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

 It is firmly established that Li-rich giants do exist, though not very common, about 1\%,  among red giants. Thanks to recent large surveys such as LAMOST \citep{Cui2012} and GALAH \citep{galah2015} there are now a few hundred Li-rich giants which have Li abundance of $A(\mathrm{Li}) \geq 1.5$~dex\footnote{$A(\mathrm{Li})= \log10(N(\mathrm{Li})/N(\mathrm{H})) + 12$}, a commonly adopted upper limit for normal giants of red giant branch \citep[RGB;][]{Iben1967a}. For example, recent large study by \cite{deepak2019} discovered more than 300 Li-rich giants from GALAH spectroscopic survey doubling the number of Li-rich giants known till then since  their first discovery  by \cite{wallerstein1982}. However, there is no consensus on the origin of Li excess in red giants which has been elusive for decades. This is because there is no clarity on their evolutionary phase, a key parameter for identifying the source of Li enhancement.

 Presently, evolutionary phase of most of the Li-rich giants is based on their location in the $T_{\rm eff}$ -- $L$ plane of Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram. Such determination is fraught with ambiguity as uncertainties in derived stellar parameters arising from different methodologies by different studies are often larger than the differences in stellar parameters of $T_{\rm eff}$ and $L$ between different locations on HR diagram. As a  result different studies suggested different phases for Li-rich giants: below the luminosity bump \citep[e.g.;][]{Casey2016}, at the bump \citep[e.g.;][]{Charbonnel2000}, red clump \citep[e.g.;][]{Kumar2011a, SilvaAguirre2014, Monaco2014, singh2019} and any where along the RGB \citep[e.g.;][]{Lebzelter2012, Martell2013}. These results led to suggestions of different scenarios for origin of Li excess in Red giants. For example, diffusion of Li upwards (in case of sub-giants), some kind of extra-mixing associated with luminosity bump (e.g.,\citealt{Palacios2001}), nucleosynthesis and dredge-up during He-flash in case of red clump \citep{Kumar2011a}, and external scenario such as mergers of planet or sub-stellar objects for occurrence of Li-rich giants any where along the RGB \citep{Lebzelter2012}. It is important to address the question whether Li-rich phenomenon is confined to a single evolutionary phase or to multiple phases on RGB. For this to be answered one would require independent method.

 Asteroseismic analysis is one of the robust methods to separate giants ascending RGB with He-inert core from those with core He-burning \citep{Bedding2011} red clump giants, post He-flash. One could make use of Kepler \citep{Borucki2010} time resolved photometric data for this purpose. Unfortunately, none of the known Li-rich giants are in the Kepler fields barring a few recently reported ones. To date, there are only six Li-rich giants that were analyzed using Kepler and CoRoT asteroseismic data.  With the exemption of one \citep{Jofre2015}, all the five giants have been found to be He-core burning giants of red clump \citep{SilvaAguirre2014, Carlberg2015, kumar2018, Smiljanic2018}. It is necessary to conduct a large unbiased systematic survey of Li-rich giants which have asteroseismic data. In this letter, we show results from the survey based on  large red giant sample stars of about 12,500 that are common among LAMOST spectroscopic and Kepler  photometric surveys.

\begin{figure}
\plotone{keplersample1.pdf}
\caption{Survey sample of 12,500 giants (Blue symbols) along with the entire sample from the Kepler catalogue as background (black symbols). Red symbols represent giants with strong Li line at 6707\AA.}
\label{fig:sample}
\end{figure}

\section{ Sample selection \label{sec:sample }}

 The primary purpose of this study is to accurately and unambiguously determine  evolutionary phase of Li-rich giants. For this we adopted a sample giants that are common among Kepler  \citep[KIC;][]{Mathur2017} and LAMOST spectroscopic catalogues. By applying criterion of $\log g \le 3.5$ and $T_\mathrm{eff} \le 5500$ K for RGB giants, we found a sample of 23,000 giants in the Kepler Input Catalogue. Of which about 12,500 giants are found to be common in LAMOST catalogue of data release 4 (DR4) \footnote{\url{http://dr4.lamost.org/}}. LAMOST is a low resolution ($R=1800$) spectroscopic survey of stars covering wavelength range of 3700 -- 9000~\AA. Continuum fitted spectra have been inspected for the presence of Li resonance line at 6707~\AA\, and found 78 spectra with strong Li line. Common sample of giants among Kepler and LAMOST (blue dots) along with the entire sample from Kepler catalogue \citep{Mathur2017} as background (black dots) are shown in Fig~\ref{fig:sample}. Stars that show strong Li line at 6707\AA\ are shown as red squares. Note that all of them are concentrated in a particular range of $\log g$ which coincides with positions of both red clump and luminosity bump in HR-diagram.

\begin{figure*}
\plotone{lamostlistar.pdf}
\caption{ Spectra of 26 Li-rich giants showing exceptionally strong Li resonance line at 6707\AA. Also, shown are the two reference spectra of known super Li-rich giant (KIC~12645107, KIC~2305930) of A(Li)=3.3, 4.1 dex and a normal Li giant of A(Li) = 0.5 dex (bottom, TYC~2818-990-1).}
\label{fig:lamostspectra}
\end{figure*}

\section{ Lithium abundance \label{sec: li abundance}}

Spectra of Li-rich giants with strong Li resonance line at 6707\AA\ are shown in Fig~\ref{fig:lamostspectra} along with the known Li-rich giant KIC~12645107 on the top and a normal Li giant at the bottom. For estimating Li abundance from low resolution spectra we used a method that was successfully demonstrated previously by \cite{Kumar2011a} and \cite{bharat2018l}. This method involves measuring of Li line strength at 6707 \AA\ relative to an adjacent Ca~I line at 6717 \AA, both are zero low excitation potential lines and show similar sensitivity to $T_{\rm eff}$. The derived ratios of Li 6707 \AA\ core strength to Ca 6717 \AA\ are plugged into correlations between Li abundance and line strength ratios derived by \cite{bharat2018l}. Since uncertainties are relatively higher, 0.3 -- 0.4 dex, sample has been restricted to only giants with very strong Li line or the estimated Li abundance $A(\mathrm{Li}) \geq 3.0$~dex. This is to avoid mistaking of normal giants with $A(\mathrm{Li})$ $\leq 1.8$~dex \citep{Iben1967a}. We found 26 giants with $A(\mathrm{Li}) \geq 3.0$~dex and half a dozen have $A (\mathrm{Li}) \geq 4.0$~dex, about an order of magnitude more than the current ISM value (3.3 dex), and about a factor of 100 more than the the maximum predicted abundance of $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 1.8$~dex \citep{Iben1967a}. Estimated Li abundances along with [Fe/H], $T_{\rm eff}$ and log $g$ (stellar parameters from LAMOST DR4 catalogues) are given in Table~\ref{tab:table1}. Two of these have been recently reported as Li-rich giants \citep{kumar2018} based on high resolution spectra. Mean difference between the estimated $A(\mathrm{Li})$ in this study and the literature values based on high resolution spectra is 0.2 dex, which agrees well within uncertainties.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\plotone{ast_ana.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: gray region in background is PDS of KIC~11615224 and solid black line is global background fit to the PDS. Middle panel: $l=0, 1, 2$ modes in the PDS. Bottom panel: Measurement of large frequency separation and gravity mode period spacing of star. In the bottom left panel circle are modes corresponding to $l=0$, square corresponding to $l=2$ and triangle corresponding to $l=1$ modes.  \label{fig:mod_fit}}
\end{figure}

\section{ Analysis of asteroseismic data \label{sec:astro analysis}}

 All the 26 Li-rich giants that are given in Table~\ref{tab:table1} have long cadence (29.4 min) of 10 to 17 quarters Kepler photometric data. It is known that red giants show oscillations of mixed modes of gravity (g-mode) arising from the central core and acoustics modes (p-modes) arising in the convective envelope \citep{DeRidder2009, Beck2011}. In this work we have used lightkurve package (\url{https://github.com/KeplerGO/lightkurve}) for merging individual quarters into a combined light curve, and converting the combined light curve into power density spectrum (PDS) using Lomb-Scargle Fourier transform. In Fig~\ref{fig:mod_fit}a, PDS for one of the sample stars of KIC~11615224 from Table~\ref{tab:table1} is given in which solid line is the fitting for background. Background subtracted  and smoothed PDS (Fig~\ref{fig:mod_fit}b) is used to identify modes and measuring their frequencies.

 There are two key parameters: frequency separation between two consecutive radial ($l=0$) modes ($\Delta\nu$) and period separation between two consecutive dipole ($l=1$) modes ($\Delta p$) which are used to separate red giants of He-burning core of red clump and He-inert core of RGB \citep{Bedding2011}. From the smoothed PDS radial modes $l = 0 $, dipole modes ($l=1$) and quadruple modes ($l=2$) have been identified and the corresponding frequencies for 4--5 modes ($l=0$) in each star's PDS  are measured. Values of $\Delta\nu$ are those for which modulo or remainder of $\nu/\Delta\nu$ is same for  the frequencies of respective measured mode. In Fig~\ref{fig:mod_fit}c, this has been illustrated for a typical giant, KIC~1165224. For its modes of $l=0$, $l=2$ and $l=1$, we found a value of $\Delta\nu =$ 4.01 $\mu$Hz for which modulo is same for all the frequencies. The values of derived large frequency separation, $\Delta\nu$ are given in Table~\ref{tab:table1}. After measuring frequency corresponding to detected dipole modes ($l=1$, g-modes), we calculate the period of dipole modes and period spacing between the consecutive dipole modes which are given in Fig~\ref{fig:mod_fit}d. Median value of derived period spacing is considered as gravity mode period spacing of a star \citep{Stello2013}. Derived values of $\Delta\nu$ and $\Delta p$, given in Table~\ref{tab:table1}, suggest all the Li-rich giants are He-core burning red clump stars. Our analysis agrees well with the recent study done by \cite{Yu2018}. Average difference between ours and \cite{Yu2018} for $\Delta \nu$ and $\nu_{max}$  is 0.8 and 0.1 $\mu$Hz respectively.

  Stellar parameters such as radius and mass have been derived using the seismic parameters and the calibrations are given by \citep{Bedding1995}. All the giants are low mass with M $\leq$ 2.0 M$_{\odot}$ (Table~\ref{tab:table1}). Further, light curves show no indication of a major flaring activity which is in agreement with lack of visible asymmetry or emission profiles of $H_\alpha$ in the spectra (Fig~\ref{fig:lamostspectra}) indicating no significant stellar activity in the photospheres of the stars.

\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccccccc}
\tablecaption{List of Li-rich giants \label{tab:table1}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{KIC} & \colhead{Vmag} & \colhead{$A(\mathrm{Li})$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\Delta P$ } & \colhead{A(Li)} & \colhead{$\nu_{max} $}& \colhead{$\Delta \nu$} & \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$} & \colhead{mass} & \colhead{radius}& \colhead{$\log g$} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} & \colhead{M}\tablenotemark{m}\\
}
\colnumbers
\decimals
\startdata
2305930  & 11.02 & 4.20 & 226 & 4.1 & 27.2  & 4.0  & $ 4861 \pm 40 $  & $ 0.71  \pm 0.1$  & $ 9.40 \pm 0.7 $ & $ 2.40 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.50  \pm 0.0$   & 2 \\
2449858  & 13.38 & ---  & 235 & 3.3 & 26.8  & 3.5  & $ 4840 \pm 30 $  & $ 1.15  \pm 0.1$  & $ 12.1 \pm 0.5 $ & $ 2.50 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.15  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
3751167  & 13.83 & ---  & 419 & 4.0 & 26.1  & 3.6  & $ 4777 \pm 239 $ & $ 0.91  \pm 0.2$  & $ 10.9 \pm 1.0 $ & $ 2.25 \pm 0.4 $  & $-1.06  \pm 0.2$   & 2 \\
3858850  & 12.44 & ---  & 192 & 3.3 & 25.9  & 3.5  & $ 4434 \pm 50 $  & $ 0.90  \pm 0.1$  & $ 11.1 \pm 0.6 $ & $ 2.62 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.27  \pm 0.1$   & 1 \\
4161005  & 13.93 & ---  & 247 & 3.3 & 29.1  & 3.9  & $ 4897 \pm 40 $  & $ 0.93  \pm 0.2$  & $ 10.7 \pm 0.8 $ & $ 2.35 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.52  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
5021453  & 11.25 & ---  & 314 & 4.0 & 31.8  & 4.0  & $ 4754 \pm 26 $  & $ 1.02  \pm 0.1$  & $ 10.5 \pm 0.6 $ & $ 2.55 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.08  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
5881715  & 11.64 & ---  & 191 & 3.8 & 30.9  & 3.4  & $ 4786 \pm 35 $  & $ 1.85  \pm 0.2$  & $ 14.2 \pm 0.7 $ & $ 2.35 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.15  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
7131376  & 13.99 & ---  & 190 & 3.8 & 34.8  & 4.1  & $ 4696 \pm 80 $  & $ 1.18  \pm 0.1$  & $ 10.8 \pm 0.4 $ & $ 2.68 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.08  \pm 0.1$   & 1 \\
7749046  & 13.47 & ---  & 235 & 4.2 & 29.9  & 3.8  & $ 4891 \pm 26 $  & $ 1.13  \pm 0.1$  & $ 11.2 \pm 0.4 $ & $ 2.36 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.71  \pm 0.0$   & 3 \\
7899597  & 13.61 & ---  & 224 & 3.9 & 31.6  & 3.8  & $ 4710 \pm 50 $  & $ 1.26  \pm 0.2$  & $ 11.7 \pm 0.9 $ & $ 2.49 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.10  \pm 0.1$   & 1 \\
8113379  & 13.13 & ---  & 273 & 3.2 & 31.2  & 3.9  & $ 4757 \pm 40 $  & $ 1.06  \pm 0.1$  & $ 10.7 \pm 0.4 $ & $ 2.53 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.06  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
8363443  & 10.95 & ---  & 217 & 3.5 & 32.4  & 3.8  & $ 4490 \pm 40 $  & $ 1.28  \pm 0.1$  & $ 11.8 \pm 0.3 $ & $ 2.58 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.23  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
8366758  & 12.50 & ---  & 218 & 3.8 & 26.4  & 3.9  & $ 4664 \pm 50 $  & $ 0.67  \pm 0.1$  & $ 9.3  \pm 0.3 $ & $ 2.57 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.18  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
8869656  & 9.34  & ---  & 240 & 4.1 & 30.7  & 3.8  & $ 4764 \pm 30 $  & $ 1.15  \pm 0.1$  & $ 11.3 \pm 0.5 $ & $ 2.44 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.30  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
9024667  & 12.28 & ---  & 449 & 3.4 & 25.2  & 3.5  & $ 4555 \pm 35 $  & $ 0.83  \pm 0.1$  & $ 10.7 \pm 0.7 $ & $ 2.59 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.16  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
9094309  & 14.31 & ---  & 253 & 4.0 & 33.2  & 4.1  & $ 4919 \pm 129 $ & $ 1.16  \pm 0.1$  & $ 10.8 \pm 0.5 $ & $ 2.55 \pm 0.2 $  & $-0.32  \pm 0.1$   & 2 \\
9667064  & 13.35 & ---  & 176 & 4.4 & 30.2  & 3.6  & $ 4678 \pm 211 $ & $ 1.34  \pm 0.2$  & $ 12.4 \pm 0.7 $ & $ 2.28 \pm 0.3 $  & $-0.10  \pm 0.2$   & 1 \\
9773979  & 14.30 & ---  & 487 & 3.2 & 32.6  & 4.0  & $ 4622 \pm 86 $  & $ 1.15  \pm 0.2$  & $ 11.0 \pm 0.6 $ & $ 2.48 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.05  \pm 0.1$   & 2 \\
9833651  & 12.52 & ---  & 174 & 3.6 & 38.8  & 4.2  & $ 4683 \pm 44 $  & $ 1.47  \pm 0.1$  & $ 11.4 \pm 0.4 $ & $ 2.67 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.09  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
9899245  & 13.04 & ---  & 150 & 3.4 & 33.2  & 3.9  & $ 4700 \pm 30 $  & $ 1.30  \pm 0.3$  & $ 11.6 \pm 0.8 $ & $ 2.72 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.10  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
10081476 & 13.84 & ---  & 211 & 3.8 & 26.6  & 3.4  & $ 4453 \pm 50 $  & $ 1.07  \pm 0.2$  & $ 11.9 \pm 0.8 $ & $ 2.52 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.24  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
11615224 & 11.16 & ---  & 257 & 3.3 & 30.0  & 4.0  & $ 4746 \pm 25 $  & $ 0.85  \pm 0.1$  & $ 9.80 \pm 0.4 $ & $ 2.40 \pm 0.1 $ & $-0.04  \pm 0.02$  & 2 \\
11658789 & 13.36 & ---  & 228 & 3.9 & 31.2  & 4.3  & $ 4999 \pm 75 $  & $ 0.81  \pm 0.1$  & $ 9.30 \pm 0.6 $ & $ 2.48 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.70  \pm 0.1$   & 2 \\
11663387 & 12.59 & ---  & 217 & 4.0 & 32.7  & 4.1  & $ 4642 \pm 40 $  & $ 1.01  \pm 0.1$  & $ 10.4 \pm 0.2 $ & $ 2.49 \pm 0.1 $  & $ 0.02  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
12645107 & 11.40 & 3.24  & 243 & 3.5 & 30.4  & 3.8  & $ 4853 \pm 40 $  & $ 1.14  \pm 0.1$  & $ 11.2 \pm 0.4 $ & $ 2.39 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.22  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
12784683 & 11.10 & ---  & 239 & 3.4 & 28.7  & 3.7  & $ 4862 \pm 25 $  & $ 1.11  \pm 0.2$  & $ 11.4 \pm 0.7 $ & $ 2.33 \pm 0.1 $  & $-0.28  \pm 0.0$   & 1 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Li abundance of two stars from \cite{kumar2018}}
\tablenotetext{m}{  Milky way membership; 1:Thin disk, 2:Thick disk, 3:Halo star}
\tablecomments{All are red clump star in classification of  \cite{Yu2018} also.}
\end{deluxetable*}

\section{ Discussion \label{sec:discussion}}

This is the first of its kind survey based on  a large unbiased sample survey of giants that are common among LAMOST spectroscopic and Kepler photometric surveys. Analysis yielded a total of 26 Li-rich giants.  Abundance results along with the derived asteroseismic parameters; $\Delta\nu$ and $\Delta p$ are given in Table~\ref{tab:table1}, and are shown in the  plot of $\Delta p$ and $\Delta \nu$ (Fig~\ref{fig:ast_hrd}). Known RC and RGB giants based on asteroseismic analysis form background. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ast_hrd}, all the Li-rich giants from this study show a large values of $\Delta p\geq 150$ sec and small values of $\Delta \nu\leq$ 5 $\mu$Hz, and occupy the He-core burning phase region of $\Delta\nu - \Delta p$ diagram \citep{Bedding2011}. Interestingly, none of the Li-rich giants found in this survey are on ascending RGB. Results imply Li enhancement phenomenon is most probably associated with He-flash at the tip of RGB or post He-flash rather than on RGB.

 As earlier stated,  there are only six Li-rich giants for which evolutionary phase is determined based on asteroseismology. All of them were discovered serendipitously. Of which five are unambiguously classified as giants of He-core burning phase in red clump region \citep{SilvaAguirre2014, Carlberg2015, kumar2018, Smiljanic2018} and one as RGB near the bump\citep{Jofre2015}. The lone exception being the KIC~9821622 \citep{Jofre2015}. Though this is a bonafide RGB star with inert He-core and H-burning shell ($\Delta\nu=$6.07 $\mu$Hz and $\Delta p= 67.6$ sec) its categorization as Li-rich giant is not beyond doubt as the Li abundance (LTE: $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 1.49$~dex and NLTE: 1.65~dex) measured from well defined and much stronger line at 6707\AA\ is at the borderline. It is important to establish whether this particular star is indeed a Li-rich giant as it has serious implications for identifying source of Li enrichment in red giants.

 Of course, there are many Li-rich giants in literature which were reported as being on RGB based on their positions in the HR-diagram. This method found to be uncertain in determining exact evolutionary phase. For example, of the five asteroseismically known Li-rich RC giants, KIC~4937011 was initially reported as RGB star below the bump by \cite{Anthonytwarog2013,Carlberg2015} based on its location in HR diagram. However, its derived asteroseismic parameters $\Delta\nu=$ 4.15 $\mu$Hz and $\Delta p = 249.9$ sec \citep{Vrard2016} firmly puts the  giant in He-core burning phase. This illustrates the difficulty of determining their precise evolutionary phase. We also note another recent study by \cite{Yan2018} in which they reported TYC 429-2097-1 as the most Li-rich giant with $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 4.51$~dex and located at the bump based on their location in HR-diagram. This star is not in the Kepler field. However, its derived ratio of [C/N] = $-0.47 \pm 0.10$  is more compatible with it being in red clump \citep{Hawkins2016, singh2019}. In fact, \cite{Casey2016} made an important observation that although the stellar parameters of majority of Li-rich giants is consistent with being on RGB at or below the luminosity bump, they are each individually consistent with being RC. However, they couldn't conclude that they are indeed RC giants based on available data to them. Does this mean, a number of Li-rich giants that are reported to be on RGB based on $L$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ are  misclassified?  Results in this study seem to suggest this is a real possibility.

 Due to ambiguity in their evolutionary phase, numerous models have been constructed to explain Li excess with prevailing conditions at each of the suggested multiple phases on RGB. Broadly, theoretical models fall into two categories: external and in-situ scenarios. One of the external scenarios is merger of planets or sub-stellar objects such as brown dwarfs. This is invoked with the expectation that planet or brown dwarfs contain reservoir of primordial Li with little/no depletion, and their mergers will enhance star's photospheric Li abundance either by direct addition of Li reservoir to the photosphere or by induced mixing due to angular momentum transfer to the star or a combination of the both \citep[see e.g.;][]{Siess1999, Casey2016}. This scenario gained merit with the evidence that the large planets in close-in orbits among sub-giants are less frequent compared to their counter parts on main sequence stars \citep{Villaver2014}.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\plotone{ast_hrd}
\caption{Li-rich giants discovered in this study (red squares) are shown in $\Delta\nu - \Delta p$ asteroseismic diagram. Giants classified based on asteroseismic analysis form the background: He-core burning RC giants (open triangle) and inert He-core giants ascending RGB first time (open circle). Note, all the Li-rich giants fall in the RC region of the diagram.}
\label{fig:ast_hrd}
\end{figure}

However, to account for levels of Li seen in many of the super Li-rich giants, one would require merger of several Jupiter size planets having undiluted Li reservoir \citep{Carlberg2012}. Merger of such large number of planets is very unlikely. Also, theoretical models put a maximum limit of Li abundance due to such mergers at $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 2.2$~dex \citep{Aguilera2016}.  Further, contrary to our results engulfment scenario suggests occurrence of Li-rich giants anywhere along the RGB and presence of infrared excess as a result of merger impact. Results support the argument by \cite{deepak2019} against external scenario based on the frequency of Li-rich giants occurring at various phases. They show that disproportionately large number of Li-rich giants belong to red clump compared to any other phase on RGB.

 Second scenario is in-situ origin which is  Li production via Cameron \& Fowler mechanism \citep{Cameron1971}, $^{3}\mathrm{He}(\alpha,\gamma)^{7}\mathrm{Be}(e^{-}, \nu)^{7}$Li. In case of Li enhancement in the photospheres of highly evolved massiv ($\geq 3-4M_{\odot}$) asymptotic giants branch (AGB) stars \citep{Lambert1989} this mechanism is expected to operate just below the convective envelope which is hot enough to produce $^{7}$Be and close enough for $^{7}$ Be to get transported to cooler upper layers where it can form $^{7}$Li. This process is known as Hot Bottom burning (HBB). In case of low mass RGB giants convection between the H-burning shell and the outer convective layers is inhibited by the radiative zone, and standard models \citep{Iben1967a} do not predict changes in abundances post 1st dredge-up. However, observations of giants post 1st dredge-up do show severe depletion of Li and reduction in the 12C/13C ratios \citep{Gilroy1991} compared to standard models of 1st dredge-up on RGB \cite{Iben1967a}. For example, severe depletion of Li starting from the bump has been well illustrated for giants in globular cluster NGC~6397 by \cite{Lind2009b}. These anomalies were explained by extra mixing at the luminosity bump at which the barrier for the deep mixing is erased \citep[see for example][]{Eggleton2008}. Ironically, bump has also been suggested as a source of Li enhancement \citep{Palacios2001,Charbonnel2005, Denissenkov2009} as many early observations showed Li-rich giants coinciding with the bump in the HR-diagram \citep{Charbonnel2000}. It would be a challenging task for explaining Li enhancement at the same phase where severe Li depletion is known to occur. Even if we assume bump as the origin for Li excess, it is unlikely Li can survive through deep convection phase from bump to the clump, and importantly, sustaining high levels of Li abundances seen in many of the super Li-rich giants. Given the Li-rich phase of RGB is a transient phenomenon lasting for a short period of about 6M years \citep{Palacios2001} compared to, for example, 50--100M years (see also \cite{deepak2019}) long evolutionary period from the bump to the RGB tip, it is very unlikely the high Li abundances seen in these red clump stars originated at the luminosity bump.

\section{Conclusion \label{sec:conclusion}}

 In this study we addressed one of the long standing problems of precisely determining stellar evolutionary phase of Li-rich giants. Results are based on a large unbiased sample of 12,500 low mass RGB giants common among Kepler photometric and LAMOST spectroscopic surveys. We found 24 new Li-rich giants with Li abundance of $A(\mathrm{Li}) \geq 3.0$~dex, more than an order of magnitude larger compared to the maximum predicted abundance of $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 1.80$~dex. Importantly, the derived  asteroseismic parameters; $\Delta \nu$ and $\Delta p$  show all the Li-rich giants are in He-core burning phase, and are at red clump region. This is the most unambiguous evidence so far suggesting that the Li enhancement phenomenon is probably associated only with He-core burning phase rather that on RGB with inert He-core. He-flash at the tip, an immediate preceding event to red clump, may be explored for Li excess in red clump giants.

\section*{Acknowledgement}

Y.B.K thanks the support from NSFC grant no. 11850410437. Funding for LAMOST (\url{www.lamost.org}) has been provided by the Chinese NDRC. LAMOST is operated and managed by the National Astronomical Observatories, CAS. We thank entire Kepler team without whom this work could not have been possible. We also thank anonymous referee for the constructive suggestions for content improvement.

\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
- The residual wavefront error of an astronomical imaging instrument equipped with an Adaptive Optics (AO) system, is determined by several error sources. The instrumental-type errors represent the limitations of the AO system components to cancel the turbulence-induced wavefront distortion. One of the most prominent instrumental AO error sources is the time-delay error, which is due to the overall latency between the sensing and the actual correction of the wavefront. This error is also known as the AO servo-lag error.

In \cite{fried1990time} the impact of the time-delay on the residual AO wavefront error has been described. A specific analytical expression is given for the wavefront error variance, for Kolmogorov turbulence and at a single point.  The time-delay analysis is based on a control approach, of which the essence is to feed the latest (measured) wavefront phase value, with opposite sign, back to the optical wavefield. In continuous-time notation, this control action leads to the residual phase:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:interror}
	\epsilon_{ref}(t) = \phi(t+\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t) -\phi(t)
\end{equation}
in which $\phi(t)$ represents the wavefront phase fluctuations as a function of time $t$, $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ the time-delay and $\epsilon_{ref}(t)$ the residual phase.
This control strategy is very common in AO systems and is denoted as \emph{zero-order prediction} in \cite{hardy1998adaptive}. For the remainder of the paper it will be denoted as the reference approach.\par
In practice, many closed-loop AO systems utilise the zero-order prediction strategy, in the form of a discrete-time integrator. It needs to be noted that the integrator, as a result of the closed-loop stability constraint, may not obtain the same performance as the zero-order prediction strategy.\par
The variance of the residual wavefront error for the reference prediction approach (\cite{fried1990time}) is evaluated as
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:refvar}
	\sigma^{2}_{ref} = 28.4 (f_G \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{{5}/{3}}
\end{equation}
with $f_G$ the Greenwood frequency.

This analytical expression is often used in AO performance analysis, design and error budgeting. The underlying reference controller has the advantage of having the lowest possible order and being straightforward to implement. Yet, it does not achieve the minimum possible value of the mean square time-delay error.
\subsection{Optimal prediction}
More advanced prediction methods to reduce the effect of the AO time-delay have been proposed by various researchers. In particular, optimal prediction has gained a lot of attention since it aims at achieving the minimum of the mean square phase error.
In (\cite{paschall1993linear}) this principle is proposed in the context of AO within a closed-loop Linear Quadratic Gaussian control approach. Since then, optimal prediction for AO has been discussed by many authors; see for instance (\cite{kulcsar2017towards}) for a recent overview and references therein. The large majority of the work on AO predictive control has been focused on numerical simulations, laboratory experiments or on-sky telescope verification tests. In those settings, prediction is performed in discrete-time and in a closed AO control loop. And therefore, the specific temporal response behaviours of deformable mirror (DM) and wavefront sensor (WFS) need to be accounted for. Bandwidth limitations of DM and WFS may degrade the overall AO performance and hence may hold back the potential benefit of optimal prediction. The work of (\cite{harrington1994frequency}) already describes this for the reference prediction approach.
\subsection{Scope}
This paper addresses least-square optimal prediction from an analytical and continuous-time point of view. An analytical expression is derived for the minimum wavefront error variance with an optimal, temporal prediction filter. This predictor is based on present and past wavefront phase values only. The minimum variance expression holds for von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n type optical turbulence. Since it is analytical, it clearly shows the behaviour of the residual variance as a function of the key parameters:  Greenwood frequency, outer scale, wind speed and time-delay.
Since the potentially limiting properties of DM and WFS are not taken into account, the analytical expression can serve as a performance upper bound for the servo-lag error of AO systems in practice. Furthermore, it can be used next to Fried's expression (\ref{eq:refvar}) for the reference predictor to quantify the potential benefit of optimal prediction in particular turbulence cases. This benefit can be either in terms of a lower phase variance or an enhanced detector integration time.
Besides optimal prediction, the paper gives the analytical expression for the reference predictor under von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n optical turbulence. This can be regarded as an extension to Fried's expression (\ref{eq:refvar}), which only applies to Kolmogorov turbulence.
\subsection{Structure of the paper}
In the upcoming sections, a stochastic process model will be derived for the wavefront phase fluctuations based on the von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n spectral density (Section 2). This model follows from a factorization of the von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n power spectrum. Section 3.1 will show that the stochastic model leads to an analytical expression for both the optimal predictor and the minimum mean square value of the time-delay wavefront error. An extension of the Fried expression for the reference predictor under von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n turbulence is given in Section 3.2. The specific case of Kolmogorov turbulence for both predictors is addressed in Section 3.3. Section 4 will analyse the properties of optimal, temporal prediction and relate those to the reference prediction approach. The paper will finish up with an analysis for the 'path-integrated case' (Section 5) and final conclusions.

\section{Stochastic process model}
\label{sec:stochastic_model}
\subsection{Power Spectral Density}
Consider a turbulent atmospheric layer of thickness $\delta h$ at height $h_i$ and an incident plane wave under a zenith angle $\zeta$. The turbulence is assumed to be stationary, homogeneous and isotropic and is described by the von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n model for index-of-refraction fluctuations.
The wave distortion after propagation through the thin turbulent layer can be characterised by the covariance function of the wavefront phase fluctuations (\cite{andrews2005laser,conan2008mean}) and references therein as:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:Covar_vonK}
	C_{\phi}(r) = \frac{\Gamma(\frac{7}{6})}{\sqrt{2}\hspace{1mm}\pi^{\frac{5}{3}} \hspace{1mm} \Gamma(\frac{1}{3})}  k^{2}\delta z C_{n}^2 {\kappa_{0}}^{-\frac{5}{3}}(2\pi \kappa_{0} r)^{\frac{5}{6}} K_{\frac{5}{6}}(2\pi \kappa_{0} r)
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma(\frac{7}{6})/(\sqrt{2} \hspace{1mm} \pi^{\frac{5}{3}} \hspace{1mm} \Gamma(\frac{1}{3})) = 0.0363$, $K_{5/6}$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind of order $5/6$, $\kappa_{0} =  1/L_0(h_i)$, $L_0(h_i)$ is the outer scale of the atmospheric turbulent layer, $\delta z = \delta h \hspace{1pt} \sec(\zeta) $, $k$ is the wavenumber and $r= \left| \mathbf{r} \right|$. The parameter $C_{n}^2$ represents the index-of-refraction structure constant at $h_i$. \par
The covariance function $C_{\phi}(r)$ above is circularly symmetric. Taylor's hypothesis of frozen flow implies that for a turbulence variable $u(\mathbf{r},t)$ it holds, that the future value at $t+\tau$  can be written as a spatially shifted value at $t$: $u(\mathbf{r},t+\tau) = u(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{v}\tau,t)$. Under this hypothesis the spatial covariance function can be converted to a temporal covariance function for a single point by replacing the spatial variable $r$ by $v\tau$; $C_{\phi}(\tau) = C_{\phi}(r)$ with $r=v \tau$ . Here the variable $v = \left| \mathbf{v_{\bot}} \right|$ represents the modulus of the wind speed perpendicular to the propagation direction at height ${h_i}$.

The Fourier Transform of the temporal covariance function, $\int_{-\infty}^\infty C_{\phi}(\tau) \exp(- i \omega \tau) d\tau$, renders the power spectral density (PSD) of phase fluctuations (see eq. 6.699/12 in \cite{gradshteyn2007table}):
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:PSD_temp}
	\Phi(\omega)= \frac{4}{3} \sqrt{\pi} \hspace{1mm} \Gamma(\frac{7}{6}) \hspace{1mm} k^{2}\delta z C_{n}^2 \frac{v^{\frac{5}{3}}}{\left(\omega^2 + \omega_0^2\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}}
\end{equation}
where $\frac{4}{3} \sqrt{\pi} \hspace{1mm} \Gamma(\frac{7}{6})=2.19$ and $\omega_0 = 2 \pi v/L_{0}$. The frequency $\omega_0$ can be regarded as the angular cut-off frequency in the PSD. The function $\Phi(\omega)$ is double-sided and has unit rad$^{2}$/Hz.
Equation (\ref{eq:PSD_temp}) is also given by (\cite{harrington1994frequency}), who derived the PSD following a different route.

\par
Expression (\ref{eq:PSD_temp}) can be clarified further.
For the case of a single turbulent layer at $h_i$ the Greenwood frequency $f_{G}$ can be expressed as (\cite{greenwood1977bandwidth}):
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:Greenwood_i}
	f_{G} = \left[ \frac{2^{\frac{1}{3}} \hspace{1mm} \Gamma(\frac{7}{6})}{3 \hspace{1mm} \pi^{\frac{7}{6}}}\hspace{1mm} k^{2} C_{n}^2(h_i) v^{\frac{5}{3}}(h_i) \delta z \right]^\frac{3}{5}
\end{equation}
where $ {2^{1/3} \hspace{1mm} \Gamma(7/6)}/{3 \hspace{1mm} \pi^{7/6}} = 0.102$.
Inserting $f_{G}$ into the expression for the PSD (\ref{eq:PSD_temp}) gives
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:PSD_temp2}
	\Phi(\omega) =  \frac{(2 \pi f_{G})^{\frac{5}{3}}}{\left(\omega^2 + \omega_0^2\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}}
\end{equation}
In the limit of an unbounded outer scale $L_0 \rightarrow \infty$ and therefore $\omega_0 \downarrow 0$, the expression for the power spectral density is reduced to
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:PSD_kolmo}
	\Phi_{Kol}(\omega) =  (2 \pi f_{G})^{\frac{5}{3}}\omega^{-\frac{8}{3}}
\end{equation}
This is in fact the power spectral density for the case of Kolmogorov turbulence and is in full agreement with eq.(11) in \cite{fried1990time} and with the abstract formalism given in (\cite{conan1995wave}). \par
The variance of the uncorrected or primary wavefront phase fluctuations - $C_{\phi}(r)$ for $r=0$ in (\ref{eq:Covar_vonK}) - amounts to:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:prim_var}
	\sigma^{2}_{prim} = \frac{3 \hspace{2pt} \Gamma(\frac{5}{6})}{2 \sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(\frac{1}{3})} \left(\frac{f_{G}}{f_0} \right)^{\frac{5}{3}}
\end{equation}
where  $3 \hspace{1pt} \Gamma(\frac{5}{6})/(2 \sqrt{\pi} \hspace{1pt} \Gamma(\frac{1}{3})) = 0.357$ and $f_0 = \omega_0 /(2\pi) = v/L_0$. The primary variance increases with the $5/3$ power of the $f_G/f_0$ fraction. For Kolmogorov turbulence the variance is unbounded.

\subsection{Spectral factor}
Modeling the wavefront phase fluctuations as a real, wide-sense stationary random process, $\phi(t)$ can be represented in an innovations model form:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:innov}
	\phi(t)= \int\limits_0^\infty h(\tau)\xi(t-\tau)d\tau
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ is zero-mean white noise process, with auto-covariance function: $R_{\xi\xi}(\tau)=\delta(\tau)$. The causal innovations filter $h(\tau)$ is the impulse response of transfer function $H(s)$, which is the minimum-phase spectral factor of the power spectrum $\Phi(s)$, such that $\Phi(s) = H(s)H(-s)$, see \cite{papoulis1991probability}.
By taking the Laplace transform of the covariance function (\ref{eq:Covar_vonK}), $\int_{-\infty}^\infty C_{\phi}(\tau) \exp(-s \tau) d\tau $, the power spectrum $\Phi(s)$ is obtained as
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:PSD_laplace}
	\Phi(s) =  \frac{(2 \pi f_{G})^{\frac{5}{3}}}{\left(-s^2 + \omega_0^2\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}}
\end{equation}
This power spectrum (\ref{eq:PSD_laplace}) obeys the Paley-Wiener criterion. Its minimum-phase spectral factor can be readily found by taking the left-hand side roots of $\Phi(s)$:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:spectralfactor}
	H(s)= \frac{(2 \pi f_{G})^{\frac{5}{6}}}{\left(s+\omega_0\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}}
\end{equation}
The impulse response of the spectral factor (\ref{eq:spectralfactor}) follows by taking the inverse Fourier transform:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:impulseresponse}
	h(\tau) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty H(i \omega) \exp(i \omega \tau) d\omega = \frac{(2 \pi f_{G})^{\frac{5}{6}}}{\Gamma(\frac{4}{3})} \hspace{1mm} \tau^{\frac{1}{3}}\exp(-\omega_0\tau)
\end{equation}
see eq. 3.382/6 in \cite{gradshteyn2007table}). The impulse response (\ref{eq:impulseresponse}) is causal, $h(\tau) = 0$ for $\tau < 0$.

\subsection{Related model families}
The covariance function of wavefront phase fluctuations (\ref{eq:Covar_vonK}) belongs to the family of Mat\'ern functions (\cite{matern1960spatial}). In the particular case of the von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n model, the Mat\'ern smoothness parameter equals $5/6$.\par
Time series models such as damped fractional Brownian motion or tempered fractionally integrated models (\cite{sabzikar2015tempered}) can be regarded as discrete-time versions of Mat\'ern processes and hence can be representative for von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n type phase fluctuations.
In accordance with (\ref{eq:Covar_vonK}), the fractional integration parameter then equals $4/3$ and the tempering parameter is determined by $\omega_0$.\par
Next to existing, numerical methods to simulate von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n type wavefront phase screens - see for example (\cite{assemat2006method}) - the Mat\'ern type models may add further physical and analytical insight into the stochastic behaviour of wavefront phase time series and fields.

\section{Residual time-delay error}
\subsection{Optimal prediction}
\label{sec:minimum}
To determine the minimum of the mean square time-delay error, the optimal prediction of the phase fluctuations $\phi(t)$ needs to be formulated. Given the overall time-delay $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ of the AO loop, at time instant $t$ the future value $\phi(t+\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)$ is to be predicted based on its time history $\phi(t-\tau)$, with $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t > 0$ and $\tau\geq 0$. Note that the predictor relies on temporal information only. Denoting the predictor as a causal linear, time-invariant (LTI) filter $P$, the prediction of $\phi(t+\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)$ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:estimator}
	\widehat{\phi}(t+\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t) = \int\limits_0^\infty p(\tau)\phi(t-\tau)d\tau
\end{equation}
Based on the innovations model (\ref{eq:innov}, \ref{eq:impulseresponse}), the optimal prediction filter of $\phi(t)$ over an horizon $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ can be derived, see \cite{papoulis1991probability}. The Laplace domain optimal predictor equals:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:optPRED1}
	P_{opt}(s) =   \frac{1}{H(s)} \hspace{1pt} \int_{0}^\infty h(\tau + \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t) \exp(-s \tau) d\tau
\end{equation}
Inserting the spectral factor (\ref{eq:spectralfactor}) and (\ref{eq:impulseresponse}) yields:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:optPRED2}
	P_{opt}(s) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\frac{4}{3})} \hspace{1pt} \exp(s\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)\hspace{1pt} \Gamma_{u}(\frac{4}{3}, (s+\omega_0)\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_{u}$ is the upper incomplete gamma function: $\Gamma_u(a,x) = \int_{x}^{\infty} t^{a-1}\exp(-t)dt$.
The corresponding minimum of the mean square time-delay error can be written as (\cite{papoulis1991probability}):
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:minimum}
	\sigma^{2}_{min} = \int\limits_0^{\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t} h^{2}(\tau)d\tau
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eq:impulseresponse}), this minimum mean square error equals:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:optMSE}
	\sigma^{2}_{min} = \frac{1}{\Gamma^2(\frac{4}{3})} \left(\frac{f_{G}}{2f_0} \right)^{\frac{5}{3}} \gamma_\ell(\frac{5}{3},2 \omega_0 \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_\ell$ is the lower incomplete gamma function: $\gamma_\ell(a,x) = \int_0^{x} t^{a-1}\exp(-t)dt$.\\

\subsection{Zero-order prediction under von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n turbulence}
The main principle of the reference prediction approach in AO systems is to feed the latest (measured) wavefront phase value, with opposite sign, back to the optical wavefield. The resultant phase variance will now be compared to the minimum value (\ref{eq:optMSE}). In the form of the prediction expression (\ref{eq:estimator}), the transfer function of the zero-order predictor is $P_{ref}(s) = 1$, leading to the residual error (\ref{eq:interror}). This is in fact the differenced wavefront phase over an interval $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$. Hence, the von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n structure function of wavefront phase fluctuations  $D_{\phi}(r)$ (at $r=v \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$) exactly represents the residual variance of the reference approach. This leads to:

\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:intMSE2}
	\begin{split}
		\sigma^{2}_{ref} &=  D_{\phi}(v \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t) = 2 \left[\sigma_{prim}^{2} - C_{\phi}(v \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t) \right] \\
		& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\hspace{1mm}\Gamma(\frac{4}{3})}\left(\frac{f_G}{f_0}\right)^{\frac{5}{3}}\left[\Gamma(\frac{5}{6})-2^{\frac{1}{6}}(\omega_0 \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{\frac{5}{6}} K_{\frac{5}{6}}(\omega_0\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t) \right]
	\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $K_{5/6}$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind of order $5/6$. \par

\subsection{Case of Kolmogorov Turbulence}
\label{sec:Kolmogorov}
The expressions for residual phase error variance (\ref{eq:optMSE}) and (\ref{eq:intMSE2}) hold for any non-negative value of the time-delay $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$. In practice, the delay will be limited and the product $\omega_{0}\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ will be much smaller than unity, even for a high wind speed and a small outer scale. Evaluation of a series expansion of (\ref{eq:optMSE}) and (\ref{eq:intMSE2}) for small  $\omega_0 \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ leads to:
\begin{align}
	\label{eq:optMSE_approx3}
	\sigma^{2}_{min} \approx \left(2 \pi f_G \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t\right)^{5/3}\left[0.753-0.941 (\omega_{0}\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t) + \mathcal{O}(\omega_{0}\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{2}\right]\\
	\sigma^{2}_{ref} \approx \left(2 \pi f_G \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t\right)^{5/3}\left[1.33-1.07 (\omega_{0}\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{\frac{1}{3}} + \mathcal{O}(\omega_{0}\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{2}\right]
\end{align}
For the specific case of Kolmogorov turbulence, in the limit of $L_0 \rightarrow \infty$ and so $f_0 \downarrow 0$, the expressions for the residual variances reduce to:
\begin{align}
	\label{eq:minMSElimit}
	\lim_{f_0\downarrow 0} \sigma^{2}_{min} = \frac{3}{5 \hspace{1mm} \Gamma^2(\frac{4}{3})} (2\pi f_G \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{\frac{5}{3}} \approx 16.1 (f_G \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{\frac{5}{3}}\\
	\label{eq:intMSElimit}
	\lim_{f_0\downarrow 0} \sigma^{2}_{ref} = \frac{3}{5} \frac{\Gamma(\frac{1}{6})}{2^{\frac{2}{3}} \sqrt{\pi} \hspace{1pt} \Gamma(\frac{4}{3})} (2\pi f_G \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{\frac{5}{3}} \approx 28.4 (f_G \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)^{\frac{5}{3}}
\end{align}
Note that the expression for $\sigma^{2}_{ref}$ is equal to eq. (20) in \cite{fried1990time}.\\
So, both residual variances increase with the $5/3$ power of the product $f_G\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$. The minimum wavefront phase error with the optimal predictor is a factor $[\Gamma(\frac{4}{3})\Gamma(\frac{1}{6})]/[2^{\frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{\pi}] = 1.77$ smaller than with the reference approach.\par

\section{Analysis}
\label{sec:Analysis}
The optimal predictor (\ref{eq:optPRED2}) is a function of time-delay $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$, wind speed $v$ and outer scale $L_0$. It does not depend on for instance the wavenumber $k$, zenith angle $\zeta$ or the index-of-refraction structure constant $C_{n}^2$.\par
From (\ref{eq:prim_var}), (\ref{eq:optMSE}) and (\ref{eq:intMSE2}) it follows that the minimum of the mean square time-delay error increases with $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ and decreases with $f_0$. Similar to the primary variance and the residual phase variance with the reference approach, the minimum variance grows with the ${5/3}$ power of the Greenwood frequency. In addition, the normalised residual variance ($\sigma^{2}/\sigma_{prim}^{2}$) is a function of the product $f_0 \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$, for both the optimal predictor and the reference predictor.\par
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Fig1_ImprovementFactor-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{Improvement on variance reduction of predictor versus reference ($\sigma^{2}_{ref}/\sigma^{2}_{min}$) for small time-delays and various values of $f_0$.}
	\label{fig:Improv}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Fig2_ResidVariance-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{Normalised residual phase variances $\sigma^{2}_{min}/\sigma^{2}_{prim}$ and $\sigma^{2}_{ref}/\sigma^{2}_{prim}$ against $f_0 \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$.}
	\label{fig:ResidVarlong}
\end{figure}

The optimal predictor always performs better than the reference; see Figures \ref{fig:Improv}, and \ref{fig:ResidVarlong}. For small values of $f_0\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$, the improvement on phase variance reduction ranges from a factor 1.19 (for $f_0\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t = 0.05$) up to 1.77 for $f_0\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t = 0$, which represents the Kolmogorov turbulence case.  For large $f_0 \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$, the optimal predictor becomes ineffective and achieves no phase error reduction (for $f_0\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t > 0.4$). For the reference predictor, a large $f_0\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ value ($> 0.75$) leads to doubling of the primary variance, as phase disturbance values large $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ apart are fully uncorrelated; see Figure \ref{fig:ResidVarlong}.
Note, that these large $f_0\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ values are unlikely in practical cases.\par
Apart from a smaller temporal wavefront error, another benefit of optimal prediction in AO systems would be to allow for a longer detector integration time and therefore the use of a fainter reference star.  This was proposed in for instance (\cite{doelman2004}) and discussed in further detail in (\cite{Hinnen2005}). With the analytical expressions for the residual variance, (\ref{eq:minMSElimit}) and (\ref{eq:intMSElimit}) in the Kolmogorov case, the exact gain in integration time can now be quantified. Equalling the two variances gives the following relation between the delay times:

\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:delaytimes}
	\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t_{opt} = \left[\frac{\Gamma(\frac{4}{3})\Gamma(\frac{1}{6})}{2^{\frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{\pi}}\right]^{\frac{3}{5}} \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t_{ref} \approx 1.41  \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t_{ref}
\end{equation}
So the detector integration time with an optimal predictor can be 1.41 times longer compared to the reference case. This would allow a higher reference star magnitude and would improve the sky coverage.\par
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Fig4_Sensitiv_1Hz-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{Optimal predictor sensitivity function for $f_0$ = 1 Hz and various values of $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$.}
	\label{fig:Sens_f0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Fig5_Sensitiv_1ms-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{Optimal predictor sensitivity function for $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ = 1 ms and various values of $f_0$.}
	\label{fig:Sens_dT}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Fig7_residualPSD-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{Power Spectral Density of phase fluctuations for the uncorrected case, the reference and the optimal predictor for $\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t$ = 1 ms and $f_0$ = 1 Hz.}
	\label{fig:Sens_comp}
\end{figure}
The spectral behaviour of optimal prediction is shown in Figures \ref{fig:Sens_f0} and \ref{fig:Sens_dT}, which reveal the modulus of the transfer function from input phase error to residual error (i.e. the sensitivity function). Figure \ref{fig:Sens_f0} shows that the bandwidth of rejection reduces with the time-delay. The sensitivity curve crosses the unity magnitude line at approximately $(1/5\Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t)$ Hz. For a fixed time-delay, the bandwidth of rejection is independent of the cut-off frequency $f_0$. Only the degree of low-frequency attenuation is affected by $f_0$; see Figure \ref{fig:Sens_dT}. In terms of the PSD of residual phase fluctuations the optimal predictor achieves a flat spectrum over a large frequency band. It outperforms the reference in the mid-frequency range, whereas the reference obtains a higher rejection in the very low-frequency range; see Figure \ref{fig:Sens_comp}. Both approaches have about the same frequency bandwidth of rejection and give rise to an increase of the high-frequency phase error.

\section{Path-integrated turbulence}
So far the analysis of residual wavefront errors has been restricted to propagation through a single, thin layer of turbulence. The atmosphere for the overall propagation path can be viewed as built up from multiple turbulent layers at different heights. For a plane wave and under the geometrical optics approximation, the path-integrated power spectrum of wavefront phase fluctuations $\overline{\Phi}(\omega)$ can then be written as (\cite{andrews2005laser}):
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:PSD_integrated}
	\overline{\Phi}(\omega) =\frac{4}{3} \sqrt{\pi} \hspace{1mm} \Gamma(\frac{7}{6}) \hspace{1mm} k^{2} \int\limits_{L}^{} dz \hspace{1mm} C_{n}^2(z) \frac{v^{\frac{5}{3}}(z)}{\left(\omega^2 + \omega_0^2(z)\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}}
\end{equation}
in which $L$ is the propagation path. Here, the PSD cut-off frequency $\omega_0$ is a function of height, since both the outer scale $L_0$ and the wind vector $\mathbf{v}$ are height-dependent. In fact, each turbulent layer has its own, specific PSD cut-off frequency. This prevents getting a similar compact form for the overall power spectrum as in (\ref{eq:PSD_temp}) for a single layer. This phenomenon was already discussed in detail in (\cite{conan1995wave}).\\
Following the approach proposed by several authors (\cite{conan2008mean, andrews2005laser, lukin1999efficient}), an effective cut-off frequency $\overline{\omega_0}$ can be used instead. The $\overline{\omega_0}$ value is then set such as to minimise the discrepancy between the true and approximated power spectrum for instance. This metric can be quantified as:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:PSD_error}
	\epsilon(\omega_c) =\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \omega \left[ \overline{\Phi}(\omega, \omega_c)  \hspace{2mm} - \hspace{2mm} \overline{\Phi}(\omega) \right]^2
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\Phi}(\omega, \omega_c)$ is $\overline{\Phi}(\omega)$ of eq. (\ref{eq:PSD_integrated}) with $\omega_0(z)$ replaced by the constant $\omega_c$. The optimal value of $\omega_c$ for which $\epsilon(\omega_c)$ is minimised is denoted as $\overline{\omega_0}$.
With the optimal value of the effective cut-off frequency in place, the path-integrated wavefront phase (\ref{eq:PSD_integrated}) PSD becomes:
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:PSD_temp3}
	\overline{\Phi}(\omega) =  \frac{(2 \pi \overline{f_{G}})^{\frac{5}{3}}} {\left(\omega^2 + \overline{\omega_0}^2\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}}
\end{equation}
in which $\overline{f_G}$ is the Greenwood frequency for the integrated path. It can be evaluated by: $(\overline{f_{G}})^\frac{5}{3}=  \int\limits_{L}^{} f_{G}^{\frac{5}{3}}(z) dz$.\normalcolor

Now, the power spectrum (\ref{eq:PSD_temp3}) has exactly the same form as for the single layer case (\ref{eq:PSD_temp2}). And therefore, the full performance analysis of optimal and reference prediction (section \ref{sec:Analysis}) also holds for the approximated path-integrated case with multiple turbulent layers. Note that for Kolmogorov turbulence specifically, the results of section \ref{sec:Analysis} are still exact as then the cut-off frequency $\omega_0$ plays no role.
\section{Conclusion}
Analytical expressions for the minimum time-delay induced wavefront phase error and the optimal predictor have been presented, under temporal prediction filtering. The specific performance and spectral properties have been analysed. In comparison to the reference zero-order predictor, the performance gain of optimal prediction can be significant. In more detail, the gain depends on the very product of time-delay, wind speed and the reciprocal of outer scale $v \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t/L_0$. The largest performance advantage is obtained for small values of $v \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t/L_0$ ($< 10^{-3}$). For larger values -- up to $v \Delta \hspace{0.5pt} t/L_0 = 0.2$ -- the performance gain is modest. \par
The optimal performance results can be viewed as an upper bound for practical, discrete-time implementations of predictive control in AO systems.

\bibliographystyle{unsrt}