\section{Introduction}
The study of the surface tension of quark matter has attracted much attention recently because of its impact on heavy ion collisions  and in astrophysics.
In the astrophysical context, quark matter surface tension plays a key role in the understanding of neutron star (NS) interiors (see \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017,Lugones2013} and references therein). In fact, it has been speculated that hybrid stars may contain a mixed hadron-quark phase in their interiors. In such a phase, it is assumed that the electric charge is zero globally but not locally, and therefore charged hadronic and quark matter may share a common lepton background, leading to a quark-hadron mixture extending over a wide density region of the star \cite{Glendenning2000}. The mixed phase entails a smooth variation of the energy density, leading in turn to a continuous density profile along the star. Whether the quark-hadron interface in a compact star is actually a sharp discontinuity or a wide mixed region depends crucially on the amount of surface energy needed for the formation of  drops of one phase embedded in the other  \cite{Voskresensky2003,Maruyama2007}. If the energy cost of  surface effects exceeds the gain in bulk energy, the scenario involving a sharp interface turns out to be favorable.
The quark matter surface tension is also crucial for understanding the most external layers of strange quark stars \cite{Xia:2016guv}, where matter may fragment into a charge-separated mixture, involving positively-charged strangelets immersed in a negatively charged sea of electrons, presumably forming a crystalline solid crust \cite{Jaikumar2006}. This scenario would be favored  below some critical surface tension which is typically of the order of a few MeV/fm$^2$ \cite{Alford2006}.
However, in spite of its relevance for NS physics, the surface tension is still poorly known for quark matter.  Early calculations as well as recent calculations within different models give rather low values \cite{Berger1987,Pinto2012,doCarmo2013,Fraga2018,LugonesGrunfeld2017}, typically below $\sim  30 \, \mathrm{MeV/fm^2}$, but significantly larger results (above $\sim 100 \, \mathrm{MeV/fm^2}$) were obtained by other authors   \cite{Bugaev,Lugones2011,Lugones2013,EPJC_nuestro}.

In this work we study the surface tension of hot, highly magnetized three flavor quark matter droplets within the multiple reflection expansion (MRE) framework (for details on the MRE formalism see \cite{Balian1970,Madsen1994,Kiriyama1,Kiriyama2} and references therein).  We describe quark matter as a strongly magnetized free Fermi gas of $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks, electrons and neutrinos, all in chemical equilibrium under weak interactions  \cite{Strick,LugonesGrunfeld2017}. We focus on the thermodynamic conditions prevailing in NSs, hot lepton rich PNSs and binary NS mergers.
NSs are believed to be born after the gravitational collapse and supernova explosion of a massive star. Initially, PNSs are very hot and lepton-rich objects, where neutrinos are temporarily trapped. Initially, the temperature may reach 40 MeV and the chemical potential of trapped neutrinos can be as high as 150 MeV.
During the first minute of evolution the PNS evolves to form a cold NS. As neutrinos are radiated, the lepton-per-baryon content of matter goes down and the neutrino chemical potential tends to essentially zero.
Finally, binary NS merging has recently gained attention after the LIGO/Virgo collaboration detected the  gravitational waves from the merging event GW170817 \cite{GW170817}. Numerical simulations of these events suggest that the just merged compact object may attain high temperatures \cite{Bauswein2013,Kastaun2015} (as high as $\sim 70$ MeV \cite{Radice2017}) with an expected huge amount of trapped neutrinos. As a limiting scenario we will consider here an extreme  configuration with $T= 100$ MeV and $\mu_{\nu_e} = 200$ MeV.

The article is organized as follows: in Section II we present the MRE formalism for finite size droplets immersed in a strong magnetic field.
In Section III we include finite size effects in the thermodynamic quantities. In particular, we derive the longitudinal and transverse surface tension as well as the particle number density. We also introduce some thermodynamic constraints and present different astrophysical scenarios to be analyzed.
In Section IV we report and discuss our results. Finally, in Section V we present our conclusions.

\section{Finite size effects in the presence of a magnetic field}

In the MRE formalism, the  modified  density of states of a finite  droplet with an arbitrary shape is given by  \cite{Balian1970,Madsen1994}
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathrm{MRE}}(k, m, S, V, \cdots) = 1 + \frac{2 \pi^2}{k} \frac{S}{V} f_{S}  + \cdots
\label{rho_MRE}
 \end{equation}
 %
where $m$ is the mass of a quark or a lepton, $k$ its momentum, $S$ is the droplet's surface, $V$ its volume,  and
\begin{equation}
f_{S}(k) = - \frac{1}{8 \pi} \left(1 - \frac{2}{\pi} \arctan \frac{k}{m} \right)
\label{eq:fs}
\end{equation}
is  the surface contribution to the new density of states.
As pointed out in Refs. \cite{Kiriyama1,Kiriyama2} the MRE density of states given in Eq. \eqref{rho_MRE} may become negative for small momenta. To exclude this non physical behavior,  an infrared cutoff $\Lambda$ is introduced in momentum space (see \cite{Kiriyama2} for details) where $\Lambda$ is the largest solution of the equation $\rho_{\mathrm{MRE}}(k, m, S, V, \cdots)= 0$ with respect to the momentum $k$.

To implement the MRE formalism  we have to perform the following replacement in a generic thermodynamic integral $I$:
\begin{equation}
I \equiv \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \int \cdots d^3 k \rightarrow    \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3}  \int_{\Lambda }^{\infty} \cdots \rho_{\mathrm{MRE}}(k) \,   4 \pi k^2 dk.
\label{MRE}
\end{equation}

For matter immersed in a magnetic field $\textbf{B}$ pointing in the $z$ direction, the transverse motion of particles with electric charge $qe$ is quantized into Landau levels (LL).
The  momentum $k$ in Eqs. \eqref{rho_MRE} and \eqref{eq:fs} is given by  $k =  \sqrt{k_z^2 +  2 \nu |q e B| }$   where $\nu \geq 0$ is an integer, and the momentum integrals  in the transverse plane must be replaced by sums over the discretized levels. Thus, in the thermodynamic integrals we must use \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017}:
\begin{equation}
I \rightarrow     \frac {|q e B|}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}
\int_{\Lambda_{\nu}}^{\infty} \cdots \rho_{\mathrm{MRE}} dk_z ,
\label{MRE_with_B}
\end{equation}
where  $\Lambda_{\nu}$ are the cutoffs in the momentum along the direction of the magnetic field, which now depend on the Landau levels.  $\alpha_{\nu} =2$ for all cases except for ${\nu} = 0$, where $\alpha_{\nu} =1$.

The infrared cutoff  $\Lambda_{\nu}$ is the largest solution  of  the equation  $\rho_{\mathrm{MRE}}(k_z, m,  S, V) = 0$ with respect to the momentum $k_z$.
Taking only the first two terms of Eq. (\ref{rho_MRE}) we obtain we obtain \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{\nu}  =  \sqrt{ \frac{S^2}{4V^2} x^2_{0}  -   2 \nu |q e B| } ,
\end{equation}
where $x_{0}$ is the solution of  $\lambda x = \cot x$  with $\lambda = S / (2Vm)$.  In Table \ref{cutoff} we show the values of $x_{0}$ for different quark masses and different values of $V/S$.

The thermodynamic integrals can be written in terms of the particle's energy $E = (k_z^2  + 2 \nu |q e B| + m^2)^{1/2}$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
I \rightarrow   \frac {|q e B|}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty } \alpha_{\nu}  \int_{\ell}^{\infty} \cdots \rho_{\mathrm{MRE}}(E)    \frac{E dE}{k_z(E)} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k(E)=(E^2-m^2)^{1/2}$,  $k_z(E)=(E^2-2\nu |qeB| - m^2)^{1/2}$, and the energy cutoff $\ell = \sqrt{ \Lambda_{\nu}^2  +   2 \nu |qeB| + m^2}$ reads:
\begin{equation}
\ell = \sqrt{ \frac{S^2}{4V^2} x^2_{0} + m^2 }.
\end{equation}
Notice that $\ell$ doesn't depend on the index $\nu$.

\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c | c}
\hline \hline
particles & $m$ [MeV]          &          $V/S$ [fm]              &   $x_{0i}$               \\
\hline
electrons &0.511     &   10                 &  0.225631  \\
  &0.511     &    50                &   0.487927  \\
  &0.511     &    100                &   0.663088  \\
  &0.511     &    $\infty$                &   $ \pi / 2$ \\
 \hline
quarks u, d &5     &   10                 &  0.657008  \\
&5     &   50                 &  1.14604   \\
&5      &   100                &  1.31661  \\
&5      &   $\infty$                 &   $\pi/2$     \\
\hline
quarks s &150     &   10                 &  1.47413  \\
&150   &   50                 &  1.5504    \\
&150  &   100                &  1.56053 \\
&150   &   $\infty$                 &  $\pi/2$      \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of the parameter $x_0$ for different particle masses and different values of $V/S$.} \label{cutoff}
\end{table}

\section{Thermodynamic quantities at finite temperature}

\subsection{Number density}
The number densities can be obtained starting from \cite{Strick}
\begin{eqnarray}
n_i(T) = \frac{|q_i e B|}{2\pi^2}  \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}   \int_{0}^{\infty}  (F_{i} - {\bar F}_{i}) dk_z ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Fermi-Dirac distribution functions for particles and antiparticles are respectively:
\begin{eqnarray}
F_i &=& \frac{1}{e^{(E_i - \mu_i)/T} + 1} , \\
{\bar F}_i &=& \frac{1}{e^{(E_i + \mu_i)/T} + 1} ,
\end{eqnarray}
being $\mu_i$ the chemical potential for the particle species $i$.

Including the MRE density of states, we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
n_i  &= & \frac{|q_i e B|}{2\pi^2}  \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}   \int_{\Lambda_{i,\nu}}^{\infty}
(F_i - {\bar F}_i) \left[1 + \frac{2 \pi^2 S}{k V} f_{S,i}\right]   dk_z  \nonumber \\
 &= & \frac{|q_i e B|}{2\pi^2}  \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}   \int_{\ell_i}^{\infty}
(F_i - {\bar F}_i) \nonumber \\
    & & \times  \left[ 1 + \frac{2 \pi^2 S}{V} \frac{f_{S,i}(E)}{k(E)} \right]  \frac{E dE}{k_z(E)} .
\label{eq:number_density}
\end{eqnarray}
where the energy cutoff is $\ell_i = \sqrt{S^2 x^2_{0i}/(4V^2)  + m_i^2 }$.

\subsection{Parallel pressure and surface tension}
A similar procedure allows writing the parallel thermodynamic potential of a magnetized quark matter drop within the MRE formalism as (see \cite{Strick,LugonesGrunfeld2017}):
\begin{eqnarray}
- {\Omega_i^{\parallel} }
 & = & \frac { |q_i e B|}{2 \pi^2}
\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu} \int_{\Lambda_{i,\nu}}^{\infty}  \frac { (F_i + {\bar F}_i)  k_z^2 }{\sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}}  \nonumber \\
  & &  \times  \left(V + \frac{2 \pi^2 f_{S,i}(k)}{k} \times S \right)  dk_z.
\end{eqnarray}

The latter expression can be written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_i^{\parallel}  = -  \Pi_i^{\parallel}  V +  \alpha_i^{\parallel}   S
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Pi_i^{\parallel}$ is the parallel pressure within the MRE formalism and $ \alpha_i^{\parallel}$ is the parallel surface tension, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_i^{\parallel}(T) &=&  \frac{|q_i e B|}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}  \int_{\Lambda_{i,\nu}}^{\infty} \frac{(F_i + {\bar F}_i) k_z^2 \, dk_z}{\sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}} \nonumber \\
&=&  \frac{|q_i e B|}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}  \int_{\ell_i}^{\infty} (F_i + {\bar F}_i) k_z(E) dE \\
\alpha_i^{\parallel}(T)  &=&  - |q_i e B| \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}
\int_{\Lambda_{i,\nu}}^{\infty}   \frac { (F_i + {\bar F}_i)  f_{S,i}  k_z^2  dk_z}{k \sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}}  \nonumber \\
 &=&  - |q_i e  B| \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu}
\int_{\ell_i}^{\infty} (F_i + {\bar F}_i)   \frac {f_{S,i} k_z(E) dE}{k(E)} \qquad
\label{eq:parallel_surface_tension}
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain the total parallel surface tension, we have to add the contribution of all particle species, i.e. quarks $u$,  $d$, $s$ and electrons:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\parallel} & = & \sum_{i=u, d, s, e} \alpha_{i}^{\parallel} .
\end{eqnarray}
Within the MRE formalism, neutrinos have vanishing surface tension because they are assumed to be massless; then from Eq. \eqref{eq:fs}, $f_{S, \nu_e}=0$.

\subsection{Transverse pressure and surface tension}

The  transverse thermodynamic potential of a magnetized quark matter drop reads \cite{Strick,LugonesGrunfeld2017}:
\begin{equation}
- \Omega_i^{\perp}  =   \frac{V  |q_i e B|^2}{2 \pi^2}
\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu} \nu \, \int_{\Lambda_{i,\nu}}^{\infty}  \frac{ (F_i + {\bar F}_i) \rho_{\mathrm{MRE}, i} dk_z}{\sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}}
\end{equation}
Again, the latter expression has the form
\begin{equation}
\Omega_i^{\perp}  = -  \Pi_i^{\perp}  V +  \alpha_i^{\perp}   S .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the transverse  pressure $\Pi_i^{\perp}$ and the transverse surface tension $\alpha_i^{\perp}$ are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_i^{\perp}(T)  &=&  \frac{|q_i e B|^2}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu} \nu \, \int_{\Lambda_{i,\nu}}^{\infty}
\frac{ (F_i + {\bar F}_i) dk_z}{\sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}} \nonumber \\
&=&  \frac{|q_i e B|^2}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu} \nu \, \int_{\ell_i}^{\infty}
\frac{ (F_i + {\bar F}_i)}{k_z(E)} dE \\
\alpha_i^{\perp}(T) &=&  - |q_i e B|^2 \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu} \nu  \int_{\Lambda_{i,\nu}}^{\infty}  \frac { (F_i + {\bar F}_i) f_{S,i} \, dk_z}{k  \sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}} \nonumber \\
&=&  - |q_i e B|^2 \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{\nu} \nu  \int_{\ell_i}^{\infty}   \frac {(F_i + {\bar F}_i) f_{S,i}  dE}{k(E) k_z(E)}  \qquad
\label{eq:transverse_surface_tension}
\end{eqnarray}
where $i$ runs over all particle species, e.g. quarks $u, d, s$ and electrons. The total transverse surface tension is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\perp} & = & \sum_{i=u, d, s, e} \alpha_{i}^{\perp}  .
\end{eqnarray}
Here we also have $ \alpha_{\nu_e}^{\perp} =0$.

\subsection{Thermodynamic constrains and astrophysical scenarios}

In this work we are interested in potential astrophysical applications, therefore, we shall consider that quark matter is electrically neutral and in equilibrium under weak interactions. Chemical equilibrium is maintained by weak interactions among quarks, e.g.
$d \leftrightarrow u + e^- + \bar{\nu}_e$, $s \leftrightarrow u +
e^- + \bar{\nu}_e$, $u + d \leftrightarrow u + s$, from which we obtain the following relations between the chemical potentials:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_d &=& \mu_u + \mu_e - \mu_{\nu_e}, \\
\mu_s &=& \mu_d  .
\end{eqnarray}
Local charge neutrality means that:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{2}{3} n_u - \frac{1}{3} n_d - \frac{1}{3} n_s - n_e = 0,
\label{charge_neutrality}
\end{eqnarray}
where the number densities are given by Eq. \eqref{eq:number_density}.

We focus here in thermodynamic conditions that are relevant for three different astrophysical scenarios:

\begin{itemize}

\item \textit{Cold deleptonized NSs}. This is the case of most NSs a few minutes after their birth. The thermodynamic state can be characterized by a very low temperature (typically below 1 MeV) and no trapped neutrinos because their mean free path is much larger that the stellar radius. As a representative case, we shall consider here $T=1$ MeV and $\mu_{\nu_e}=0$.  This is essentially the same case already studied in our previous work \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017} but we include it here for comparison.

\item  \textit{Hot lepton rich PNSs}.  This is the case of NSs during the first few  minutes after their birth in core collapse supernovae. The thermodynamic state can be characterized by high temperatures (typically up to $\sim 40$ MeV) and a large amount of trapped neutrinos in the system (neutrino chemical potential $\mu_{\nu_e}$ up to $\sim 150$ MeV) \cite{Pons1999}. As a representative case we consider here $T= 30$ MeV and $\mu_{\nu_e} = 100$ MeV.

\item \textit{Binary NS mergers} (labelled as MERGER in the figures). Very recently, the LIGO/Virgo collaboration detected the first signal of gravitational waves coming from the binary NS merger GW170817 \cite{GW170817}. Numerical simulations of these events suggest that the just merged compact object may attain very high temperatures (up to 70 MeV \cite{Radice2017}) and a huge amount of trapped neutrinos can be expected. As a limiting case we consider here $T= 100$ MeV and $\mu_{\nu_e} = 200$ MeV.

\end{itemize}

\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{Ulong.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{Utransv.eps}
\caption{Surface tension for quarks $u$ in the parallel direction (panel (a)) and in the transverse direction  (panel (b)). The results are shown for drops with $V/S$ = 10 fm, 100 fm and  for the bulk limit with $V/S = \infty$. The magnetic field intensities are $eB_{low} = 5 \times 10^{-3} $ GeV$^2$ and $eB_{high} = 5 \times 10^{-2} $ GeV$^2$. We considered the three different astrophysical scenarios described in the text.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{Dlong.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{Dtransv.eps}
\caption{Same as in Fig. \ref{fig:1} but for quarks $d$.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{Slong.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{Stransv.eps}
\caption{Same as in Fig. \ref{fig:1} but for quarks $s$.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{Elong.eps}
\caption{Parallel surface tension for electrons. The transverse surface tension is not shown because it is negligible. Lines follow the same pattern as in previous figures.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{longTOT.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{transvTOT.eps}
\caption{Total surface tension obtained by summing the contributions of  quarks $u$, $d$, $s$ and electrons  in the parallel direction (panel (a)) and in the transverse direction  (panel (b)). }
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{alLONGnB032.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{alTRANSVnB032.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{alLONGnB064.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.37]{alTRANSVnB064.eps}
\caption{Total surface tension obtained by summing the contributions of  quarks $u$, $d$, $s$ and electrons in the parallel direction (panels (a) and (c)) and in the transverse direction  (panels (b) and (d)), as a function of the temperature, for fixed values of the baryon number density ($n_B = 0.32$ and $0.64$ fm$^{-3}$) and the same values of $eB$, $V/S$ and $\mu_{\nu_e}$  used in the previous figures. }
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure*}

\section{Results}
In this section we show our results for the longitudinal ($ \alpha_f^{\parallel}$) and transverse surface tension ($\alpha_f^{\perp}$) focusing on their dependence on the
the baryon number density $n_B = \frac{1}{3} (n_u + n_d + n_s)$, the temperature, the magnetic field strength $eB$, the drop's size $V/S$ and the neutrino chemical potential.
As emphasized in our previous work \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017}, $\alpha_f^{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_f^{\perp}$ do not depend on the exact geometry of the drop but only on
the ratio $V/S$, which is taken here as a free parameter (we adopt $V/S = 10$ fm, 100 fm and the bulk limit with V/S = $\infty$).
For the magnetic field strength we consider a low value and a high one: $eB_{low} = 5  \times  10^{-3} \, \mathrm{GeV}^2$ and $eB_{high} = 5  \times 10^{-2}\, \mathrm{GeV}^2$. For magnetic fields smaller than $eB_{low}$ the results are the same as for $eB_{low}$ as already emphasized in our previous work \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017}.

In Figs. \ref{fig:1}--\ref{fig:4} we show $\alpha_f^{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_f^{\perp}$, for $u,d,s$ quarks and electrons as a function of the baryon number density. For electrons, we show only the longitudinal contribution because the perpendicular contribution is negligible.
As apparent from Figs. \ref{fig:1}--\ref{fig:3},  for $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks, the surface tension is an increasing function of the baryon number density, for fixed values of $eB$, $V/S$, $T$ and $\mu_{\nu_e}$.
In all cases, $\alpha_f^{\parallel}$ is larger for $eB_{high}$  than for $eB_{low}$. For the transverse component the behavior is the opposite, i.e. $\alpha_f^{\perp}$ decreases as the magnetic field increases.
For very high values of the magnetic field $eB_{high}$, the curves for the NS case clearly show de Haas--van Alphen oscillations related to the filling of new Landau levels. For lower fields, such oscillations are also apparent for the lightest particles. However, for the PNS and MERGER cases, the high temperature allows several excited Landau levels to be fulfilled at any value of the magnetic field. As a consequence, de Haas--van Alphen oscillations are smoothed out.

The effect of varying $V/S$ is minor for heavier particles, like strange quarks (see Fig. \ref{fig:3}). For $u$ quarks  the parallel surface tension for $V/S=10$ fm is decreased with respect to the bulk case by $\sim 10 \%$ for $eB_{low}$ and by $\sim 20 \%$ for $eB_{high}$. For $d$ quarks, the effect is qualitatively the same but quantitatively smaller. The transverse surface tension is almost unaffected by $V/S$  for any value of $eB$. In the case of electrons, the effect of $V/S$ is even larger, because they are lighter.

Now let us focus on the behavior of the surface tension in different astrophysical scenarios.
In the PNS and MERGER cases the results are affected by neutrino trapping in spite of the vanishing surface tension of the neutrino gas. The influence of neutrinos enters only through the chemical equilibrium condition.
In the PNS and MERGER cases, the curves are smoother than in the NS case. This is because at finite temperatures the Fermi surface has a thickness of order $T$ which allows Landau levels to be fulfilled more gradually than in the NS case.
The results for the NS case are in agreement with the results found in our previous work \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017}.
For all flavors, $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\perp}$ and $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\parallel}$ at PNS conditions are smaller than for the NS case, and for the MERGER case they are even smaller.

In Fig. \ref{fig:4} we show the longitudinal surface tension for electrons. The transverse one is negligible because the contribution of the lowest Landau level to $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\perp}$ is zero (see Eq. \eqref{eq:transverse_surface_tension}) and at the same time chemical equilibrium leads in general to low values of the electron chemical potential.
The role of finite volume is significant as well as neutrino trapping and temperature effects. The surface tension decreases with the volume, but increases with temperature, neutrinos and magnetic field.

In Fig. \ref{fig:5} we show the total surface tension in the $\perp$ and $\parallel$ directions.
The surface tension of quark matter in chemical equilibrium under weak interactions is largely dominated by strange quarks (notice that the results in Fig. \ref{fig:5} are very similar to the ones in Fig. \ref{fig:3}).
The surface tension in the longitudinal and transverse directions is of the order of few MeV/fm$^2$ at baryon number densities around the nuclear saturation density $n_0$ and reaches values of $\sim 15-25$  MeV/fm$^2$ around ten times $n_0$.
The contribution of quarks $u$ and $d$ is always small, with values no higher than 3 MeV/fm$^2$ for the range of baryon number densities of interest
(see Figs. \ref{fig:1}--\ref{fig:2}).  The contribution of electrons is  even smaller and negligible in quark matter, with values below $\sim 0.2$ MeV/fm$^2$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:4}).
In summary, we find that for all the astrophysical scenarios considered here the role of different flavors is qualitatively  the same as already found in Ref. \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017} for cold deleptonized matter.

In Fig. \ref{fig:6} we go beyond the three specific astrophysical cases analyzed before and explore  the dependence of $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\perp}$ with respect to the temperature for two representative values of the baryon number density, $n_B = 0.32$ and $0.64$ fm$^{-3}$, keeping the same values of $eB$, $V/S$ and $\mu_{\nu_e}$ as before.
In the range of temperatures below $\sim$ 100 MeV we find that  $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\parallel}$  decreases with $T$ while the curves for $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\perp}$ are flatter. Above $T \sim$ 100 MeV, the behavior changes  and both $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\perp}$ grow significantly with $T$.

\section{Summary and conclusions}

In the present work we have studied the surface tension of hot magnetized quark matter droplets within the formalism of multiple reflection expansion (MRE). Quark matter is described as a mixture of free Fermi gases composed by quarks $u$, $d$, $s$ and electrons in chemical equilibrium under weak interactions. We have considered neutrinos in our system in chemical equilibrium with other particles. Even if they do not contribute explicitly to the surface tension (we considered them to be massless) they do affect the surface tension values through the chemical equilibrium condition.
Since our system is subjected to the influence of strong magnetic fields the transverse motion of charged particles is quantized into Landau levels, and as a consequence, the surface tension has a different value in the parallel and transverse directions with respect to $B$. We have considered two values of the magnetic field  ($eB_{low} = 5 \times 10^{-3} $ GeV$^2$ and $eB_{high} = 5 \times 10^{-2} $ GeV$^2$) and quark matter drops with sizes given by $V/S$ =  10 fm, 100 fm and  $\infty$.
We have considered three different astrophysical scenarios depending on the temperature and neutrino chemical potential: cold deleptonized NSs with $T=1$ MeV and $\mu_{\nu_e}=0$,   hot lepton rich PNSs with $T= 30$ MeV and $\mu_{\nu_e} = 100$ MeV, and binary NS mergers with $T= 100$ MeV and $\mu_{\nu_e} = 200$ MeV.

For all these astrophysical scenarios, we find that the dependence of the surface tension with the baryon number density, the magnetic field and the drop's size is essentially the same as found in our previous work at zero temperature and vanishing chemical potential \cite{LugonesGrunfeld2017}. In fact, we find that for $n_B$ between 1 to 10 times the nuclear saturation density, the surface tension falls in the range of $\sim 10^{-2}$ to 25 MeV/fm$^{-2}$ with the larger contribution coming from strange quarks (the most massive particles in the system).
We also find that the surface tensions in the transverse and parallel directions are almost unaffected by the magnetic field if $eB < eB_{low}$, but for higher values of $eB$ there is a significant increase in $\alpha_f^{\parallel}$ and a significant decrease in $\alpha_f^{\perp}$ with respect to the unmagnetized case.
Finally, the \textit{total} surface tension is quite insensitive to the size of the drop, although $V/S$ has a significant effect on the surface tension of light particles (e.g. electrons).

The main differences with respect to previous results are related to the role of trapped neutrinos and finite temperature.
We found that at fixed baryon number density, magnetic field, $V/S$ and temperature,  both $\alpha_f^{\parallel}$ and  $\alpha_f^{\perp}$ are decreasing functions of the neutrino chemical potential $\mu_{\nu_e}$.  The reduction is less than a few percent, but may be relevant for astrophysics because a smaller surface tension makes easier the nucleation of quark matter in a hadronic star. Thus, the hadron to quark conversion is slightly favored by the large amount of trapped neutrinos in the PNS phase and just after a NS merging.
We also found that $\alpha_f^{\parallel}$ and  $\alpha_f^{\perp}$ may be significantly affected by temperature.  At fixed baryon number density and fixed neutrino chemical potential we observe that $\alpha_f^{\parallel}$ decreases with $T$ in the temperature range of astrophysical relevance ($T$ below $\sim 100$ MeV) while $\alpha_f^{\perp}$ is less sensitive to temperature.

The combined effect of high temperatures and neutrino trapping can be easily assessed from Fig. \ref{fig:5} where we find that, at fixed baryon number density, the surface tension in the merger case and in the PNS case are always smaller than for cold deleptonized NSs.
In the PNS case, these results suggest that quark matter nucleation would be more prone to occur in the earlier evolutionary stages of a hadronic star than in later stages. However, as the star cools and deleptonizes, its radius shrinks and the baryon number density in some layers may increase  significantly (typically by a factor of $\sim 2$ \cite{Pons1999}). Contrary to the effect of $T$ and $\mu_{\nu_e}$, this may facilitate quark matter nucleation at late stages.
Moreover, according to the standard scenario of magnetic field generation in compact stars, the magnetic field inside a PNS could increase during its evolution due to a dynamo mechanism and affect quark matter nucleation if ultrahigh magnetic fields are built inside the object.
In the merger case, similar effects could be expected, but the theoretical description of their evolutionary stages is still an open question.


\subsection{Fully Supervised Pre-training} \label{sec3.1}
Many existing UDA approaches are based on a model pre-trained on source dataset, and we follow the similar setting in~\cite{fu2019sta,zhong2017re,zhong2018generalizing,zhong2018camera} to obtain the pre-trained model. In particular, we first utilize ResNet50~\cite{he2016deep} pre-trained on ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet} as backbone network. The last fully connected (FC) layer is discarded and two additional FC layers are added. The first one has 2048 dimensions named as ``FC-2048". The output of second FC layer is $P_s$ dimensional, where $P_s$ is the number of identity in source dataset, named as ``FC-\#ID". Given each labeled image $x_s$ in the source dataset and its ground truth identify $y_s$, we train the baseline model with cross-entropy loss and hard-batch triplet loss~\cite{hermans2017defense}. Specifically, the cross-entropy loss is employed with ``FC-\#ID" by casting the training process as a classiﬁcation problem and hard-batch triplet loss is employed with ``FC-2048" by treating the training process as a verification problem. We name this model as {\bf baseline} in this paper. The {\bf baseline} model achieves good performance with fully labeled data, but always fails when adopted to a new dataset.

\subsection{Unsupervised Self-similarity Grouping} \label{sec3.2}
Although the re-ID performance drops dramatically when directly adopted to another dataset, it is still much better than the performance of directly applying the ResNet50 pre-trained on ImageNet, which is almost zero. From this observation, we believe that the model trained on source dataset still learns some useful representations of a person for the re-ID task. The reason why it performs so severely on target dataset is that the similarities among different person images cannot be discovered correctly. In order to mine these similarities and make use of them for the re-ID task, we propose Self-similarity Grouping(SSG) approach. The overview of proposed SSG approach is shown in Fig~\ref{fig:framework}. The motivation of SSG is that we aim to encourage the model to discover the similarities existing in target dataset by self-similarity grouping. Then each unlabeled person is assigned with a pseudo label based on grouping results, which can be further used to reconstruct the target dataset and fine-tune the {\bf baseline} model. Inspired by recent re-ID work~\cite{fu2018horizontal, wang2018learning}, we compare the similarities between two persons not only by global information obtaining from the whole body but also by more fine and local information getting from upper and lower parts of a person. By combining the global and local information, we can obtain a more robust and discriminative representation of a person, which is more informative for self-similarity grouping.

To formulate the porposed SSG algorithm, we first feed each unlabeled images $x_t^i$ in target dataset into the {\bf baseline} model trained by configurations described in Sec~\ref{sec3.1} for feature extraction, denote as $F_t^i \in {\rm I\!R}^{H\times W\times C}$
(blue one in Fig~\ref{fig:framework}). Then, we split $F_t^i$ into two parts horizontally and each part contains the information of upper body or lower body and denoted as $F_{t\_up}^i \in  {\rm I\!R}^{\frac{H}{2} \times \frac{W}{2} \times C}$ (green one) and $F_{t\_low}^i \in  {\rm I\!R}^{\frac{H}{2} \times \frac{W}{2} \times C}$ (orange one).
Next, we employ the Global Average Pooling (GAP) operation on whole feature map and two sliced feature maps, \ie $F_t^i$, $F_{t\_up}^i$ and $F_{t\_low}^i$, to obtain three feature vectors $f_t^i$, $f_{t\_up}^i$ and $f_{t\_low}^i$. We repeat above steps on every unlabeled images to generate three sets of feature vectors.
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}\label{equ:fs}
    &f_t =  \{f_t^1,..., f_t^k,..., f_t^{N_t}\}\\
    &f_{t\_up}= \{f_{t\_up}^1,..., f_{t\_up}^k,..., f_{t\_up}^{N_t}\} \\
    &f_{t\_low} = \{f_{t\_low}^1,..., f_{t\_low}^k,..., f_{t\_low}^{N_t}\}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Based on these feature vectors sets, we utilize unsupervised clustering algorithm~\cite{ester1996density} on each set to obtain a series of groups, leading to every person image can be assigned with a pseudo label according to the group it belongs to, named as self-label. As shown in Fig~\ref{fig:framework}, we group images according to the three kinds of feature vectors, thus we can get three self-labels for each image $x_t^i$, denoted as $y_{t}^i$, $y_{t\_up}^i$ and $y_{t\_low}^i$. As a result, we can establish a new target dataset where each image has three self labels based on grouping result of three feature vectors, described as following.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
    X_T & = \{x_t^i:(y_{t}^i, y_{t\_up}^i, y_{t\_low}^i); 1\leq i \leq N_t\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In addition to the feature set in equation (\ref{equ:fs}), following the setting of the {\bf baseline} model, we also employ one FC layer after the $f_t^i$ to get a global embedding vector $f_{t\_e}^i$, which is 2048-dims and shares the same self label with $f_t^i$. Note that this FC layer will also be updated during training.

Finally, we employ the self-labels as the supervised information to fine-tune the pre-trained model for cross dataset adaptation using triplet loss $L_{triplet}$, which will be elaborated in Section~\ref{sec3.4}. Specifically, given an image, each feature vector and its corresponding self-label are used as two inputs for $L_{triplet}$. The full objective function of SSG is formulated as following,

\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{ssg} = & L_{triple}(f_t, y_t) + L_{triple}(f_{t\_up}, y_{t\_up}) \\
& + L_{triple}(f_{t\_low}, y_{t\_low}) + L_{triple}(f_{t_e}, y_t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
During training, we follow the above steps to fine-tine the {\bf baseline model} and employ the SSG for each iteration. During testing, we concatenate $f_t^i$, $f_{t\_up}^i$, $f_{t\_low}^i$ together as the final representation of each image $x_t^i$.

\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig/semi_new.pdf}
	\caption{Overview of proposed clustering-guided semi-supervised training strategy combined with SSG. Given a target dataset, we annotate a few images based on the clustering results. And from these labeled images, we employ the step-wise learning approach to exploit the dataset gradually and obtain a more robust model.}
	\label{fig:semi}
	\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Clustering-guided Semi-Supervised Training} \label{sec3.3}

Although unsupervised domain adaptation for person re-ID has been studied extensively~\cite{deng2018image,wei2017person,wang2018transferable,zhong2018generalizing}, there is still more than 25\% and 15\% performance drop in mAP and Rank-1 accuracy comparing to their fully supervised counterparts. In order to narrow the enormous performance gap, we further extend our SGG to a semi-supervised setting.

Previous semi-supervised person re-ID works are \textcolor{black}{mostly} under an one shot setting, which is actually not practical in the re-ID case since it is hard to know the number of independent identities in advance for a new dataset (as discussed in Section~\ref{related}). Hence, we introduce a new semi-supervised training strategy based on clustering-guided annotation, which is more practical and useful for real-world applications. As shown in Fig~\ref{fig:semi}, we employ the unsupervised clustering algorithm on $f_t$ to generate $N_g$ groups. Then, we randomly sample a single image from each group to form a very small sub-dataset $X_g$ with $N_g$ images. Next, we label this small sub-dataset manually and perform labels assignment based on this annotation. Specifically, we extract features of all images in sub-dataset $X_g$ and follow the same operation described in Section~\ref{sec3.2} to obtain three feature vector sets $f_g$, $f_{g\_up}$ and $f_{g\_low}$ and treat each of them as an identity dictionary. Given an unlabeled image $x_t^i$, we find the most similar images from $X_g$ by different cues, whole bodies, upper parts and lower parts, and assign $x_t^i$ with corresponding labels $y_{tg}^i$, $y_{tg\_up}^i$ and $y_{tg\_low}^i$, which can be formulated as following.
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
    & y_{tg}^i = \argmin_{k=1:N_g} dist\{f_t^i, f_g^k\} \\
    & y_{tg\_up}^i = \argmin_{k=1:N_g} dist\{f_{t\_up}^i, f_{g\_up}^k\} \\
    & y_{tg\_low}^i = \argmin_{k=1:N_g} dist\{f_{t\_low}^i, f_{g\_low}^k\}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}

Note that we employ the k-reciprocal encoding~\cite{zhong2017re}, a variation of Jaccard distance between nearest neighbor sets, as the distance metric for similarity measurement
Since each image in $X_g$ is from different groups, it's less possible that two different images share the same identity, which allows us to adopt some one shot learning approaches and further improve the performance. In particular, we follow the step-wise learning approach proposed in~\cite{wu2018exploit} to exploit the whole dataset during training stage progressively.

Furthermore, since SSG and clustering-guided semi-supervised training strategy share the same feature space, we can design a simple yet effective way to train the whole framework jointly and end-to-end, as shown in Fig~\ref{fig:semi}. And the superiority of joint training strategy will be illustrated in ablation study.

\subsection{Loss Function} \label{sec3.4}
\noindent {\bf Fully Supervised Training.} As describe in Sec~\ref{sec3.1}, we utilize both the batch-hard triplet loss proposed in \cite{hermans2017defense} and the softmax loss jointly.
The triplet loss with hard mining is first proposed in~\cite{hermans2017defense} as an improved version of the original semi-hard triplet loss~\cite{schroff2015facenet}. We randomly sample $P$ identities and $K$ instances for each mini-batch to meet the requirement of the batch-hard triplet loss. Typically, the loss function is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{triplet} = \sum_{i=1}^P\sum_{a=1}^K[\alpha + &
\overbrace{\max_{p=1...K}||x_{a}^{(i)}-x_{p}^{(i)}||_2}^{hardest \ positive} \\
&- \underbrace{\min_{\substack{n=1...K\\
{j=1...P}\\
j \neq i}} ||x_{a}^{(i)}-x_{p}^{(i)}||_{2}}_{hardest \ negative}]_+
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $x_{a}^{(i)}, x_{p}^{(i)}, x_{n}^{(i)}$ are features extracted from the anchor, positive and negative samples respectively, and $\alpha$ is the margin hyperparameter.
Besides batch-hard triplet loss, we employ softmax cross entropy loss for discriminative learning as well, which can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
    L_{softmax} = -\sum^P_{i=1}\sum^{K}_{a=1} \log \frac{e^{W^T_{y_{a, i}}x_{a,i}}}{\sum_{k=1}^{C}e^{W^T_{k}x_{a,i}}}
\end{equation}
where $y_{i,a}$ is the ground truth identity of the sample $\{a,i\}$, and $C$ is number of identity. Our loss function for optimization is the combination of softmax loss and batch-hard triplet loss as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:loss}
L_{baseline} = L_{softmax} + L_{triplet}
\end{equation}

\noindent {\bf Unsupervised and Semi-Supervised Training}
Unsupervised and semi-supervised training share the same loss function, and we just leverage the hard-batch triplet loss for metric learning. Also, each loss function has four components, whole body, upper body, lower body and global embedding, which can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{ssg} = & L_{triple}(f_t, y_t) + L_{triple}(f_{t\_up}, y_{t\_up}) \\
& + L_{triple}(f_{t\_low}, y_{t\_low}) + L_{triple}(f_{t_e}, y_t) \\
L_{semi} = & L_{triple}(f_t, y_{tg}) + L_{triple}(f_{t\_up}, y_{tg\_up}) \\
& + L_{triple}(f_{t\_low}, y_{tg\_low}) + L_{triple}(f_{t_e}, y_{tg}) \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Hence, the objective function used in jointly training strategy is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:oneshot}
L_{jointly} = L_{ssg} + L_{semi}.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Datasets and Evaluation Protocol}
{\bf Market1501}~\cite{zheng2015scalable} contains 32,668 images of 1,501 labeled persons \textcolor{black}{from} six camera views. Specifically, 12,936 person images \textcolor{black}{of} 751 identities detected by DPM~\cite{felzenszwalb2010object} are used for training. \textcolor{black}{For testing, in total} 19,732 person images \textcolor{black}{of} 750 identities plus some distractors form \textcolor{black}{the} gallery set, \textcolor{black}{and} 3,368 \textcolor{black}{manually cropped person regions} from 750 identities \textcolor{black}{form the} query set.

{\bf DukeMTMC-ReID}~\cite{zheng2017unlabeled} is a subset of the DukeMTMC dataset~\cite{ristani2016performance}. It contains 1,812 identities captured by 8 cameras. There are 16,522 training images, 2,228 query images, and 17,661 gallery images, with 1,404 identities appearing in more than two cameras. Also, similar \textcolor{black}{to} the Market1501, the rest 408 identities are considered as distractors.

{\bf MSMT17}~\cite{wei2017person} is the largest re-ID dataset, which contains 126,441 bounding boxes of 4,101 identities taken by 15 cameras during 4 days. These 15 cameras \textcolor{black}{include} 12 outdoor and 3 indoor \textcolor{black}{ones}. Faster RCNN~\cite{ren2015faster} is utilized for pedestrian bounding box detection. \textcolor{black}{To the authors' best knowledge,} the MSMT17 is the most challenging re-ID dataset with \textcolor{black}{large-scale images and multiple cameras}.

{\bf Evaluation Protocol}
In our experiment, we use Cumulative Matching Characteristic (CMC) curve and the mean average precision (mAP) to evaluate the performance of re-ID.
For Market-1501 and DukeMTMC-ReID, we use the evaluation packages provided by~\cite{zheng2015scalable} and~\cite{zheng2017unlabeled}, respectively. Moreover, for simplicity, all results reported in this paper are under the single-query setting, \textcolor{black}{and no post-processing like re-ranking ~\cite{zhong2017re} is applied.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
{\bf Baseline training} As described in Section~\ref{sec3.1}, we first train a baseline model on \textcolor{black}{the} source dataset \textcolor{black}{by following} the training strategy described in~\cite{zhong2018camera}. Specifically, we keep the size of input images and resize them to $256\times128$. For data augmentation, we employ random cropping, flipping and random erasing~\cite{zhong2017random}. To meet the requirement of hard-batch triplet loss, each mini-batch is sampled with randomly selected $P=16$ identities and randomly sampled $K=8$ images for each identity from the training set, so that the mini-batch size is 128. And in our experiment, we set the margin parameter to 0.5. During training, we use the Adam ~\cite{kingma2014adam} with weight decay $0.0005$ to optimize the parameters for $150$ epochs. The initial learning rate is set to $3 \times 10^{-4}$ and decays to $3 \times 10^{-5}$ after 100 epochs.

{\bf Unsupervised and Semi-supervised training.} For unsupervised branch and semi-supervised branch, we follow the same data augmentation strategy and triplet loss setting. And we decrease the initial learning rate from $3 \times 10^{-4}$ to $6 \times 10^{-5}$ and change training epoch from 150 to 70. For fairness, we randomly select a single image from each clustering to annotate and preserve them for all ablation study. Besides, the whole framework is trained for several iterations until the model is stable

Our model is implemented on Pytorch~\cite{paszke2017automatic} platform and trained with two NVIDIA TITAN X GPUs. All our experiments on different datasets follow the same settings as above.

\begin{table*}[t]\setlength{\tabcolsep}{12pt}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hlineB{2}
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{DukeMTMC-Re-ID $\rightarrow$ Market1501 }  & \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Market1501 $\rightarrow$ DukeMTMC-ReID}  \\
\cline{2-9}
& mAP & R1 & R5 & R10 & mAP & R1 & R5 & R10  \\ \hline \hline
Baseline(Upper Bound) & 80.8 & 92.5 & 97.5 & 98.4 & 70.5 & 82.6 & 92.3 & 94.4\\ Direct Transfer & 26.6 & 54.6 & 71.1 & 77.1 & 16.1 & 30.5 & 45.0 & 51.8\\
UDA(paper)~\cite{song2018unsupervised} & 53.7 & 75.8 & 89.5 & 93.2 & 49.0 & 68.4 & 80.1 & 83.5 \\ \hline
Baseline + UDA & 53.0 & 74.7 & 86.9 & 90.3 & 50.5 & 69.3 & 80.2 & 83.1\\
Baseline + SSG & 58.3 & 80.0 & 90.0 & 92.4 & 53.4 & 73.0 & 80.6 & 83.2\\
Baseline + SSG$^+$ & 62.5 & 81.4 & 91.6 & 93.8 & 56.7 & 74.2 & 83.5 & 86.7 \\
Baseline + SSG$^{++}$ & {\bf 68.7} & {\bf 86.2} & {\bf 94.6} & {\bf 96.5} & {\bf 60.3} & {\bf 76.0} & {\bf 85.8} & {\bf 89.3}\\
\hlineB{2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of various methods on the target domains. When tested on DukeMTMC-reID, Market-1501 is used as the source and vice versa. ``Baseline" denotes using the full identity labels on the corresponding target dataset(See Section~\ref{sec3.1}). ``Direct Transfer" means directly applying the source-trained model on the target domain.``UDA" stands for the state-of-art unsupervised domain adaptation approach. ``Baseline+xxx" means using ``xxx" domain adaptation method upon baseline model. ``SSG" means Self-similarity Grouping in Section~\ref{sec3.2}. ``SSG$^+$" and ``SSG$^{++}$" stand for proposed SSG enhanced by clustering-guided semi-supervised training w/o and w/ joint training strategy described in Section~\ref{sec3.3}.}
\label{exp:t1}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Ablation Study}

{\bf Comparison between supervised learning, direct transfer and \textcolor{black}{state-of-the-art} unsupervised method.} The performance of supervised {\bf baseline} method and the direct transfer method are specified in Table~\ref{exp:t1}. When comparing two methods, we can clearly find that there is a large performance drop when directly adopting source-trained model on target dataset. For instance, the baseline model trained on Market1501 tested on Market1501 achieves 92.5\% in rank-1 accuracy and 80.8\% in mAP, but it drops to 30.5\% and 16.1\% when tested on DukeMTMC-reID, where the performance gap is more than 55\%. Also, a similar drop can be observed when DukeMTMC-reID is used as the training set and tested on Market1501.
\textcolor{black}{Nevertheless, many recently proposed unsupervised domain adaptation methods cannot well address this great performance gap.} For example, when \textcolor{black}{transferring from} DukeMTMC-reID \textcolor{black}{to} Market1501, to our best knowledge, the best UDA approach~\cite{deng2018image} \textcolor{black}{only} achieved $53.7\%$ and $75.8\%$ on mAP and rank-1 accuracy, which is lower than the fully supervised method by about $20\%$.

{\bf Effectiveness of Self-similarity Grouping.} We perform several ablation studies to prove the effectiveness of proposed SSG as listed in Table~\ref{exp:t1}. Specifically, with SSG, we improve the performance by $21.2\%$ and $27.1\%$ in mAP and rank-1 accuracy when \textcolor{black}{the model is transferred from} DukeMTMC-reID \textcolor{black}{to} Market1501. \textcolor{black}{Similarly}, when \textcolor{black}{the model is} trained on Market1501 and tested on DukeMTMCreID, the performance gain \textcolor{black}{becomes} $+37.9\%$ and $+42.9\%$ in rank-1 accuracy and mAP, respectively. Moreover, compared with \textcolor{black}{state-of-the-art} UDA method, SSG can improve the performance by more than $5\%$ on Market1501 and more than $3\%$ on DukeMTMC-reID. This is because proposed SSG mines the potential similarity from global to fine manner, which can learn a more robust and discriminative model compared with~\cite{deng2018image}. Thus, SSG is a simple yet effective unsupervised method for domain adaptation in person re-ID.

In addition, \textcolor{black}{we compare the performance of SSG with different number of \textcolor{black}{sliced} horizontal feature spatial parts.
 \textcolor{black}{Table~\ref{exp:t2} suggests} that SSG achieves the best results when \textcolor{black}{we only split the feature maps into two parts: the upper and lower body.}

 \textcolor{black}{It infers that} the upper and lower body contain the most \textcolor{black}{discriminative} information for re-ID.
 \textcolor{black}{More fragments of features may break this information and yield worse similarity mining and matching.}

\begin{table}\setlength{\tabcolsep}{11pt}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular} {l|c|c|c|c}
\hlineB{2}
Methods & mAP & R1 & R5 & R10 \\ \hline
UDA & 49.0 & 68.4 & 80.1 & 83.5 \\ \hline
SSG(2 parts) & {\bf 53.4} & {\bf 73.0} & {\bf 80.6} & {\bf 83.2} \\
SSG(3 parts) & 50.4 & 71.3 & 79.1 & 82.0 \\
SSG(4 parts) & 49.1 & 69.1 & 78.4 & 81.6 \\
\hlineB{2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The performance of proposed SSG with different number of splitted parts when trained DukeMTMC-reID dataset and tested on Market1501 dataset. }
\label{exp:t2}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table}

{\bf Effectiveness of clustering-guided semi-supervised training.}
\textcolor{black}{Table~\ref{exp:t1} shows the performance of the proposed cluster-guided semi-supervised method (SSG$^{+}$). Compared to the unsupervised one (SSG), SSG$^{+}$ outperforms SSG by $4.2\%$ and $1.4\%$ in terms of mAP and rank-1 accuracy when tested on Market1501. In addition, it outperforms the direct transfer method by $35.9\%$ in mAP and $26.8\%$ in rank-1 accuracy. These demonstrate the effectiveness of the clustering-guided semi-supervised training.}

\begin{table}[t]\setlength{\tabcolsep}{12pt}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hlineB{2}
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c} {DukeMTMC-reID$\rightarrow$ Market1501}  \\
\cline{2-4}
& mAP & R1 & R10 \\ \hline
SSG$^*$ & 66.8 & 84.5 & 95.3 \\
SSG$^{++}$ & 68.7 & 86.2 & 96.5 \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c} {Market1501$\rightarrow$ DukeMTMC-reID}  \\
\cline{2-4}
& mAP & R1 & R10 \\ \hline
SSG${^*}$ & 57.6 & 74.4 & 88.1 \\
SSG$^{++}$& 60.3 & 76.0 & 89.3 \\ \hline
\hlineB{2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of proposed cluster-guided annotation with random sampling annotation on Market1501 dataset and DukeMTMC-reID dataset. SSG$^*$ is semi-supervised training with random sampling annotation}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{exp:t3}
\end{table}

{\bf Effectiveness of joint training strategy}
\textcolor{black}{Instead of fine-tuning the model obtained by SSG for SSG$^+$, we conduct experiments to jointly train the model parameters using both SSG and SSG$^+$ losses, and we denote this jointly trained model as SSG$^{++}$. In Table~\ref{exp:t1}, when transferred from DukeMTMC-reID to Market1501, SSG$^{++}$ outperforms SSG$^+$ by $6.2\%$ and $4.8\%$ in terms of mAP and rank-1 accuracy. The performance of testing on DukeMTMC-reID also boosts by $3.6\%$ and $1.8\%$ in mAP and rank-1 accuracy. It indicates that joint training strategy has its superiority on both two datasets, and training also becomes more efficient.}

{\bf Effectiveness of clustering-guided annotation }
\textcolor{black}{Intuitively, compared to random sampling from the target domain, clustering-guided annotation (\ie sampling from unsupervised clustered groups and annotating) will increase the identity diversity in the sample set, and enhance the learned feature representation ability with limited supervised information. To validate this intuition, we compare clustering-guided and random sampling annotation on the jointly learned SSG$^{++}$. For fairness, we randomly sampled the same number of images from the whole dataset for the latter. In Table~\ref{exp:t3}, SSG$^{++}$ surpasses the random sampling one by 2.7\% and 1.6\% in mAP and rank-1 accuracy when testing on DukeMTMC-reID and the similar improvement on performance can be found when testing on Market1501 as well. It verifies that the proposed clustering-guided annotation is better than the random one.}

\textcolor{black}{In conclusion, SSG$^{++}$ with clustering-guided annotation yields the best performance on both Market1501 and DukeMTMC-reID dataset. For instance, we achieve $42.1\%$ and $31.6\%$ improvements in mAP and rank-1 accuracy when testing on Market1501 compared with direct adaptation.}

\subsection{Comparision with State-of-arts}
In this section, we compare the proposed method with \textcolor{black}{state-of-the-art} unsupervised learning methods on Market1501, DukeMTMC-reID and MSMT17 in Table~\ref{exp:t4}, Table~\ref{exp:t5} and Table~\ref{exp:t6} respectively. SSG outperforms existing approaches with dominantly advantage. In particular, our model outperforms the best published method ARN~\cite{li2018adaptation} by almost $20\%$ on mAP when testing on Market1501 and DukeMTMC-reID dataset. Moreover, it also surpasses the unpublished UDAP~\cite{deng2018image} and MAR(CVPR2019)~\cite{yu2019unsupervised} by a large margin.

{\bf Results on Market1501}
On Market-1501, we compare our results with two hand-crafted features, \ie Bag-of-Words (BoW)~\cite{zheng2015scalable} and local maximal occurrence (LOMO)~\cite{liao2015person}, three unsupervised methods, including UMDL~\cite{peng2016unsupervised},PUL~\cite{fan2018unsupervised} and CAMEL~\cite{yu2017cross}, and six unsupervised domain adaptation methods, including PTGAN~\cite{wei2017person}, SPGAN~\cite{deng2018image}, TJ-AIDL~\cite{wang2018transferable}, ARN~\cite{li2018adaptation}, UDAP~\cite{song2018unsupervised} and MAR~\cite{yu2019unsupervised}. The two hand-crafted features are directly applied to the test dataset without any training process, but it is obvious that both features fail to obtain competitive results. \textcolor{black}{While} training on target set, unsupervised methods always obtain higher results than hand-crafted features. Comparing with unsupervised domain adaptation methods, our proposed SSG is superior. Only \textcolor{black}{in} unsupervised setting, we achieve rank-1 accuracy $=80.0\%$ and mAP $=58.3\%$, which outperforms the best unsupervised method~\cite{song2018unsupervised} by $4.6\%$ and $4.2\%$. Furthermore, with clustering-guided semi-supervised training strategy, we \textcolor{black}{further} improve the performance by $10\%$ on mAP and $6\%$ on rank-1 accuracy.

\begin{table}\setlength{\tabcolsep}{11pt}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular} {l|c|c|c|c}
\hlineB{2}
Methods & mAP & R1 & R5 & R10 \\ \hline \hline
LOMO~\cite{liao2015person} & 8.0 & 27.2 & 41.6 & 49.1 \\
Bow~\cite{zheng2015scalable} & 14.8 & 35.8 & 52.4 & 60.3 \\
UMDL~\cite{peng2016unsupervised} & 12.4 &34.5 & 52.6 & 59.6 \\
PTGAN~\cite{wei2017person} & - & 38.6 & - & 66.1 \\
PUL~\cite{fan2018unsupervised} & 20.5 & 45.5 & 60.7 & 66.7 \\
SPGAN~\cite{deng2018image}& 22.8 & 51.5 & 70.1 & 76.8 \\
CAMEL~\cite{yu2017cross} & 26.3 & 54.5 & - & - \\
SPGAN+LMP~\cite{deng2018image} & 26.7 & 57.7 & 75.8 & 82.4 \\
TJ-AIDL~\cite{wang2018transferable} & 26.5 & 58.2 & 74.8 & 81.1 \\
HHL~\cite{zhong2018generalizing} & 31.4 & 62.2 & 78.8 & 84.0 \\
ARN~\cite{li2018adaptation} & 39.4 & 70.3 & 80.4 & 86.3 \\
UDAP~\cite{song2018unsupervised} & 53.7 & 75.8 & 89.5 & 93.2 \\
MAR~\cite{yu2019unsupervised} & 40.0 & 67.7 & 81.9 & - \\
ENC~\cite{zhong2019invariance} & 43.0 & 75.1 & 87.6 & 91.6\\ \hline
SSG & {\bf 58.3} & {\bf 80.0} & {\bf 90.0} & {\bf 92.4} \\
SSG$^{++}$ & {\bf 68.7} & {\bf 86.2} & {\bf 94.6} & {\bf 96.5}\\
\hlineB{2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of proposed SSG approach with state-of-arts unsupervised domain adaptive person re-ID methods on Market1501 dataset. }
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{exp:t4}
\end{table}

{\bf Results on DukeMTMC-reID}
The similar improvement can also be observed when we \textcolor{black}{test it} on DukeMTMC-reID dataset. Specifically, we achieve mAP $=53.4\%$ and rank-1 accuracy $=73.0\%$ by unsupervised SSG and obtain mAP $=60.3\%$ and rank-1 accuracy$=76.0\%$ under semi-supervised setting. Compared with best unsupervised method, our result is $4.4\%/11.3\%$ and $4.6\%/7.6\%$ higher on mAP and rank-1 accuracy. Therefore, the superiority of the proposed SSG adaptation approach for person re-ID can be concluded. In addition, we improve the performance by a large margin and recover about $90\%$ performance of the fully supervised method by clustering-guided semi-supervised training strategy.

\begin{table}\setlength{\tabcolsep}{11pt}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular} {l|c|c|c|c}
\hlineB{2}
Methods & mAP & R1 & R5 & R10 \\ \hline \hline
LOMO~\cite{liao2015person} & 4.8 & 12.3 & 21.3 & 26.6 \\
Bow~\cite{zheng2015scalable} & 8.3 & 17.1 & 28.8 & 34.9 \\
UMDL~\cite{peng2016unsupervised} & 7.3 & 18.5 & 31.4 & 37.4 \\
PTGAN~\cite{wei2017person} & - & 27.4 & - & 50.7 \\
PUL~\cite{fan2018unsupervised} & 16.4 & 30.0 & 43.4 & 48.5  \\
SPGAN~\cite{deng2018image}& 22.3 & 41.1 & 56.6 & 63.0\\
CAMEL~\cite{yu2017cross} &  - & - & - & -\\
SPGAN+LMP~\cite{deng2018image} & 26.2 & 46.4 & 62.3 & 68.0 \\
TJ-AIDL~\cite{wang2018transferable} & 23.0 & 44.3 & 59.6 & 65.0 \\
HHL~\cite{zhong2018generalizing} & 27.2 & 46.9 & 61.0 & 66.7 \\
ARN~\cite{li2018adaptation} & 33.4 & 60.2 & 73.9 & 79.5 \\
UDAP~\cite{song2018unsupervised} & 49.0 & 68.4 & 80.1 & 83.5 \\
MAR~\cite{yu2019unsupervised} & 48.0 & 67.1 & 79.8 & - \\
ENC~\cite{zhong2019invariance} &40.4 &63.3 &75.8& 80.4\\ \hline
SSG & {\bf 53.4} & {\bf 73.0} & {\bf 80.6} & {\bf 83.2} \\
SSG$^{++}$ & {\bf 60.3} & {\bf 76.0} & {\bf 85.8} & {\bf 89.3} \\
\hlineB{2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of proposed SSG approach with state-of-arts unsupervised domain adaptive person re-ID methods on DukeMTMC dataset. }
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{exp:t5}
\end{table}

{\bf Results on MSMT17}
In addition, we further evaluate the proposed SSG approach on MSMT17 dataset, which is the largest and most challenging re-ID dataset. We achieve mAP$=13.3\%$ and rank-1 accuracy$=32.2\%$ when trained DukeMTMC-reID, which improves state-of-the-arts by $10.0\%$ and $20.4\%$. Also, similar improvement can be observed while trained on Market1501 as well, which further verifies the effectiveness of our proposed method.

\begin{table}[t]\setlength{\tabcolsep}{12pt}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\hlineB{2}
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c} {DukeMTMC-reID$\rightarrow$ MSMT17}  \\
\cline{2-4}
& mAP & R1 & R10 \\ \hline
PTGAN~\cite{wei2017person} & 3.3 & 11.8 & 27.4 \\ \hline
SSG & {\bf 13.3} & {\bf 32.2} & {\bf 51.2} \\
SSG$^{++}$ & {\bf 18.3} & {\bf 41.6} & {\bf 62.2} \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c} {Market1501$\rightarrow$ MSMT17}  \\
\cline{2-4}
& mAP & R1 & R10 \\ \hline
PTGAN~\cite{wei2017person} & 2.9 & 10.2 & 24.4 \\ \hline
SSG & {\bf 13.2} & {\bf 31.6} & {\bf 49.6} \\
SGG$^{++}$ & {\bf 16.6} & {\bf 37.6} & {\bf 57.2}  \\
\hlineB{2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of proposed SSG approach with state-of-arts unsupervised domain adaptive person re-ID methods on MSMT17 dataset.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{exp:t6}
\end{table}

\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
\input{TEX/1_intro.tex}
\section{Related Work}\label{related}
\input{TEX/2_related.tex}
\section{Proposed Method}
\input{TEX/3_method.tex}
\section{Experiments}
\input{TEX/4_experiments.tex}
\section{Conclusion}
\input{TEX/5_conclusion.tex}