_0}=\frac{hV_F^2}{4N_kA}\Bigg\{
\sum_{\textbf{k}}\frac{-\frac{\partial f(\textbf{k},T_e \neq T_{ph})}{\partial \epsilon(\textbf{k})}}{\tau^{-1}(\textbf{k},T_e \neq T_{ph},T_{ph})-i\omega}\\
-\sum_{\textbf{k}}\frac{-\frac{\partial f(\textbf{k},T_e = T_{ph})}{\partial \epsilon(\textbf{k})}}{\tau^{-1}(\textbf{k},T_e = T_{ph},T_{ph})-i\omega}
\Bigg\}
\end{split}
\label{eqnphoto}
\end{equation}
where $G_0 = \frac{2e^2}{h}$ is the conductance quantum.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{K_300K.png
\caption{Intrinsic bilayer graphene electron scattering rates at the phonon K point at $T_e$ = 300 K and $T_{ph}$ = 300 K. (a) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0-0.013}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. (b) Phonon wavectors $\mathrm{0.013-0.026}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. (c) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.026-0.04}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. (d) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.04-0.06}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. Acoustic phonons rarely participate in scattering events at the phonon K point. Optical modes, especially the TO mode, dominate over all energy ranges.}

\label{fig:F3}
\end{figure}

\section{\label{sec:level4}IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{gamma_700K.png
\caption{Intrinsic bilayer graphene electron scattering rates near the phonon $\Gamma$ point at $T_e = 700$ K and $T_{ph}$ = 300 K. (a) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0-0.013}\ 2\pi/a$. (b) Phonon wavectors $\mathrm{0.013-0.026}\ 2\pi/a$. (c) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.026-0.04}\ 2\pi/a$. (d) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.04-0.06}\ 2\pi/a$. The increase of electron temperature does not change acoustic mode scattering rates, but does cause more optical mode scattering in the low energy range.}

\label{fig:F4}
\end{figure}

In Bernal stacked bilayer graphene, half the atoms in the upper layer sit directly above the atoms in the lower layer while the other half lie at the centers of hexagons in the lower layer. The electronic structure was computed with the Quantum-Espresso package \cite{giannozzi2009quantum} using a norm-conserving pseudopotential in the local density approximation. A cutoff energy of 140 Ry and a Monkhorst-Pack $24\times 24\times 1$ k-space grid were chosen in the self-consistent calculations. The predicted interlayer distance is 3.3 \AA. Phonon dispersion calculations were performed with DFPT and a $12 \times 12 \times 1$ q-space grid. Due to the high computational cost of calculating energies and coupling matrix elements, we use an interpolation scheme based on maximally localized Wannier functions on a dense $1000\times 1000\times 1$ k-mesh and q-mesh with the EPW package \cite{ponce2016epw}. Our calculations for electronic band structure and phonon dispersion of bilayer graphene are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F1}. Fig.\ \ref{fig:F1}(a) demonstrates that the Wannier-interpolated band structure completely overlaps the DFT calculated band structure within 1 eV of the Fermi level.

In single-layer graphene, the electron-phonon coupling matrix elements for TO and LO modes are significantly greater than those of acoustic modes in the low electron energy range, causing an order of magnitude larger scattering rates \cite{vallabhaneni2016reliability}. However, there are two major differences in the case of bilayer graphene. The first is that the electron-phonon coupling matrix elements are significantly smaller than single layer graphene, possibly due to the splitting of the two conduction bands and valence bands (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:F1}\ (a)). The second is the emergence of LA$^\prime $ and TA$^\prime$ modes, as indicated by the inset of Fig.\ \ref{fig:F1}\ (b).

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{K_700K.png
\caption{Intrinsic bilayer graphene electron scattering rates at the phonon K point at $T_e$ = 700 K and $T_{ph}$ = 300 K. More TO mode scattering occurs due to the expansion of the Fermi window. (a) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0-0.013}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. (b) Phonon wavectors $\mathrm{0.013-0.026}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. (c) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.026-0.04}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. TO absorption emerges. (d) Phonon wavevectors $\mathrm{0.04-0.06}\ 2\pi/a$ from the phonon K point. }

\label{fig:F5}
\end{figure}

Because of the constraints of energy and momentum conservation, electrons mainly interact with $\Gamma$-point and K-point phonons. To differentiate between different phonon branches and to understand how phonons of different wavevectors couple with electrons, we chose a small region of radius $0.06\times 2\pi/a$ (a is the lattice constant) near the phonon $\Gamma$ and K points in reciprocal space and split it into four rings. The following calculations of scattering rates for a specific electronic state in the phase space are obtained by summing over all the phonon wavevectors within the corresponding rings on a dense 1000x1000x1 q-mesh. To highlight the effects of different phonon modes, the choices of the ring radii are based on the intersections of phonon branches near the phonon $\Gamma$ point and K point as indicated by Fig.\ \ref{fig:F1} (b), assuming isotropic dispersion.
The shaded blue regions in the insets of Figs.\ \ref{fig:F2}, \ref{fig:F3}, \ref{fig:F4}, and \ref{fig:F5} indicate the corresponding range of phonon wavevectors. The scattering rates were calculated for intrinsic bilayer graphene from first principles according to Eq. \ref{eqntau}. The subscript $m\textbf{k}$ is omitted because the scattering rates are plotted for electrons in the lower conduction band along the Dirac K - $\Gamma$ path.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{sum_tau.png
\caption{Bilayer graphene electron-phonon scattering rates from phonon $\Gamma$ and K points at 300 K and 700 K. Solid lines denote scattering rates at $T_e$ = 300 K and dashed lines denote scattering rates at $T_e$ = 700 K. }

\label{fig:F10}
\end{figure}

Fig.\ \ref{fig:F2}\ shows that in the low electron energy range ($<$ 200 meV) near the phonon $\Gamma$ point, LA$^\prime$ and TA$^\prime$ modes are dominant and confined to small phonon wavevectors ($<0.026 \times 2\pi/a$). Unlike single-layer graphene, bilayer graphene scattering rates are not linearly proportional to the energies from the Dirac \textbf{K} point because LA$^\prime$ and TA$^\prime $ modes do not exhibit a linear dispersion near the phonon $\Gamma$ point(see Fig.\ \ref{fig:F1}\ (b)).

In Fig.\ \ref{fig:F2}\ (a), the absorption process is slightly stronger than the emission process at $E-E_f <100$ meV for the LA$^\prime$ mode because final states have higher densities of states as shown in the inset of Fig.\ \ref{fig:F1} (a). However, for high energy electrons the emission process is more active because the final states have higher occupations. This phenomenon is also observed in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F4}, where the transition happens at higher electron energy. As shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F2}\ (b), (c) and (d), optical modes only participate in the emission process, because almost no phonons with energies higher than 200 meV are excited at 300 K.

Fig.\ \ref{fig:F3} shows scattering rates due to interactions with K-point phonons at $T_e = 300$ K and $T_{ph} = 300$ K.  Similar to results at phonon $\Gamma$ point, significant LO and TO mode absorption does not occur. Electrons primarily interact with TO mode phonons at the K point due to large electron-phonon coupling strength.

We also investigate temperature effects on scattering rates by increasing the electron temperature $T_e$ from 300 K to 700 K with the phonon temperature $T_{ph}$ fixed at 300 K in Figs.\ \ref{fig:F4} and \ref{fig:F5}. Fig.\ \ref{fig:F4} demonstrates that increasing the electron temperature does not influence the acoustic modes while causing more optical phonon emission at the phonon $\Gamma$ point in the low energy range as a consequence of more available final states, but the increase compared with Fig.\ \ref{fig:F2} is not very significant. The effects on K-point phonons are similar, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F5}. The scattering starts to involve the TO absorption process due to the expansion of the Fermi window. The total scattering rates from phonon $\Gamma$ and K points are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F10}. At low electron energies, the scattering rates increase with electron temperature, and the major contribution is from increased TO phonon scattering.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{2Tmodel_2.png
\caption{Two-temperature model for bilayer graphene with $E_{fermi}$ = 10 meV. (a) Electron and lattice temperature changes as functions of time. The thermalization process takes 60 ps to reach equilibrium. The electron temperature drops drastically (by approx. 800 K) in the first 0.4 ps while the lattice temperature remains almost constant around 303 K. (b) Heat flux to the phonon $\Gamma$ point and $\mathrm{K}$ point acoustic and optical modes. Most heat is diverted to K-point phonon optical modes. After 42 ps, heat transfer to $\Gamma$ point acoustic modes exceeds that to $\Gamma$ point optical modes.}

\label{fig:F6}
\end{figure}

To explore the effects of doping levels on photoconductivity, we first calculate the temperature change with time and the corresponding heat flow into $\Gamma$-point and K-point acoustic and optical phonons based on Eqs. \ref{eqnenergy} and \ref{eqnevol}. We choose a starting electron temperature $T_e = 2000$ K and lattice temperature $T_{ph} = 300$ K, and allow the system to relax for bilayer graphene with Fermi levels 10 meV, 20 meV, 40 meV, and 60 meV respectively. Fig.\ \ref{fig:F6} (a) shows that the thermalization process for bilayer graphene with $E_{fermi}=10$ meV requires 60 ps to reach equilibrium, and the phonon temperature remains almost constant around 303 K because of the large phonon heat capacity. The electron temperature drops rapidly to 1200 K during the first 0.4 ps. Therefore even if the initial electron temperature may not be a precise estimate, further calculations are not severely affected. From Fig.\ \ref{fig:F6} (b), at temperatures above room temperature, most energy loss by electrons flows to optical phonons near the phonon K point because of strong interactions with electrons indicated by Figs.\ \ref{fig:F3} and \ref{fig:F5} and because the population of these modes requires high energies. As the electron temperature approaches 303 K after around 42 ps, the energy diverted to $\Gamma$ point optical modes is lower than acoustic modes because optical modes rarely interact with low energy electrons near the $\Gamma$ point.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{photo_cond_time.png
\caption{Photoconductivity evolution. Squares and circles are experimental data \cite{kar2018ultrafast} for real and imaginary parts of photoconductivity, solid lines denote calculated real parts,  and dashed lines denote calculated imaginary parts. The electron and lattice temperatures at each time step are obtained from our previous two-temperature calculations.}
\label{fig:F7}
\end{figure}

Using the electron and phonon temperatures obtained from the two-temperature model, we calculated photoconductivities at four specific times, $t$ = 2.8 ps, $t$= 4.8 ps, $t$ = 5.8 ps and $t$ = 6.8 ps, and compared with prior experimental results. We plot only $t$ = 2.8 ps and $t$ = 5.8 ps in this paper as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F7}.  The case $E_{fermi}$ = 10 meV matches with experimental values best in terms of both trend and intersection of the real and imaginary parts at all four times. The negative imaginary part can be qualitatively explained by an increase of temperature that amplifies overall scattering rates. The imaginary part goes to 0 as the probe frequency increases to values considerably larger than the overall scattering rates, because the effect of increased scattering become insubstantial and eventually diminishes. At $t$ = 2.8 ps,  the real part of photoconductivity decreases significantly with doping level at low probe frequencies due to enhanced electron-phonon scattering.  Note that at $t$ = 5.8 ps, the conductivity for $E_{fermi}$ = 40 meV is higher than that for $E_{fermi}$ = 60 meV because the heat loss to phonons is more severe for $E_{fermi}$ = 60 meV. Thus the electron temperature is lower than that for $E_{fermi}$ = 40 meV at the same time even though the former has higher density of states. As the relaxation proceeds, the real part of photoconductivity increases because the electron temperature decreases and weakens electron-phonon scattering. Fig.\ \ref{fig:F8} shows that from $t$ = 2.8 ps to $t$ = 5.8 ps, electron-phonon scattering rates decrease and the major reason for this decrease is the reduction of TO phonon scattering. Scattering from acoustic phonons is insensitive to temperature but that from optical modes depends strongly on temperature.  At temperatures higher than 1000 K, TO mode phonon scattering dominates over other branches. At temperatures lower than 600 K, TA$^\prime$ and LA$^\prime$ mode scattering dominates over TO and LO mode phonons which does not contradict the result shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F6} . Heat flux to acoustic phonons is significantly smaller than that to optical phonons from $t$ = 2.8 ps to $t$ = 6.8 ps because optical phonons require more energy to be populated. The real part also increases with probe frequency because the scattering time is comparably longer for carriers to react to electric field oscillations. Similarly, differences in conductivity between different doping levels are smaller at high frequencies where the scattering effects are less prominent.

Assuming $T_e$ = $T_L$ = 300 K and following the approach in \cite{kaasbjerg2012unraveling}, we combine contributions from the deformation potential and gauge field, and then extract an effective deformation potential coupled to a single phonon mode. The extracted $E_{1, \mathrm{eff}}$ is $22$ eV calculated with Eq.\ \ref{redavg} for an effective phonon group velocity of $v_{ph} = 2.0\times 10^4$ m/s. Fig.\ \ref{fig:F2} indicates that both LO and TO modes contribute to scattering, and we use a single phonon optical deformation potential to represent LO and TO modes at the phonon $\Gamma$ point. The corresponding phonon frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{o, LO/TO},\Gamma}$ is 200 meV. At the phonon K point, electrons mainly interact with the TO mode; therefore we use the K-point TO phonon frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{o, TO, K}} = 166$ meV in Eq.\ \ref{tauopt}. The calculated $D_{\mathrm{o,LO/TO,\Gamma}}$ is 1.8 $\mathrm{eV/\AA}$, and $D_{\mathrm{o,TO,K}}$ is 2.5  $\mathrm{eV/\AA}$.

We further calculated deformation-potential scattering rates according to Eq. \ref{taufinal} with the derived deformation potentials and calculated photoconductivity for $E_{fermi}$ = 10 meV at four different times. As shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:F9}, the real part of photoconductivity calculated using the acoustic-deformation potential deviates significantly from the experimental data, as opposed to DFT predictions. The inclusion of an optical-deformation potential slightly improves the predictions for both real and imaginary parts; however the deviation from experiments and DFT results is still large. This indicates that momentum-dependent electron-phonon scattering potential and scattering rates are likely required to achieve accuracy in photoconductivity calculations.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{scattering_vs_T.png
\caption{Electron scattering rates at Fermi level in bilayer graphene with $E_{fermi}$ = 10 meV due to interactions with  different phonon branches . Dashed lines denote scattering rates at $t$ = 2.8 ps ($T_e$ = 634 K) and $t$ = 5.8 ps ($T_e$ = 486 K). }

\label{fig:F8}
\end{figure}

Because defects indeed exist in the experimental bilayer graphene samples even though the concentration may be low, we expect a discrepancy between our calculations and measurements. Apart from electron-phonon scattering, short-range scattering also occurs in reality. Another factor is the indeterminism of the electron temperature, without which the calculated photoconductivity is not accurate. The two-temperature model could also be a source of discrepancy, but its effects are likely not significant. Phonon temperatures could depend on branches and their positions in reciprocal space; however they should always be around 300 K because of their large heat capacities.

\section{\label{sec:level5} V. CONCLUSIONS}
This paper demonstrates first-principles methods for the calculation of eletron-phonon coupling, based on which an effective acoustic deformation potential $E_{1, \mathrm{eff}} = 22$ eV is estimated for bilayer graphene. The Drude model with DFT-calculated scattering rates predicts the correct trend for real and imaginary parts of photoconductivity. By increasing the doping level, the electron-phonon scattering is enhanced especially for low probe frequencies.  The comparison between our DFT and deformation-potential approach calculations indicates that first-principles methods result in less deviations from experiments.  The small deviations from experimental values could derive from several causes such as defects in the sample, short-range scattering, and electron temperature inaccuracies. The initial electron temperature is related to the incident light frequencies, intensities and the sample area illuminated. A possible direction of the future work could be determining the initial electron temperature accounting for fast electron-electron scattering that involves many-body effects.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics [width=\columnwidth]{photo_cond_3.png
\caption{Comparison of photoconductivity calculations from DFT and the deformation-potential method. Squares and circles are experimental data \cite{kar2018ultrafast} for real and imaginary parts of photoconductivity. Solid lines and dashed lines denote calculated real and imaginary components of photoconductivity, respectively. The conductivity predicted by the deformation-potential model deviates from the experimental data significantly in the low probe frequency regime.}

\label{fig:F9}
\end{figure}

\section{\label{sec:acknow} ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
Y. G. thanks Dr. Yanguang Zhou for fruitful discussions and comments. This work used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1548562 and computational and storage services associated with the Hoffman2 Shared Cluster provided by UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education’s Research Technology Group.

\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}