\section{Introduction}

In \cite{salg1} was shown that the standard $5$-dimensional General
Relativity (GR), without cosmological constant, can be obtained from
Chern-Simons gravity theory for a certain Lie algebra $\mathcal{B}$ \cit
{salg2}, \cite{salg3}. The Chern-Simons Lagrangian for the $\mathcal{B}$
algebra is given by

\begin{equation}
L_{\mathrm{ChS}}^{(5)}=\alpha _{1}l^{2}\varepsilon
_{abcde}R^{ab}R^{cd}e^{e}+\alpha _{3}\varepsilon _{abcde}\left( \frac{2}{3
R^{ab}e^{c}e^{d}e^{e}+2l^{2}k^{ab}R^{cd}T^{\text{ }e}+l^{2}R^{ab}R^{cd}h^{e
\right) ,  \label{26}
\end{equation
where $\alpha _{1}$ and $\alpha _{3}$ are arbitrary constants and $l$ can be
interpreted as a coupling constant that characterizes different regimes
within the theory.

The field content induced by the $\mathcal{B}$ algebra includes the vielbein
$e^{a}$, the spin connection $\omega ^{ab}$ and two extra bosonic fields
h^{a}$ and $k^{ab}$. From (\ref{26}) we can see that it is possible to
recover the $5$-dimensional Einstein gravity theory from a Chern-Simons
gravity theory in the limit where the coupling constant $l$ equals to zero
while keeping the effective Newton's constant fixed.

In the presence of matter described by the langragian
L_{M}=L_{M}(e^{a},h^{a},\omega ^{ab})$, in Ref. \cite{salga1} was found that
the field equations admit black hole-type solutions for a spherically
symmetric metric.

On the other hand, in Ref. \cite{bra1}, \cite{bra2} was found that if one
replaces a Randall-Sundrum type metric \cite{randall} \cite{randall1} in the
Einstein-Chern-Simons (EChS) gravity Lagrangian (\ref{26}), the following
action can be obtained

\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{S}[\tilde{e},\tilde{h}] &=&\int_{\Sigma _{4}}\tilde{\varepsilon
_{mnpq}\left( -\frac{1}{2}\tilde{R}^{mn}\tilde{e}^{p}\tilde{e}^{q}\right. +
\notag \\
&&\left. +K\tilde{R}^{mn}\tilde{e}^{p}\tilde{h}^{q}-\frac{K}{4r_{c}^{2}
\tilde{e}^{m}\tilde{e}^{n}\tilde{e}^{p}\tilde{h}^{q}\right) ,  \label{s3}
\end{eqnarray
which is a gravity action with a cosmological constant for a $4$-dimensional
brane embedded in the $5$-dimensional spacetime of the so-called EChS
gravity.\textbf{\ }$\tilde{\varepsilon}_{mnpq}$\textbf{, }$\tilde{e}^{m}$,
\tilde{R}^{mn}$\textbf{\ }and\textbf{\ }$\tilde{h}^{m}$\textbf{\ }represent,
respectively, the\textbf{\ }$4$\textbf{-}dimensional versions of the
Levi-Civita symbol,\textbf{\ }the vielbein, the curvature form, a\textbf{\
matter field and $r_{c}$\textbf{\ }is the so-called compactification radius.
$K$ is a constant related to $\alpha _{3}$, $l$ and $r_{c}$. It is of
interest to note that the field $h^{a}$ gives rise to a form of positive
cosmological constant which appears as a consequence of modifications of the
Poincar\'{e} symmetries, carried out through the expansion procedure.\textbf
\ }The corresponding version of Eq. (\ref{s3}) in tensor language Ref. \cit
{bra1}, \cite{bra2} is given by

\begin{equation}
\tilde{S}[\tilde{g},\tilde{h}]=\int d^{4}\tilde{x}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\left[
\tilde{R}+2K\left( \tilde{R}\tilde{h}-2\tilde{R}_{\text{ }\nu }^{\mu }\tilde
h}_{\text{ }\mu }^{\nu }\right) -\frac{3K}{2r_{c}^{2}}\tilde{h}\right] ,
\label{31t'}
\end{equation
where $K=4\pi \alpha _{3}l^{2}/r_{c}$, so that when $l\longrightarrow 0$
then $K\longrightarrow 0$ and the actions (\ref{s3}) and (\ref{31t'})
becomes the $4$-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action. \

An interesting observation that if we consider a maximally symmetric
spacetime, then the equation 13.4.6 of Ref. \cite{weinberg} allows us to
write the field\textbf{\ }$\tilde{h}_{\mu \nu }$\textbf{\ }as\textbf{\ }

\begin{equation}
\tilde{h}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}\tilde{F}(\tilde{\phi})\tilde{g}_{\mu \nu },
\label{66t}
\end{equation
where $\tilde{F}$ is an arbitrary function of an $4$-scalar field $\tilde
\phi}=$ $\tilde{\phi}(\tilde{x})$.\ This means

\begin{equation}
\tilde{R}_{\text{ }\nu }^{\mu }\tilde{h}_{\text{ }\mu }^{\nu }=\frac{1}{4
\tilde{F}(\tilde{\phi})\tilde{R}\text{ \ \ },\text{\ \ }\tilde{h}=\tilde{h
_{\mu \nu }\tilde{g}_{\text{ }}^{\mu \nu }=\tilde{F}(\tilde{\phi}),
\end{equation
so that the action (\ref{31t'}) takes the form
\begin{equation}
\tilde{S}[\tilde{g},\tilde{\phi}]=\int d^{4}\tilde{x}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\left[
\tilde{R}+K\tilde{R}\tilde{F}(\tilde{\phi})-\frac{3K}{2r_{c}^{2}}\tilde{F}
\tilde{\phi})\right] ,  \label{32t}
\end{equation
which corresponds to an action for the $4$-dimensional gravity coupled
non-minimally to the scalar field. Note that this action has the form
\tilde{S}=\tilde{S}_{g}+\tilde{S}_{g\phi }+\tilde{S}_{\phi },$ where,
\tilde{S}_{g}$ is a pure gravitational action term, $\tilde{S}_{g\phi }$ is
a non-minimal interaction term between gravity and the scalar field, and
\tilde{S}_{\phi }$ represents the action for a kind of scalar field
potential. In order to write down the action in the usual way, we define the
constant $\varepsilon $ and the potential $V(\tilde{\phi})$ as (removing the
symbols $\sim $ in (\ref{32t}))
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon =\frac{4\kappa r_{c}^{2}}{3}\text{ \ \ },\text{\ \ }V(\phi )
\frac{3K}{4\kappa r_{c}^{2}}F(\phi ),  \label{100t}
\end{equation
where $\kappa $ is a constant. This permits to rewrite the action for a $4
-dimensional brane non-minimally coupled to a scalar field, immersed in a $5
-dimensional space-time a
\begin{equation}
S[g,\varphi ]=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left[ R+\varepsilon RV(\phi )-2\kappa
V(\phi )\right] .  \label{33t}
\end{equation
Note that this action was obtained from the Lagrangian (\ref{26}) that does
not consider the presence of a cosmological constant.

The corresponding field equations describing the behavior of the $4
-dimensional brane in the presence of the scalar field $\phi $ are given by
\cite{bra1}, \cite{bra2}

\begin{equation}
G_{\mu \nu }\left( 1+\varepsilon V\right) +\varepsilon H_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa
g_{\mu \nu }V,  \label{z1}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi }\left( 1-\frac{\varepsilon R}{2\kappa
\right) =0,  \label{z2}
\end{equation
wher
\begin{equation}
H_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\nabla ^{\lambda }\nabla _{\lambda }V-\nabla _{\mu
}\nabla _{\nu }V.  \label{z3}
\end{equation}

In this article we\ study black hole solutions of the $4$-dimensional
gravitational field equations (\ref{z1}),(\ref{z2}),(\ref{z3}). In Section
II we find that field equations (\ref{z1}),(\ref{z2}) and (\ref{z3}), for a
spherically symmetric metric, lead to a spacetime with a cosmological
constant inversely proportional to the square of the compactification radius
and to a solution dependent on an arbitrary constant $C$. In Section III we
discuss the case when this constant is negative, in particular, when such
negative constant is equal to the Schwarzschid radius. This solution is
reminiscent of a Schwarzschid-de Sitter (SdS) black hole. A procedure used
in the context of general relativity \cite{bonda} is generalized in Section
IV in order to apply it to Chern-Simons gravity. This method is based on the
symmetries of parity $r\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}$, time reversal
t\longrightarrow -\tilde{t}$ and mass reversal $M\longrightarrow -\tilde{M}$
called $PTM$ symmetry. This symmetry: $\left( i\right) $ leaves the metric
invariant in form, $\left( ii\right) $ relates the different regions of the
extended solution of the Einstein field equations written in terms of the
Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates \cite{kr}, \cite{sz} and $\left( iii\right) $
reverse the signs of the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. In Ref. \cite{bonda}
the Schwarzschid case was studied and in Refs. \cite{chan}, \cite{fro} the
Reissner Nordstr\"{o}m's solution was considered. In this article, the
solutions of the field equations obtained from a four-dimensional
gravitational action, that was obtained by compactification of the so-called
EChS gravity in five dimensions, will be analyzed. Finally, in Section V we
present our conclusions. We will use $G=c=1$ units.

\section{Field equations for a spherically symmetric me\-tric}

In $4$-dimensions a static and spherically symmetric metric can be written
in the form
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-e^{\alpha (r)}dt^{2}+e^{\beta (r)}dr^{2}+r^{2}\left( d\theta
^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\varphi ^{2}\right) ,
\end{equation
where $r,\theta $ and $\varphi $ are the usual spherical polar coordinates.
So, according to (\ref{z1}) and (\ref{z2}), the following field equations
are obtained (see Appendix)

\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ \frac{e^{\alpha }}{r^{2}}+e^{\alpha -\beta }\left( \frac{\beta
^{\prime }}{r}-\frac{1}{r^{2}}\right) \right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right)
+\varepsilon H_{00} &=&\kappa e^{\alpha }V,  \label{uno} \\
\left[ \frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{r}+\frac{1}{r^{2}}-\frac{e^{\beta }}{r^{2}
\right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right) +\varepsilon H_{11} &=&-\kappa
e^{\beta }V,  \label{dos} \\
\left[ 1-\frac{r^{2}}{2}R-\frac{e^{-\beta }}{2}\left[ \left( \alpha ^{\prime
}-\beta ^{\prime }\right) r+2\right] \right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right)
+\varepsilon H_{22} &=&-\kappa r^{2}V,  \label{tres}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ 1-\frac{r^{2}}{2}R-\frac{e^{-\beta }}{2}\left[ \left( \alpha ^{\prime
}-\beta ^{\prime }\right) r+2\right] \right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right)
\sin ^{2}\theta +\varepsilon H_{33} &=&-\kappa r^{2}V\sin ^{2}\theta ,
\label{cuatr} \\
\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi }\left( 1-\frac{\varepsilon R}{2\kappa
\right) &=&0,  \label{cinco} \\
g_{\mu \nu }\nabla ^{\lambda }\nabla _{\lambda }V-\nabla _{\mu }\nabla _{\nu
}V &=&H_{\mu \nu },  \label{seis}
\end{eqnarray
where the "prime" symbol denotes derivative respect to $r$. We have seen
that when $l\longrightarrow 0$, i. e., $V\rightarrow 0$, the equations (\re
{z1}),(\ref{z2}),(\ref{z3}) lead to Einstein's equations. This means that
the equations (\ref{uno}-\ref{seis}) must lead, in this limit, to the
corresponding Einstein field equations for a spherically symmetric metric.
For this limit to be fulfilled, it must be satisfied that $\alpha (r)=-\beta
(r)$. On the other hand, the spherical symmetry condition implies that
V=V(r)$ and $F=F(r)$, so that $\partial V/\partial \phi \rightarrow \partial
V/\partial r.$

By imposing these conditions on the equations (\ref{uno}-\ref{seis}) we
obtain

\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ \frac{e^{\alpha }}{r^{2}}-e^{2\alpha }\left( \frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}
r}+\frac{1}{r^{2}}\right) \right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right) +\varepsilon
H_{00} &=&\kappa e^{\alpha }V,  \label{7} \\
\left[ \frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{r}+\frac{1}{r^{2}}-\frac{e^{-\alpha }}{r^{2}
\right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right) +\varepsilon H_{11} &=&-\kappa
e^{-\alpha }V,  \label{8} \\
\left[ 1-\frac{r^{2}}{2}R-e^{\alpha }\left( r\alpha ^{\prime }+1\right)
\right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right) +\varepsilon H_{22} &=&-\kappa r^{2}V,
\label{9} \\
\left[ 1-\frac{r^{2}}{2}R-e^{\alpha }\left( r\alpha ^{\prime }+1\right)
\right] \left( 1+\varepsilon V\right) \sin ^{2}\theta +\varepsilon H_{33}
&=&-\kappa r^{2}V\sin ^{2}\theta ,  \label{10}
\end{eqnarray
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}\left( 1-\frac{\varepsilon R}{2\kappa }\right)
=0,  \label{12}
\end{equation
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{00} &=&-e^{2\alpha }\left[ \frac{V^{\prime }\alpha ^{\prime }}{2
+V^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2}{r}V^{\prime }\right] , \\
\text{ \ }H_{11} &=&\frac{V^{\prime }\alpha ^{\prime }}{2}+\frac{2}{r
V^{\prime }=-e^{-2\alpha }\left( H_{00}-V^{\prime \prime }\right) ,
\label{13'} \\
\text{ }H_{22} &=&r^{2}e^{\alpha }\left[ V^{\prime \prime }+\left( \alpha
^{\prime }+\frac{1}{r}\right) V^{\prime }\right] , \\
H_{33} &=&H_{22}\sin ^{2}\theta .  \label{14}
\end{eqnarray}

From (\ref{13'}), (\ref{7}) and (\ref{8}) it direct to see that $V^{\prime
\prime }=0$, which implies that $V(r)\sim r$.\ From (\ref{12}) it is direct
to see that when $\partial V/\partial r\neq 0$\ we hav
\begin{equation}
R=\frac{3}{2r_{c}^{2}},  \label{20}
\end{equation
which indicates the presence of a cosmological constant given b
\begin{equation}
\Lambda =\frac{3}{8r_{c}^{2}}.  \label{20'}
\end{equation
This result allow us to conjecture that the $4$-dimensional cosmological
constant could have its origin in the extra dimension. In other words,\ the
cosmological constant could have its origin in the projection of the extra
dimension on the brane.

The equations (\ref{z1}),(\ref{z2}) can be written in the form

\begin{eqnarray}
G_{\mu \nu } &=&R_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }; \\
T_{\mu \nu } &=&-\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon V}\left( \frac{2}{R}H_{\mu \nu
}+g_{\mu \nu }V\right) ,  \label{z2'}
\end{eqnarray
such that, in absence of sources $G_{\mu \nu }=0$ and then $R=0$. If we
include cosmological constant we obtain $R=4\Lambda $. In the present case
R=3/2r_{c}^{2}$, i.e., $\Lambda =3/8r_{c}^{2}$ and we have a source given b
\textbf{\ }$T_{\mu \nu }$ \textbf{(}$V\neq 0$\textbf{)}.

Introducing these results into (\ref{7}) and (\ref{9}) and carrying out the
change of variables $\alpha (r)=\ln F(r)$, we can write

\begin{equation}
e^{\alpha (r)}=F(r)=1+\frac{C}{r}-\frac{\Lambda }{3}r^{2},  \label{17}
\end{equation
where $C$ is a constant of integration. So, the line element

\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-\left( 1+\frac{C}{r}-\frac{\Lambda }{3}r^{2}\right) dt^{2}+\left( 1
\frac{C}{r}-\frac{\Lambda }{3}r^{2}\right) ^{-1}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2},
\label{18}
\end{equation
is a $sgn(C)$-dependent solution. This means that the $F(r)$ function is
subject to the discution of $C$, that is, its sign and size. As we will see
in the next Section, if $C=0$ we obtain the usual solution that leads to a
black hole whose even horizon is a cosmological one. For $C<0$\textbf{\ }we
obtain a SdS black hole if we consider $C=-r_{s}$, where $r_{s}$ is the
Schwarzschild radius.

The case $C>0$, discussed in Section IV, \ leads to a white hole solution
which is obtained applying to the solution with $C<0$, the discrete
coordinate transformation $PT$ accompanied by the transformation
C\longrightarrow -\tilde{C}$, which can be interpreted as the mass reversal.

\section{$\mathbf{C<0}$ case. \textbf{SdS black hole solution}}

From (\ref{18}), we writ
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-F(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{F(r)}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2},  \label{38}
\end{equation
where $F(r)$ is given by (\ref{17}). If $C=0$, then the function $F(r)$
takes the for
\begin{equation}
F(r)=1-\frac{\Lambda }{3}r^{2},  \label{39}
\end{equation
and we have a divergence at $r_{0}=\sqrt{3/\Lambda }$, case that can be seen
as the limit at large $r$ ($dS$ space limit) of the SdS black hole.

Let us consider now the conditions under which the field equations admit
black hole-type solutions. The solution (\ref{38}) with $F(r)$ given by (\re
{17}) shows a singular behaviour at $F(r_{0})=0$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
r_{0}^{3}+\left( -8r_{c}^{2}\right) r_{0}+\left( -8r_{c}^{2}C\right) &=&0
\text{ }  \label{39'} \\
i.e.,\text{ }C &=&\frac{1}{8r_{c}^{2}}\left( r_{0}-2\sqrt{2}r_{c}\right)
\left( r_{0}+2\sqrt{2}r_{c}\right) r_{0}.  \label{39''}
\end{eqnarray
From (\ref{39'}) we see that the discriminant is
\begin{equation}
\Delta =-64r_{c}^{4}\left( -32r_{c}^{2}+27\tilde{C}^{2}\right) >0,
\label{40'}
\end{equation
so that $-32r_{c}^{2}+27C^{2}<0$. This means that $C<0$ as long as $r_{0}<
\sqrt{2}r_{c}$ with
\begin{equation}
C=-\Sigma ^{2}<-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\left( \frac{4}{3}r_{c}\right) .
\label{90'}
\end{equation
Hence (\ref{18}) can be written in the form\ \ \

\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-\left( 1-\frac{\Sigma ^{2}}{r}-\frac{\Lambda }{3}r^{2}\right)
dt^{2}+\left( 1-\frac{\Sigma ^{2}}{r}-\frac{\Lambda }{3}r^{2}\right)
^{-1}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}.  \label{18'}
\end{equation}
\

On another hand, from (\ref{39'}) and (\ref{40'}) we have three real roots
\begin{equation}
r_{0k}\left( C\right) =-\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}r_{c}\cos \left[ \frac{1}{
}\arccos \left( \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4\sqrt{2}}\frac{\Sigma ^{2}}{r_{c}}\right)
\frac{2}{3}\left( k-1\right) \pi \right] ,  \label{92}
\end{equation
where $k=0,1,2$. The solution for $k=1$can be withdrawn as non-physical.
Then, the equation $F\left( r_{0}\right) =0$ tells us that the physical
horizons are $r=r_{02}$ and $r=r_{00}$, where $r_{02}\leq r_{00}$. \ So,
according to (\ref{90'}) and with $\Sigma ^{2}=r_{s}$
\begin{equation}
r_{s}>\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\left( \frac{4}{3}r_{c}\right) ,  \label{93}
\end{equation
we identify $r_{02}$ as the black hole event horizon and $r_{00}$ as the
cosmological horizon.

The solution (\ref{18'}) coincides with the SdS black hole solution when\
C=-\Sigma ^{2}=-r_{s}$, where $r_{s}=2M$ is the Schwarzschild radius.

Defining $x=4\sqrt{2}r_{c}/\sqrt{3}r_{s}$ and then taking the limit when
r_{c}\longrightarrow \infty $, we have
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r_{c}\longrightarrow \infty }r_{00}=r_{s}\lim_{x\longrightarrow \infty
}\left( x\cos \frac{1}{3}\left[ \arccos \left( \frac{3}{x}\right) -\frac
2\pi }{3}\right] \right) =r_{s}=\lim_{r_{c}\longrightarrow \infty }r_{02}.
\end{equation
This shows that the solution (\ref{18'}) with $\Sigma ^{2}=r_{s}$ is the SdS
black hole solution, where $r_{s}=2M$, where $M$ is the black hole mass.

Now, from (\ref{17}) and (\ref{18'}) we can see that $F\left( r_{0}\right)
=0 $ leads in this case to
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda r_{0}^{3}=3\left( r_{0}-r_{s}\right) ,
\end{equation*
and from here it is straightforward to see that $r_{c}\rightarrow \infty
\longleftrightarrow $ $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$, then $r_{0}\rightarrow r_{s}
. Similarly, when $r_{s}<<r_{0}$ we have to $r_{0}\rightarrow \sqrt
3/\Lambda }$, i.e., "we live" in a $r_{0}$-range given by

\begin{equation}
r_{s}<r_{0}<2\sqrt{2}r_{c},
\end{equation
i.e., we live in an inflationary $\left( \Lambda \right) $ universe whose
"center" is the singularity of the black hole, singularity that we do not
see given the event horizon. As we know, in GR can have black holes with
event horizon and also with cosmological horizon being the SdS black hole
the simplest solution wich has both \cite{footnote1}.

In order to have a rough idea of the present scales, it is good to remember
that according to the current observational data $\Lambda \sim 10^{-52}\left[
m^{-2}\right] $ and $a_{0}\sim 10^{26}\left[ m\right] $ ($a_{0}$ is the
causal "size" of the observable universe). In our case, from the current
value for $\Lambda =3/8r_{c}^{2}$ we obtain $r_{c}\sim 10^{25}\left[ m\right]
$, i.e., $r_{c}\sim a_{0}/10$. Thus, we could say that for $z\gtrsim 9$ our
universe remained inside $r_{c}$. What implications could it have this fact
if we are thinking \ as feasible the existence of one extra dimension? It is
an open question \cite{footnote2}.

We finish this Section highlighting the relation between $\Lambda $ and
r_{c}$. This situation is interesting in itself. As we already said, the
cosmological constant could have its origin in the projection of the extra
dimension over our $4$-spacetime. Seen in reverse, the observational value
of $\Lambda $ could give us information on $r_{c}$ accepting that our $4
-reality is a sort of "shadow" of a $5$-reality.

\section{$C>0$ case. White hole solution}

This case leads to a solution that can be understood as a white hole. To
prove this we will generalize to the case of a Chern-Simons theory, a
procedure introduced in the context of GR \cite{bonda} to construct a white
hole solution from a black hole solution.

From (\ref{38}) we see that exist a singular behaviour at $F(r_{0})=0$,
i.e., at $r_{0}^{3}=8\left( r_{0}+C\right) r_{c}^{2},$ such that
\begin{equation}
C=\frac{1}{8r_{c}^{2}}\left( r_{0}-2\sqrt{2}r_{c}\right) \left( r_{0}+2\sqrt
2}r_{c}\right) r_{0},  \label{35'}
\end{equation
and this means that $C>0$ as long as $r_{0}>2\sqrt{2}r_{c}$. \ The equation
F(r_{0})=0$ has only a real and positive root and its discriminant\ tells us
that
\begin{equation}
C>\frac{4}{3}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}r_{c}=\left( \frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}}\right)
\sqrt{2}r_{c},  \notag
\end{equation
and the solution for $r_{0}$ is given by

\begin{eqnarray}
r_{0} &=&\frac{1}{3}\left[ \left( 108C\pm 12\sqrt{3}C\sqrt
27-32r_{c}^{2}/C^{2}}\right) r_{c}^{2}\right] ^{1/3}  \notag \\
&&+\frac{8r_{c}^{2}}{\left[ \left( 108C\pm 12\sqrt{3}C\sqrt
27-32r_{c}^{2}/C^{2}}\right) r_{c}^{2}\right] ^{1/3}}.  \label{69''}
\end{eqnarray}

The solution (\ref{38}) appears to have a singularity at $r=0$ and $r=r_{0}.$
The singularity at $r=r_{0}$ divides the coordinates in two disconnected
patches. The exterior solution with $r>r_{0}$ is the one that is related to
the gravitational fields of massive objects. The interior solution with
0\leq r\leq r_{0}$, which contains the singularity at $r=0$, is completely
separated from the outer patch by the singularity at $r=r_{0}$.

The singularity at $r=r_{0}$ is a coordinate singularity. This singularity
arises from a bad choice of coordinates or coordinate conditions. A easiest
way to see that at $r=r_{0}$ is to consider the metric in the
Eddington-Finkelstein (EF) coordinates. For the ingoing EF coordinates
\left( v,r,t\right) $, which describe the line element in the $I$-$II$\
regions\textbf{\ (}the form of this regions as well as the regions $III
\textbf{\ }and\textbf{\ }$IV$ are similar to that of the case of GR which
are shown in Ref.\cite{chan}), we hav
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-F(r)dt^{2}+2dvdr+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2},  \label{68'}
\end{equation
which is regular at future horizon and the past horizon is at $v=t+r^{\ast
}=\infty $. \

Correspondingly, the outgoing EF coordinates $\left( u,r,t\right) $ which
describe the metric in the $III$-$IV$\ regions has the following form

\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-F(r)dt^{2}-2dudr+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2},  \label{69'}
\end{equation
which is regular at past horizon and the future horizon is at $u\equiv
t-r^{\ast }$, which can be interpreted as a new time coordinate where
r^{\ast }$ is given b
\begin{eqnarray}
r^{\ast } &=&\beta \ln \left( \frac{r-r_{0}}{2r_{c}\sqrt{\left(
r/2r_{c}\right) ^{2}+r_{0}r/4r_{c}^{2}+2C/r_{0}}}\right)  \notag \\
&&-\frac{8r_{c}\left( 3C+r_{0}\right) }{\left( 2r_{0}+3C\right) \sqrt
8\left( 3C-r_{0}\right) /r_{0}}}\arctan \left( \frac{2r+r_{0}}{r_{c}\sqrt
8\left( 3C-r_{0}\right) /r_{0}}}\right) ,  \label{70}
\end{eqnarray
and
\begin{equation}
\beta =-\frac{r_{0}^{2}}{2r_{0}+3C}.  \label{71}
\end{equation}

The coordinates used in (\ref{68'}) and (\ref{69'}) have the advantage that
they describe the neighbourhood of the surface $r=r_{0}$ in a satisfactory
way. However, the metrics (\ref{68'}) and (\ref{69'}) has still a deficienc
\textbf{,} analogue to that appears in the Schwarzschild solution of GR.
This deficiency is avoided in the Kruskal coordinates, which describe a
geodesically complete space. Defining
\begin{equation}
U=-\exp \left( -\frac{u}{2\beta }\right) \text{ \ \ },\text{ \ }V=\exp
\left( \frac{v}{2\beta }\right) ,\text{ \ }  \label{73'}
\end{equation
we have that the Kruskal coordinates are given by

\begin{equation}
T=\frac{1}{2}(U+V)\text{ \ \ },\text{ \ }X=\frac{1}{2}(U-V),  \label{83}
\end{equation
with which the line element takes the form
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-F_{C}(r)\left( dT^{2}-dX^{2}\right) +r^{2}d\Omega ^{2},  \label{85}
\end{equation
wher
\begin{equation}
F_{C\text{ }>0}(r)=\frac{32r_{0}r_{c}^{2}}{3r_{0}^{2}-8r_{c}^{2}}F(r)\exp
\left( \frac{3r_{0}^{2}-8r_{c}^{2}}{8r_{c}^{2}}\frac{r^{\ast }}{r_{0}
\right) ,\quad r>0,  \label{79}
\end{equation}

Following the usual procedure we construct a spacetime diagram in the
\left( T,X\right) $ plane (with $\theta ,\varphi $ suppressed) known as the
Kruskal diagram, which represents the extended spacetime corresponding to
the metric (\ref{85}), whose form is similar to that of the case of GR (see
Ref. \cite{chan} where the aforementioned regions $I,II,III,IV$\ are
shown).\

Following the reference \cite{bonda}, the next step is to continue the
metric in the region of the additive inverse of $C$ carrying out the
substitution $C\longrightarrow -\tilde{C}$, with $\tilde{C}>0$, which must
be complemented with the transformation $t\longrightarrow -\tilde{t}$,
r\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}$, $r_{c}\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}_{c}$, because
it is necessary to preserve the dynamics. Under this transformation we see
that (\ref{69''}) transforms as

\begin{eqnarray}
r_{0} &\longrightarrow &-\tilde{r}_{0}=\frac{1}{3}\left[ -\left( 108\tilde{C
\pm 12\sqrt{3}\tilde{C}\sqrt{27-32\tilde{r}_{c}^{2}/\tilde{C}^{2}}\right)
r_{c}^{2}\right] ^{1/3}  \notag \\
&&+\frac{8\tilde{r}_{c}^{2}}{\left[ -\left( 108\tilde{C}\pm 12\sqrt{3}\tilde
C}\sqrt{27-32\tilde{r}_{c}^{2}/\tilde{C}^{2}}\right) r_{c}^{2}\right] ^{1/3}
.  \label{86}
\end{eqnarray
This means that $C\longrightarrow -\tilde{C}$ implies $r_{0}\longrightarrow
\tilde{r}_{0}$. On the other hand under this transformation it is
straightforward to see that $\tilde{\beta}=-\beta $ and that the EF
coordinate $v=t+r^{\ast }$ takes the form

\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{v} &=&-\tilde{t}-\left\{ \tilde{\beta}\ln \left( \frac{\left( \tilde{
}-\tilde{r}_{0}\right) }{2\tilde{r}_{c}\sqrt{\left( \tilde{r}/2\tilde{r
_{c}\right) ^{2}+\tilde{r}_{0}\tilde{r}/4\tilde{r}_{c}^{2}+2\tilde{C}/\tilde
r}_{0}}}\right) \right.  \notag \\
&&\left. -\frac{8\tilde{r}_{c}\left( 3\tilde{C}+\tilde{r}_{0}\right) }
\left( 2\tilde{r}_{0}+3\tilde{C}\right) \sqrt{8\left( 3\tilde{C}-\tilde{r
_{0}\right) /\tilde{r}_{0}}}\arctan \left( \frac{2\tilde{r}+\tilde{r}_{0}}
\tilde{r}_{c}\sqrt{8\left( 3\tilde{C}-\tilde{r}_{0}\right) /\tilde{r}_{0}}
\right) \right\} -2i\pi \tilde{\beta},  \notag \\
\tilde{v} &=&-\tilde{t}-\tilde{r}^{\ast }-2i\pi \tilde{\beta}=-\nu -2i\pi
\tilde{\beta},  \label{87}
\end{eqnarray
where $\tilde{r}^{\ast }$ is given by the expression in parentheses brace.

In the same way it is found that the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate
u=-t+r^{\ast }$ transform as

\begin{equation}
u=-\tilde{t}+\tilde{r}^{\ast }+2i\pi \tilde{\beta}=-u+2i\pi \tilde{\beta}.
\label{88}
\end{equation}

Equations (\ref{87}) and (\ref{88}) allow finding the continuation of
equations (\ref{73'}) in the region of the additive inverse of $C,$ which
can be interpreted as the negative mass region. In fact, under the
transformation $C\longrightarrow -\tilde{C}$, $t\longrightarrow -\tilde{t}$,
$r\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}$, $r_{c}\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}_{c}$, the
equations (\ref{73'}) transform as
\begin{eqnarray*}
U &\longrightarrow &\tilde{U}=\exp \left( -\frac{\tilde{u}}{2\tilde{\beta}
\right) =-U \\
V &\longrightarrow &\tilde{V}=-\exp \left( \frac{\tilde{v}}{2\tilde{\beta}
\right) =-V.
\end{eqnarray*
It is straightforward to see that this transformation implies that the
Kruskal coordinates transform as

\begin{eqnarray*}
T &\longrightarrow &\tilde{T}=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{U}+\tilde{V})=-T, \\
\tilde{X} &=&\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{V}-\tilde{U})=-X,
\end{eqnarray*
that is, the inversion of the Kruskal coordinates. As in the case of general
relativity, studied in \cite{bonda}, the spacetime with the variables $
\tilde{U},\tilde{V})$, found using the transformations $C\longrightarrow
\tilde{C}$, $t\longrightarrow -\tilde{t}$, $r\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}$,
r_{c}\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}_{c}$, can be understood as a space
corresponding to a spacetime of the a white hole. \ This means that region
I $ with coordinates $(\tilde{U},\tilde{V})$ corresponds to region $III$
when we use coordinates $\left( U,V\right) $.

In the same way, region $IV$, which in the usual coordinates corresponds to
a white hole, is transformed into region $II$ which corresponds, in the new
coordinates, to a black hole. Obviously, region $II$, which in the usual
coordinates corresponds to a black hole, will be transformed into region $IV$
which, in the new coordinates, corresponds to a white hole.

The interesting thing about this result is that the solutions for $C<0$ and
C>0$ are related through the transformation $C\longrightarrow -\tilde{C}$,
with $\tilde{C}>0$, $t\longrightarrow -\tilde{t}$, $r\longrightarrow -\tilde
r}$, $r_{c}\longrightarrow -\tilde{r}_{c}$.

\section{\textbf{Concluding Remarks }}

We have found black hole solutions from the $4$-dimensional gravitational
field equations corresponding to a four-dimensional gravity action, which
was obtained by compactifying the so-called five-dimensional EChS gravity
action using a mechanism developed in \cite{randall} and \cite{randall1}. We
have shown that such field equations lead to a spacetime with a cosmological
constant inversely proportional to the square of the compactification radius
and to a solution dependent on an arbitrary constant $C$ which gives rise to
black white holes solutions: ($i$) when $C$ is negative, we find a SdS black
hole, ($ii$) when $C=0$, we have a black hole whose event horizon is a
cosmological one and ($iii$)\ it is shown that the application of the $PTM$
transformation to the solution for $C<0$ leads to a solution for $C>0$
equivalent to an SdS white hole solution. The $PTM$ transformation means
changing $r\longrightarrow -\tilde{r},$ $t\longrightarrow -\tilde{t},$
r_{c}\longrightarrow \tilde{r}_{c}$ in addition to changing
M\longrightarrow -\tilde{M}$. The change of sign in the mass can be
understood as a consequence of the requirement of the invariance of the
metric under the $PTM$ symmetry.

\textbf{Acknowledgements}

This work was supported in part by\textit{\ }FONDECYT Grant\textit{\ }No
\textit{\ }1180681 from the Government of Chile. One of the authors (CR) was
supported by ANID fellowship No. 2219610 from the Government of Chile and
from Universidad de Concepci\'{o}n, Chile.


\section{Introduction}

High-throughput sequencing is making large collections of sequences available to researchers at a low cost.
These genomic data represent a broad spectrum of life and motivates studies of the problem of reconstructing large phylogenetic trees using statistical methods.
Those data, however, also come from different sources, cover different genomic regions on which the evolutionary processes happen very differently, and may not be collected on the same set of species.
Thus, combining trees on different, overlapping sets of species into a ``supertree" has become a popular approach for reconstructing large species trees.
Over the years, several methods of supertree reconstruction have been developed \citep{cotton2007majority}, and analyses of supertrees continue to play more and more important roles in the search for answers of many fundamental evolutionary questions.

While supertree methods have been of great interest in phylogenetics, little is known about their theoretical properties, especially in non-asymptotic settings.
In cases when the individual trees are gene trees and the set of taxa are the same across the input trees, several statistical consistent methods have been derived \citep{ mossel2008incomplete, heled2009bayesian, kubatko2009stem, larget2010bucky, liu2010maximum, liu2011estimating, bryant2012inferring, mirarab2014astral, chifman2014quartet, vachaspati2015astrid}.
However, most proofs of statistical consistency have been analyzed under the condition that each of the gene trees can be estimated accurately, and do not provide a guarantee of robustness to gene tree estimation errors  \citep{roch2015robustness}.
This is a critical concern because when the species tree is constructed using sequences taken from large genomic regions, those regions have a high chance of involving some recombination, which violates one of the main assumptions of the multi-species coalescent model.
On the other hand, limiting analyses to short regions increase gene tree estimation error (GTEE) and various summary methods had impaired accuracy when the error was high \citep{gatesy2014phylogenetic, mirarab2014statistical}.
It is later proved in \cite{roch2019long} that when the sequence length of each locus is bounded and the gene tree cannot be estimated reliably, most summary methods that estimate the species tree by combining gene trees are not statistically consistent.

Because some coalescent-based summary methods sometimes produce less accurate estimates than concatenation \citep{bayzid2013naive, patel2013error, mirarab2014statistical}, seemingly as a result of GTEE, the question of whether provable guarantees can be established in the presence of GTEE (for both species trees and supertree) naturally arises.
In the context of species tree estimation, \cite{roch2015robustness} establish statistical consistency of the Rooted Triplet Consensus method and the Maximum Pseudo-likelihood for Estimating Species Trees method \citep{liu2010maximum} under GTEE and provide bounds on the sampling complexity for these methods to construct the correct species tree with high probability.

The maximum likelihood (ML) supertree method is proposed by \cite{steel2008maximum} based on a probability model that permits ``errors" in gene tree topologies and allows the species tree to be estimated even if there is topological conflict amongst gene trees.
\cite{steel2008maximum} shows that ML estimate of the species tree is topologically consistent under fairly general conditions and also shows that the method of Matrix Representation with Parsimony \citep{baum1992combining} may be inconsistent under these same conditions.
However, while the ML estimate is topologically consistent, no results on the convergence rate of the estimator are obtained.
In this paper, we propose a new analytic approach to study the convergence of the ML supertree method.
Based on embedding trees into a metric space, we establish the conditions for which the convergence rate of the ML supertree can be obtained.
We verify these conditions for the popular exponential error model of gene trees, thus obtain a polynomial convergence rate for the ML supertree to the true species tree under this model.

\section{Mathematical framework}

In this paper, the term \emph{phylogenetic tree} refers to a tree $\mathbb{T}$ with leaves labeled by a set of species.
Each branch of $\mathbb{T}$ is associated with a non-negative branch length.
A tree is said to be resolved if it is bifurcating and all branch lengths are positive.
Given an unrooted phylogenetic tree $\mathbb{T}$ on a finite set $\mathscr{L}$ of species, any subset $\mathscr{L}'$ of $\mathscr{L}$ induces a phylogenetic tree on $\mathscr{L}'$, denoted $\mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}'}$, which is the subtree of $\mathbb{T}$ that connects the species in $\mathscr{L}'$ only.

We regard the tree space as a metric space $(\mathcal{T}, d)$ where $\mathcal{T}$ is the set of all phylogenetic trees with branch lengths bounded from above by a positive constant $g_0$ and $d$ is a continuous metric.
For simplicity of presentation, we will assume that $d$ is the BHV distance on the set of trees with $n$ species \citep{billera2001geometry}, but note that the analysis of the paper can be extended to any continuous and locally-Euclidean distance, including the branch-score distance \citep{kuhner1994simulation} and the AGPS distance \citep{amenta2007approximating}.

To describe trees that are ``near" to each other, the BHV distance use the class of nearest neighbor interchange (NNI) moves \citep{robinson1971comparison}.
An NNI move is defined as a transformation that collapses an interior branch to zero and then expands the resulting degree 4 vertex into a branch in a different way.
The BHV space models the set of trees $\mathcal{T}$ on $n$ species as a cubical complex consisting of a collection of orthants, each isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}^{2n-3}$.
Each orthant of $\mathcal{T}$ corresponds uniquely to a tree topology, and the coordinates in each orthant parameterize the branch lengths for the corresponding tree.
The adjacent orthants of the complex with the same dimension correspond to NNI-adjacent trees.

The BHV space is equipped with a natural metric distance: the shortest path lying in the BHV space between the points. If two points lie in the same orthant, this distance is the usual Euclidean distance.
If two points are in different orthants, they can be joined by a sequence of straight segments, with each segment lying in a single orthant.
We can then measure the length of the path by adding up the lengths of the segments.
The distance between the two trees $\mathbb{T}_1$ and $\mathbb{T}_2$ on the BHV space is defined as the minimum of the lengths of such segmented paths joining the two points.

Throughout the paper, we assume that the evolution of the species has not involved reticulate processes, and there exists an underlying ``true species tree" in $\mathcal{T}$, denoted by $\mathbb{T}^*$.
Furthermore, $\mathbb{T}^*$ is a resolved tree with leaf set $\mathscr{L}^*$.
In a supertree reconstruction problem, we observe a sequence of gene trees $(\mathbb{T}_1, \mathbb{T}_2, \ldots, \mathbb{T}_k)$, where $\mathbb{T}_i$ has leaf set $\mathscr{L}_i$, and wish to combine these trees into a phylogenetic tree $\hat \mathbb{T}_k$ on the union of the leaf sets
\[
\hat \mathscr{L}_k = \cup_{i=1}^k \mathscr{L}_i \subset \mathscr{L}^*.
\]

In this paper, we consider a tree-generating probability model $\left( \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}} \right )_{\mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{T}}$ such that for each set of species $\mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}^*$, $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\cdot)$ is a distribution of trees forming by species in $\mathscr{L}$.
We assume that the observed gene trees $\{\mathbb{T}_i\}_{i=1}^k$ are independently distributed according to $\left \{ \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\cdot) \right \}_{i=1}^k$ respectively.
In other words, the joint probability of the observed gene trees is
\[
\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\mathbb{T}_1, \mathbb{T}_2, \ldots, \mathbb{T}_k) = \prod_{i=1}^k{ \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\mathbb{T}_i) }.
\]
\begin{Remark}
We note that the tree-generating probability model $\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}$ may not necessarily be nested.
That is, given two nested sets of leaves $\mathscr{L}_1 \subset \mathscr{L}_2 \subset \mathscr{L}^*$, although the probability $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_2}_{\mathbb{T}^*}$ (which is used to generate trees with leaf set $\mathscr{L}_2$) also induces a natural distribution on the set of trees with leaf set $\mathscr{L}_1$, this probability $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_2}_{\mathbb{T}^*} |_{\mathscr{L}_1}$ may not be the same as $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_1}_{\mathbb{T}^*}$.
\end{Remark}

Given the observed gene trees $(\mathbb{T}_1, \mathbb{T}_2, \ldots, \mathbb{T}_k)$, the ML supertree is defined as
\[
\hat \mathbb{T}_k = \argmax_{\mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{T}}  \ell_k(\mathbb{T})
\]
where $\ell_k(\mathbb{T}) $ denotes the log-likelihood function
\[
\ell_k(\mathbb{T}) = \sum_{i=1}^k \log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}_i).
\]

To enable theoretical analyses of the ML supertree method, we make the following assumptions.

\begin{Assumption}[Weak covering property]
 The sequence of subsets of $\mathscr{L}^*$ satisfies the \emph{weak covering property}: there exists $c_1>0, \gamma>1/2$, and $K > 0$ such that for each subset $\mathscr{L}$ of taxa from $\mathscr{L}^*$ of size $4$,
\[
\frac{1}{k^\gamma}|\{i \le k: \mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}_i\}| \ge c_1 \hspace*{.24in} \forall k \geq K.
\]
Here, $|\mathcal{A}|$ denotes the number of elements in the set $\mathcal{A}$.
\label{as:cover}
\end{Assumption}

We note that the weak covering property ensures that as the number of gene trees increases, all quartets (subtrees with $4$ leaves) of $\mathbb{T}^*$ are visited with enough frequency to enable a reliable estimate for each of the quartets.
Assumption $\ref{as:cover}$ is a direct generalization of the \emph{covering property} introduced in \cite{steel2008maximum}, which can be obtained from Assumption $\ref{as:cover}$ by setting $\gamma=1$.

\begin{Assumption}[Model identifiability]
For all $\mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}^*$, the distribution $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\cdot)$ is identifiable.
That is, if $d(\mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}, \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}}) >  0$, then $\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) > 0$.
\label{as:iden}
\end{Assumption}

Assumption $\ref{as:iden}$ guarantees that it is at least possible to reconstruct the restriction $\mathbb{T}^*|_{\mathscr{L}}$ of $\mathbb{T}^*$ to the subset $\mathscr{L}$ with a complete knowledge of $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}$.
This assumption is similar to, but distinct from, the condition of \emph{basic centrality} introduced by \cite{steel2008maximum}, which requires that for all subsets of  $\mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}^*$  of size 4,
\[
\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}^{\mathscr{L}}[\mathbb{T}^* |_\mathscr{L}] \ge (1+\eta) \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}^{\mathscr{L}}[\mathbb{T}']
\]
for all trees $\mathbb{T}'$ on leaf set $\mathscr{L}$ that are different from $\mathbb{T}^* |_\mathscr{L}$, and where $\eta>0$:
\begin{itemize}
\item On one hand, the basic centrality condition implies that if $d(\mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}, \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}}) >  0$, the modes of the distributions $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}$ and $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}$ are different.
From this, we can deduce that $\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) > 0$.
Thus, our identifiability assumption is somewhat weaker than this condition.
Assumption $\ref{as:iden}$ also does not impose any assumption on the family of distribution themselves and thus can be applied to a wider class of probabilistic models.

\item On the other hand, the basic centrality condition only concerns leaf sets of size 4, while Assumption $\ref{as:iden}$ impose restrictions on leaf sets of all sizes.
However, we note that conditions on subset of leaves (such as the basic centrality condition) only work under the implicit assumption that there are some connection between $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_2}_{\mathbb{T}}|_{\mathscr{L}_1}$ and  $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_1}_{\mathbb{T}}$ for $\mathscr{L}_1 \subset \mathscr{L}_2$.
Since our framework does not assume any nested structure in the probability model, Assumption $\ref{as:iden}$ is more appropriate.
\end{itemize}

Finally, we impose the following regularity conditions on the tree-generating probability model:

\begin{Assumption}
(Regularity)

\begin{itemize}

\item[(a)] For all $\mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{T}$, $\mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}^*$, and any tree $\mathbb{T}'$ with leaf set $\mathscr{L}$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[i. ] $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}') > 0$,
\item[ii. ] $\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}')$ is a locally-Lipchitz function with respect to $\mathbb{T}$, and the Lipchitz constant does not depend on $\mathbb{T}'$.
\end{itemize}

\item[(b)] There exist $c_2, c_3 > 0$, $m \ge 2$ such that for any leaf set $\mathscr{L}$ and tree $\mathbb{T}$, if $d(\mathbb{T}^*, \mathbb{T}) \le c_2$, then
\[
\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) \ge c_3 d(\mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}, \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}})^m.
\]
\end{itemize}
\label{as:regular}
\end{Assumption}

\begin{Remark}
If for each tree $\mathbb{T}'$ with leaf set $\mathscr{L}$, the probability density function $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}')$ is an analytic function with respect to $\mathbb{T}$ in a neighborhood of $\mathbb{T}^*$, then Assumption $\ref{as:regular}$(b) holds.
\label{rem:smooth}
\end{Remark}

\begin{proof}
Note that the function $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}')\right]$ (with respect to $\mathbb{T}$) is analytic in a neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $\mathbb{T}^*$.
Define
\[
\mathcal{A} = \{ \mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{U}:  \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{T}' \sim \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\mathbb{T}')\right] = \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{T}' \sim \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}')\right] \}.
\]
For all $\mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{A}$, we have
\[
\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) = \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{T}' \sim \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\mathbb{T}')\right] - \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{T}' \sim \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}')\right] = 0.
\]
By Assumption \ref{as:iden}, we conclude that $\mathbb{T} |_\mathscr{L} = \mathbb{T}^* |_\mathscr{L}$ for all $\mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{A}$.
Applying {\L}ojasiewicz inequality \citep[][Theorem 1]{ji1992global}, we deduce that there exists $c_3 >0$ and $m \ge 2$ such that for any $\mathbb{T}$ in the neighborhood,
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\mathbb{T}')\right] - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}')\right] \ge  c_3 d(\mathbb{T}, \mathcal{A})^m \geq c_3 d(\mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}, \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}})^m.
\]
This implies the result.
\end{proof}

Throughout this paper, we will assume that Assumptions $\ref{as:cover}$, $\ref{as:iden}$, and $\ref{as:regular}$ hold.
In the next section, we will establish the following convergence rate of the ML supertree.

\begin{thm}
Under Assumptions $\ref{as:cover}$, $\ref{as:iden}$, and $\ref{as:regular}$, for any $\delta>0$, there exist constants $m>0$, $ C_{\delta} > 0$ and $K_\delta>0$ such that for all $k \ge K_\delta$, we have
\[
d(\hat \mathbb{T}_k , \mathbb{T}^*)\leq C_{\delta} \left( \frac{\log k}{k^{(\gamma-1/2)}}\right)^{1/m}
\]
with probability at least $1-\delta$.
\label{thm:consistency}
\end{thm}

Theorem \ref{thm:consistency} establishes that under fairly mild regularity conditions, the ML supertree is consistent and has a polynomial convergence rate.
Notably, the result holds for all identifiable family of locally-analytic distributions (Remark \ref{rem:smooth}).
The degree of this (polynomial) convergence rate depends on the sampling scheme of the leaves (characterized by the covering coefficient $\gamma$) and on the geometry of the probabilistic model (characterized by the constant $m$ in Assumption $\ref{as:regular}$(b)).
We further note that Assumption $\ref{as:regular}$(b)) is only required for establishing the convergence rate of the ML estimator and the absence of this condition does not affect the proof of consistency.

\begin{cor}
Under Assumptions $\ref{as:cover}$, $\ref{as:iden}$, and $\ref{as:regular}(a)$, the ML supertree is consistent.
\end{cor}

\begin{Remark}
Theorem $\ref{thm:consistency}$ is still valid if the universal Assumption $\ref{as:regular}$(b) is replaced by the following condition:

\emph{
There exist $c_2, c_3 > 0$, $m \ge 2$ such that if $d(\mathbb{T}^*, \mathbb{T}) \le c_2$, then
\[
\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}}) \ge c_3 d(\mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}_i}, \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}_i})^m \hspace*{.24in} \forall i \in \mathbb{N}.
\]
}
\label{rem:reg}
\end{Remark}

\section{Convergence of maximum likelihood supertree}

To enable the analysis of convergence, we define
\[
R_{k}(\mathbb{T}) = \frac{1}{k}\ell_k(\mathbb{T}^*) - \frac{1}{k}\ell_k(\mathbb{T})
\]
and
\[
\mathcal{R}_k(\mathbb{T}) := E_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}[R_{k}(\mathbb{T})] =  \frac{1}{k} \left(E_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}[\ell_k(\mathbb{T}^*)]  - E_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}[\ell_k(\mathbb{T})]  \right) = \frac{1}{k} \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}}).
\]
We refer to $R_{k}$ and $E_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}[R_{k}(\mathbb{T})]$ as the \emph{empirical risk function} and the \emph{expected risk function}, respectively.

An intuitive argument for the consistency of the ML estimator can be described as follows.
As the number of gene trees increases, we have
\[
\left |R_{k}(\mathbb{T})  - \mathcal{R}_k(\mathbb{T}) \right|  \to 0
\]
with sufficiently high probability.
Therefore, the ML estimator will converge to the optimal value of the risk function, which is attained at the true species tree $\mathbb{T}^*$.
This simple argument is formalized by a lower bound of the expected risk function (Section 3.1) and a uniform concentration bound on the deviation of the empirical risk function and its expectation (Section 3.2).

\subsection{Lower bound of the expected risk}

\begin{Lemma}

There exist a neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $\mathbb{T}^*$ and $c_4>0$ such that
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\ell_{k}(\mathbb{T}^*) - \ell_{k}(\mathbb{T})  \right] \ge c_4 k^{\gamma} d(\mathbb{T}^*, \mathbb{T})^m \hspace*{.24in} \forall \mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{U}.
\]
\label{info}
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}

We note that
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\ell_{k}(\mathbb{T}^*) - \ell_{k}(\mathbb{T})  \right]  = \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}}).
\]
Consider an arbitrary leaf set $\mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}^*$ of size 4 and define $\mathcal{I}= \{i \le k: \mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}_i\}$.
By the weak covering property, we have $|\mathcal{I}| \ge c_1 k^{\gamma}$.
Thus,
\[
 \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}})  \ge \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}})} \geq \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}}{c_3 d(\mathbb{T}^*|_{\mathscr{L}_i}, \mathbb{T}|_{\mathscr{L}_i})^m} \ge c_1 c_3 k^{\gamma} (2n-3)^{m/2} d(\mathbb{T}^*|_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}|_\mathscr{L})^m
\]
for all $\mathbb{T}$ in some neighborhood $U$ around $\mathbb{T}^*$.
Here, the second inequality comes from Assumption $\ref{as:regular}$(b).

On the other hand, \cite{dinh2018consistency} (Lemma 6.2 (i)) proved that for some leaf set $\mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}^*$ of size 4, we have
\[
d(\mathbb{T}^*|_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}|_\mathscr{L}) \ge \frac{1}{(2n-3)} d(\mathbb{T}^*, \mathbb{T}).
\]
We deduce that
\[
\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}}) \ge \frac{1}{(2n-3)^{m/2}} c_1 c_3 k^{\gamma} d(\mathbb{T}^*, \mathbb{T})^m
\]
\end{proof}

\begin{Lemma}
For any leaf set $\mathscr{L}$ and any $x>0$, there exists $C_x>0$ such that
\[
 \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) \ge C_x
\]
when $d(\mathbb{T}^*|_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}|_\mathscr{L}) \ge x$.
\label{prelimc}
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
Assume that there exists a sequence of tree $\{\mathbb{T}_i\}$ such that $d(\mathbb{T}^*|_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}_i|_\mathscr{L}) \ge x$ and $ \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}_i}) \to 0$.
Since the tree space is compact, we can extract a sub-sequence $\{\mathbb{T}_{i_j}\}$ of $\{\mathbb{T}_i\}$ that converges to some tree $\mathbb{T}_0$.
We deduce that $ \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}_0}) =0$ and $\mathbb{T}^*|_\mathscr{L} \ne \mathbb{T}_0|_\mathscr{L}$.
This contradicts Assumption $\ref{as:iden}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{Lemma}
Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a neighborhood of $\mathbb{T}^*$.
There exist $c_{\mathcal{V}} > 0$ such that for any $\mathbb{T} \not \in \mathcal{V}$, we have
\[
\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}}) \ge c_{\mathcal{V}} k^{\gamma}.
\]
\label{prelimb}
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
By \cite{dinh2018consistency} (Lemma 6.2 (i)), there exists $\mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}^*$ of size 4 such that
\[
d(\mathbb{T}^*|_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}|_\mathscr{L}) \ge \frac{1}{(2n-3)} d(\mathbb{T}^*, \mathbb{T}) \ge C_{\mathcal{V}} >0
\]
since $\mathbb{T} \not \in \mathcal{V}$.
Define $\mathcal{I}= \{i \le k: \mathscr{L} \subset \mathscr{L}_i\}$, we note that for all $i \in \mathcal{I}$
\[
d(\mathbb{T}^*|_{\mathscr{L}_i}, \mathbb{T}|_{\mathscr{L}_i}) \ge (2n-3)^{1/2} d(\mathbb{T}^*|_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}|_\mathscr{L}) \ge C'_{\mathcal{V}},
\]
which implies $ \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}}) \ge C''_{\mathcal{V}}$ for some $ C''_{\mathcal{V}} >0$ by Lemma $\ref{prelimc}$.

By the weak covering property, we have $|\mathcal{I}| \ge c_1 k^{\gamma}$.
Thus,
\[
 \text{KL}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}})  \ge \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}})} \ge c_1 k^{\gamma} C''_{\mathcal{V}}
\]
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Uniform concentration bound}

\begin{Lemma}[Concentration bound]
For any $\delta>0$, $k \ge 3$, there exists $c_5(\delta)$ such that
\[
\left |R_{k}(\mathbb{T})  - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [R_{k}(\mathbb{T}) \right] \right| \le \frac{c_5 \log k} {\sqrt{k}} \hspace*{.24in} \forall \mathbb{T},
\]
with probability at least $1-\delta$.
\label{lem:variance}
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
Since the functions $\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}_i)$ is locally Lipschitz with respect to $\mathbb{T}$ (Assumption $\ref{as:regular}$(a)) and number of species is finite, there exists $C_1 > 0$ such that
\[
|\log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}_i) -  \log \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}_i}_{\mathbb{T}'}(\mathbb{T}_i)| \le C_1 d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}') \hspace*{.24in} \forall i, \mathbb{T}_i, \mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}'.
\]
Since the tree space is compact, $C_1 d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}')$ is bounded by a constant $C_2$.
Using Hoeffding's inequality \citep{hoeffding1963probability}, we obtain
\[
\mathbb{P}\left[ \left|R_{k}(\mathbb{T})  - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [R_{k}(\mathbb{T}) \right]   \right|  \ge \frac{x}{\sqrt{k}} \right] \le 2\exp\left(-\frac{2x^2}{kC_2^2}\right).
\]
On the other hand, we have $|R_{k}(\mathbb{T}) - R_k(\mathbb{T}')| \le C_1 d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}')$ and $|\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [R_{k}(\mathbb{T}) \right] - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [R_{k}(\mathbb{T}') \right]| \leq C_1 d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}')$.
Thus, if we define the events
\[
\mathcal{A}(x, k, \mathbb{T})=\left\{ \left|R_{k}(\mathbb{T})  - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [R_{k}(\mathbb{T}) \right]   \right|  \ge \frac{x}{2\sqrt{k}} \right\}
\]
and
\[
\mathcal{B}(x, k, \mathbb{T})=\left\{ \exists \mathbb{T}': d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}') \le \frac{x}{4C_1\sqrt{k}} ~ \text{and} ~ \left|R_{k}(\mathbb{T}')  - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [R_{k}(\mathbb{T}') \right]   \right|  \ge \frac{x}{\sqrt{k}} \right\}
\]
then $\mathcal{B}(x, k, \mathbb{T}) \subset \mathcal{A}(x, k, \mathbb{T})$.
Note that the total number of balls of radius $x/(4C_1\sqrt{k})$ required to cover the tree space is bounded above by
\[
C_n \left(\frac{4g_0C_1 \sqrt{k}}{x}\right)^{2n-3} (2n-3)!!
\]
where $g_0$ is the upper bound of branch lengths and $C_n$ is a constant depending on the number of species.
To obtain the desired inequality, we will chose $x$ such that
\[
C_n \left(\frac{4g_0C_1 \sqrt{k}}{x}\right)^{2n-3} (2n-3)!! \times 2\exp\left(-\frac{2x^2}{kC_2^2}\right) \le \delta
\]
which can be done with $x = C(\delta, n, C_2, g_0) \log k$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:consistency}}

First, we establish that the ML estimator is consistent.

By Lemma $\ref{lem:variance}$, we have
\[
\mathcal{R}(\hat \mathbb{T}_k) \le  R_k(\hat \mathbb{T}_k) + c_5 \frac{ \log(k)}{\sqrt{k}} \le  c_5 \frac{ \log(k)}{\sqrt{k}}
\]
with probability at least $1-\delta$, since $\hat \mathbb{T}_k$ is the maximizer of the empirical risk function.

On the other hand, let $\mathcal{V}$ be a neighborhood of $\mathbb{T}^*$, by Lemma \ref{prelimb},  we have
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}} [R_k(\mathbb{T}')] \ge c_{\mathcal{V}} \frac{1}{k^{1-\gamma}}\hspace*{.24in} \forall \mathbb{T}' \not \in \mathcal{V}.
\]
Since $\gamma>1/2$, there exists $K_{\delta, \mathcal{V}}$ such that for $k \ge K_{\delta, \mathcal{V}}$, we have
\[
c_5 \frac{ \log(k)}{\sqrt{k}}   \le c_{\mathcal{V}} \frac{1}{k^{1-\gamma}}
\]
We deduce that for $k \ge K_{\delta, \mathcal{V}}$, $\hat \mathbb{T}_k \in \mathcal{V}$ with probability at least $1 -\delta$.
This proves that the ML estimator is consistent.

Next, we will derive the convergence rate of the ML supertree.
From Lemma \ref{info}, there exist a neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $\mathbb{T}^*$ and $c_4, m>0$ such that
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}[R_k(\mathbb{T})] = \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{T}^*}}\left [\ell_{k}(\mathbb{T}^*) - \ell_{k}(\mathbb{T})  \right] \ge c_4 \frac{1}{k^{1-\gamma}}\ d(\mathbb{T}^*, \mathbb{T})^m \hspace*{.24in} \forall \mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{U}.
\]
For $k \ge K_{\delta, \mathcal{U}}$, we have $\hat \mathbb{T}_k \in \mathcal{U}$ with probability at least $1 -\delta$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:variance}, with probability $1 - 2\delta$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
c_4 \frac{1}{k^{1-\gamma}}\ d(\mathbb{T}^*, \hat \mathbb{T}_k)^m & \le \mathcal{R}_k(\hat \mathbb{T}_k) -  R_k(\hat \mathbb{T}_k)   \\
& \le c_5 \frac{ \log(k)}{\sqrt{k}}.
\end{align*}
Here,
\[
R_k(\hat \mathbb{T}_k) = \frac{1}{k}\ell_k(\mathbb{T}^*) - \frac{1}{k}\ell(\hat \mathbb{T} _k) \le 0
\]
because $\hat \mathbb{T}_k$ is the maximizer of $R_k$.
This completes the proof.

\section{Applications: convergence under the exponential model}

The \emph{exponential model} is a simple model of gene tree estimation errors in which the probability of observing a given tree decreases exponentially with its distance from the species tree \citep{steel2008maximum}.
Suppose $d$ is some metric on the set of trees, in the exponential model, the probability of reconstructing any tree $\mathbb{T}'$ with a leaf set $\mathscr{L}$, when $\mathbb{T}^*$ is the generating tree is proportional to an exponentially decaying function of the distance from $\mathbb{T}'$ to $\mathbb{T}^*|_{\mathscr{L}}$:
\[
\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}(\mathbb{T}') = \alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}} \exp (-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}})).
\]
Here $\beta_{\mathscr{L}}$ is a constant that depends only on the set of leaves $\mathscr{L}$, while $\alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}}$ is the normalizing constant to ensure that $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}$ is a density function.

In this section, we verify the identifiability and regularity conditions for the exponential model when $d$ is any continuous tree distance such that if $\mathbb{T}$ and $\mathbb{T}'$ have the same topology, then $d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}')$ is the Euclidean distance.

\begin{thm}
Under the exponential model with Assumptions $\ref{as:cover}$, for any $\delta>0$, $ C_{\delta} > 0$ and $K_\delta > 0$ such that for all $k \ge K_\delta$,
\[
d(\hat \mathbb{T}_k , \mathbb{T}^*)\leq C_{\delta} \left( \frac{\log k}{k^{(\gamma-1/2)}}\right)^{1/m}
\]
with probability at least $1-\delta$, where
\[
m = 4\sup_{i}{|\mathscr{L}_i|} -4.
\]
\label{thm:exp}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}

First, we note that for all $\mathbb{T}'$ with leaf set $\mathscr{L}$, $\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\mathbb{T}')$ is a positive and locally Lipschitz function.
To obtain an upper bound on the convergence rate for the ML supertree, we need to verify Assumption $\ref{as:iden}$ and Assumption $\ref{as:regular}(b)$/Remark $\ref{rem:reg}$.

\smallskip

\textbf{Identifiability}. Since it is sufficient to prove either $\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) > 0$ or $\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}) > 0$, we can assume that $\alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}} \geq \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}}$.

We denote
\[
\mathcal{A}_c = \{ \mathbb{T}' : \beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}) \leq  c \}
\]
and pick $c$ small enough such that $\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}}) \ge 2c$.
We note that in $A_c$,
\[
 \exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}) \right)  \ge \exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}}) \right).
\]
Since $\alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}} \geq \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
 \alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}} \exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* | \mathscr{L}) \right) &-  \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}} \exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T} | \mathscr{L}) \right)\\
 &\ge  \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}} \left[ \exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* | \mathscr{L}) \right)  -\exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* | \mathscr{L}) \right)  \right].
\end{align*}
By Pinsker's inequality,
\begin{align*}
\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) &\ge 2d_{TV}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) ^2 \\
& \geq 2  \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}}^2  \left [ \int_{\mathcal{A}_c}{ \exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* | \mathscr{L}) \right)- \exp \left(-\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T} | \mathscr{L}) \right)}  \right ]^2 \\
& \geq  2 \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}}^2 \mu(\mathcal{A}_c)^2 (e^c - e^{2c})^2>0,
\end{align*}
which establishes the identifiability of the exponential model.
Here, $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure.

\bigskip

\textbf{Regularity}.
Consider a fixed tree $\mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{T}$ and leaf set $\mathscr{L}$, we first assume that $\alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}} \geq \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}}$.
If we define
\[
\mathcal{A} = \{ \mathbb{T}' : \beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}) \leq  \frac{1}{3}d(\mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}}, \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}})) \},
\]
then
\[
\beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T} |_{\mathscr{L}}) \ge  \frac{2}{3}d(\mathbb{T} |_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}) ~~~ \forall \mathbb{T}' \in \mathcal{A}.
\]
Using the same argument as above, we have
\begin{align*}
d_{TV}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) & \geq  \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}_i} \mu(A) \left [e^{-\frac{1}{3} d(\mathbb{T} |_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}})} - e^{-\frac{2}{3}d(\mathbb{T} |_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}})} \right].
\end{align*}
It can be verified that there exists $C > 0$ such that for all $x \in [0, C]$, we have
\begin{equation}
e^{-x} - e^{-2x} \ge \frac{x}{2}.
\label{eq:ex}
\end{equation}
Moreover since $d$ is Euclidean inside each orthant, if $d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}^*)$ is small enough, we have
\begin{equation}
\mu(A) = C_{2|\mathscr{L}| - 3} \left(\frac{d(\mathbb{T} |_\mathscr{L}, \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}})}{ 3 \beta_{\mathscr{L}}}\right)^{2 |\mathscr{L}| -3}.
\label{eq:mu}
\end{equation}
Thus, let $\mathcal{W}$ be a neighborhood in the same topology of $\mathbb{T}^*$ such that
\[
\alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}}  \ge \frac{1}{2} \alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}} \hspace*{.24in} \forall \mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{W},
\]
and both Equations $\eqref{eq:ex}$ and $\eqref{eq:mu}$ are satisfied, we have
\[
\text{KL}(\mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}^*}, \mathcal{P}^{\mathscr{L}}_{\mathbb{T}}) \ge C d(\mathbb{T}, \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}})^{4|\mathscr{L}| - 4} \hspace*{.24in}  \forall \mathbb{T} \in \mathcal{W},
\]
for some constant $C>0$ independent of $\mathbb{T}$.

For the case when $\alpha_{\mathbb{T}^*, \mathscr{L}} < \alpha_{\mathbb{T}, \mathscr{L}}$ we define
\[
\mathcal{A}'= \{ \mathbb{T}' : \beta_{\mathscr{L}} d(\mathbb{T}', \mathbb{T}^* |_{\mathscr{L}}) \leq  \frac{1}{3}d(\mathbb{T}'|_{\mathscr{L}}, \mathbb{T}|_{\mathscr{L}})) \},
\]
and the argument proceeds similarly.
This validates Assumption $\ref{as:regular}(b)$ for exponential model with $m=4n-4$.
However, if we use the regularity condition in Remark $\ref{rem:reg}$, we can obtain the result with
\[
m = 4\sup_{i}{|\mathscr{L}_i|} -4.
\]
\end{proof}

\section{Discussion and Conclusion}

In this paper, we propose a novel analytic approach to analyze the convergence of the ML supertree method.
Instead of focusing on reconstructing the correct discrete topology of the species tree as in previous studies \citep[e.g.][]{roch2015robustness,steel2008maximum}, we employ a continuous model of the tree space and analyze the ML estimator on this metric space, aiming at recovering both the topology and the branch lengths of the species tree.
This framework enables us to use tools from statistical learning and information theory to establish the convergence rate of the ML estimator and at the same time, to weaken the conditions to obtain consistency and convergence of the estimator.
Our \emph{weak covering property} is an extension of the classical covering property \citep{steel2008maximum} and provides a considerable relaxation on the sampling schemes for supertree estimation.
Our identifiability condition is also more intuitive and generalizable than the well-known basic centrality condition and does not impose constraints on the shape of the probabilistic model of gene tree estimation errors.
Our information-theoretical approach to analyze statistical estimator on tree spaces is of independent interest and can be extended to other problems in phylogenetics.

There are several avenues for future directions for this work.
The first direction is extending our results to other practical models of phylogenetic errors, including the multiple-coalescent model (along with a detailed model of the effects of short sequence length on the accuracy in estimating the individual gene trees).
Second, while our result provides a polynomial bound on the convergence rate, the power of the convergence (characterized by the geometric constant $m$) is not sharp.
A sharper bound of the convergence rate would be of great interest to the field (from both theoretical and applied perspective) and would require further understanding of the tree-generating probabilistic model.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
LSTH was supported by startup funds from Dalhousie University, the Canada Research Chairs program, the
NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2018-05447, and the NSERC Discovery Launch Supplement DGECR-2018-00181.
VD was supported by a startup fund from University of Delaware and National Science Foundation grant DMS-1951474.

\bibliographystyle{chicago}