\section{Introduction and Related Works}
\label{sec1}
The popularity of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) is growing significantly for various application domains related to computer vision, which include object detection \cite{lecun2015deep}, segmentation \cite{he2017mask}, localization \cite{hariharan2017object}, and many more in recent years. Despite the success of deep learning models, our theoretical understanding about neural networks remains limited. Careful selection of network width (number of neurons in FC layers, number of filters in convolution layers) and network depth (number of trainable layers) plays a vital role in designing deep neural networks in order to obtain better performance.
In this paper, we made an attempt to find some of the factors which affect the performance of the CNN w.r.t. Fully Connected (FC) layers in the context of image classification. We have also studied the possible interrelationship between the presence of FC layers in CNN, the depth of the CNN, and the depth of the dataset.

Deep neural networks usually provide better results in the field of machine learning and computer vision compared to the handcrafted feature descriptors \cite{lecun2015deep}. From the available literature, it is apparent that every CNN architecture have one or more FC layers depending on the architecture's depth. To mention a few, AlexNet \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} consists of $5$ convolutional ($Conv$) layers and $3$ FC layers. The FC layers are placed after all the Conv layers. Zeiler and Fergus \cite{zeiler2014visualizing} made minimal changes to AlexNet with better hyper-parameter settings in order to generalize it over other datasets. This model is called ZFNet which also has $3$ FC layers along with $5$ convolution layers. In $2014$, Simonyan \textit{et al}. \cite{simonyan2014very} further extended the AlexNet model to VGG-16 with $16$ learnable layers including $3$ FC layers towards the end of the architecture. Later on, many CNN models have been introduced with an increasing number of learnable layers. Szegedy \textit{et al}.  \cite{szegedy2015going} proposed a $22$-layer architecture called GoogLeNet, which has a single FC (output) layer. In $2015$, He \textit{et al}.  \cite{he2016deep} introduced ResNet with $152$ trainable layers where the last layer is fully connected. However, all the above CNN architectures are proposed for large-scale ImageNet dataset \cite{deng2009imagenet}. Recently, Basha \textit{et al}.  \cite{basha2018rccnet} proposed a CNN based classifier called RCCNet, which is responsible for classifying the routine colon cancer cells of dimension $32\times32\times3$. This CNN model has $7$ learnable layers including $3$ FC layers.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/Picture3_updated_impact_FC_1.png}
\caption{The illustration of the effect of deeper/wider datasets and depth of CNN (i.e., the number of the Convolutional layers, $n$) over the number of FC layers (i.e., $k$). A typical plain CNN architecture has Convolutional (learnable), Max-pooling (non-learnable) and FC (learnable) layers.
}
\label{a_motivational_fig}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Necessity of Fully Connected Layers in CNN:}
In a shallow CNN model, the features generated by the final convolutional layer correspond to a portion of the input image as its receptive field does not cover the entire spatial dimension of the image. Thus, few FC layers are mandatory in such a scenario. Despite their pervasiveness, the hyperparameters like the number of FC layers and number of neurons required in FC layers for a given CNN architecture to obtain better performance are not explored.

In a typical deep neural network, the FC layers comprise most of the parameters of the network. AlexNet has $60$ million parameters, out of which $58$ million parameters correspond to the FC layers \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. Similarly, \mbox{VGGNet} has a total of $138$ million parameters, out of which $123$ million parameters belong to FC layers \cite{simonyan2014very}. This huge number of trainable parameters in FC layers are required to fit complex nonlinear discriminant functions in the feature space into which the input data elements are mapped.
However, this large number of parameters may result in over-fitting the classifier (CNN). To reduce the amount of over-fitting, Xu \textit{et al}.  \cite{xu2018overfitting} proposed a CNN architecture called \mbox{SparseConnect} where the connections between {\em FC} layers are sparsed.

The effect of deep or shallow networks on different kind of datasets is well explored in the literature to study the behavioral interrelationship between depth of dataset and the CNN \cite{mhaskar2016deep, mhaskar2016learning}. Mhaskar \textit{et al}.  \cite{mhaskar2016deep} extended a framework for their previous work \cite{mhaskar2016learning} to investigate when deep networks are better than shallow networks using a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). Montufar \textit{et al}.  \cite{montufar2014number} performed a study to find the complexity of the functions computable by deep neural networks with linear activations.

To the best of our knowledge, no effort has been made in the literature to analyze the role of FC layers in CNN for image classification. In this paper, we investigate the impact of FC layers on the performance of the CNN model with a rigorous analysis from various aspects. In brief, the contributions of this paper are summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We perform a systematic study to observe the effect of deeper/shallower architectures on the performance of CNNs with varying number of FC layers.

\item We observe the effect of deeper/wider datasets on the performance of CNN w.r.t. FC layers.

\item We generalize one important finding of Bansal \textit{et al}.  \cite{bansal2017s} to choose deeper or shallow architecture based on the depth of the dataset. In \cite{bansal2017s}, they have reported the same in the context of face recognition, Whereas, we made a rigorous study to generalize this observation over different kinds of datasets.
\item To make the empirical justification of our findings, we have conducted the experiments on different modalities (i.e., natural and bio-medical images) of image datasets like CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, Tiny ImageNet \cite{tinyimagenet}, and CRCHistoPhenotypes  \cite{sirinukunwattana2016locality}.
\end{itemize}

Next, we illustrate the developed deep and shallow CNN architectures to conduct the experiments in Section \ref{Developed_CNN_models}. Experimental setup including training details, evaluation criteria, and datasets are discussed in Section \ref{experimental_setup}. Section \ref{results_analysis} presents a detailed study of the observations found in this paper. At last, Section \ref{conclusion}
concludes the paper.

\section{Developed CNN Architectures}
\label{Developed_CNN_models}
The main objective of this paper is to analyze the impact of different hyperparameters realted to FC layers (the number of FC layers and the number of neurons) over the performance. Inter-dependency between the characteristics of both the datasets and the networks are explored w.r.t. FC layers as shown in Fig. \ref{a_motivational_fig}. In order to conduct a rigorous experimental study, we have implemented four CNN models among which three CNN models are plain architectures. Another model involves skip connections as in ResNet \cite{he2016deep}. These models are termed as CNN-1, CNN-2, and CNN-3.

\textbf{Deep and Shallow CNNs}: As per the published literature \cite{ba2014deep, montufar2014number}, a neural network is referred to as shallow if it has single fully connected (hidden) layer. Whereas, a deep CNN consists of convolution layers, pooling layers, and FC layers. However, in this paper, we assume a CNN model $N_1$ as deep/shallow compared to another CNN model $N_2$, if the number of trainable layers in $N_1$ is more/less than $N_2$, respectively.

\subsection{CNN-1 Architecture}
AlexNet \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} is well-known CNN architecture, which won the first ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) in 2012 \cite{russakovsky2015imagenet} with a huge performance gain as compared to the best results of that time using handcrafted features. The AlexNet architecture was proposed for the images of dimension $227 \times 227 \times 3$, we made minimal changes to the model to fit for low-resolution images. We name this model as CNN-1. Initially, the input image dimension is up-sampled from $32\times32\times3$ to $35\times35\times3$ in the case of \mbox{CRCHistoPhenotypes} \cite{sirinukunwattana2016locality}, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning} datasets. Whereas, the images of Tiny ImageNet dataset \cite{tinyimagenet} are down-sampled from $64\times64\times3$ to $35\times35\times3$. The $1^{st}$ convolutional layer $Conv1$ produces $31\times31\times96$ dimensional feature vector by applying $96$ filters of dimension $5\times5\times3$. The $Conv1$ layer is followed by another Convolution layer ($Conv2$), which produces $27\times27\times256$ dimensional feature map by convolving $256$ filters of size $5\times5\times96$. The remaining layers of the CNN-1 model are similar to the AlexNet architecture proposed in \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. The CNN-1 model with a single FC layer (i.e., the output FC layer) consists of following number of trainable parameters, $4,152,906$ for CIFAR-10 dataset, $8,046,756$ for CIFAR-100 dataset, $12,373,256$ for Tiny ImageNet dataset, and $3,893,316$ for CRCHistoPhenotypes dataset. Note that, the number of trainable parameters are different for each dataset due to the different number of classes present in the datasets which leads to the varying number of trainable parameters in the output FC layer. The detailed specifications of the CNN-1 model are given in Table \ref{table_CNN-1}.

\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{The CNN-1 architecture having $5$ $Conv$ layers. The $S$, $P$, and $BN$ denote stride, padding, and batch normalization, respectively. The output (FC) layer has $10$, $100$, $200$, and $4$ neurons in the case of CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, \mbox{Tiny ImageNet}, and CRCHistoPhenotypes datasets, respectively.}
\label{table_CNN-1}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabular}{l l }
\hline Input: &Image dimension ($35\times35\times3$) \\
\hline
\hline
[layer $1$]& Conv. $(5,5,96)$, S=$1$, P=$0$; ReLU; BN;\\
\hline
[layer $2$]& Conv. $(5,5,256)$, S=$1$, P=$0$;  ReLU; BN;\\
\hline
[layer $3$]& Pool., S=$2$, P=$0$; \\
\hline
[layer $4$]& Conv. $(3,3,384)$, S=$1$, P=$1$; ReLU;\\
\hline
[layer $5$]& Conv. $(3,3,384)$, S=$1$, P=$1$; ReLU;\\
\hline
[layer $6$]& Conv. $(3,3,256)$, S=$1$, P=$1$; ReLU;\\
\hline
[layer $7$]& Flatten; $43264$;\\
\hline
\hline
Output:& (FC layer) Predicted Class Scores\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{The CNN-2 model having 10-$Conv$ layers. The $S$, $P$, $BN$, and $DP_f$ denote the stride, padding, batch normalization, and dropout with a factor of $f$. The output layer has $10$, $100$, $200$, and $4$ neurons in the case of CIFAR-10
, CIFAR-100
, Tiny ImageNet, and CRCHistoPhenotypes
datasets, respectively.}
\label{12_layer_model}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabular}{l l }
\hline Input: &Image dimension ($32\times32\times3$) \\
\hline
\hline
[layer $1$]& Conv. $(3,3,64)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN, DP$_{0.3}$\\
\hline
[layer $2$]& Conv. $(3,3,64)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN;\\
\hline
[layer $3$]& Pool., S=$2$, P=$0$; \\
\hline
\hline
[layer $4$]& Conv. $(3,3,128)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN, DP$_{0.4}$\\
\hline
[layer $5$]& Conv. $(3,3,128)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN;\\
\hline
[layer $6$]& Pool., S=$2$, P=$0$; \\
\hline
\hline
[layer $7$]& Conv. $(3,3,256)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN, DP$_{0.4}$\\
\hline
[layer $8$]& Conv. $(3,3,256)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN;\\
\hline
[layer $9$]& Pool., S=$2$, P=$0$; \\
\hline
\hline
[layer $10$]& Conv. $(3,3,512)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN, DP$_{0.4}$\\
\hline
[layer $11$]& Conv. $(3,3,512)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN;\\
\hline
[layer $12$]& Pool., S=$2$, P=$0$; \\
\hline
\hline
[layer $13$]& Conv. $(3,3,512)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN, DP$_{0.4}$\\
\hline
[layer $14$]& Conv. $(3,3,512)$, S=$1$, P=$1$;  ReLU; BN;\\
\hline
[layer $15$]& Pool., S=$2$, P=$0$; \\
\hline
\hline
[layer $16$]& Flatten; 512;\\
\hline
\hline
Output:& (FC layer) Predicted Class Scores\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}
\centering
    \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/CIFAR-10_image_samples.png}} \label{CIFAR-10_dataset}
    \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/TinyImageNet_image_samples.png}}\label{Tinyimagenet_dataset}
   \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/CRC_image_samples.png}}\label{CRC_dataset}
 \caption{(a) A few sample images from CIFAR-10/100 dataset \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}. (b) A random sample images from Tiny ImageNet dataset \cite{tinyimagenet}. (c) Example images from CRCHistoPhenotypes dataset \cite{sirinukunwattana2016locality} with each row represents the images from one category.}
\label{image_samples}
\end{figure}

\subsection{CNN-2 Architecture}
Another CNN model is designed based on the CIFAR-VGG \cite{liu2015very} model by removing some $Conv$ layers from the model. We name this model as CNN-2. The CNN-2 has $6$ blocks, where first $5$ blocks have two consecutive $Conv$ layers followed by a $Pool$ layer. Finally, the sixth block has a FC (output) layer which generates the class scores. The input to this model is an image of dimension $32\times32\times3$. To meet this requirement, images of the Tiny ImageNet dataset are down-sampled from $64\times64\times3$ to $32\times32\times3$. The CNN-2 architecture corresponds to $9416010$, $9462180$, $9513480$, and $9412932$ trainable parameters in the case of CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Tiny ImageNet, and CRCHistoPhenoTypes datasets, respectively. The CNN-2 model specifications are given in Table \ref{12_layer_model}.

\subsection{CNN-3 Architecture}
Most of the popular CNN models like AlexNet \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}, VGG-16 \cite{simonyan2014very}, GoogLeNet \cite{szegedy2015going}, and many more were proposed for high dimensional image dataset called ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet}. On the other hand, the low dimensional image datasets such as CIFAR-10/100 have rarely got benefited from the CNNs. Liu \textit{et al}.  \cite{liu2015very} introduced CIFAR-VGG architecture, which is basically a $16$ layer deep CNN architecture proposed for CIFAR-10. We have utilized CIFAR-VGG model as the third deep neural network to observe the impact of FC layers in CNN and named as CNN-3 in this paper. The input to this model is an image of dimension $32\times32\times3$. To meet this requirement, images of the Tiny ImageNet dataset are down-sampled from $64\times64\times3$ to $32\times32\times3$. The CNN-3 architecture with a single FC (output) layer corresponds to $14728266$, $14774436$, $14825736$, and $14725188$ trainable parameters in the case of CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, CIFAR-100 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, Tiny ImageNet \cite{tinyimagenet}, and CRCHistoPhenotypes \cite{sirinukunwattana2016locality} datasets, respectively.

\section{Experimental Setup}
\label{experimental_setup}
  This section describes the experimental setup including the training details, datasets used for the experiments, and the evaluation criteria to judge the performance of the CNN models.

\subsection{Training details}
The classification experiments are conducted on different modalities of image datasets to provide the empirical justifications of our findings in this paper. The initial value of the learning rate is $0.1$ and it is decreased by a factor of $2$ for every $20$ epochs. The Rectified Linear Unit ($ReLU$) based non-linearity \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} is used as the activation function after every $Conv$ and FC layer (except the output FC layer) in all the CNN models discussed in section \ref{Developed_CNN_models}. The Batch Normalization (i.e., $BN$) \cite{ioffe2015batch} is employed after $ReLU$ of each $Conv$ and FC layer, except final FC layer in CNN-2 and CNN-3 architectures. Whereas, in the case of CNN-1, the Batch Normalization is used only with the first two $Conv$ layers as mentioned in Table \ref{table_CNN-1}. To reduce the amount of over-fitting, we have used a popular regularization method called Dropout (i.e., $DP$) \cite{srivastava2014dropout} after some Batch-Normalization layers as summarized in Table \ref{12_layer_model} for CNN-2. For CNN-3, the $DP$ layers are used as per the CIFAR-VGG model \cite{liu2015very}.
In order to find the impact of fully connected (FC) layers on the performance of CNN, any added FC layer has the $ReLU$, $BN$ and $DP$ by default.
Along with dropout, various data augmentations techniques like rotation, horizontal flip, and vertical flip are also applied to reduce the amount of over-fitting. The implemented CNN architectures are trained for $250$ epochs using Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) optimizer with a momentum of $0.9$.

\subsection{Evaluation criteria}
To evaluate the performance of the developed CNN models (i.e., CNN-1, CNN-2, and CNN-3), we have considered the classification accuracy as the performance evaluation metric.

\subsection{Datasets}
\label{datasets}
To find out the empirical observations addressed in this paper, we have conducted the experiments on different modalities of datasets such as CIFAR-$10$ \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, CIFAR-$100$ \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, Tiny ImageNet \cite{tinyimagenet} (i.e., the natural image datasets), and CRCHistoPhenotypes \cite{sirinukunwattana2016locality} (i.e., the medical image dataset).

\subsubsection{CIFAR-10}
The CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning} is the most popular tiny image dataset consists of $10$ different categories of images, where each class has $6000$ images. The dimension of each image is $32\times32\times3$. To train the deep neural networks, we have used the training set (i.e., $50000$ images) of the CIFAR-10 dataset, and remaining data (i.e., $10000$ images) is utilized to validate the performance of the models. A few samples of images from the CIFAR-10 dataset are shown in Fig. \ref{image_samples}(a).

\subsubsection{CIFAR-100}
The CIFAR-100 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning} dataset is similar to CIFAR-10, except that CIFAR-100 has $100$ classes. In our experimental setting, the $50,000$ images are used to train the CNN models and the remaining $10,000$ images are used to validate the performance of the models. Similar to CIFAR-10, the dimension of each image is $32\times32\times3$. The sample images are shown in Fig. \ref{image_samples}(a).

\subsubsection{Tiny ImageNet}
The Tiny ImageNet dataset \cite{tinyimagenet} consists a subset of ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet} images. This dataset has a total of $200$ classes and each class has $500$ training and $50$ validation images. In other words, we have used $100000$ images for training and $10000$ images for validating the performance of the models. The dimension of each image is $64\times64\times3$. The example images of the Tiny ImageNet dataset are portrayed in Fig. \ref{image_samples}(b).

\subsubsection{CRCHistoPhenotypes}
In order to generalize the observations reported in this paper, we have used a medical image dataset (consists of routine colon cancer nuclei cells) called ``CRCHistoPhenotypes'' \cite{sirinukunwattana2016locality}, which is publicly available\footnote{\url{https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/research/tia/data/crchistolabelednucleihe}}.
This colon cancer dataset consists a total of $22444$ nuclei patches that belong to the four different classes, namely, `Epithelial', `Inflammatory', `Fibroblast', and `Miscellaneous'. In total, $7722$ images belong to the `Epithelial' class, $5712$ images belong to the `Fibroblast' class, $6971$ images belong to the `Inflammatory' class, and the `Miscellaneous' class has remaining $2039$. The dimension of each nuclei patch is $32\times32\times3$.
For training the CNN models, $80\%$ of entire data ($i.e., 17955$ images) is utilized and remaining $20\%$ data (i.e., $4489$ images) is used to validate the performance of the models. The sample images are displayed in Fig. \ref{image_samples}(c).

\textbf{Deeper vs Wider datasets \cite{bansal2017s}}:
For any two datasets with roughly same number of images, one dataset is said to be deeper \cite{bansal2017s} than another dataset, if it has more number of images per class in the training set. The other dataset which has a lower number of images per class (i.e., more number of classes compared to another one) in the training set is called the wider dataset. For example, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, both the datasets have $50000$ images in the training set. The CIFAR-10 is a deeper dataset since it has $5000$ images per class in the training set. On the other hand, the CIFAR-100 is wider dataset because it has only $500$ images per class.

\section{Results and Analysis}
\label{results_analysis}
We have conducted extensive experiments to observe the useful practices in deep learning for the usage of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). The four CNN models discussed in section \ref{Developed_CNN_models} are implemented to perform the experiments on publicly available CIFAR-10/100, Tiny ImageNet, and CRCHistoPhenotypes datasets. The results in terms of the classification accuracy are reported in this paper.

\subsection{Impact of FC layers on the performance of the CNN w.r.t. to the depth of the CNN}
To observe the effect of deeper/shallow architectures on FC layers, initially, the CNN models are trained with a single FC (output) layer. Then another FC layer is added manually before the output (FC) layer to observe the gain/loss in the performance due to the addition of the new FC layer. The number of neurons is chosen (for newly added FC layer) starting from the number of classes to all multiples of $2$ (i.e, powers of $2$ such as $16$, $32$, etc.), which is greater than the number of classes and up to $4096$. For instance, in the case of CIFAR-10 dataset \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, the experiments are conducted by varying the number of neurons in the newly added FC layer with $10, 16, 32, 64, ... , 4096$ number of neurons. In the next step, one more FC layer is added before the recently added FC layer. The number of neurons for newly added FC layer is chosen, ranging from the value for which best performance is obtained in the previous setting to $4096$. Suppose we obtained the best performance over CIFAR-10 using CNN-1 having two FC layers with $512$, $10$ neurons CIFAR-10. Then, we observed the performance of the model by adding another FC layer with $512, 1024, 2048,$ and $4096$ number of neurons. The details like the number of FC layers, number of neurons in each FC layer, best classification accuracies obtained for CIFAR-10 dataset using the four CNN models are shown in Table \ref{results_CIFAR10}. It is evident from Table \ref{results_CIFAR10} that the deeper architectures (i.e., CNN-3, CNN-2 with more convolution layers (require relatively less number of FC layers and also less number of neurons in FC layers compared to the shallow architecture (i.e., CNN-1 with $5$ $Conv$ layers) for CIFAR-10 dataset.

To generalize the above-mentioned observation, we have computed the results by varying the number of FC layers over other datasets and reported the best performance in Table \ref{results_findings}. From Table \ref{results_findings}, similar findings are noticed that the deeper architectures do not require more FC layers. On the other hand, the shallow architectures (such as CNN-1) require more FC layers in order to obtain better performance for any dataset. The reasoning for such a behavior is related to the type of features being learned by the $Conv$ layers. In general, CNN architecture learns the hierarchical features from raw images. Zeiler and Fergus \cite{zeiler2014visualizing} shown that the early layers learn the low-level features, whereas the deeper layers learn the high-level (problem specific) features. It means that the final $Conv$ layer of shallow architecture produces less abstract features as compared to the deeper architecture. Thus, the number of FC layers needed for shallow architecture is more as compared to the deeper architectures. To provide powerful evidence to the findings reported in this paper, we have conducted experiments by considering the half of the images (images belong to $100$ classes) of Tiny ImageNet dataset. We name this configuration as setting-1 (refer Table \ref{results_findings}).
We have also considered SVM (hinge) loss to compare the results that we obtained using the popular cross-entropy loss function. The CNN architectures through which the best validation is obtained (using FC layer structure reported in Table \ref{results_findings}) are trained using hinge loss. The same results are specified in the last row of Table \ref{results_findings}.

\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{The effect of depth of the CNN models (i.e., CNN-1, CNN-2, and CNN-3) on FC layers for the CIFAR-10 dataset is shown in this table. The best and $2^{nd}$ best accuracies are highlighted in bold and italic, respectively. For example, the CNN-2 model produces the best accuracy of $92.29\%$ for three FC layers with $4096$, $256$, and $10$ neurons and the $2^{nd}$ best accuracy of $92.02\%$ for two FC layers with $256$ and $10$ neurons.}
\label{results_CIFAR10}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\columnwidth,center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | }
\hline
  \textbf{CNN-1} & \textbf{CNN-2} & \textbf{CNN-3}   \\
\hline

  Output FC layer (44.29)    & Output FC layer (91.46) & \textit{Output FC layer (92.05)}  )
    \\ \hline

  $10\times10$ $(88.67)$    & $10\times10$ (91.14)  & $10\times10$ (91.03)   \\ \hline

 $16\times10$ (88.72)    & $16\times10$ (91.58) & $16\times10$ (91.77)     \\ \hline

   $32\times10$ (88.93) & $\textit{32}\times\textit{10}$ \textit{(91.99)}  &  $32\times10$ (92.02)   \\ \hline

 $64\times10$ (89.72) & $64\times10$ (91.82) &  $64\times10$ (91.8)  \\ \hline

 $128\times10$ (89.2) & $128\times10$ (91.86) & $128\times10$ (89.2)  \\ \hline

 $256\times10$ (89.23) & \textit{$\textit{256}\times\textit{10}$ (92.02)} & $256\times10$ (89.23)   \\ \hline

 $512\times10$ (88.95) & $512\times10$ (90.98)  & $512\times10$ (91.78)   \\ \hline

 $1024\times10$ (89.56) & $1024\times10$ (91.54)  & $\textbf{1024}\times\textbf{10}$ \textbf{(92.22)}  \\ \hline

 $2048\times10$ (87.4) & $2048\times10$ (91.27)  & $2048\times10$ (91.59)  \\ \hline

 $4096\times10$ (86.27) & $4096\times10$ (87.51) & $4096\times10$ (90.68)   \\ \hline

 $64\times64\times10$ (89.35) & $256\times256\times10$  (91.97) & $1024\times1024\times10$ (91.27)   \\ \hline

 $128\times64\times10$ (89.71) & $512\times256\times10$ (91.92) & $2048\times1024\times10$ (91.43)   \\ \hline

 $256\times64\times10$ (89.79) & $1024\times256\times10$ (91.53) &  $4096\times1024\times10$ (91.94)  \\ \hline

 $512\times64\times10$ (89.88) & $2048\times256\times10$ (91.95) &  -  \\ \hline

 $1024\times64\times10$ (90) & $\textbf{4096}\times\textbf{256}\times\textbf{10}$ \textbf{(92.29)} &  -   \\ \hline

 $2048\times64\times10$ (90.28) & $4096\times4096\times256\times10$ (91.64) & -   \\ \hline

 $4096\times64\times10$ (90.59) &  - & -    \\ \hline
  \textbf{$\textbf{4096}\times\textbf{4096}\times\textbf{64}\times\textbf{10}$ (90.77)}  & - &  -   \\ \hline
 $\textit{4096}\times\textit{4096}\times\textit{4096}\times\textit{64}\times\textit{10}$ \textit{(90.74)} & - & -  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

\begin{table}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{The best validation accuracies obtained over CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Tiny ImageNet and CRCHistoPhenotypes datasets using four CNN models (i.e., CNN-1, CNN-2, and CNN-3) are depicted in this table. The results are presented in terms of the FC layer structures and validation accuracy.
}
\label{results_findings}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | p{5cm} |  c |  }
\hline

S.No. & Architecture & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Dataset}  \\ \cline{3-6}
& & CIFAR-10 & CIFAR-100 & Tiny ImageNet & CRCHistoPhenoTypes \\ \hline

1 & CNN-1 & $4096\times4096\times64\times10$ $(90.77)$ & $4096\times4096\times2048\times100$ $(69.21)$ & $4096\times4096\times1024\times200$ $(50.1)$

& $2048\times256\times4$ $(82.53)$ \\ \hline

2 & CNN-2 & $4096\times256\times10$  $(92.29)$ &	$4096\times100$  $(62.28)$ &	$512\times200$, $1024\times200$ $(41.84)$

&	$512\times4$  $(84.89)$ \\ \hline

3 & CNN-3 & $1024\times10$ $(92.22)$
&	Single FC (output) layer $(66.98)$ &	Single FC (output) layer $(40.27)$

& $128x4$  $(84.94)$ \\ \hline

\end{tabular}%
}

 \end{center}
\end{table}

\subsection{Effect of FC layers on the performance of the CNN model w.r.t. to different types of datasets}
We have used two kinds of datasets (deeper and wider) to analyze the effect of FC layers on the performance of CNN.
Table \ref{factors_table} presents the characteristics like average number of images per class in the training set ($N$), number of classes ($C$), number of training images ($Tr$), and validation images ($Va$) of four datasets discussed in section \ref{datasets}.

From Fig. \ref{impact_FClayers_datasets}, we can observe that shallow architecture CNN-1 (less deeper than CNN-2, and CNN-3) requires more neurons in FC layers for wider datasets compared to deeper datasets. On the other hand, deeper architecture CNN-3 (deeper than CNN-1) requires fewer neurons in FC layers for wider datasets compared to deeper datasets. Deeper CNN models such as CNN-3, CNN-2 have more number of trainable parameters in $Conv$ layers. Thus, a deeper dataset is required to learn large parameters of the network. In contrast, a shallow architecture like CNN-1 with $5$ $Conv$ layers has fewer parameters for which a wider dataset is better suited to train the model.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/dataset_vs_FC_layers_1.png}
\caption{The effect of deeper/wider datasets on FC layers of CNN. For wider datasets, deeper architecture (CNN-3) requires relatively less number of neurons in FC layers than deeper datasets. On the other hand, for wider datasets, shallow architecture (CNN-1) requires relatively large number of neurons in FC layers compared to deeper datasets.}
\label{impact_FClayers_datasets}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{The characteristics of CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Tiny ImageNet, and CRCHistoPhenotypes datasets are presented in this table. Here, $N$ represents the average number of images per class in the training set, $C$ represents the number of classes corresponding to a dataset, $Tr$ and $Va$ are the number of images in the Training and Validation sets, respectively.}
\label{factors_table}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset}
 & \textbf{N} & \textbf{C} & \textbf{Tr} & \textbf{Va}\\
\hline
CIFAR-10  &    5000  & 10 & 50,000 & 10,000\\ \hline
CIFAR-100 &    500 & 100 & 50,000 & 10,000\\ \hline
Tiny ImageNet   & 500 & 200 & 80,000 & 20,000\\ \hline
CRCHistoPhenotypes  &  4489    & 4 & 17955 & 4489\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\subsection{Deeper vs. Shallower Architectures, Which are better and when?}
\label{deep/shallow}
Bansal \textit{et al}.  \cite{bansal2017s} have reported that the deeper architectures are preferred over shallow architectures while training the CNN models with deeper datasets. Whereas, for the wider datasets, the shallow architectures perform better compared to the deeper architectures. However, this observation is specific to face recognition problem as reported in \cite{bansal2017s}. In this paper, we made a rigorous study to generalize this finding by conducting extensive experiments on different modalities of datasets. For example, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny ImageNet datasets have the natural images and the CRCHistoPhenotypes dataset has the medical images. The results obtained through these experiments clearly indicate that the deeper architectures are always preferred over shallow architectures to train the CNN model using deeper datasets. In contrast, for the wider datasets, the shallow architectures perform better than the deeper CNN models.

From Table \ref{results_findings}, we can observe that training deeper architectures CNN-2 and CNN-3 with deeper dataset produce $92.29\%$ and $92.22\%$ validation accuracies for the CIFAR-10 dataset and $84.89\%$ and $84.94\%$ for the CRCHistoPhenotypes dataset. In contrast, we obtained $90.77\%$ and $82.53\%$ validation accuracies, when the shallow architecture CNN-1 is trained with CIFAR-10 and CRCHistoPhenotypes datasets, respectively. On the other hand, for the wider datasets such as CIFAR-100 and Tiny ImageNet, better performance is obtained using the shallow architecture (CNN-1). From Table \ref{results_findings}, we can observe that the CNN-1 gives a validation accuracy of $69.21\%$ for CIFAR-100 and $50.1\%$ for Tiny ImageNet dataset. Whereas, the CNN-1 model performs relatively poor for deeper datasets.

This observation is very much useful while choosing a CNN architecture to train the model for a given dataset. The generalization of this finding intuitively makes sense because the deeper/shallow architectures have a more/less number of trainable parameters, in a typical CNN model which require more/less number of images per subject (class) for the training.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
In this paper, we have analyzed the effect of certain decisions in terms of the FC layers of CNN for image classification. Careful selection of these decisions not only improves the performance of the CNN models but also reduces the time required to choose among different architectures such as deeper and shallow. This paper is concluding the following guidelines that can be adopted while designing the deep/shallow convolutional neural networks to obtain better performance.
\begin{itemize}
\item In order to obtain better performance, the shallow CNNs require more nodes in FC layers. On the other hand, deeper CNNs need less number of neurons in FC layers irrespective of type of the dataset.

\item The shallow CNNs require a large number of neurons in FC layers as well as more number of FC layers for \textbf{wider datasets} compared to \textbf{deeper datasets} and vice-versa.

\item Deeper CNNs perform better than shallow models over \textbf{deeper datasets}. In contrast, shallow architectures perform better than deeper architectures for \textbf{wider datasets}. These observations can help the deep learning community while making a decision about the choice of deep/shallow CNN architectures.
\end{itemize}

\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
This work is supported in part by the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Govt. of India, Grant No. ECR/2017/000082. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of the GeForce Titan XP GPU.

\section*{References}


\section{Introduction}

A key open question in astrochemistry is how chemical complexity increases during the formation process of Sun-like stars from prestellar cores to protoplanetary disks and ultimately to planets \citep{caselli12a}.
Is the chemical composition of planets inherited from the prestellar and protostellar stages?
Or does it reflect chemical processes occurring in the disk?
Are organics efficiently formed in disks and by what mechanism(s)?

Organic and prebiotic molecules  form either through gas-phase reactions \citep[e.g.,][]{millar91,balucani15} or on the icy surface of dust grains \citep[e.g.,][]{tielens82,garrod08}. Understanding the efficiency and occurrence of these mechanisms requires a comparison of observations and predictions from astrochemical models.
Detailed models of the disk chemistry including gas-phase reactions, molecule freeze-out, dust surface chemistry, and both thermal and nonthermal desorption mechanisms have been developed to predict the ice and gas abundances of complex organic molecules \citep[e.g.,][]{aikawa99,willacy09,walsh14,loomis15}.
However, only a few simple organics have been detected in disks so far \citep{qi13a,oberg15,walsh16,favre18}. Among these organics, formaldehyde (H$_2$CO) and methanol (CH$_3$OH) are essential to the investigation of the formation of  organics. While H$_2$CO can form both in the gas phase and on grains, CH$_3$OH forms exclusively on grains \citep[e.g.,][]{watanabe02}.
Therefore, observations of its abundance and distribution in disks is crucial to constraining the mechanism(s) that form these simple organics, which are the  building blocks  in the formation of complex organic and prebiotic molecules.

Observationally, H$_2$CO has been detected in a number of protoplanetary disks through single-dish and low angular resolution surveys \citep[e.g.,][]{oberg10,oberg11,guilloteau13,qi13a}, but only three of them were imaged at an angular resolution of $\sim 0.5''$, namely DM Tau \citep{loomis15}, TW Hya \citep{oberg17}, and HD 163296 \citep{carney17}. Therefore, the distribution and formation mechanisms (whether in the gas phase or on grains) of H$_2$CO in disks is still unclear.
Because of its low volatility and large partition function, CH$_3$OH is even more difficult to observe. To date, it has been detected only in the disks of TW Hya \citep{walsh16} and of the young outbursting star V883 Ori \citep{vanthoff18}.

The nearby T Tauri star DG Tau ($d=121\pm2$ pc, \citealt{gaia16,gaia18}) is an ideal target to investigate the origin of simple organics in protoplanetary disks.
DG Tau is surrounded by a compact and massive dusty disk imaged with CARMA \citep{isella10} and ALMA in polarimetric mode \citep{bacciotti18}, and is associated with bright molecular emission detected with the IRAM 30m telescope and {\it Herschel} \citep{guilloteau13,podio12,fedele13}.
However, the origin of the detected molecular emission is unclear because DG Tau is also associated with a residual envelope and a jet \citep{eisloffel98}.
\citet{guilloteau13} suggest that the single-peaked profile of SO and H$_2$CO is due to envelope emission, while the fundamental H$_2$O lines have double-peaked profiles and fluxes in agreement with disk model predictions \citep{podio13}.
Interferometric maps of CO and its isotopologues show that the envelope dominate the molecular emission on large scales \citep{schuster93,kitamura96a}, while disk emission is detected on scales $<2"$ \citep{testi02,gudel18}.
Given the complexity of the circumstellar environment, spatially resolved maps are crucial to reveal the origin of the molecular emission.

In this letter we present ALMA Cycle 4 observations of H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH in the disk of DG Tau at an unprecedented resolution of $\sim 0\farcs15$, i.e., $\sim 18$ au, and we discuss the possible formation mechanism of these simple organics.

\section{Observations}

ALMA observations of DG\,Tau were performed during Cycle~4 in August 2017 with baselines ranging from 17\,m to 3.7\,km. The bandpass was calibrated with the quasar J0510+1800, and phase calibration was performed every $\sim$8 minutes using quasar J0438+3004.
The correlator setup consists of 12 high-resolution (0.122\,MHz) spectral windows (SPWs) covering several molecular transitions, among which o-H$_2$CO $3_{1,2}-2_{1,1}$, and CH$_3$OH $3_{-2,2}-4_{-1,4}$ E  and $5_{0,5}-4_{0,4}$ A (frequency, $\nu_{0}$; upper level energies, E$_{\rm up}$; and line strengths, S$_{\rm ij} \mu^2$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab:lines}).
Data reduction was carried out following standard procedures using the ALMA pipeline in CASA 4.7.2. Self-calibration was performed on the source continuum emission, by combining a selection of line-free channels, and applying the phase solutions to the continuum-subtracted SPWs.
Continuum images and spectral cubes were produced with tclean applying a manually selected mask and Briggs parameter of 0.5.
The flux calibration was performed using quasars J0238+1636 and J0510+1800, obtaining an accuracy of $\sim 10\%$.
The clean beam FWHMs and r.m.s (per 0.162 km\,s$^{-1}$\, channel) of the resulting line cubes are listed in Table~\ref{tab:lines}.
The continuum image has an r.m.s. of 0.3 mJy/beam.

   \begin{figure*}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{34475_fig1a.eps}
\hspace{1cm}
   \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{34475_fig1b.eps}
   \vspace{-0.8cm}
   \caption{Moment maps of H$_2$CO  towards DG Tau. {\em Left panel:} H$_2$CO moment 0 map. The color scale indicates the line intensity integrated over the H$_2$CO velocity profile (V$_{\rm LSR} = (+3.24, +9.24)$ km\,s$^{-1}$) in Jy/beam km\,s$^{-1}$. The magenta contours indicate the 1.3~mm dust continuum emission (from 3$\sigma$ with steps of 10$\sigma$). The blue and magenta ellipse in the bottom left and right corner indicate the synthesized beam for H$_2$CO and the continuum, respectively. {\em Right panel:} H$_2$CO moment 1 map. The color scale indicates the velocity V$_{\rm LSR}$ in km\,s$^{-1}$.}
              \label{fig:moments}
    \end{figure*}

\section{Ring of formaldehyde in the disk of DG Tau}

The map of the continuum emission at 225.7 GHz (1.3~mm) (Fig.~\ref{fig:moments}) shows a smooth distribution, with integrated flux of $297$ mJy and peak intensity of $33$ mJy/beam at R.A.(J2000)$=04^h 27^m 04^s.70$, Dec(J2000)$=+26\degr 06\arcmin 15\farcs72$.
By applying a 2D Gaussian fit, we determine the disk major and minor axes deconvolved from the beam ($0\farcs43\pm0\farcs02$ and $0\farcs38\pm0\farcs02$), hence the disk inclination $i= 41\degr \pm 2\degr$ and position angle PA$ = 128\degr \pm 16\degr$. These values are in good agreement with the estimates obtained at 0.87~mm and 1.3~mm \citep{bacciotti18,isella10} and with the jet inclination and PA (the jet is ejected perpendicular to the disk at $i_{\rm jet}= 38\degr \pm 2\degr$, PA $_{\rm jet} =226\degr \pm 10\degr$, \citealt{eisloffel98}).

The moment 0 and 1 maps of the H$_2$CO $3_{1,2} - 2_{1,1}$ emission obtained with CASA by integrating over velocities from $3.24$ to $9.24$ km\,s$^{-1}$, and masking all pixels where no emission is detected above the $3\sigma$ level are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:moments}, while the moment 8 map obtained without applying a threshold is shown in the Appendix (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mom8}).
Then radial intensity profiles of the H$_2$CO $3_{1,2} - 2_{1,1}$ line and of the 1.3~mm continuum are obtained by azimuthally averaging the intensity maps after deprojecting for $i= 41\degr$ and PA$ = 128\degr$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:profiles}).
The H$_2$CO $3_{1,2} - 2_{1,1}$ moment maps show an H$_2$CO ring rotating around the central star which extends from $\sim 40$ au to beyond the edge of the 1.3~mm dust emission (R$_{\rm 1.3~mm} = 66$ au at 3$\sigma$) (see also the channel maps in Fig.~\ref{fig:channel_maps}). The intensity profile in Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles} shows that the peak of the H$_2$CO emission is at $\sim 62$ au ($\sim 6.5$ mJy/beam km\,s$^{-1}$).
The 1D spectrum integrated over a $0\farcs33 - 0\farcs75$ ring area is centered at the systemic velocity $V_{\rm sys} = + 6.24$ km\,s$^{-1}$\, and shows a double-peaked profile (see Fig. \ref{fig:1dspec}).  Assuming Keplerian rotation around a $0.7$ M$_{\odot}$ star as in \citet{podio13}\footnote{The stellar mass obtained from the pre-main sequence tracks by \citet{siess00} is not affected by the change in distance ($140$ pc in previous studies) as the tracks are vertical in this region of the HR diagram.} and $i=41\degr$, the H$_2$CO peaks at V$_{\rm LSR} - V_{\rm sys}= \pm 1.95$ km\,s$^{-1}$\, indicate an emitting radius of $\sim 70$ au, in agreement with the position of the H$_2$CO ring.

The H$_2$CO line peak and integrated flux collected with the 11$\arcsec$ beam of the IRAM 30m telescope \citep{guilloteau13} is about a factor of four larger than that obtained integrating the ALMA cube over an $11\arcsec$ circular area. This indicates that ALMA filters out the extended H$_2$CO emission from the outflow or the envelope, thus isolating the compact H$_2$CO emission from the disk.

\section{Abundance of organic molecules}
\label{sect:abu}

To estimate the H$_2$CO column density, the emission is integrated over a circular ring from $0\farcs33$ to $0\farcs75$ ($40-90$ au) and over the line velocity profile (between $+3.24$ and $+9.24$ km\,s$^{-1}$).
The maps of the undetected CH$_3$OH lines are integrated over the same spatial region and velocity range as for the H$_2$CO line (i.e., the same pixels in R.A., Dec, and V$_{\rm LSR}$) to recover an upper limit on the methanol column density  under the assumption that CH$_3$OH originates from the same disk region as H$_2$CO.
The ring-averaged o-H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH column densities, N$_{\rm o-H_2CO}$ and N$_{\rm CH_3OH}$, are derived from the integrated line intensities by assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and optically thin emission \citep[see, e.g., Eqs. (1) and (2) in][]{bianchi17a}, and adopting the molecular parameters and partition function from the Cologne Database of Molecular Spectroscopy (CDMS, \citealt{muller01}). The assumption of LTE is clearly justified as the gas density near the midplane and in the intermediate disk layers where H$_2$CO is thought to originate (see, e.g,  \citealt{walsh14,oberg17}, and the discussion in Sect.~\ref{sect:formation}) is high (from $\sim 10^{8}$ to $\sim 10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ according to the disk model by \citealt{podio13}), i.e., well above the critical density of the H$_2$CO $3_{1,2} - 2_{1,1}$ transition (n$_{\rm cr}\sim 7-4.6 \times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ at $20-100$ K, \citealt{shirley15}). The gas temperature in these intermediate disk layers is between 30 and 300 K according to the same disk model. Therefore, assuming an excitation temperature T$_{\rm ex} = 30-300$ K we infer an average o-H$_2$CO column density over the ring and the disk height of $\sim 0.2-2.7 \times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$.  Following the same procedure as for H$_2$CO, the most stringent constraint on the CH$_3$OH column density is derived from the CH$_3$OH 241.791 GHz line (which has the greatest line strength S$_{\rm ij} \mu^2 \sim 4$ D$^2$): N$_{\rm CH_3OH} < 0.04-0.7 \times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$. The inferred column densities are summarized in Table \ref{tab:lines}.
The total H$_2$CO column density is then obtained by assuming an ortho-to-para ratio of $1.8-2.8$ \citep{guzman18a}: N$_{\rm H_2CO}\sim 0.3-4 \times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$.
Using the H$_2$ column density in the outer disk ($> 40$ au) from the disk model by \citet{podio13} (N$_{\rm H} \sim 0.3-1 \times 10^{25}$ cm$^{-2}$), we estimate the  ring- and disk-height-averaged abundance of organic molecules: X$_{\rm H_2CO} \sim 6 \times 10^{-12} - 3 \times 10^{-10}$,  X$_{\rm CH_3OH} < 0.8 \times 10^{-12} - 5 \times 10^{-11}$.
Finally, in the inner $40$ au no o-H$_2$CO is detected above 3$\sigma$.
Taking into account the wider velocity range over which the emission may be spread, this provides an upper limit on the o-H$_2$CO beam-averaged column density of $\sim 0.5-6 \times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$.

The inferred H$_2$CO column density and abundance, and the upper limits retrieved for CH$_3$OH are in agreement with the predictions of chemistry models of protoplanetary disks around T Tauri stars (see, e.g., \citealt{walsh14}). These models predict gas-phase fractional abundances in the disk outer regions ($r>50$ au) of between $10^{-13}$ and a few  $10^{-10}$ for H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH.
The H$_2$CO abundance is in agreement within a factor of a few with that estimated in the disk of TW Hya and HD 163296 assuming T$_{\rm ex} = 25$ K \citep{carney19},
while it is  up to two orders of magnitude lower than that found in disks with large inner holes, for example Oph IRS48 and AB Aur where the outer disk reservoir of icy organics is directly exposed to stellar illumination \citep{vandermarel14,pachecovazquez16}.
Also, the  nondetection of the targeted methanol transitions is consistent with a CH$_3$OH/H$_2$CO ratio $< 1$, in agreement with the prediction of chemical models  \citep[e.g.,][]{walsh14} and with the upper limit found in the disk of HD 163296 (CH$_3$OH/H$_2$CO $< 0.24$), while it is lower than that estimated in the disk of TW Hya (CH$_3$OH/H$_2$CO $= 1.27$) \citep{carney19}.

\section{H$_2$CO formation}
\label{sect:formation}

Disk chemistry models by \citet{willacy09}, \citet{walsh14}, and \citet{loomis15} show that H$_2$CO can form either in the gas phase, primarily through the reaction CH$_3$ + O; or on dust grains via hydrogenation of CO locked in their icy mantles (CO + H --> HCO + H -> H$_2$CO).
The gas-phase CH$_3$ + O formation route is efficient in the warm inner region and upper layers of the disk where atomic oxygen is produced by photodissociation of gas-phase CO.
On the contrary, formation on grains occurs in the cold outer disk beyond the CO iceline where CO is condensed onto grains and available for H$_2$CO formation.

Resolved observations of H$_2$CO emission allow us to constrain the formation mechanism of H$_2$CO in disks.
The H$_2$CO radial intensity profile in the disk of DG Tau (Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles}) shows characteristics in common with the three other disks observed at high angular resolution with ALMA (DM Tau, \citealt{loomis15}; TW Hya, \citealt{oberg17}; and HD 163296, \citealt{carney17}):
(i) the depression (or lack) of emission in the inner disk;
(ii) the emission peak located outside the CO iceline;
(iii) emission beyond the mm dust continuum (with a peak at the edge of the continuum in the case of DG Tau, TW Hya, and HD 163296).

In the case of the HD 163296 disk, it was argued that the central depression of the H$_2$CO emission is caused by absorption by optically thick dust continuum \citep{carney17}, while \citet{oberg17}
explain it as a real drop in abundance in TW Hya.
For DG Tau, we can exclude problems due to continuum subtraction as the line-free channels of the continuum subtracted cube do not show negative flux values in the central regions.
To evaluate if absorption by the dust continuum affects the observed H$_2$CO intensity, we estimate the optical depth of the disk at 1.3~mm from the dust opacity and surface density given by \citet{isella10}. According to their modeling, the disk is optically thick in the innermost region ($\tau_{\rm 1.3~mm} > 1$ at $< 3$~au or $<9$~au, depending on whether the self-similarity or power-law parametrization for the surface density is adopted). Then the optical depth rapidly drops to $\sim 0.5$ at 20 au and $<0.3$ for $r>30$ au\footnote{At the adopted distance of 121 pc the radius where the disk becomes optically thin is  $\sim 15\%$ smaller with respect to the modeling by \citet{isella10} who adopted d=140 pc.}.
On the other hand, observations of $^{13}$CO $2-1$ and C$^{18}$O $2-1$ show a hole in the inner $25$ au, which could be due to the thickness of the continuum up to this radius \citep{gudel18}.
To further check the continuum optical depth we compared its brightness temperature (T$_{\rm cont}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles}) to the expected dust temperature T$_{\rm dust}$
by \citet{podio13} (their Fig. 2, where T$_{\rm gas} = {\rm T}_{\rm dust}$ in the midplane).  We found T$_{\rm cont}/{\rm T}_{\rm dust} <0.6$, hence $\tau < 1$, for $r > 25$ au, which indicates that the continuum should be optically thin beyond this radius, in agreement with the observed distribution of $^{13}$CO $2-1$ and C$^{18}$O $2-1$.
Finally, we checked the  H$_2$CO $3_{1,2} - 2_{1,1}$ line opacity by using the non-LTE radiative transfer code RADEX \citep{vandertak07}.  Assuming column densities up to N$_{\rm H_2CO} \sim 10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the inner disk region ($10-40$ au) \citep{walsh14}, a line width of $\sim 6$ km\,s$^{-1}$, and gas densities and temperatures from our ProDiMo DG Tau model (n$_{\rm H_2} \sim 10^{10} - 10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ and T$_{\rm gas} > 30$ K at $10-40$ au and intermediate disk height), the H$_2$CO line optical depth reach a maximum value of $\sim 1$.
Therefore, we conclude that
the H$_2$CO ring is related to an increase in the H$_2$CO abundance beyond $\sim 40$ au.

As shown by \citet{loomis15}, disk models that include only H$_2$CO gas-phase formation produce centrally peaked column density and emission profiles, and strongly underestimate the observed H$_2$CO emission in the outer disk. H$_2$CO formation on grains followed by desorption in the gas phase  has to be taken into account to increase the H$_2$CO column densities and line emission in the outer disk (by up to two orders of magnitude in the case of DM Tau).
The intensity profile of H$_2$CO  in the disk of DG Tau shows a steep increase in the outer disk with an emission peak at $62$ au.
Interestingly, the thermo-chemical ProDiMo disk model presented in \citet{podio13}, which matches the long wavelength part of the SED of DG Tau and the {\it Herschel}/HIFI water lines, shows that the CO iceline, R$_{\rm CO}$, is located at $\sim30$ au\footnote{R$_{\rm CO}$ is derived from a steady-state solution of a chemical network including gas-phase chemistry as well as adsorption and (non)thermal desorption processes \citep[e.g.,][]{kamp10} for a stellar luminosity $L_{*}\sim 1$ L$_{\odot}$ at 140 pc. At the adopted distance of 121 pc, $L_{*}$ decreases by $\sim 25\%$, hence the estimated R$_{\rm CO}$ is an upper limit.}.
The fact that the peak is located outside the CO iceline suggests that the outer H$_2$CO reservoir is mainly produced by CO hydrogenation on grains.
This is in agreement with disk chemistry models and with observations by \citet{loomis15}, \citet{oberg17}, and \citet{carney17}.
Contrary to the disks of DM Tau, TW Hya, and HD 163296, in the case of DG Tau no H$_2$CO emission is detected in the inner disk, where gas-phase formation dominates.
As discussed above, this could be due to absorption by the optically thick dust continuum (up to $\sim25$ au) and to a lower H$_2$CO abundance (by a factor of  $\le 10$)  and column density in the inner 40 au (see Sect.~\ref{sect:abu}). Also taking into account  the wider velocity range over which the emission may be spread, this would produce no detectable emission in the present observations (r.m.s. $\sim 1.7$ mJy/beam).
Finally, the fact that the H$_2$CO emission peaks at the edge of the mm dust continuum and extends beyond it could be due to a steeper decrease in the density of the gas and of the small grains at this location. As small grains are responsible for the opacity at UV wavelengths, the UV radiation penetrates deeper in the disk and more efficiently photodesorbs H$_2$CO from grains \citep{oberg15b,oberg17}. Moreover, \citet{cleeves16} suggests that there could be a temperature inversion at the edge of the large dust population, which would enhance thermal desorption.  Alternatively, H$_2$CO could be efficiently formed in the gas phase beyond the mm-dust edge due to more efficient photodissociation of CO favoring the CH$_3$ + O formation route \citep{carney17}.
An enhancement of molecular emission at the edge of the millimeter dust continuum has been observed in a number of disks \citep{oberg15b,huang16,oberg17,carney17,carney18}, but a test of the proposed mechanisms would require higher angular resolution observations of multiple molecules and detailed modeling.

   \begin{figure}
   \centering
\vspace{-1cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{34475_fig2.eps}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
   \caption{Azimuthally averaged radial intensity profile of H$_2$CO $3_{1,2}-2_{1,1}$ (in mJy beam$^{-1}$ km\,s$^{-1}$, red line) and of the 1.3~mm continuum (in K, blue line).
For the continuum the conversion factor from brightness temperature to flux density is 0.65 mJy beam$^{-1}$/K.
The shaded areas indicate the dispersion of the intensity values around the mean along each annulus in the radial direction. The vertical black dotted lines indicate the position of the CO iceline, the change in the polarization orientation, and the H$_2$CO emission peak.}
              \label{fig:profiles}
    \end{figure}

\section{Disk chemistry and dust properties}

The H$_2$CO $3_{1,2} - 2_{1,1}$ ring is asymmetric as the redshifted side is $\sim 1.5$ times brighter than the blueshifted side (Figs.~\ref{fig:moments},  \ref{fig:mom8}, and \ref{fig:1dspec}).
The same asymmetry is observed in the map of the linearly polarized intensity of the continuum at 0.87~mm by \citet{bacciotti18}, where the redshifted disk side is brighter than the blueshifted side in the outer $40-50$ au region. The map by \citet{bacciotti18} also indicates that the orientation of the linear polarization vector changes from parallel to the disk minor axis in the inner disk region to azimuthal in the outer $40-50$ au.
Interestingly, the radius where the change in the orientation of polarization occurs is coincident with the inner radius of the H$_2$CO ring.
The intensity and orientation of the polarization of the dust continuum caused by self-scattering strongly depends on the dust size, opacity, and degree of settling \citep{yang17}.
This suggests that the H$_2$CO chemistry is closely connected to the dust properties in the outer disk.
For example, a drop in the dust opacity beyond 40 au could be responsible for the change in polarization \citep{bacciotti18}.
If  the opacity of small grains also decreases, this would cause an enhancement of H$_2$CO desorbed from grains, due to increased UV and X-ray penetration.
In the case of DG Tau, the desorption mechanism could be also favored by UV and X-rays produced in the blueshifted jet shocks \citep{coffey07,gudel08} that directly illuminate the disk from above.
The chemical and polarization change at 40 au could also be linked to the existence of substructures in the dust distribution.
The radial profile of the continuum intensity along the projected disk major axis shows a shoulder of emission at about 40~au (see Fig.~\ref{fig:cont}), which supports this hypothesis.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the H$_2$CO ring is offset by $\sim 0\farcs06$ ($\sim 7$ au) with respect to the dust continuum peak, i.e., the redshifted ring side is located farther from the continuum peak than the blueshifted side (Fig.~\ref{fig:moments}).
This also suggests an asymmetric distribution of the chemically enriched gas in the outer disk region.
However, higher angular resolution observations are needed to confirm this scenario.

\section{Conclusions}

ALMA observations at $0\farcs15$ resolution of the disk of DG Tau show a ring of formaldehyde peaking at $\sim 62$ au, i.e., outside the CO iceline (R$_{\rm CO} \sim 30$~au) and close to the edge of the 1.3~mm dust continuum (R$_{\rm dust} \sim 66$ au). This suggests an enhancement of the H$_2$CO abundance in the outer disk due to H$_2$CO formation by CO hydrogenation on the icy grains. Moreover, the desorption of H$_2$CO from the grains could be enhanced at the edge of the mm dust continuum due to increased UV penetration and/or temperature inversion.
The abundance ratio between CH$_3$OH and H$_2$CO is $< 1,$ in agreement with the predictions of disk chemistry models.
Interestingly, the inner edge of the H$_2$CO ring is at $\sim 40$ au, where the polarization of the dust continuum changes orientation and the continuum intensity shows a local enhancement, hinting at a tight link between the  H$_2$CO chemistry and the dust properties in the outer disk and at the possible presence of substructures in the dust distribution.

\begin{acknowledgements}
     This paper uses ALMA data from project 2016.1.00846.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA), and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), MOST and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO, and NAOJ. This work was partly supported by PRIN-INAF/2016 GENESIS-SKA and by the Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, Universit\`a e Ricerca through the grants Progetti Premiali 2012/iALMA (CUP-C52I13000140001), 2017/FRONTIERA (CUP-C61I15000000001), and SIR-(RBSI14ZRHR). GG acknowledges the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation within the framework of the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS.
\end{acknowledgements}

   \bibliographystyle{aa}


\section{Introduction}

Brane can be regarded as multidimensional spatial manifold
supporting the existence of particle in Universe. Zero dimen-
sional brane is a point particle, one dimensional brane is a
string. Brane with p dimensions is called p-brane. Open string
describing the particle living on brane can be connected by its
ends to brane and the brane, in this case, is called D-brane.
Initially, dimensions of brane were considered as small scale ones
but, in 1983, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shapo- shnikov had introduced
the model of brane in large additional dimensions \cite{Rubakov}.
Branes like strings \cite{Dai}, \cite{Horava}, \cite{Polchinski},
\cite{Horava2} can be closed manifolds. Already Alexander
Friedmann considered the whole Universe in particular variant of
his models as closed surface but this surface was regarded as
hypothetical one \cite{Friedmann}. Eventually, Merab
Gogberashvilly had proposed the closed brane model of Universe as
real spherical expanding shell \cite{Gogberashvili}. He had
introduced the model where our Universe is considered as an
expanding four-dimensional bubble in five dimensions with a center
of Big Bang in the fifth dimension. This model well describes
expanding character of Universe where each point becomes more far
from any other point with time in the course of galaxies runaway.
In addition, this model describes well the isotropic character of
relict background radiation in our Universe. Besides, this model
can explain why Lorenz invariance is realized on 4d shell while it
is lost in the fifth dimension as it was known earlier in
extra-dimensional compactification theories \cite{Rizzo},
\cite{Garcia}. As an alternative to compactification theories,
Randal and Sun- drum had proposed semi-phenomenological brane
model \cite{Randall} where it was shown that four-dimensional
Newton and Ein- stein gravity live in five dimensional space.
Cosmological extensions of this model were given soon in papers
\cite{Mohapatra}, \cite{Cline}, \cite{Mukohyama}, \cite{Flanagan},
\cite{Cline2}. We have derived Klein-Gordon equation using the
symmetry of Universe expansion \cite{Andrianov},
\cite{Andrianov2}. Com- paring it with squared Dirac-Fock-Ivanenko
equation, we have derived expression for gravitationally induced
chiral current \cite{Andrianov3}. Here, we show that being placed,
in its turn, into the Einstein's gravitational field, chiral
current yields inertial gravitational field. This inertial
gravitational field transforms into the vortex gravitational field
and then back to the inertial gravitational field thus ensuring
the propagation of these fields along with gravitational wave. In
addition, we analyze our equations in the limit of weak
gravitation and show that harmonic gauge often using with
Einstein's equations is a consequence of brane rotational
symmetry.

\section{Gravitational fields equations}
\label{sec:1} Symmetry of Universe in brane model regarding its
expansion yields Klein Gordon equation for a particle with mass m
and wave function   moving on brane \cite{Andrianov},
\cite{Andrianov2}:

\begin{equation}
\left\{ g^{\mu\nu} \nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu+\frac{1}{4}R
+\left(\frac{m c}{\hbar}\right)^2\right\}\Psi=0
 \label{eqKlein Gordon}
\end{equation}
where $g^{\mu\nu}$  is metric tensor, $\nabla_\mu, \nabla_\nu $
are Riemann connection covariant derivatives and $R$ is scalar
curvature, Greek indices run from 0 to 3. Comparison of this
Klein-Gordon equation with squared Dirac-Fock-Ivanenko equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqDirac-Fock-Ivanenko}
i \gamma^\mu(\nabla_\mu +\Gamma_\mu) \psi = m \psi
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \gamma^\mu$  is Dirac matrix and $\Gamma_\mu$  is spin
connection, yields the following relation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
 \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu D_\mu \Gamma_\nu =- \frac{1}{4}R
\end{equation}
where $D_\mu = \nabla_\mu+ \Gamma_\mu$ is covariant derivative
generalized on spin connection. In its turn, relation (\ref{eq3})
leads to the following expression for determination of
gravitationally induced chiral current  $j^{\alpha 5}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
j^{\alpha 5} \varepsilon ^{\mu\nu\tau\xi} R_{\mu\nu\tau\xi} =4 i
\gamma ^ \alpha D_\mu \Gamma^\mu
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon ^{\mu\nu\tau\xi}$  is Levi-Civita tensor,
$R_{\mu\nu\tau\xi}$ is Riemann curvature tensor, $\gamma ^ \alpha$
is Dirac matrix, $\Gamma^\mu =
g^{\alpha\beta}\Gamma^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}$ is spin connection,
$g^{\alpha\beta}$ is metric tensor, $\Gamma^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}$
is Christoffel symbol. By multi- plication of expression
(\ref{eq4}) both parts on Levi-Chevita tensor
\begin{equation}
\gamma^5 \frac{1}{4!}\varepsilon_{\zeta \lambda \chi
\sigma}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\tau\xi}R_{\mu\nu\tau\xi}=
\frac{1}{4!}4i \varepsilon_{\zeta \lambda \chi \sigma}
\gamma^\alpha D_\mu \Gamma^\mu\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
we come to the expression
\begin{equation}
j^{\alpha 5} \delta^{\mu \nu \tau \xi}_{\zeta \lambda \chi \sigma}
R_{\mu\xi \nu \tau}=\frac{i}{6}\varepsilon_{\zeta \lambda \chi
\sigma}\gamma^\alpha D_\mu \Gamma^\mu , \label{eq6}
\end{equation}
and then to
\begin{equation}
j^{\alpha 5} R_{\zeta \lambda \chi \sigma}=\varepsilon_{\zeta
\lambda \chi \sigma}j^\alpha, \label{eq7}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
j^{\alpha} =\frac{i}{6}\gamma^\alpha D_\mu \Gamma^\mu, \label{eq8}
\end{equation}
or alternatively to
\begin{equation}
j^{\alpha 5} R_{\lambda\sigma}=\varepsilon_{\zeta \lambda \chi
\sigma}g^{\zeta\chi} j^\alpha , \label{eq9}
\end{equation}
by using relations $ R_{\lambda\sigma}=g^{\zeta \chi} R_{\zeta
\lambda \chi \sigma}$  and $R=g^{\lambda\sigma}R_{\lambda\sigma}$.
What is for $R_{\lambda\sigma}$ it can be found from Einstein's
equation
\begin{equation}
R_{\lambda\sigma}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\lambda\sigma}R=\frac{4\pi
G}{c^4}T_{\lambda\sigma} , \label{eqEinstein}
\end{equation}

Starting from the expression
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}
 \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu D_\mu \Gamma_\nu =- \frac{1}{4}R
\end{equation}
we get using relation

\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu D_\mu \Gamma_\nu =\frac{1}{2}
\left\{\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu\right\}D_\mu \Gamma_\nu
+ $ \\
\\
$+\frac{1}{2}\left[\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu
\right]\left(\frac{1}{2}(D_\mu \Gamma_\nu+ D_\nu
\Gamma_\mu)+\frac{1}{2}(D_\mu \Gamma_\nu- D_\nu
\Gamma_\mu)\right).$
\end{tabular}
\label{eq12}
\end{eqnarray}
the following equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq13}
D_\mu \Gamma^\mu \frac{1}{2} \gamma_\mu \Gamma_\xi (D_\mu
\Gamma_\xi- D_\xi \Gamma_\mu)=- \frac{1}{4}R
\end{equation}

Finally, we have the following set of equations
\begin{equation}
R_{\lambda\sigma}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\lambda\sigma}R=\frac{4\pi
G}{c^4}T_{\lambda\sigma} , \label{eqEinstein2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
j^{\alpha 5} R_{\lambda\sigma}=\frac{i}{6}\varepsilon_{\zeta
\lambda \chi \sigma}g^{\zeta\chi} \gamma^\alpha D_\mu \Gamma^\mu,
\label{eq15}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}\label{eq16}
D_\mu \Gamma^\mu \frac{1}{2} \gamma_\mu \Gamma_\xi (D_\mu
\Gamma_\xi- D_\xi \Gamma_\mu)=- \frac{1}{4}R
\end{equation}

The left side of equation (\ref{eqEinstein2}) can be expressed
solely through metric tensor and thus can serve in finding it via
known energy-momentum tensor. In other words, energy dis- turbance
produces Einstein's metric gravitational field. It con- sists of
the part connected with Ricci tensor curvature $R_{\lambda\sigma}$
and the part connected with scalar curvature $R$. In its turn, the
tensor curvature part of field produces via the left side of
equation (\ref{eq15}) gravity inertial field $D_\mu \Gamma^\mu)$
in its right part. Gravity inertial field is expressed through
spin connection $\Gamma^\mu$ and is related to scalar curvature by
equation (\ref{eq16}).  This gravity inertial field turns into
gravity vortex field and vice versa ensuring propagation of this
type gravitational fields according to this equation. It can be
accomplished through creation and annihilation of virtual
particles. This propagation is absorption less if the scalar
curvature is constant. Thus, this set of equations completely
describes the propagation of gravitational fields where
gravitational wave is described by shown complex structure of
gravitational fields supplementing Einstein equations up to full
set.

\section{ Harmonic gauge.}
\label{sec:2} Let's consider equation (\ref{eq16}) in the case of
weak gravitation. It can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu g_{\nu\sigma} [g^{\alpha\beta}
g^{\xi\lambda}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_\mu} \left(\frac{\partial
g_{\lambda\alpha}}{\partial x_\beta}+\frac{\partial
g_{\lambda\beta}}{\partial x_\alpha}-\frac{\partial
g_{\alpha\beta}}{\partial x_\lambda} \right) + $ \\
\\
$+\left(\frac{\partial g^{\alpha\beta}}{\partial x_\mu}+
g^{\alpha\beta} \frac{\partial g^{\xi\lambda}}{\partial
x_\mu}\right)\left(\frac{\partial g_{\lambda\alpha}}{\partial
x_\beta}+\frac{\partial g_{\lambda\beta}}{\partial
x_\alpha}-\frac{\partial g_{\alpha\beta}}{\partial x_\lambda}
\right)+ $ \\
\\
$ +
4\Gamma^{\xi}_{\kappa\nu}\Gamma^{\kappa}]+4\Gamma_{\mu}\Gamma^{\xi}=R.$
\end{tabular}
\label{eq17}
\end{eqnarray}
Keeping in mind that
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\xi}_{\kappa\nu}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\xi\lambda}\left(\frac{g_{\lambda\kappa}}{\partial
x_\mu}+\frac{g_{\lambda\mu}}{\partial
x_\kappa}-\frac{g_{\kappa\mu}}{\partial x_\lambda}\right),
\label{eq18}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^\kappa=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha\beta}\Gamma^{\kappa}_{\alpha\beta},
\label{eq19}
\end{equation}
we introduce linear approximation
\begin{equation}
g_{\mu\nu}(x)=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}. \label{eq20}
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$  is pseudo-Euclidian metrics. Assuming that
not only $h_{\mu\nu}$  is small but, also, its derivatives we have
at vacuum conditions $(R=0 )$ from (\ref{eq17}):

\begin{equation}
\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_\mu}\left(\frac{\partial h^\alpha_\nu}{\partial
x_\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_\nu} \right)=0.
\label{eq21}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\frac{\partial V_\nu}{\partial x_\mu}=0
\label{eq22}
\end{equation}
The only solution of equation (\ref{eq22}) is trivial one
\begin{equation}
V_\nu=\frac{\partial h^\alpha_\nu}{\partial
x_\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_\nu} =0,
\label{eq23}
\end{equation}
that is harmonic gauge. Thus, we had shown that harmonic gauge is
a consequence of brane symmetry.

\section{ Conclusion.}
\label{sec:3}Thus, we have derived Klein-Gordon \cite{Ta-Pei},
\cite{Weise} on equation for a quantum particle starting from the
symmetry properties of the brane. This had confirmed the validity
of discussed above spherical model of Universe. Comparison of this
Klein-Gordon equation with the squared Dirac-Fock-Ivanenko equa-
tion yielded expression for chiral current that had given rise to
chiral symmetry breaking at early stages of universe evo- lution
and creation of particles baryonic mass constituting 99{\%} of
visible matter in Universe. It is shown that this chiral current
serves as a source for special new type of gravitational fields
that propagate as constitutional part  of gravitational wave
described by Einstein's equation. These type gravita- tional
fields propagate by transforming of gravitational inertial field
into vortex field and vice versa through creation and annihilation
of virtual particles. We had shown that obtained equations
describe in the case of weak gravitation harmonic gauge relations
that are usually supplement to Einstein equa- tions making them a
closed set. Thus, harmonic gauge is the consequence of brane
rotational symmetry in additional dimension space. This rotation
symmetry provides invariance of our four-dimensional space located
on four dimensional brane immersed in five dimensional universal
space. This five dimensional  space has preferable frame with the
center of coordinates in the point of Big Bang serving as a center
of above said rotation.  Recent observations of gravitational
waves \cite{Abbott} confirm validity of harmonic gauge because it
is the gauge leading to the wave like form of propagating
gravitational excitations. Therefore, they confirm also  the
existence of Universal brane as a spherically symmetric shell in a
higher dimensional space. Some recent theoretical papers consider
a number of such symmetry consequences \cite{Belayev},
\cite{Bobev}, \cite{Troisi}, \cite{Banerjee}. In particular, the
upgrade of this model was presented where the effect of mass was
considered as a localized brane deformation imparted by the
endpoint of the string stretched in additional dimension
\cite{Banerjee}.