\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
\label{sec:acknowledgements}

\todo{Placeholder}.

\section{Screening Tools for Clinical Psychiatry}
\label{sec:cnp}

The Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics (CNP)~\cite{poldrack2016a} is a project aimed at understanding shared and distinct neurobiological characteristics among multiple diagnostically distinct patient populations.
Four groups of subjects are included in the study: healthy controls (\emph{HC}, $n=130$), Schizophrenia patients (\emph{SCHZ}, $n=50$), Bipolar Disorder patients (\emph{BD}, $n=49$), and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder patients (\emph{ADHD}, $n=43$).
The total number of subjects in the dataset is $n = 272$.
Our goal in analyzing the CNP dataset is to develop \review{interpretable screening tools} to identify the diagnosis of these three psychiatric disorders in patients\review{, as well as finding transdiagnostic tools that identify the commonalities among these disorders}.

\subsection{CNP Self-Reported Instruments Dataset}

Among other data modalities, the CNP study includes responses to $p=578$ individual questions per subject~\cite{poldrack2016a}, belonging to 13 self-report clinical questionnaires with a total of $\sum_{i=1}^p \abs{a_i} = 1350$ categories.
The 13~questionnaires are:
``Adult ADHD Self-Report Screener'' (\emph{ASRS}),
``Barratt Impulsiveness Scale'' (\emph{Barratt}),
``Chapman Perceptual Aberration Scale'' (\emph{ChapPer}),
``Chapman Social Anhedonia Scale'' (\emph{ChapSoc}),
``Chapman Physical Anhedonia Scale'' (\emph{ChapPhy}),
``Dickman Function and Dysfunctional Impulsivity Inventory'' (\emph{Dickman}),
``Eysenck's Impusivity Inventory'' (\emph{Eysenck}),
``Golden \& Meehl's 7 MMPI Items Selected by Taxonomic Method'' (\emph{Golden}),
``Hypomanic Personality Scale'' (\emph{Hypomanic}),
``Hopkins Symptom Check List'' (\emph{Hopkins}),
``Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire -- Control Subscale'' (\emph{MPQ}),
``Temperament and Character Inventory'' (\emph{TCI}), and
``Scale for Traits that Increase Risk for Bipolar II Disorder'' (\emph{BipolarII}).

The details about these questionnaires are beyond the scope of this paper, and due to space constraints we abbreviate the individual questions using the name in parenthesis in the list above together with the question number.
Depending on the particular clinical questionnaire, each question results in a binary answer (i.e., \emph{True}\xspace or \emph{False}\xspace) or a rating integer (e.g., from 1~to 5).
We used each possible answer as a literal attribute, resulting in a range from 2~to 5~categories per attribute.

\subsection{Performance Benchmark}
\label{sec:cnp_perf}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/mca_vs_fpgrowth_runtime.pdf}%
    \caption{%
      Rule mining performance comparison.

      Black circles mark final successful executions.

    }%
    \label{fig:run_time_mining}%
  \end{subfigure}%
  \hfill%
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/multicore_vs_onecore_mcmc_runtime.pdf}%
    \caption{%
      Convergence run-time of single- and multi-core vs.\ rule set size for 6~MCMC chains.
    }%
    \label{fig:run_time_mcmc}%
  \end{subfigure}%
  \hfill%
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/nchains_multiVSsingle.pdf}
    \caption{%
      Convergence run-time ratio $\frac{t_{\text{single-core}}}{t_{\text{multi-core}}}$ vs.\ number of multi-core MCMC chains.

    }%
    \label{fig:mcmc_nchains}%
  \end{subfigure}
  \caption{%
    Wall execution times of our MCA-miner and parallel MCMC implementations.
    All times are an average of 5~runs.
  }%
  \label{fig:run_time}%
\end{figure}

This is a challenging dataset for most rule learning algorithms since it is \emph{wide}, with more features than samples since $\sum_{i=1}^p \abs{a_i} \gg p \gg n$.
Indeed, just generating all rules with 3~literals from this dataset results in approximately 23~million rules.
Fig.~\ref{fig:run_time_mining} compares the wall execution time of our MCA-miner against three popular associative mining methods: FP-Growth, Apriori, and Carpenter, all using the implementation in the \emph{PyFIM} package~\cite{borgelt2012frequent} and the same set of CNP features.
While the associative mining methods are reasonably efficient on datasets with few features, for datasets with roughly 100~features they result in out-of-memory errors or impractically long executions (longer than 12 hours) even on large-scale compute-optimized AWS EC2 instances.
In comparison, MCA-miner empirically exhibits a grow rate compatible with datasets much larger than CNP.
It is worth noting that while FP-Growth is shown as the fastest associative mining method in~\cite{borgelt2012frequent}, its scaling behavior vs.\ the number of attributes is practically the same as Apriori in our experiments.

In addition to the increased performance due to MCA-miner, we also improved the implementation of the BRL training MCMC algorithm by running parallel Markov chains simultaneously in different CPU cores, as explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:problem_description}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:run_time_mcmc} shows the BRL training time comparison for the same rule set between our multi-core implementation against the original single-core implementation reported in~\cite{letham2015interpretable}.
Also, Fig.~\ref{fig:mcmc_nchains} shows that the multi-core implementation convergence time scales linearly with the number of Markov chains, with $t_{\text{single-core}} \approx \frac{1}{2}\, N_{\text{chains}}\, t_{\text{multi-core}}$.

\subsection{Interpretable Classifiers}

In the interest of building the best possible \review{screening tool for the psychiatric disorders present in the CNP dataset}, we build three different classifiers.
First, we build a binary \review{transdiagnostic} classifier to separate \emph{HC} from the set of \emph{Patients}, defined as the union of \emph{SCHZ}, \emph{BD}, and \emph{ADHD} subjects.
Second, we build a multi-class classifier to separate all four original categorical labels available in the dataset.
Finally, we evaluate the performance of the multi-class classifier \review{as a transdiagnostic tool} by repeating the binary classification task and comparing the results.
All validations were performed using 5-fold cross-validation.
In addition to using Accuracy and ROC-AUC as performance metrics as in Sec.~\ref{sec:uci}, we also report the Cohen's $\kappa$ coefficient~\cite{cohen1960a}, which ranges between -1 (complete misclassification) to 1 (perfect classification), as another indication for the effect size of our classifier since it is compatible with both binary and multi-class classifiers and commonly used in the healthcare literature.

\subsubsection{Binary transdiagnostic classifier}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \begin{subfigure}[b]{.67\textwidth}
    \begin{algorithmic}[1]
      \If{\cnpq{ChapSoc}{13} is \emph{True}\xspace \AlgoAnd \cnpq{Hypomanic}{8} is \emph{True}\xspace\par%
        \hfill} \emph{Patient} ($P = 0.92$)
      \ElsIf{\cnpq{BipolarII}{1} is \emph{False}\xspace \AlgoAnd \cnpq{Golden}{1} is \emph{False}\xspace\par%
        \hfill\AlgoAnd \cnpq{Eysenck}{11} is \emph{False}\xspace} \emph{HC} ($P = 0.80$)
      \ElsIf{\cnpq{BipolarII}{1} is \emph{False}\xspace \AlgoAnd \cnpq{Hopkins}{56} is 0\par%
        \hfill} \emph{HC} ($P = 0.50$)
      \ElsIf{\cnpq{BipolarII}{2} is \emph{False}\xspace \AlgoAnd \cnpq{Hopkins}{39} is 0\par%
        \hfill\AlgoAnd \cnpq{Dickman}{28} is \emph{False}\xspace} \emph{HC} ($P = 0.50$)
      \Else{} \emph{Patient} ($P = 0.91$)
      \EndIf
    \end{algorithmic}
    \caption{%
      Rule-list for psychiatric transdiagnostic screening.
    }
    \label{fig:cnp_rl_bin_list}
  \end{subfigure}%
  \hfill%
  \begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/cnp_rule_match_data_2cls_v.pdf}
    \caption{%
      Classification per rule.
    }
    \label{fig:cnp_rl_bin_plot}
  \end{subfigure}
  \caption{%
    Transdiagnostic screening of psychiatric disorders in the CNP dataset.
    Estimated probabilities for each label shown in parenthesis.
  }
  \label{fig:cnp_rl_bin}
\end{figure}

The rule list \review{was generated using all the available samples, namely $130$~\emph{HC} vs.\ $142$~\emph{Patients}, and} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cnp_rl_bin}.
A description of the questions in Fig.~\ref{fig:cnp_rl_bin} is shown in Table~\ref{tab:cnp_questions}.
Note that most subjects are classified with a high probability in the top two rules, which is useful in situations where fast clinical screening is required.
The confusion matrix for this classifier is show in Fig.~\ref{fig:cnp_confusion_2}.

\begin{table}[t]
  \centering
  \caption{%
    Transdiagnostic prediction performance comparison for different models.
  }
  \label{tab:cnp_table}
  \begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c}
    Classifier & Accuracy & ROC-AUC & Cohen's $\kappa$\\
    \hline
    \hline
    MCA-miner + BRL & 0.79 & 0.82 & 0.58\\
    \hline
    Random Forest & 0.75 & 0.85 & 0.51\\
    \hline
    Boosted Trees & 0.79 & 0.87 & 0.59\\
    \hline
    Decision Tree & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.43
  \end{tabular}
\end{table}

We also benchmark the performance of our method against other commonly used machine learning algorithms compatible with categorical data, using their \emph{Scikit-learn}~\cite{pedregosa2011scikit} implementations and default parameters.
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:cnp_table}, \review{our method has comparable effect size}, if not better, than the state of the art.

\subsubsection{Multi-class classifier}

\begin{figure}[tp]
  \begin{subfigure}[b]{.67\textwidth}
    \centering
    \begin{algorithmic}[1]
      \If{\cnpq{Barratt}{12} is 2 \AlgoAnd \cnpq{Dickman}{29} is \emph{True}\xspace\par%
        \hfill\AlgoAnd \cnpq{TCI}{231} is \emph{False}\xspace} \emph{ADHD} ($P = 0.64$)
      \ElsIf{\cnpq{Hypomanic}{1} is \emph{True}\xspace\par%
        \AlgoAnd \cnpq{Dickman}{22} is \emph{True}\xspace} \emph{SCHZ} ($P\! =\! 0.72$)
      \ElsIf{\cnpq{BipolarII}{1} is \emph{False}\xspace \AlgoAnd \cnpq{ChapSoc}{9} is \emph{True}\xspace\par%
        \hfill} \emph{HC} ($P = 0.70$)
      \Else{} \emph{BD} ($P = 0.44$)
      \EndIf
    \end{algorithmic}%
    \caption{%
      Rule-list for psychiatric screening among 4~classes.
    }
    \label{fig:cnp_rl_list}
   \end{subfigure}%
  \hfill%
  \begin{subfigure}[b]{.32\textwidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/cnp_rule_match_data_4cls_v.pdf}
    \caption{%
      Classification per rule.
    }
    \label{fig:cnp_rl_plot}
  \end{subfigure}
  \caption{%
    Multi-class screening of psychiatric disorders in the CNP dataset.
    Estimated probabilities for each label shown in parenthesis.
  }
  \label{fig:cnp_rl}
\end{figure}

Fig.~\ref{fig:cnp_rl} shows the rule list obtained using the all 4~labels in the CNP dataset.
\review{We sub-sampled the dataset to balance out each label, resulting in $n=43$ subjects for each of the four classes, with a total of $n=172$ samples.}
Our classifier has an accuracy of $0.57$ and Cohen's $\kappa$ of $0.38$, and Fig.~\ref{fig:cnp_confusion_4} shows the resulting confusion matrix.
The questions present in the rule list are detailed in Table~\ref{tab:cnp_questions}.

While the accuracy of the rule list as a multi-class classifier is not perfect, it is worth noting how just 7~questions out of a total of~578 are enough to produce a relatively balanced output among the rules.
Also note that, even though each of the 13~questionnaires in the dataset has been thoroughly tested in the literature as clinical instruments to detect and evaluate different traits and behaviors, the 7~questions picked by our rule list do not favor any of the questionnaires in particular.
This is an indication that classifiers are better obtained from different sources of data, and likely improve their performance as other modalities, such as mobile digital inputs, are included in the dataset.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{figures/2cls_evaluation.pdf}
    \caption{%
      Binary classifier.
    }
    \label{fig:cnp_confusion_2}
  \end{subfigure}%
  \hfill%
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\linewidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{figures/4cls_evaluation_4cls.pdf}
    \caption{%
      Multi-class classifier.
    }
    \label{fig:cnp_confusion_4}
  \end{subfigure}
  \hfill%
  \begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\linewidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{figures/4cls_evaluation_binary.pdf}
    \caption{%
      Multi-class with binary emission.
    }
    \label{fig:cnp_confusion_4_2}
  \end{subfigure}
  \caption{%
    Confusion matrices on test cohorts for our classifiers.
  }
  \label{fig:cnp_confusion}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Binary classification using multi-class rule list}

We replace the \emph{ADHD}, \emph{BD}, and \emph{SCHZ} labels with \emph{Patients} to evaluate the performance of the multi-class classifier as a binary \review{transdiagnostic} classifier.
Using the cross-validated multi-class models, we compute their performance as binary classifiers obtaining an accuracy of $0.77$, ROC-AUC of $0.8$, and Cohen's $\kappa$ of $0.54$.
The confusion matrix is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cnp_confusion_4_2}.
These values are on par with those in Table~\ref{tab:cnp_table}, showing that our method does not decrease performance by adding more categorical labels.
\review{Note that while the original binary classifier is highly accurate identifying \emph{HC} subjects, the multi-class classifier with binary emission is better at identifying \emph{Patient} subjects, opening the door to new techniques capable of fusing the best properties of these different rule lists.}

\begin{table}[t]
  \centering
  \caption{%
    CNP dataset questions singled out the rule lists in Figs.~\ref{fig:cnp_rl_bin} and~\ref{fig:cnp_rl}.
    All questions are \emph{True}\xspace/\emph{False}\xspace except when noted.
  }
  \label{tab:cnp_questions}
  \begin{tabular}{l|m{283pt}}
    Label & Question \\
    \hline
    \hline
    \cnpq{Barratt}{12} & I am a careful thinker (answer: 1 to 4) \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{BipolarII}{1} & My mood often changes, from happiness to sadness, without my knowing why\\
    \hline
    \cnpq{BipolarII}{2} & I have frequent ups and downs in mood, with and without apparent cause \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{ChapSoc}{9} & I sometimes become deeply attached to people I spend a lot of time with \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{ChapSoc}{13} & My emotional responses seem very different from those of other people \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Dickman}{22} & I don't like to do things quickly, even when I am doing something that is not very difficult \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Dickman}{28} & I often get into trouble because I don't think before I act \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Dickman}{29} & I have more curiosity than most people \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Eyenseck}{1} & Weakness in parts of your body \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Golden}{1} & I have not lived the right kind of life \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Hopkins}{39} & Heart pounding or racing (answer: 0 to 3) \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Hopkins}{56} & Weakness in parts of your body (answer: 0 to 3) \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Hypomanic}{1} & I consider myself to be an average kind of person \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{Hypomanic}{8} & There are often times when I am so restless that it is impossible for me to sit still \\
    \hline
    \cnpq{TCI}{231}  & I usually stay away from social situations where I would have to meet strangers, even if I am assured that they will be friendly
  \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Problem Description and Definitions}
\label{sec:problem_description}

We begin by introducing definitions used throughout this paper.
An \emph{attribute}, denoted $a$, is a categorical property of each data sample, which can take a discrete and finite number of values denoted as $\abs{a}$.
A \emph{literal} is a Boolean statement checking if an attribute takes a given value, e.g., given an attribute $a$ with categorical values $\set{c_1, c_2}$ we can define the following literals: \emph{$a$ is $c_1$}, and \emph{$a$ is $c_2$}.
Given a collection of attributes $\set{a_i}_{i=1}^p$, a \emph{data sample} is a list of categorical values, one per attribute.
A \emph{rule}, denoted $r$, is a collection of literals, with length $\abs{r}$, which is used to produce Boolean evaluations of data samples as follows: a rule evaluates to \emph{True}\xspace whenever all the literals are also \emph{True}\xspace, and evaluates to \emph{False}\xspace otherwise.

In this paper we consider the problem of efficiently building \emph{rule lists}, which are evaluated sequentially until one rule is satisfied, for datasets with a large total number of categories among all attributes (i.e., $\sum_{i=1}^p \abs{a_i}$), a common situation among datasets related to health care or pharmacology.
Given $n$ data samples, we represent a dataset as a matrix $X$ with dimensions $n \times p$, where $X_{i,j}$ is the category assigned to the $i$-th sample for the $j$-th attribute.
We also consider a categorical label for each data sample, collectively represented as a vector $Y$ with length $n$.
We denote the number of label categories by $\ell$, where $\ell \geq 2$.
If $\ell = 2$, we are solving a standard binary classification problem.
If, instead, $\ell > 2$ then we solve a multi-class classification problem.

Bayesian Rule Lists (BRL) is a framework proposed by Rudin et al.~\cite{rudin2013learning,letham2015interpretable} to build interpretable classifiers.
Although BRL is a significant step forward in the development of XAI methods, searching over the configuration space of all possible rules containing all possible combinations of literals obtained from a given dataset is simply infeasible.
Letham et al.~\cite{letham2015interpretable} offer a good compromise solution to this problem, where first a set of rules is mined from a dataset, and then BRL searches over the configuration space of combinations of the prescribed set of rules using a custom-built MCMC algorithm.
While efficient rule mining methods are available in the literature, we show in Sec.~\ref{sec:cnp} that such methods fail to execute on datasets with a large total number of categories, due to either unacceptably long computation time or prohibitively high memory usage.

In this paper we build upon the method in~\cite{letham2015interpretable} developing two improvements.
First, we propose a novel rule mining algorithm based on Multiple Correspondence Analysis that is both computational and memory efficient, enabling us to apply BRL on datasets with a large total number of categories.
Our MCA-based rule mining algorithm is explained in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:method}.
Second, we parallelized the MCMC search method in BRL by executing individual Markov chains in separate CPU cores of a computer.
Moreover, we periodically check the convergence of the multiple chains using the generalized Gelman \& Rubin convergence criteria~\cite{brooks1998general,gelman1992inference}, thus stopping the execution once the convergence criteria is met.
As shown \review{in Sec.~\ref{sec:cnp_perf}}, our implementation is significantly faster than the original single-core version, enabling the study of more datasets with longer rules or a large number of features.

\section{DISCUSSION}
\label{sec:discuss}

We formulated a novel MCA-based rule mining method, with excellent scaling properties against the number of categorical attributes, and presented a new implementation of the BRL algorithm using multi-core parallelization.
We also studied the CNP dataset for psychiatric disorders using our new method, resulting in rule-based interpretable classifiers capable of screening patients from self-reported questionnaire data.
Our results not only show the viability of building interpretable models for state-of-the-art clinical psychiatry datasets, but also highlight the scalability of these models to larger datasets to understand the interactions and differences between these disorders.
\review{We are actively exploring avenues for improving recruitment and reducing screening rejections in clinical trials.}

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

The use of novel Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to derive insights from clinical psychiatry datasets has consistently increased in recent years~\cite{beam2018big}, generating highly predictive models for heterogeneous datasets.
While high predictability is indeed a desirable result, the healthcare community requires that the AI models are also \emph{interpretable}, so that experts can learn new insights from these models, or even better, so that experts can improve the performance of the models by tuning the data-driven models.
We take a practical approach towards solving this problem, by developing a new rule mining method for wide categorical datasets, and \review{by applying our mining method to build interpretable transdiagnostic screening tools for psychiatric disorders - aiming to capture underlying commonalities among these disorders.}

\review{Starting from early clinical decision support systems (CDSS)~\cite{wyatt1991field}, the interpretation that clinicians obtain from data-driven models was identified as a critical element in their practical deployment}.
A report by the AI~Now Institute remarks as the top recommendation in their 2017 report that core government agencies, including those responsible for healthcare, ``should no longer use \emph{black box} AI and algorithmic systems''~\cite{campolo2017ai}.
The Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) program at DARPA has as one of its goals to ``enable human users to understand, appropriately trust, and effectively manage the emerging generation of artificially intelligent partners''~\cite{gunning2017explainable}.
In contrast, popular machine learning methods such as artificial neural networks~\cite{lecun2015deep} and ensemble models~\cite{dietterich2000experimental} are known for their elusive readout.
For example, while artificial neural network applications exist for tumor detection in CT scans~\cite{anthimopoulos2016lung}, it is virtually impossible for a person to understand the rational behind such a mathematical abstraction.

Interpretability is often loosely defined as understanding not only \emph{what} a model emitted, but also \emph{why} it did~\cite{gilpin2018explaining}.
\review{As explained in~\cite{lipton2018mythos}, rule-based decision models offer desirable interpretation properties such as \emph{trust}, \emph{transparent simulatability}, and \emph{post-hoc text explanations}.}
Recent efforts towards interpretable machine learning models in healthcare can be found in the literature, such as the development of a boosting method to create decision trees as the combination of single decision nodes~\cite{valdes2016mediboost}.
Bayesian Rule List~(BRL) \cite{rudin2013learning,letham2015interpretable} mixes the interpretability of sequenced logical rules for categorical datasets, together with the inference power of Bayesian statistics.
Compared to decision trees, BRL rule lists take the form of a hierarchical series of \emph{if-then-else} statements where model emissions are correspond to the successful association to a given rule.
BRL results in models that are inspired, and therefore similar, to standard human-built decision-making algorithms.

While BRL is by itself an interesting model to try on clinical psychiatry datasets, it relies on the existence of an initial set of rules from which the actual rule lists are built, which is similar to the approach taken by other associative classification methods~\cite{liu1998integrating,yin2003cpar,li2001cmar}.
Frequent pattern mining has been a standard tool to build such initial set of rules, with methods like Apriori~\cite{agrawal1994fast} and FP-Growth~\cite{han2000mining} being commonly used to extract rules from categorical datasets.
However, frequent pattern mining methods do not scale well for wide datasets, i.e., datasets where the total number of categorical features is much larger than the number of samples, commonly denoted as $p \gg n$.
Most clinical healthcare datasets are wide and thus require new mining methods to enable the use of BRL in this research area.

In this paper we propose a new rule mining technique that is not based on the frequency in which certain categories simultaneously appear.
Instead, we use Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)~\cite{greenacre2006multiple}, a particular application of correspondence analysis to categorical datasets, to establish a similarity score between different associative rules.
We show that our new MCA-miner method is significantly faster than commonly used frequent pattern mining methods, and that it scales well to wide datasets.
Moreover, we show that MCA-miner performs equally well as other miners when used together with BRL.
Finally, we use MCA-miner and BRL to analyze \review{a dataset designed for the transdiagnostic study of psychiatric disorders, building interpretable predictors to support clinician screening tasks}.

\section{MCA-based Rule Mining}
\label{sec:method}

Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)~\cite{greenacre2006multiple} is a method that applies the power of Correspondence Analysis (CA) to categorical datasets.
For the purpose of this paper it is important to note that MCA is the application of CA to the indicator matrix of all categories in the set of attributes, thus generating principal vectors projecting each of those categories into a euclidean space.
We use these principal vectors to build an efficient heuristic merit function over the set of all available rules given the categories in a dataset.

\subsection{Rule Score Calculation}
First, we compute the MCA principal vectors of the extended data matrix concatenating $X$ and $Y$, defined as $Z = \smat{X & Y}$ with dimensions $n \times (p+1)$.
Let us denote the MCA principal vectors associated each categorical value by $\set{v_j}_{j=1}^{\sum_i \abs{a_i}}$, where $\set{a_i}_{i=1}^p$ is the set of attributes in the dataset $X$.
Also, let us denote the MCA principal vectors associated to label categories by $\set{\omega_k}_{k=1}^\ell$.

Since each category can be mapped to a literal statement, as explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:problem_description}, these principal vectors serve as a heuristic to evaluate the quality of a given literal to predict a label~\cite{zhu2010feature}.
Therefore, we define the score between each $v_j$ and each $\omega_k$ by $\rho_{j,k} = \cos \angle\p{v_j,\omega_k} = \frac{\dprod{v_j}{\omega_k}}{\norm{v_j}_2\, \norm{\omega_k}_2}$.
Note that in the context of random variables, $\rho_{i,k}$ is equivalent to the correlation between $v_j$ and $\omega_k$~\cite{loeve1977probability}.

We compute the \emph{score between a rule $r$ and label category $k$}, denoted $\mu_k(r)$, as the average among the scores between the literals in $r$ and the same label category: $\mu_k(r) = \frac{1}{\abs{r}}\, \sum_{l \in r} \rho_{l,k}$.
Finally, we search the configuration space of rules $r$ built using the combinations of all available literals in a dataset such that $\abs{r} \leq r_{\text{max}}$, and identify those with highest scores for each label category.
These top rules are the output of our miner, and are passed over to the BRL method as the set of rules from which rule lists will be built.

The pseudocode for our rule mining algorithm is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mca_miner}, where we parallelized the loop iterating over label categories in line~\ref{algo:mca_for_label}.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \centering
  \begin{algorithmic}[1]
    \Require Dataset $X$ with labels $Y$.
    User parameters $r_{\text{max}}$, $s_{\text{min}}$, $\mu_{\text{min}}$, and $M$.
    \State Compute literal scores $\rho_{l,k}$ for each literal $l$ in $X$ and label category $k$ in $Y$
    \State $R = \emptyset$
    \For{label $k \in Y$} \label{algo:mca_for_label}
    \State $R_k = \emptyset$
    \For{literal $l \in X$}
    \If{$\rho_{l,k} \geq \mu_{\text{min}}$ \AlgoAnd $\supp_k(l) \geq s_{\text{min}}$}
    \State $R_k \gets R_k \cup \set{l}$
    \EndIf
    \EndFor
    \For{rule length $\eta \in \set{1,\ldots,r_{\text{max}}-1}$}
    \For{rule $r \in R_k$ with $\abs{r} = \eta$}
    \State $\mu_{\text{min}} \gets M\text{-th top score in}\ R_k$
    \If{$\mu_k\p{r} < m_k(\eta)$}
    \AlgoContinue
    \EndIf
    \For{literal $l \in X$}
    \State $\hat{r} \gets r \cup l$
    \If{$\mu_k\p{\hat{r}} \geq \mu_{\text{min}}$ \AlgoAnd $\supp_k\p{\hat{r}} \geq s_{\text{min}}$}
    \State $R_k \gets R_k \cup \set{\hat{r}}$
    \EndIf
    \EndFor
    \EndFor
    \EndFor
    \State $R \gets R \cup \set{\text{top $M$ rules in $R_k$ sorted by score}}$
    \EndFor
    \State \Return $R$
  \end{algorithmic}
  \caption{Pseudocode of our MCA-based rule mining algorithm.}
  \label{fig:mca_miner}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Rule Prunning}
Since the number of rules generated by all combinations of all available literals up to length $r_{\text{max}}$ is excessively large even for modest values of $r_{\text{max}}$, our miner includes two conditions under which we efficiently eliminate rules from consideration.

First, similar to the approach in FP-Growth~\cite{han2000mining} and other popular miners, we eliminate rules whose support over each label category is smaller than a user-defined threshold $s_{\text{min}}$.
Recall that the \emph{support} of a rule $r$ for label category $k$, denoted $\supp_k(r)$, is the fraction of data samples that the rule evaluates to \emph{True}\xspace among the total number of data samples associated to a given label.
Given a rule $r$, note that once a rule $r$ fails to pass our minimum support test, we stop considering all rules longer than $r$ that also contain the all the literals in $r$ since their support is necessarily smaller.

Second, we eliminate rules whose score is smaller than a user-defined threshold $\mu_{\text{min}}$.
Suppose that we want to build a new rule $\hat{r}$ by taking a rule $r$ and adding a literal $l$.
In that case, given a category $k$ the score of this rule must satisfy $\mu_k\p{\hat{r}} = \frac{1}{\abs{r}+1}\, \pb{\abs{r}\, \mu_k(r) + \rho_{l,k}} \geq \mu_{\text{min}}$.
Let $\overline{\rho}_k = \max_l \rho_{l,k}$ be the largest score among all available literals, then we can predict that at least one extension of $r$ will have a score greater than $\mu_{\text{min}}$ if $\mu_k(r) \geq \frac{1}{\abs{r}}\, \pb{\p{\abs{r} + 1}\, \mu_{\text{min}} - \overline{\rho}_k} = m_k(\abs{r})$.
Given the maximum number of rules to be mined per label $M$, we recompute $\mu_{\text{min}}$ as we iterate combining literals to build new rules.
As $\mu_{\text{min}}$ increases due to better candidate rules becoming available, the rule-acceptance bound $m_k$ becomes more restrictive, resulting in less rules being considered and therefore in a faster overall mining.

\section{Reviewer Comments \todo{temporary section}}

\subsection{Review 1}

\paragraph{Overall evaluation:} 2 (accept)

In the paper the authors propose MCA-miner -- a new algorithm for generating decision rules that employs multivariate correspondence analysis (MCA) to evaluate candidate rules.
The algorithm is integrated with the MCMC search algorithm aimed at constructing Bayesian rule lists (BRLs).
MCA-miner is much more efficient (in terms of computation time) than traditionally considered approaches (e.g., FP-Growth) and scales better with the number of attributes/categorical values.
The authors also present a parallel implementation of the MCMC algorithm that leads to further time savings.
Finally, in computational experiments the authors first apply their proposal (BRL with MCA-miner) to a several benchmark data sets, and then to a CNP psychiatric data set (with 578 attributes and 1350 categorical values).
For the latter data set they present models obtained for two different decision problems and discuss their performance and interpretability.

The paper is very well written, fits the scope of the workshop and the results show advantages of MCA-miner as well as usefulness of BRLs for a specific clinical application.
There are still some minor issues (listed below) the authors should address in the final version of the text.

\begin{enumerate}
\item There are different aspects of interpretability as discussed in~\cite{lipton2018mythos} and the authors should better explain what type of interpretability their approach supports.

  \review{%
    Add citation and comment related to Lipton's article.
  }
  \todo{done}

\item In the Abstract the authors refer to ``transdiagnostic model.''
  It would be informative to explain how to understand this is the context of the described study.
  Does it mean multi-class?

  \review{%
    Missing explanation between multi-class and transdiagnostic.
    Right now we are multi-class, but interpretability enables us to understand transdiagnosis.
  }
  \todo{done}

\item In Section~1 the authors refer to ``predictable models.''
  Again, it is not clear what the authors mean by this -- a brief explanation would be helpful.

  \review{%
    Typo, should be ``predictive''.
  }
  \todo{done}

\item Several times in the text the authors mention ``statistical significance'' (e.g., in the context of Table~2).
  However, no information about such tests or their results is provided.
  The authors should revise the text to remove this confusion.

  \review{%
    We should use ``effect size'' instead, and cite Cohen $\kappa$ as our tool of choice.
  }
  \todo{done}

\item It is not clear what data set was used to build a binary classifier from the CNP data set.
  Did the authors balance the distribution of classes (Patients vs.\ HC).
  If yes, how many examples were considered in each class?

  \review{%
    Question for Clark, simply add explanation in Section~5.3.
  }
  \todo{done}
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Review 2}

\paragraph{Overall evaluation:} 2 (accept)

The authors propose a two-step approach to learning interpretable predictive models in clinical psychiatry.
The authors use a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) miner to extract rules used to construct a Bayesian Rule List (BRL) model to screen for neuropsychiatric disorders.
The work is innovative and has been shown to significantly improve over existing state-of-the-art approaches.
It also addresses the very important issue of interpretability, contributing to the field of explainable AI (XAI).
The work is very well motivated and the experimental setup and results are convincing.
I would have appreciated more discussion about the clinical application of the work (i.e., CDSS) and future directions for research.

\review{%
  Do we want to talk about consequences of our results in recruitment for clinical trials?
  Add a comment about future research directions? \todo{done}

  Cite CDSS and describe our approach in the context of the work since 1972. \todo{done}
}

Minor comment about presentation.
There are several figures that appear much later in the text (several pages) from where they are first referenced.
This makes it a little difficult to follow the text and look at the figures.
Also, the last two pages are mostly figures and tables with text interjected.
It would help paper readability to improve the positioning of the figures and tables and improve the text layout.

\review{%
  Shuffle figures so they appear closer to the relevant text.
}
\todo{done}
\section{SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL}

\todo{Placeholder}.
Use this space for initial submission.
For final submission this material becomes a separate document.

\section{Benchmark Experiments}
\label{sec:uci}

We benchmark the performance and computational efficiency of our MCA-miner against the ``Titanic'' dataset~\cite{hendricks2015titanic}, as well as the following 5~datasets available in the UCI Machine Learning Repository~\cite{dua2017uci}: ``Adult,'' ``Autism Screening Adult'' (\emph{ASD}), ``Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic)'' (\emph{Cancer}),  ``Heart Disease'' (\emph{Heart}), and ``HIV-1 protease cleavage'' (\emph{HIV}). These datasets represent a wide variety of real-world experiments and observations, thus allowing us to fairly compare our improvements against the original BRL implementation using the FP-Growth miner.
All 6~benchmark datasets correspond to binary classification tasks.
We conduct the experiments using the same set up in each of the benchmarks, namely quantizing all continuous attributes into either 2~or 3~categories, while keeping the original categories of all other variables.
We train and test each model using 5-fold cross-validations, reporting the average \emph{accuracy} and \emph{Area Under the ROC Curve} (ROC-AUC) as model performance measurements.

\begin{table}[t]
  \centering
  \caption{%
    Performance evaluation of FP-Growth against MCA-miner when used with BRL on benchmark datasets.
    $t_{\text{train}}$ is the full training wall time in seconds.
  }
  \label{tab:uci_table}
  \begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
    \multirow{2}{*}{Dataset} & \multirow{2}{*}{$n$}
    & \multirow{2}{*}{$p$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\sum_{i=1}^p \abs{a_i}$}
    & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{FP-Growth + BRL} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MCA-miner + BRL}\\
    \cline{5-10}
    & & & & Accuracy & ROC-AUC & $t_{\text{train}}$ & Accuracy & ROC-AUC & $t_{\text{train}}$\\
    \hline
    \hline
    \emph{Adult} & 45,222 & 14 & 111 & 0.81 & 0.85 & 512 & 0.81 & 0.85 & \textbf{115}\\
    \hline
    \emph{ASD} & 248 & 21 & 89 & 0.87 & 0.90 & 198 & 0.87 & 0.90 & \textbf{16}\\
    \hline
    \emph{Cancer} & 569 & 32 & 150 & 0.92 & 0.97 & 168 & 0.92 & 0.94 & \textbf{22}\\
    \hline
    \emph{Heart} & 303 & 13 & 49 & 0.82 & 0.86 & 117 & 0.82 & 0.86 & \textbf{15}\\
    \hline
    \emph{HIV} & 5,840 & 8 & 160 & 0.87 & 0.88 & 449 & 0.87 & 0.88 & \textbf{36}\\
    \hline
    \emph{Titanic} & 2,201 & 3 & 8 & 0.79 & 0.76 & 118 & 0.79 & 0.75 & \textbf{10}
  \end{tabular}
\end{table}

Table~\ref{tab:uci_table} presents the empirical results comparing both implementations.
To guarantee a fair comparison between both implementations we fixed the parameters $r_{\text{max}} = 2$ and $s_{\text{min}} = 0.3$ for both methods, and we set $\mu_{\text{min}} = 0.5$, and $M = 70$ for MCA-miner.
Our multi-core implementations for both MCA-miner and BRL were executed on 6~parallel processes, and only stopped when the Gelman \& Rubin parameter~\cite{brooks1998general} satisfied $\widehat{R} \leq 1.05$.
We ran all the experiments using a single AWS EC2 \verb+c5.18xlarge+ instance with 72~cores.
It is clear from our experiments that our MCA-miner matches the performance of FP-Growth in each case, while significantly reducing the computation time required to mine rules and train BRL models.


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

The current data on a number of \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\, transitions have manifested several
tantalizing deviations from the expectations of the standard model (SM).
Specifically, the LHCb Collaboration\,\,\cite{Aaij:2015oid} found moderate tensions with the SM
in an angular analysis of the decay $B^0\to K^{*0}\mu^+\mu^-$, which were later corroborated in
the Belle experiment \cite{Wehle:2016yoi}.
Moreover, LHCb reported\,\,\cite{Aaij:2014ora} that the ratio $R_K$ of the branching
fractions of $B^+\to K^+\mu^+\mu^-$ and $B^+\to K^+e^+e^-$ decays and the corresponding ratio
$R_{K^*}$ for $B^0\to K^{*0}\mu^+\mu^-$ and $B^0\to K^{*0}e^+e^-$ decays are a couple of sigmas
below their SM predictions\,\,\cite{Hiller:2003js}.
Also, the existing measurements\,\,\cite{Aaij:2014pli,pdg} on the branching fractions
of $B\to K^{(*)}\mu^+\mu^-$ and $B_s\to\phi\mu^+\mu^-$ favor values below their SM estimates.

These anomalies may be harbingers of physics beyond the SM, although their statistical
significance is still insufficient for drawing a definite conclusion.
In fact, model-independent theoretical studies have pointed out that new physics (NP)
could explain them \cite{Capdevila:2017bsm,DAmico:2017mtc}.
This would suggest that they might be experimentally confirmed in the near future to have
originated from beyond the SM.
Thus, it seems timely to explore what might happen if the same underlying NP could have
an appreciable influence on some other \,$b\to s$\, processes.

Previously we have entertained such a possibility in a scenario where a new, electrically neutral
and uncolored, spin-one particle, the $Z'$ boson, is behind the \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\,
anomalies \cite{Faisel:2017glo}.
In particular, we investigated the potential implications for the nonleptonic decays of
the $\bar B_s^0$ meson which are purely isospin-violating, namely
\,$\bar B_s^0\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)(\pi^0,\rho^0)$,\, most of which are not yet observed \cite{pdg}.
In the SM limit, they are not affected by QCD-penguin operators, which conserve
isospin, while the effects of tree operators are suppressed by a factor
\,$|V_{us}V_{ub}|/|V_{ts}V_{tb}|\sim0.02$\, involving Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix
elements, and thus the amplitudes for these decays tend to be dominated by electroweak-penguin
contributions \cite{Fleischer:1994rs}.
Accordingly, their rates in the SM are comparatively small \cite{Fleischer:1994rs,Tseng:1998wm,
Cheng:2009mu,Ali:2007ff,Yan:2018fif,Yan:2017nlj,Wang:2017rmh,Wang:2008rk,Williamson:2006hb,
Faisel:2011kq}, which motivated earlier works suggesting that one or more of these decay modes
could be sensitive to NP signals \cite{Faisel:2011kq,Hofer:2010ee,Hua:2010wf,Chang:2013hba,
Faisel:2014dna,Bobeth:2014rra}.
Incorporating the relevant constraints, we demonstrated in Ref.\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo} that
the $Z'$ influence could cause the rates of two of the modes, \,$\bar B_s^0\to(\eta,\phi)\pi^0$,\,
to rise by up to an order of magnitude above their SM expectations.
It follows that these modes could offer valuable complementary information about the NP
which may be responsible for the \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\, anomalies.

Extending our preceding analysis, the present paper covers \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\omega$,\,
which are also not yet observed \cite{pdg}.
Here, as in the \,$\bar B_s^0\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)(\pi^0,\rho^0)$\, case, the tree operators suffer
from the CKM suppression, again allowing the penguin operators to become important.
However, unlike the latter modes, \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\omega$\, preserve isospin and
therefore receive both electroweak- and QCD-penguin contributions.
In the SM, the rates of these decays turn out to be relatively small as
well \cite{Cheng:2009mu,Ali:2007ff,Yan:2018fif,Yan:2017nlj,Wang:2017rmh,Wang:2008rk}, and so they
could be expected to serve as additional probes of the potential NP behind the anomalies.
We will show that this can indeed be realized in the aforementioned $Z'$ model,
especially for the two modes \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\phi)\omega$.\,

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
In Sec.\,\,\ref{ffz'} we describe the $Z'$ interactions which impact the various processes of concern.
In Sec.\,\,\ref{Bs2MM'} we address how the $Z'$-induced effects on the considered rare nonleptonic
decays could raise some of their rates significantly.
We will impose appropriate restraints on the $Z'$ couplings, including from other \,$b\to s$\,
transitions, such as \,$\bar B_s\to\phi\rho^0$\, and \,$B\to\pi  K$\, decays.\footnote{The possibility
of NP in $b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$ producing detectable implications for the \,$B\to\pi  K$\, decays has
previously been brought up in \cite{Beaudry:2017gtw}.\medskip}
Our numerical work will also involve \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\phi)\pi^0$,\, which we investigated before,
to see if there might be any correlation between their rate enlargement and that of
\,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\phi)\omega$.\,
In Sec.\,\,\ref{conclusions} we give our conclusions.
An Appendix contains extra formulas.

\section{\boldmath$Z'$ interactions\label{ffz'}}

In our $Z'$ scenario of interest, the mass eigenstates of the $u$, $d$, $s$, and $b$ quarks have
nonstandard interactions described by \cite{Faisel:2017glo}
\begin{align} \label{LsbZ'}
{\mathcal L}_{Z'}^{} \,\supset &\,~
\mbox{$-\big[$} \overline{s}\,\gamma^\kappa\big(\Delta_L^{sb}P_L^{}+\Delta_R^{sb}P_R^{}\big)b\,Z_\kappa'
\;+\; {\rm H.c.} \big] \,-\, \Delta_V^{\mu\mu}\,\overline{\mu}\,\gamma^\kappa\mu\,Z_\kappa'
\nonumber \\ & -\,
\big[ \overline{u}\,\gamma^\kappa\big(\Delta_L^{uu}P_L^{}+\Delta_R^{uu}P_R^{}\big)u +
\overline{d}\,\gamma^\kappa\big(\Delta_L^{dd}P_L^{}+\Delta_R^{dd}P_R^{}\big)d \big]Z_\kappa' \,,
\end{align}
where the constants $\Delta_{L,R}^{sb}$ are generally complex, while $\Delta_V^{\mu\mu}$ and
$\Delta_{L,R}^{uu,dd}$ are real due to the Hermiticity of ${\mathcal L}_{Z'}$, and
\,$P_{L,R}=(1\mp\gamma_5^{})/2$.\,
As in Ref.\,\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}, we suppose that any other possible couplings of the $Z'$ to SM
fermions are negligible and that it does not mix with SM gauge bosons but is not necessarily
a gauge boson.\footnote{In the literature pertaining to the anomalies, different $Z'$ models have
been explored, some of which can be found in \cite{b2sll-list}.}
Moreover, for simplicity we concentrate on the special case in which
\begin{equation} \label{Dsb}
\Delta_L^{sb} \,=\, \lambda_t^{}\, \rho_L^{} \,, ~~~~ ~~~
\Delta_R^{sb} \,=\, \lambda_t^{}\, \rho_R^{} \,, ~~~~ ~~~ ~~
\lambda_q^{} \,=\, V_{qs}^*V_{qb}^{} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{L,R}^{}$ are real numbers.

For the $Z'$ being heavy, the couplings to $b\bar s$ and $\mu\bar\mu$ in Eq.\,(\ref{LsbZ'})
contribute to the effective Lagrangian
\begin{equation} \label{Lb2smm}
{\mathcal L}_{\rm eff}^{} \,\supset\, \frac{\alpha_{\rm e}^{}\lambda_t^{}G_{\rm F}^{}}
{\sqrt2\,\pi} \big( C_{9\mu}^{}\, \overline{s}_{\,}\gamma^\kappa P_L^{} b + C_{9'\mu}^{} \,
\overline{s}_{\,}\gamma^\kappa P_R^{} b \big) \overline{\mu}_{\,}\gamma_\kappa^{}\mu
\;+\; {\rm H.c.} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{\rm e}^{}$ and $G_{\rm F}$ are the usual fine-structure and Fermi constants,
and \,$C_{9\mu}^{}=C_{9\ell}^{\textsc{sm}}+C_{9\mu}^{\textsc{np}}$ and
\,$C_{9'\mu}=C_{9'\mu}^{\textsc{np}}$ are the Wilson coefficients,
with $C_{9\ell}^{\textsc{sm}}$ being the flavor-universal SM part ($\ell=e,\mu,\tau$)
and \cite{Faisel:2017glo}
\begin{equation} \label{c9c9'}
C_{9\mu}^{\textsc{np}} \,=\, \frac{-\sqrt2\,\pi\,\rho_L^{}\Delta_V^{\mu\mu}}
{\alpha_{\rm e}^{}G_{\rm F}^{}\,m_{Z'}^2} \,, ~~~~~~~
C_{9'\mu}^{\textsc{np}} \,=\, \frac{-\sqrt2\,\pi\,\rho_R^{}\Delta_V^{\mu\mu}}
{\alpha_{\rm e}^{}G_{\rm F}^{}\,m_{Z'}^2} \,.
\end{equation}
According to model-independent analyses \cite{Capdevila:2017bsm},
one of the best fits to the anomalous \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\, data
corresponds to \,$C_{9\mu}^{\textsc{np}}\sim-1.1$\, and
\,$C_{9'\mu}^{\textsc{np}}\sim0.4$,\, with no NP in \,$b\to
se^+e^-$.\,

The $bsZ'$ couplings in ${\mathcal L}_{Z'}$ above also affect $B_s$-$\bar B_s$ mixing
at tree level and hence need to satisfy the restrictions inferred from its data.
As elaborated in Ref.\,\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}, the requirements from \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\,
processes and $B_s$-$\bar B_s$ mixing together imply that the left-handed $bsZ'$ coupling must be
roughly ten times stronger than the right-handed one, and so \,$\rho_L^{}\sim10\rho_R^{}$.\,
This will be taken into account later on.

Additionally, ${\mathcal L}_{Z'}$ can yield modifications to nonleptonic
transitions, such as \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\,\omega $.\,
In the SM, their amplitudes proceed from \,$b\to s$\, four-quark operators $O_{1,2}^u$,
$O_{3,4,5,6}$, and $O_{7,8,9,10}$ derived from charmless tree, QCD-penguin, and
electroweak-penguin diagrams, respectively.\footnote{The expressions for
$O_j$, \,$j=1,2,\cdots,10$,\, are available from, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Williamson:2006hb}.}
In models beyond the SM, new ingredients may alter the Wilson coefficients $C_j$ of $O_j$
and/or generate extra operators $\tilde O_j$ which are the chirality-flipped
counterparts of $O_j$.
In our $Z'$ case, at the $W$-mass ($m_W^{}$) scale only $C_{3,5,7,9}$ and $\tilde C_{3,5,7,9}$
get $Z'$ contributions given by \cite{Barger:2009qs,Hua:2010wf,Hofer:2010ee,Chang:2013hba}
\begin{align}
{\cal L}_{\rm eff}^{} \,\supset&~ \sqrt8\,\lambda_t^{~}G_{\rm F}^{}
\raisebox{3pt}{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\sum_{q=u,d}$}
\Big\{ \overline{s}\,\gamma^\kappa P_L^{}b
\Big[ \Big( C_3^{}+\tfrac{3}{2}C_9^{}e_q^{} \Big) \overline{q}\,\gamma_\kappa^{}P_L^{} q
+ \Big( C_5^{}+\tfrac{3}{2}C_7^{}e_q^{} \Big) \overline{q}\,\gamma_\kappa^{}P_R^{} q \Big]
\nonumber \\ & \hspace{1in} +\,
\overline{s}\,\gamma^\kappa P_R^{}b \Big[ \Big( \tilde C_3^{}
+ \tfrac{3}{2}\tilde C_9^{}e_q^{} \Big) \overline{q}\,\gamma_\kappa^{}P_R^{} q
+ \Big( \tilde C_5^{}+\tfrac{3}{2}\tilde C_7^{}e_q^{} \Big)
\overline{q}\,\gamma_\kappa^{}P_L^{} q \Big] \Big\} \,,
\end{align}
where \,$C_i^{}=C_i^{\textsc{sm}} + C_i^{Z'}$\, and \,$\tilde C_i^{}=\tilde C_i^{Z'}$\, for
\,$i=3,5,7,9$\, are the Wilson coefficients with \cite{Faisel:2017glo}
\begin{align} \label{cz'}
C_{3,5}^{Z'} & \,=\, \frac{\rho_L^{}\bigl(-\delta_{L,R}^{}-3\Delta_{L,R}^{dd}\big)}
{6\sqrt2\,G_{\rm F}^{}\,m_{Z'}^2} \,, &
C_{7,9}^{Z'} & \,=\, \frac{-\rho_{L\,}^{}\delta_{R,L}^{}}{3\sqrt2\,G_{\rm F}^{}\,m_{Z'}^2} \,, &
\nonumber \\
\tilde C_{3,5}^{Z'} & \,=\, \frac{\rho_R^{}\bigl(-\delta_{R,L}^{}-3\Delta_{R,L}^{dd}\big)}
{6\sqrt2\,G_{\rm F}^{}\,m_{Z'}^2} \,, &
\tilde C_{7,9}^{Z'} & \,=\,
\frac{-\rho_{R\,}^{}\delta_{L,R}^{}}{3\sqrt2\,G_{\rm F}^{}\,m_{Z'}^2} \,, &
\\ \label{dLdR} \vphantom{|^{\int_\int^\int}}
\delta_L^{} & \,=\, \Delta_L^{uu} - \Delta_L^{dd} \,, &
\delta_R^{} & \,=\, \Delta_R^{uu} - \Delta_R^{dd} \,, &
\end{align}
we have assumed that renormalization group evolution (RGE) between the $m_{Z'}^{}$
and $m_W^{}$ scales can be neglected, and \,$e_u^{}=-2e_d^{}=2/3$.\,
At the $b$-quark mass ($m_b^{}$) scale, all the penguin coefficients acquire $Z'$ terms via
RGE, which we treat in the next section.

\section{\boldmath$Z'$ effects on rare nonleptonic $\bar B_s$ decays\label{Bs2MM'}}

To estimate the $Z'$ impact on \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\,\omega $,\,
following Ref.\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo} we employ the soft-collinear effective theory
(SCET)\,\,\cite{Wang:2017rmh,Wang:2008rk,Williamson:2006hb,Bauer:2000yr}.
For any one of them, we can write the SCET amplitude at leading order in the strong coupling
$\alpha_s(m_b)$ as \cite{Wang:2008rk}
\begin{align} \label{AB2MM'}
{\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to M_1 M_2}^{} \,=&~\, \frac{f_{M_1}^{}G_{\rm F}^{}m_{B_s}^2}{\sqrt2} \bigg[
\int_0^1 \! d\nu \Big( \zeta_J^{BM_2\,} T_{1J}^{}(\nu) + \zeta_{Jg}^{BM_2\,} T_{1Jg}^{}(\nu)
\Big) \phi_{M_1}^{}(\nu)
+ \zeta^{BM_2\,} T_1^{} + \zeta_g^{BM_2\,} T_{1g}^{} \bigg]
\nonumber \\ & +\, (1\leftrightarrow 2) \;,
\end{align}
where $f_M^{}$ denotes the decay constant of meson $M$, the $\zeta$s are nonperturbative
hadronic parameters extractable from experiment, the $T$s represent hard kernels containing
the Wilson coefficients $C_j$ and $\tilde C_j$ at the $m_b^{}$ scale, and $\phi_{M}^{}(\nu)$
is the light-cone distribution amplitude of $M$ normalized as \,$\int_0^1d\nu\,\phi_M(\nu)=1$.\,
We collect the hard kernels, from Refs.\,\,\cite{Wang:2017rmh,Wang:2008rk,Williamson:2006hb},
in Table\,\,\ref{kernels}, where the flavor states \,$\eta_q\sim\big(u\bar u+d\bar d\big)/\sqrt2$\,
and \,$\eta_s^{}\sim s\bar s$\, are linked to the physical meson states $\eta$ and $\eta'$ by
\,$\eta=\eta_q\cos\theta-\eta_s^{}\sin\theta$\, and
\,$\eta'=\eta_q\sin\theta+\eta_s^{}\cos\theta$\, with mixing angle \,$\theta=39.3^\circ$
\,\cite{Wang:2008rk,Williamson:2006hb,Feldmann:1998vh}.
We note that the so-called charming-penguin contribution is absent from
${\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to M_1 M_2}$, which is one of the reasons why these decays have low
rates \cite{Wang:2017rmh,Wang:2008rk}.

\begin{table}[b] \smallskip
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline
\,Decay mode\, & $~T_1~$ & $T_2$ & $~T_{1g}~$ & $T_{2g}\vphantom{\int_|^|}$ \\
\hline\hline
$\bar{B}_s\to\eta_s^{}\omega$ & 0 & ~$\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(c_2+c_3+2c_5+2c_6)$~ & 0 &
~$\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(c_2+c_3+2c_5+2c_6)\vphantom{\int_{\int_|}^{\int}}$~  \\
$\bar{B}_s\to\eta_q\omega$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & $c_2+c_3+2c_5+2c_6\vphantom{\int_{\int_|}^{\int}}$  \\
$\bar{B}_s\to\phi\omega$ & 0 &
$\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(c_2+c_3+2c_5+2c_6)\vphantom{\int_{\int_|}^{\int}}$ & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Hard kernels $T_{1,2,1g,2g}$ for \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\omega$\, decays.
The hard kernels $T_{rJ,rJg}(\nu)$ for \,$r=1,2$\, are obtainable from $T_{r,rg}^{}$, respectively,
with the replacement \,$c_k^{}\to b_k^{}$,\, where $b_k^{}$ depends on $\nu$.} \label{kernels}
\end{table}

In the presence of NP which also gives rise to $\tilde O_j$, the quantities $c_k$ and $b_k$ in
Table\,\,\ref{kernels} depend not only on $C_j$ and $\tilde C_j$ but also on the final mesons
$M_{1,2}$ besides the CKM factors $\lambda_{u,t}$.
The dependence on $M_{1,2}$ is due to the fact that, in view of the nonzero kernels in this
table, for each 4-quark operator the contraction of the $\bar B_s$\,$\to$\,$M_1$ and
vacuum\,$\to$\,$M_2$ matrix elements in the amplitude can lead to an overall negative or positive
sign for the contribution of the operator, the sign being fixed by the chirality combination
of the operator and by whether $M_{1,2}$ are pseudoscalars ($PP'$), vectors ($VV'$), or $PV$.
Thus, for \,$\bar B_s\to PP'$\, and \,$\bar B_s\to\phi\omega$\,  we have
\begin{align} \label{cb}
c_2^{} & \,=\, \lambda_u^{} \Bigg( C_2^- + \frac{C_1^-}{N_{\rm c}} \Bigg)
- \frac{3\lambda_t}{2} \Bigg( C_9^- + \frac{C_{10}^-}{N_{\rm c}}\Bigg) , ~~~ ~~~~
c_3^{} \,=\, -\frac{3\lambda_t}{2} \Bigg( C_7^- + \frac{C_8^-}{N_{\rm c}} \Bigg) ,
\nonumber \\
c_{5,6}^{} & \,=\, -\lambda_t \Bigg( C_{3,5}^- + \frac{C_{4,6}^-}{N_{\rm c}}
- \frac{C_{9,7}^-}{2} - \frac{C_{10,8}^-}{2 N_{\rm c}} \Bigg) ,
\nonumber \\
b_2^{} & \,=\, \lambda_u^{} \Bigg[ C_2^- + \bigg(1-\frac{m_b^{}}{\omega_3}\bigg)
\frac{C_1^-}{N_{\rm c}} \Bigg] - \frac{3\lambda_t}{2} \Bigg[
C_9^- + \bigg(1-\frac{m_b^{}}{\omega_3}\bigg) \frac{C_{10}^-}{N_{\rm c}} \Bigg] ,
\nonumber \\
b_3^{} & \,=\, -\frac{3 \lambda_t}{2} \Bigg[ C_7^- + \bigg(1-\frac{m_b^{}}{\omega_2}\bigg)
\frac{C_8^-}{N_{\rm c}} \Bigg] ,
\nonumber \\
b_{5,6}^{} & \,=\, -\lambda_t \Bigg[ C_{3,5}^- + \bigg(1-\frac{m_b^{}}{\omega_3}\bigg)
\frac{C_{4,6}^-}{N_{\rm c}} - \frac{C_{9,7}^-}{2}
- \bigg(1-\frac{m_b^{}}{\omega_3}\bigg) \frac{C_{10,8}^-}{2 N_{\rm c}} \Bigg] ,
\end{align}
where \,$N_{\rm c}=3$\, is the color number, \,$C_j^-=C_j^{}-\tilde C_j^{}$,\,  and
$b_{2,3,5,6}$, which enter $T_{2J,2Jg}(\nu)$, are also functions of $\nu$ because
\,$\omega_2^{}=\nu m_{B_s}$\, and \,$\omega_3^{}=(\nu-1)m_{B_s}$\, \cite{Wang:2008rk}.
However, for \,$\bar{B}_s\to(\eta_q,\eta_s^{})\omega$\, we need to make the sign change
\,$C_j^-\to C_j^+=C_j^{}+\tilde C_j^{}$\, in $c_{2,3,5,6}$ and $b_{2,3,5,6}$.

The formulas in Eq.\,\eqref{cb} generalize the SM ones from Refs.\,\,\cite{Wang:2017rmh,Wang:2008rk,
Williamson:2006hb}, which also provide the $C_j^{\textsc{sm}}$ values at the $m_b$ scale, \,$C_{1,2}^{\textsc{sm}}=(1.11,-0.253)$\, and \,$C_{7,8,9,10}^{\textsc{sm}}=(0.09,0.24,-10.3,2.2)\times10^{-3}$,\, calculated at leading-logarithm order in the naive dimensional regularization scheme
\cite{Buchalla:1995vs} with the prescription of Ref.\,\,\cite{Beneke:2001ev}.
We will incorporate these numbers into $c_k$ and $b_k$.
The $Z'$-generated coefficients in Eq.\,(\ref{cz'}) contribute to Eq.\,\eqref{cb} via \,$C_i^{}=C_i^{\textsc{sm}}+\delta C_i^{}$\, and \,$\tilde C_i^{}=\delta\tilde C_i^{}$\, for \,$i=3,4,...10$,\,
where $\delta C_i^{}$ are linear combinations of $C_{3,5,7,9}^{Z'}$ due to RGE from the $m_W^{}$ scale
to the $m_b^{}$ scale and $\delta\tilde C_i^{}$ are analogously related to $\tilde C_{3,5,7,9}^{Z'}$.

To evaluate ${\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to M_1 M_2}$, in light of Table\,\,\ref{kernels}, we employ the decay
constant \,$f_\omega^{}=192$\,MeV\, \cite{Wang:2017rmh} and treat the integral in Eq.\,(\ref{AB2MM'})
with the aid of
\,$\int_0^1d\nu\,\phi_M^{}(\nu)/\nu=\int_0^1d\nu\,\phi_M^{}(\nu)/(1-\nu)\equiv
\langle\chi^{-1}\rangle_M^{}$\,
for \,$M=\eta_{q,s}^{},\phi$,\, in which cases \,$\langle\chi^{-1}\rangle_{\eta_{q,s}}=3.3$\, and
\,$\langle\chi^{-1}\rangle_\phi^{}=3.54$\, \cite{Wang:2008rk,Williamson:2006hb}.
Furthermore, for the $\zeta$'s in ${\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to(\eta_q,\eta_s)\omega}$, we adopt the two
solutions from the fit to data performed in Ref.\,\,\cite{Wang:2008rk}:
\begin{align} \label{zetas}
\big(\zeta^P,\zeta_J^P,\zeta_g^{},\zeta_{Jg}^{}\big)_1 & \,=\, (0.137,0.069,-0.049,-0.027) \,,
\nonumber \\
\big(\zeta^P,\zeta_J^P,\zeta_g^{},\zeta_{Jg}^{}\big)_2 & \,=\, (0.141,0.056,-0.100,0.051) \,.
\end{align}
It is worth remarking here that, since they were the outcome of fitting to \,$B\to PP',PV$ data
with SM Wilson coefficients \cite{Wang:2008rk}, using these solutions in an investigation of NP is
justifiable provided that the impact of the NP on the channels which dominate the fit is small
compared the SM contribution.
This requisite can be met by our $Z'$ scenario, as we set the mass of the $Z'$ to be $\cal O$(1\,TeV)
and ensure that its couplings comply with the various constraints described in this study.
From Eq.\,(\ref{zetas}), we then have \,$\zeta_{(J)}^{B\eta_{q,s}}=\zeta_{(J)}^P$ and
\,$\zeta_{(J)g}^{B\eta_{q,s}}=\zeta_{(J)g}^{}$,\, assuming flavor-SU(3) symmetry\,\,\cite{Wang:2008rk}.
Other input parameters are CKM matrix elements from Ref.\,\cite{utfit} as well as the meson masses
\,$m_\eta=547.862$, \,$m_{\eta'}=957.78$, \,$m_\omega^{}=782.65$,\, \,$m_\phi^{}=1019.461$,\, and
\,$m_{B_s}=5366.89$,\, all in units of MeV, and the $B_s$ mean lifetime
$\tau_{B_s}=1.509\times10^{-12}$\,s,\, which are their central values from Ref.\,\,\cite{pdg}.
For the third $(\phi\omega)$ mode, we choose the CKM and SCET parameters supplied recently in
Ref.\,\,\cite{Wang:2017rmh}.

\begin{table}[b] \medskip
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\begin{array}{c}\rm Decay \vspace{-3pt} \\ \rm mode \end{array}$} &
\multirow{2}{*}{QCDF} & \multirow{2}{*}{PQCD} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SCET} \\
\cline{4-5} & & & \small Solution 1 & \small Solution 2 \\ \hline\hline
$\bar B_s\to\eta\omega$ & $0.03_{-0.02-0.01}^{+0.12+0.06}\vphantom{|_{|_o}^{\int^o}}$ &
~$0.11_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$~ & $0.04_{-0.02}^{+0.04}$ & ~$0.007_{-0.002}^{+0.011}$~
\\
~$\bar B_s\to\eta'\omega$~  & $0.15_{-0.08-0.06}^{+0.27+0.15}\vphantom{|_{|_o}^{\int^o}}$ &
$0.35_{-0.04}^{+0.06}$ & ~$0.001_{-0.000}^{+0.095}$~ & $0.20_{-0.17}^{+0.34}$
\\ \hline\hline
$\bar B_s\to\phi\omega$  & ~$0.18_{-0.12-0.04}^{+0.44+0.47}$~ & \,$0.22_{-0.10}^{+0.15}$\, &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$0.04\pm0.01\vphantom{|_{|_o}^{\int^o}}$}
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Branching fractions, in units of $10^{-6}$, of \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\,\omega$\,
decays in the SM.
For the first two modes, the last two columns correspond to the two solutions of SCET parameters
in Eq.\,(\ref{zetas}).
The second and third columns exhibit numbers computed with QCDF \cite{Cheng:2009mu} and PQCD \cite{Yan:2017nlj,Yan:2018fif}.} \label{smbf} \vspace{-1ex}
\end{table}

Before dealing with the $Z'$ influence on \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\omega$\, numerically, with
the above SCET prescription we arrive at their SM branching fractions, listed in Table\,\,\ref{smbf}.
For \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta')\omega$,\,  the entries in the last two columns correspond to the two
solutions of SCET parameters in Eq.\,(\ref{zetas}).
The central values of the SCET predictions agree with those in Refs.\,\,\cite{Wang:2017rmh,Wang:2008rk},
from which we have added the errors shown.
For comparison, in the second and third columns we quote results from the QCD factorization (QCDF)
\cite{Cheng:2009mu} and perturbative QCD (PQCD) \cite{Yan:2017nlj,Yan:2018fif} approaches.
Evidently, the SCET numbers can be compatible with the QCDF and PQCD ones within the sizable errors.
One concludes that for NP to be unambiguously noticeable in the rates it would have to amplify them
relative to their SM ranges by significantly more than a factor of two.

In the presence of the $Z'$ contributions, we find the changes of the Wilson coefficients
$C_j^{}$ at the $m_b$ scale to be
\begin{align}
\delta C_{1,2}^{} & \,=\, 0 \,, ~~~ \delta C_3^{} \,\simeq\, 1.13\, C_3^{Z'} \,, ~~~
\delta C_4^{} \,\simeq\, -0.29\, C_3^{Z'} \,, ~~~ \delta C_5^{} \,\simeq\, 0.93\, C_5^{Z'} \,, ~~~
\delta C_6^{} \,\simeq\, 0.29\, C_5^{Z'} \,,
\nonumber \\
\delta C_7^{} &  \,\simeq\, 0.93\, C_7^{Z'} \,, ~~~
\delta C_8^{}    \,\simeq\, 0.31\, C_7^{Z'} \,, ~~~
\delta C_9^{}    \,\simeq\, 1.11\, C_9^{Z'} \,, ~~~
\delta C_{10}^{} \,\simeq\, -0.25\, C_9^{Z'} \,,
\end{align}
where in each coefficient we have kept only the $Z'$ term with the biggest numerical factor,
upon applying the RGE at leading-logarithm order \cite{Buchalla:1995vs} with
\,$\alpha_e^{}=1/128$,\, $\alpha_{\rm s}^{}(m_Z^{})=0.119$,\, $m_b^{}=4.8$\,GeV,\, and
$m_t^{}=174.3$ GeV \,\cite{Williamson:2006hb}.
Furthermore, at the $m_b$ scale \,$\tilde C_j=\delta\tilde C_j$\, are related to
$\tilde C_{3,5,7,9}^{Z'}$ in an analogous manner.
Combining the SM and $Z'$ portions, for \,$m_{Z'}^{}=1$ TeV and the central values of the input
parameters we derive the amplitudes for \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)\,\omega$\, to be,
in units of $10^{-9}$ GeV,
\begin{align} \label{ampso}
{\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to\eta\omega}^{(1)} & \,\simeq \begin{array}[t]{l} -0.63 + 2.05 i
+ \big[ (6.06-0.12 i) \delta_+^{} + (12.10-0.23 i) \Delta_+^{} \big] \rho_+^{}
\vspace{1pt} \\ +\; ( 0.02\, \delta_-^{} + 0.01\, \Delta_-^{} ) \rho_-^{} \,, \end{array}
\nonumber \\ \vphantom{|^{\int_|^\int}}
{\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to\eta'\omega}^{(1)} & \,\simeq\, 0.05 - 0.33 i
- \big[ (1.22 - 0.02 i) \delta_+^{} + (2.44 - 0.05 i) \Delta_+^{} \big] \rho_+^{} \,,
\nonumber \\ \vphantom{|^{\int_\int^\int}}
{\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to\eta\omega}^{(2)} & \,\simeq\, 0.52 + 0.74 i
+ \big[ (5.83 - 0.11 i) \delta_+^{} + (11.70 - 0.22 i) \Delta_+^{} \big] \rho_+^{}
+ 0.01\, \Delta_-^{} \rho_-^{} \,,
\nonumber \\ \vphantom{|^{\int_|^\int}}
{\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to\eta'\omega}^{(2)} & \,\simeq \begin{array}[t]{l} 3.23 - 3.83 i
- \big[ (1.37 - 0.03 i) \delta_+^{} + (2.72 - 0.05 i) \Delta_+^{} \big] \rho_+^{}
\vspace{1pt} \\ -\; ( 0.05\, \delta_-^{} + 0.01\, \Delta_-^{} ) \rho_-^{} \,, \end{array}
\nonumber \\ \vphantom{|^{\int_\int^\int}}
{\cal A}_{\bar B_s\to\phi\omega} & \,\simeq \begin{array}[t]{l} -1.69 - 1.41 i
- \big[ (14.00 - 0.26 i) \delta_+^{} + (28.10 - 0.53 i) \Delta_+^{} \big] \rho_-^{}
\vspace{1pt} \\ -\; ( 0.01\, \delta_-^{} + 0.03\, \Delta_-^{} ) \rho_+^{} \,, \end{array}
\end{align}
where the superscripts (1) and (2) refer to SCET Solutions 1 and 2, respectively,
$Z'$ terms with numerical factors below 0.005 in size are not displayed, and
\begin{align} \label{dDr}
\delta_{\pm}^{} & \,=\, \delta_L^{} \pm \delta_R^{} \,, &
\Delta_{\pm}^{} & \,=\, \Delta_L^{dd} \pm \Delta_R^{dd} \,, &
\rho_{\pm}^{} & \,=\, \rho_L^{} \pm \rho_R^{} \,. &
\end{align}

Given that $\delta_{\pm}^{}$ and $\rho_{\pm}^{}$ participate in the amplitudes for
\,$\bar B_s^0\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)(\pi^0,\rho^0)$\, as well \cite{Faisel:2017glo}, as
Eqs.\,\,(\ref{eta'rho1})-(\ref{phirho}) in the Appendix show,
it is germane to include them in this analysis.
What is more, as discussed in Ref.\,\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}, the LHCb finding
\,${\cal B}\big(\bar B_s\to\phi\rho^0\big){}_{\rm exp}^{}=(0.27\pm0.08)\times10^{-6}$\,
\cite{pdg,Aaij:2016qnm}, which is in line with some of its SM estimates albeit within large
errors\,\,\cite{Ali:2007ff,Cheng:2009mu,Yan:2018fif,Wang:2017rmh,Faisel:2011kq,Hofer:2010ee},
translates into an important constraint on the $Z'$ couplings.
Additionally, treating all these rare decays at the same time would allow us to see if there
might be correlations among their rate increases/decreases compared to the SM expectations.
Such correlations would constitute $Z'$ predictions potentially testable in
upcoming experiments.

The couplings in Eq.\,(\ref{dDr}) also affect other nonleptonic \,$b\to s$\, processes which
have been observed and hence need to respect the restrictions implied by their data.
Here we focus on the well-measured decays \,$B^-\to\pi^0K^-,\pi^-\bar K^0$\, and
\,$\bar B^0\to\pi^0\bar K^0,\pi^+K^-$\, plus their antiparticle counterparts.
Their rates in the SM, with {\footnotesize{$\sim$\,}}40\% errors \cite{Williamson:2006hb},
agree with their measurements~\cite{pdg}.
Incorporating the $Z'$ terms, we have calculated the $B\to\pi K$ amplitudes and collected their
expressions in Eqs.\,\,(\ref{piKbar}) and\,\,(\ref{piK}).

To illustrate how the $Z'$ interactions contribute to the decays of interest, we put together
5,000 randomly generated benchmarks fulfilling the following conditions.
We impose
\begin{equation} \label{constr1}
0.11 \,\le\, 10^6\,{\cal B}\big(\bar B_s\to\phi\rho^0\big) \,\le\, 0.43 \,,
\end{equation}
which is the 2$\sigma$ range of ${\cal B}\big(\bar B_s\to\phi\rho^0\big){}_{\rm exp}^{}$.
For the $B\to\pi K$ requirement, since the SM predictions have uncertainties of around 40\% and are
compatible with their data, we demand that the $Z'$ effects alter the \,$B\to\pi  K$\, rates relative
to their SM values by no more than 20\%.\footnote{The $CP$ asymmetry difference
\,$\Delta A_{CP}^{\rm exp} =
A_{CP}^{\rm exp}(B^-\to\pi^0 K^-)-A_{CP}^{\rm exp}(\bar B^0\to\pi^+K^-)=0.122\pm0.022$ \cite{pdg}
might be another restraint.
It excludes the SM central values \,$\Delta A_{CP}^{\rm SM}\simeq-0.01$\, for the two SCET solutions,
but the theoretical error is large, ${\scriptstyle\sim\,}0.15$ \cite{Williamson:2006hb},
implying that the predictions are still consistent with $\Delta A_{CP}^{\rm exp}$.
Similarly, although our $Z'$ benchmarks yield
\,$-0.025\,{\scriptstyle\lesssim}\,\Delta A_{CP}^{{\rm SM}+Z'\!}{\scriptstyle\lesssim}\,0.002$,\,
they are not in conflict with $\Delta A_{CP}^{\rm exp}$, considering the substantial theoretical
uncertainty.}
For the $Z'$ parameters, we select \,$\rho_R^{}=0.1\,\rho_L^{}$\, as in Ref.\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}
and let the products of $\rho_L^{}$ and the other nonleptonic couplings vary within the intervals
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\pm\,}^{} \rho_L^{} \,\in\, [-1,1] \,, ~~~ ~~~~
\Delta_{\pm\,}^{} \rho_L^{} \,\in\, [-1,1] \,,
\end{equation}
having already set \,$m_{Z'}^{}=1$\,TeV\, in Eq.\,(\ref{ampso}) and in the other amplitudes
written down in the Appendix.
We present the results in the two figures below which depict two-dimensional projections of
the benchmarks for a number of quantities.

In Fig.\,\ref{Rs} we display the distributions of the enhancement factor
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}(MM') \,=\, \frac{\Gamma_{\bar B_s\to MM'}^{}}{\Gamma_{\bar B_s\to MM'}^{\textsc{sm}}}
\end{equation}
of the \,$\bar B_s\to MM'$\, rate with respect to its SM prediction for a few pairs of final states $MM'$.
As the top-left plot reveals, ${\cal R}(\eta\omega)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\omega)$ go up or down
simultaneously and can reach roughly 50 and 150 (270 and 170), respectively, for Solution 1 (2).
It follows that, in light of the SCET central values in Table\,\,\ref{smbf}, the $Z'$ influence
can boost the branching fractions of \,$\bar B_s\to\eta\omega$\, and \,$\bar B_s\to\phi\omega$\,
to \,{\footnotesize$\sim$\,}$2\times10^{-6}$ and {\footnotesize$\sim$\,}$6\times10^{-6}$,\,
respectively, for both solutions.
Accordingly, these decay channels are potentially sensitive to NP signals, and moreover the correlation
between ${\cal R}(\eta\omega)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\omega)$ may be experimentally checked.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[height=55mm]{fig_R-phi-omega_vs_R-eta-omega.pdf} ~ ~ ~~
\includegraphics[height=55mm]{fig_R-phi-pi_vs_R-eta-pi.pdf}\vspace{1ex}\\ ~~~~
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{fig_R-eta-omega_vs_R-eta-pi.pdf} ~~~
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{fig_R-phi-omega_vs_R-eta-pi.pdf}\vspace{-7pt}
\caption{Distributions of the ratio
\,${\cal R}(MM')=\Gamma_{\bar B_s\to MM'}/\Gamma_{\bar B_s\to MM'}^{\textsc{sm}}$\, among different
pairs of final states $MM'$ for the benchmarks corresponding to SCET Solutions 1 (blue, S1)
and 2 (red, S2)} \label{Rs}
\end{figure}

As regards \,$\bar B_s\to\eta'\omega$,\, for which we do not provide any graphs, with Solution 1 (2)
we get at most \,${\cal R}(\eta'\omega)\sim80$ (only 2.5), which translates into
\,${\cal B}(\bar B_s\to\eta'\omega)\,\mbox{\footnotesize$\lesssim$}\,0.08\,(0.5)\times10^{-6}$\,
based on its SCET central values in Table\,\,\ref{smbf}.
However, the corresponding upper error in this table for Solution 1 suggests that
${\cal B}(\bar B_s\to\eta'\omega)$ might still undergo a $Z'$-mediated boost to the $10^{-6}$ level,
thereby offering an additional window to the $Z'$ interactions.

The top-right plot in Fig.\,\ref{Rs} indicates that ${\cal R}(\eta\pi^0)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\pi^0)$,
like ${\cal R}(\eta\omega)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\omega)$, increase/decrease at the same time, although
the former two can rise to only about 8.0 and 4.5 (10 and 7.3), respectively, for Solution 1 (2).
Nevertheless, as elaborated in Ref.\,\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}, such enhancement factors are
sufficiently sizable to make \,$\bar B_s\to(\eta,\phi)\pi^0$\, promising as extra tools in the quest
for the potential NP behind the \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\, anomalies.
The correlation between ${\cal R}(\eta\pi^0)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\pi^0)$ is obviously a testable
prediction
as well.
We notice that the preceding Solution-2 numbers are roughly 20\% less than their counterparts
(12 and 9.1) in Ref.\,\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}, mostly due to the aforementioned $B\to\pi K$ requisite.

From the bottom plots in Fig.\,\ref{Rs}, unlike the top ones, it is not evident if there is
a connection between ${\cal R}(\eta\omega)$ or ${\cal R}(\phi\omega)$ and ${\cal R}(\eta\pi^0)$.
The former two also do not seem to have clear correlations with ${\cal R}(\phi\pi^0)$, although this
is not illustrated here.
We will ignore possibly related consequences for \,$\bar B_s^0\to\eta'\pi^0,(\eta,\eta')\rho^0$\,
because the $Z'$ impact on their rates is only modest \cite{Faisel:2017glo}.

Information about relationships between ${\cal R}(MM')$ and the $Z'$ couplings is highly valuable
for examining the latter if one or more of these decays are observed.
For our decay channels of greatest interest, it turns out that there are a few relationships that
are more or less plain, which we exhibit in Fig.\,\ref{R-coupling}.
As might be expected, the curves in the fourth plot resemble the corresponding ones in
Ref.\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}.

\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=41mm]{fig_Retaomega_Rphiomega_vs_DprL_s1.pdf} \!\!\!
\includegraphics[width=41mm]{fig_Retaomega_Rphiomega_vs_DprL_s2.pdf} ~ ~
\includegraphics[width=41mm]{fig_Retapi_Rphipi_vs_dmrL_s1.pdf} \!\!\!
\includegraphics[width=41mm]{fig_Retapi_Rphipi_vs_dmrL_s2.pdf}\vspace{-7pt}
\caption{Distributions of ${\cal R}(\eta\omega)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\omega)$ versus
$\Delta_+^{}\rho_L^{}$ and of ${\cal R}(\eta\pi^0)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\pi^0)$ versus
$\delta_-^{}\rho_L^{}$ for SCET Solutions 1 (S1) and 2 (S2).} \label{R-coupling}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[b!] \medskip
\includegraphics[height=59mm]{fig_R-phi-omega_vs_R-eta-omega_10pc.pdf} ~ ~ ~
\includegraphics[height=59mm]{fig_R-phi-pi_vs_R-eta-pi_10pc.pdf}\vspace{-7pt}
\caption{The same as the top two plots in Fig.\,\ref{Rs}, but with the stronger requirement that
the $Z'$-induced modifications to the $B\to\pi  K$ rates in the SM not exceed 10\%.} \label{Rs10pc}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t!] \bigskip
\includegraphics[height=53mm]{fig_R-phi-omega_vs_R-eta-omega_25pc.pdf} ~ ~ ~
\includegraphics[height=53mm]{fig_R-phi-pi_vs_R-eta-pi_25pc.pdf}\vspace{-7pt}
\caption{The same as Fig.\,\ref{Rs10pc}, but with the weaker requirement that the $Z'$-induced
modifications to the \,$B\to\pi K$\, rates in the SM not exceed 25\%.} \label{Rs30pc}
\end{figure}

It is worth noting that the restriction we imposed above from the $B\to\pi K$ sector is of
significance to some extent, although how stringent the condition should be is unclear in view of
the 40\% uncertainties of the SM rate predictions \cite{Williamson:2006hb}.
For illustration, making it stricter so that the $Z'$-induced changes to the $B\to\pi  K$ rates in
the SM not exceed 10\%, we arrive at the graphs in Fig.\,\ref{Rs10pc}.
In this instance, ${\cal R}(\eta\pi^0)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\pi^0)$, especially the latter,
become somewhat less remarkable than before, but ${\cal R}(\eta\omega)$ and ${\cal R}(\phi\omega)$
are still considerable, and so all these decays remain useful for probing the $Z'$ effects.
We further find, however, that if the $B\to\pi K$ rates are allowed to deviate from the SM
expectations by up to 25\% or higher, the impact on the maxima of these ${\cal R}$s will start to
diminish and they can have the wider spreads depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Rs30pc}.

Lastly, we comment that the $Z'$ couplings in our benchmarks are consistent with collider
constraints, as discussed in Ref.\,\,\cite{Faisel:2017glo}, including those from LHC searches
for new high-mass phenomena in the dilepton final states \cite{Aaboud:2017buh}.
This is partly because the products of the muon-$Z'$ coupling $\Delta_V^{\mu\mu}$ and the quark-$Z'$
flavor-diagonal couplings $(\delta_\pm,\Delta_\pm)$ can be rendered small enough to evade the bounds by sufficiently increasing the size of $\rho_L^{}$ while maintaining $\Delta_V^{\mu\mu}\rho_L^{}$ in Eq.\,(\ref{c9c9'}) and $(\delta_\pm,\Delta_\pm)\rho_L^{}$ to stay within their desired respective ranges.

\section{Conclusions\label{conclusions}}

We have explored the possibility that the anomalies detected in the current \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\, data arise from physics beyond the SM and that the same new physics also affects the rare nonleptonic decays of the $\bar B_s$ meson, most of which are not yet observed.
Since the rates of these modes in the SM are comparatively low, one or more of them may be sensitive to NP signals.
Adopting a scenario in which the NP is due to the interactions of a heavy $Z'$ boson, we investigate the implications for the rare decays \,$\bar B_s^0\to(\eta,\eta',\phi)(\pi^0,\rho^0,\omega)$.\,
Taking into account the pertinent restraints, we demonstrate that the $Z'$ effects can hugely amplify the rates of \,$\bar B_s^0\to(\eta,\phi)\omega$\, above their SM predictions, by as much as two orders of magnitude.
The corresponding enhancement factors for \,$\bar B_s^0\to(\eta,\phi)\pi^0$\, could be substantial as well, up to an order of magnitude, in line with our previous work.
Thus, these four rare modes are potentially very consequential should future experiments establish that the \,$b\to s\mu^+\mu^-$\, anomalies are really manifestations of NP.

\acknowledgements

The work of J.T was supported in part by the Republic of China Ministry of Education
Academic Excellence Program (Grant No. 105R891505).


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

The refined de Sitter (dS) conjecture, the latest version of the Swampland conjecture, was recently proposed by Ooguri, Palti, Shiu and Vafa~\cite{Ooguri:2018wrx} after an earlier version proposed by Obied, Ooguri, Spondyneikeo and Vafa~\cite{Obied:2018sgi}. The conjecture states that any scalar potential $V(\phi)$ for scalar fields in a low energy effective theory of a consistent  quantum gravity must satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
\begin{align*}
&||\nabla V|| \geq c_1 \frac{V}{M_P},&\text{(Condition-1)}\\
&{\rm min}(\nabla_i \nabla_j V) \leq -c_2 \frac{V}{M_P^2},&\text{(Condition-2)}
\end{align*}
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are universal, positive constants of  order unity and ${\rm min}(\nabla_i \nabla_j V)$ of the second condition is the minimum eigenvalue of the Hessian $\nabla_i \nabla_j V$ in an orthonormal frame.\footnote{In literatures, $c$ and $c'$ are also widely used instead of $c_1$ and $c_2$ in this paper.
Note $c_1$ and $c_2$ are for the first and the second derivatives of the potential, respectively.}

One of the most straightforward and intriguing implications of the conjecture is that the cosmological constant scenario, for which $||\nabla V_{c.c}||=0$ and $V_{c.c.}>0$, is ruled out but the quintessence field with an exponentially decaying potential $V_{Q} \left(Q\right) = \Lambda_{Q}^{4} e^{-c_{Q} Q}$ would consistently explain the late time expansion if $c_Q \geq c_1$~(see a recent review of quintessence model~\cite{Tsujikawa:2013fta}).  There have been many follow-up papers considering various implications of the conjecture~\cite{Fukuda:2018haz,Wang:2018kly, Das:2018rpg, Antoniadis:2018ngr, Ashoorioon:2018sqb, Motaharfar:2018zyb, Odintsov:2018zai,Dimopoulos:2018upl,Kawasaki:2018daf,Hamaguchi:2018vtv, Lin:2018kjm, Anguelova:2018vyr, Ellis:2018xdr, Halverson:2018cio, Brandenberger:2018xnf, Bena:2018fqc, Moritz:2018ani, Visinelli:2018utg, DAmico:2018mnx, Han:2018yrk, Brandenberger:2018wbg}.

Distinctively from the (Condition-1), the newly added (Condition-2) is rather easily satisfied for a generic potential in low scale, $\Delta \phi \ll M_P$,  because
\begin{eqnarray}
M_P^2 \frac{\nabla_i \nabla_j V}{V} \sim - \frac{M_P^2}{\Delta \phi^2} \ll -c_2 \sim -\mathcal{O}(1).
\end{eqnarray}
However, inflationary dynamics, which takes place at a high scale, is constrained by the conditions  as analyzed
recently in Ref.~\cite{Fukuda:2018haz}. The dS conjecture indeed provides some new insights in viewing each model so that  we are motivated to examine a new kind of model, which has not been examined so far: a minimal gauge inflation model introduced in Ref.~\cite{Gong:2018jer}.

In the next section, Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, we start from the inflaton potential of minimal gauge inflation model and apply the dS conjecture to read out the consistency conditions in generic field space.  In Sec.~\ref{sec:predictions}, now considering the latest cosmological observations from the Planck 2018 and also the polarization measurements from BICEP/{\it Keck}, we re-examine the dS conditions for a fully realistic case, which can provide the most interesting understanding of the model in light of the dS conjecture.  Finally we conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.88\columnwidth]{fig_pot}
\caption{\label{fig:potential} The potential for the minimal gauge inflation model in $\phi/f_{\rm eff}=(0,\pi)$.}
\end{figure}

\section{Minimal gauge inflation and the Conditions of refined Swampland conjecture}
\label{sec:model}

A minimal gauge inflation model is based on a higher dimensional theory of non-Abelian ${\rm SU}(2)$ gauge symmetry on the orbifold, $S^2/\mathbb{Z}_2$~\cite{Gong:2018jer} with only a few free parameters, the compactification radius, $R$, and the gauge coupling constant, $g_5$ in five dimensions. The model is supposed to be the simplest realization of this category~\cite{ArkaniHamed:2003wu, Kaplan:2003aj,Park:2007sp, Kubo:2001zc}. The inflaton is identified with the extra dimensional component of the gauge field, $A_5\sim \phi$, and its potential is protected by the higher dimensional gauge symmetry itself but generated at one-loop level by gauge self interactions. As a result, the model is extremely predictive.\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{Cacciapaglia:2005da}, the electroweak symmetry breaking is realized by a fully radiatively generated potential.} It is desired to check if this model is consistent with the refined dS conjecture.

 The inflaton potential of minimal gauge inflation model is
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\phi)
&=& V_0 \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^5}\left[1-\cos \frac{n\phi}{f_{\rm eff}}\right] \\
&=&-\frac{V_0}{2} \left[{\rm Li}_5(e^{i\phi/f_{\rm eff}}) +{\rm Li}_5(e^{-i\phi/f_{\rm eff}}) -2 \zeta(5) \right],\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where two of the most important model parameters, $V_0$ and $f_{\rm eff}$, are introduced: $V_0 = \frac{9}{(2\pi)^6 R^4}$ is  the scale of the potential  and $f_{\rm eff} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi R}g_5} = \frac{1}{2\pi g_4 R}$ is the `effective decay constant'.
The potential is composed of infinitely many periodic terms. It has a maximum at $\phi/f_{\rm eff} =\pi$ and we only consider the physical region in $\phi/f_{\rm eff} =(0,\pi)$.  The inflation starts below $\phi/f_{\rm eff}\approx \pi$ then roll-down to the true vaccum at $\phi/f_{\rm eff}=0$. The model may be regarded as a UV completion of the natural inflation models~\cite{Freese:1990rb, Adams:1992bn,Kim:2004rp}.  The shape of the potential is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:potential}.

\subsection{Condition-1}

We first request (Condition-1) or $M_P ||V'||/V \geq c_1$.
A convenient function is introduced:
\begin{align}
C\left(\frac{\phi}{f_{\rm eff}}\right)
&\equiv f_{\rm eff} \frac{||V'||}{V} \\
&=\frac{i\left[{\rm Li}_4(e^{-i \phi/f_{\rm eff}})-{\rm Li}_4(e^{i \phi/f_{\rm eff}})\right]}{\left[{\rm Li}_5(e^{i\phi/f_{\rm eff}}) +{\rm Li}_5(e^{-i\phi/f_{\rm eff}}) -2 \zeta(5)\right]}.
\end{align}
The function is plotted  in Fig.~\ref{fig:CD}~(upper curve). As the function is monotonically decreasing within the range of our interest, (Condition-1) sets up a upper limit for $\phi$:
\begin{align}
&C\left(\frac{\phi}{f_{\rm eff}}\right) \geq c_1 \frac{ f_{\rm eff}}{M_P} \nonumber \\
 &\Leftrightarrow ~~\phi \leq \phi_* = f_{\rm eff}~ C^{-1}\left(c_1\frac{f_{\rm eff}}{M_P}\right).
 \label{eq:C1}
\end{align}

The critical value, $\phi_*$, is determined for a given value of $c_1 f_{\rm eff}/M_P$.
In principle, the parameter is constrained by the inflationary observables. We  will be discuss this in Sec.~\ref{sec:predictions}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{fig_CD2}
\caption{\label{fig:CD} $C(\phi/f_{\rm eff})$ and $D(\phi/f_{\rm eff})$ in $\phi/f_{\rm eff}=(0,\pi)$.
The locations of $\phi_*$ and $\phi_\star$ are also depicted.
}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Condition-2}

The potential is convex ($V''>0$) for a small field value of $\phi/f_{\rm eff}$ then becomes concave ($V''<0$) toward the plateau located at the top. The inflection point ($V''=0$) locates at $\phi/f_{\rm eff} \approx 1.45$.
 To analyze the second condition, we introduce a convenient function, $D$, which encapsulates the information of the curvature of the potential:
\begin{align}
D\left(\frac{\phi}{f_{\rm eff}}\right)
&\equiv f_{\rm eff}^2 \frac{V''}{V} \\
&=-\frac{{\rm Li}_3(e^{-i \phi/f_{\rm eff}})+{\rm Li}_3(e^{i \phi/f_{\rm eff}})}{\left[{\rm Li}_5(e^{i\phi/f_{\rm eff}}) +{\rm Li}_5(e^{-i\phi/f_{\rm eff}}) -2 \zeta(5)\right]}.
\end{align}
The shape of the $D$ is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:CD} (lower curve).

The function is monotonically decreasing and (Condition-2) limits the validity range of $\phi$ and sets the lower bound $\phi_\star$ as
\begin{align}
D\left(\frac{\phi}{f_{\rm eff}}\right) &\leq -c_2 \frac{f_{\rm eff}^2}{M_P^2} \nonumber \\
 \Leftrightarrow
 ~~&\phi \geq \phi_\star = f_{\rm eff}~ D^{-1}\left(-c_2\frac{ f_{\rm eff}^2}{M_P^2}\right).
 \label{eq:C2}
\end{align}

\subsection{Condition-1 and Condition-2}

In principle, (Condition-1) in Eq.~\ref{eq:C1} and (Condition-2) in Eq.~\ref{eq:C2} are independent.
However, at least one of the conditions can be satisfied in the whole region of $\phi$ if the lower bound of (Condition-2), $\phi_\star$, is smaller than the upper bound of (Condition-1), $\phi_*$ or
\begin{eqnarray}
 \frac{\phi_\star}{f_{\rm eff}}=D^{-1}\left(-c_2 \frac{f_{\rm eff}^2}{M_P^2}\right) \leq C^{-1}\left(c_1\frac{f_{\rm eff}}{M_P}\right) =\frac{\phi_*}{f_{\rm eff}}.
\end{eqnarray}
This inequality is a generic condition that should be taken as the guiding principle of a model, which has similar features: growing potential having an inflection point in the middle toward the top of the potential.  There are many examples of this kind including the Higgs inflation~\cite{Bezrukov:2007ep, Bezrukov:2009db, Hamada:2014iga, Hamada:2014wna,Bezrukov:2014ipa,Bezrukov:2014bra}.

If the above condition is not satisfied, there exists a region of $\phi \in (\phi_*, \phi_\star)$ where neither condition is satisfied. Indeed, as one can notice in the figure, $C\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} D$ in $\phi/f_{\rm eff} \mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} \pi/4$ so that one can actually find a set of values $(c_1,c_2)$ for a given value of $f_{\rm eff}/M_P$ satisfying the desired condition as one can clearly see in Fig.~\ref{fig:CD}.  For instance, with $(c_1,c_2) =(0.3,0.1)$ and $f_{\rm eff}/M_P\approx 1.2$, $(\phi_\star,\phi_*)\approx (1.6f_{\rm eff},2.4f_{\rm eff})$ thus the dS criterion is satisfied.

In Fig.~\ref{fig:c1c2} we depicted the critical lines in the plane of $(c_1,c_2)$ for various values of $f_{\rm eff}$:  $f_{\rm eff}/M_P =0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2$. The regions below the lines (colored parts), the critical condition, $\phi_\star \leq \phi_*$, is satisfied thus the condition of the refined dS conjecture is fulfilled and belongs to the ``Landscape" but in the regions above the lines, the potential may not have a consistent quantum gravitational UV completion or belongs to the ``Swampland".

Until this far, we examine the implications of the refined dS conjecture to generic field space of minimal gauge inflation model. Using the method, we found that the allowed range of $(c_1,c_2)$ depends on $f_{\rm eff}$. On the other hand,  if $(c_1,c_2)$ are known {\it a priori}, we can set the theoretically preferred range of the model parameters. Instead, in this paper, we take the observational data as the guideline of a theory and try to set the bound on $(c_1,c_2)$ in the next section.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{fig_c1c2}
\caption{\label{fig:c1c2} The critical line of $(c_1,c_2)$. The region above the line is excluded by the dS conjecture or belongs to the ``Swampland".
}
\end{figure}

\section{Inflationary predictions}
\label{sec:predictions}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.98\columnwidth]{fig_exp}
\caption{\label{fig:exp} The critical line of $(c_1,c_2)$ consistent with the observational data from Planck+BICEP2+{\it Keck}~\cite{Akrami:2018odb, Aghanim:2018eyx, Ade:2015xua,Ade:2018gkx}.
\label{fig:exp}}
\end{figure}

The inflationary observables, the power spectrum of the curvature perturbation, ${\mathcal P}_\zeta$, the corresponding spectral index, $n_s$, the tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r$,  of minimal gauge inflation are obtained in Ref.~\cite{Gong:2018jer}:

\begin{align}
{\mathcal P}_\zeta
&\approx \frac{V_0 f_{\rm eff}^2}{6\pi^2 M_P^6}e^{-N_e M_P^2/f_{\rm eff}^2},
\\
n_s
&\approx 1-\frac{M_P^2}{f_{\rm eff}^2},  \\%\left(1+2e^{-N_e M_P^2/f_{\rm eff}^2}\right), \\
r
&\approx 8\frac{M_P^2}{f_{\rm eff}^2} e^{-N_e M_P^2/f_{\rm eff}^2},
\end{align}
where $N_e$ is the number of efolds. From these, we get  the model parameters and $N_e$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
V_0&\approx& \frac{48 \pi^2 {\mathcal P}_\zeta (1-n_s)^2}{r} M_P^4,\\
f_{\rm eff}&\approx& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-n_s}} M_P,\\
N_e&\approx& \frac{1}{1-n_s} \log \frac{8(1-n_s)}{r}.
\end{eqnarray}

We take the reference values
\begin{align}
{\mathcal P}_\zeta =2.5 \times 10^{-9}, n_s =0.965 \pm 0.004
\end{align}
from the recent data of Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) from the Planck observatory~\cite{Akrami:2018odb, Aghanim:2018eyx, Ade:2015xua} and also the data taken by the BICEP2/{\it Keck} CMB polarization experiments~\cite{Ade:2018gkx} then we determine the model parameters, $V_0$ and $f_{\rm eff}$, as well as the allowed window for $r$ as
\begin{align}
\left.V_0\right|_{\rm Planck+BICEP2+{\it Keck}}
&\approx (3.0-4.2)\times 10^{-8} M_P^4, \\
\left.f_{\rm eff}\right|_{\rm Planck+BICEP2+{\it Keck}}
&\approx 5.3 M_P, \\
\left.r\right|_{\rm Planck+BICEP2+{\it Keck}}
&\approx 0.034-0.049,
\end{align}
for the requested number of efolds, $N_e=50-60$.  Notice that the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ is within the future probe.
The determined values of $V_0$ and $f_{\rm eff}$ would give the compactification radius and the gauge coupling constant:
\begin{align}
RM_P &\approx 7.7-8.4,  \nonumber \\
g_4 &\approx (3.5-3.9)\times 10^{-3},
\end{align}
which look  consistent with the quantum gravity and the perturbative gauge theory with $g_4 \ll 4\pi$.

Finally, having determined the input parameters of the model we now can directly check the dS conjecture.
The Fig.~\ref{fig:exp} is depicted to show the parametric region of $(c_1,c_2)$ which is consistent with the dS conjecture as well as the observational data.
The allowed values of $c_1$ and $c_2$ are typically $c_1\sim 0.15$ and $c_2 \sim 0.01$ or smaller.  The values are not strictly ${\cal O}(1)$ as requested in the conjecture but still close numerically.

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

The latest swampland conjecture could provide important implications to the low energy effective theory models which may or may not be consistent with the quantum gravity theory. The conjecture suggests two related but independent conditions for  any scalar potential $V(\phi)$ of a low energy effective theory of a consistent  quantum gravity:
\begin{align*}
||\nabla V|| \geq c_1\frac{V}{M_P},~~~ {\rm min}(\nabla_i \nabla_j V) \leq -c_2\frac{V}{M_P^2},
\end{align*}
which we call (Condition-1) and (Condition-2), respectively, in this paper. The parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$ are supposed to be universal but unknown positive constants.  In this paper, we closely examine a minimal gauge inflation model as a concrete example of potentially realistic inflationary model and apply the dS conjecture to see the consistency with a quantum gravity theory. Interestingly, the potential indeed allows a parametric region in $(c_1 \mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 1,c_2 \mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 1)$.  If we apply the latest cosmological observations from Planck 2018 and also BICEP2+{\it Keck}, the allowed region shrinks but still exists as is clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp}. Finally, we would emphasize that  the method developed in this paper can be applied to {\it any theory} with a similarly behaving potential: growing monotonically, having an inflection point on the way to the top.

\acknowledgments
SC is thankful to Kohei Kamada  for valuable comments and Matt Reece for discussion during the CERN-TH institute in summer 2018. This work was supported in part by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (No.2016R1A2B2016112) and (NRF-2018R1A4A1025334).