\section{Introduction}
It has been recently shown \cite{CST} that all the known homogeneous quaternionic K\"ahler manifolds of negative
Ricci curvature with exception of the simplest examples, the quaternionic hyperbolic spaces, admit a canonical deformation to
a complete quaternionic K\"ahler manifold with an isometric action of cohomogeneity one. The deformation is a special case
of what is known as the one-loop deformation \cite{RSV2006}.
The simplest example is a deformation of the complex hyperbolic plane known as the one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet \cite{AMTV}.
(The completeness requires the deformation parameter to be non-negative \cite[Proposition 4]{ACDM}.)
Its isometry group is precisely $\mathrm{O}(2)\ltimes \mathrm{H}$, where $H$ is the three-dimensional Heisenberg group \cite{CST}.

In this paper we determine all Einstein metrics  which are invariant under the action of $\mathrm{SO}(2)\ltimes \mathrm{H}$ on
$\mathbb{R}^4$. The symmetry assumption reduces the problem to the solution of a system of second order ordinary
differential equations for a pair of functions $a$, $b$, see  (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq}). The corresponding metrics are
of the form
\[ g= dt^2+a(t)(dz+xdy-ydx)^2 + b(t)(dx^2+dy^2).\]

The system admits
solutions if and only if the Einstein constant $\Lambda$ is non-positive.

The Ricci-flat solutions include simple solutions of hyper-K\"ahler type (Proposition \ref{HK:prop}) as well as more complicated solutions (Proposition \ref{pr:flat-case}). They are all incomplete.

The solutions of negative Ricci curvature are described in
Proposition \ref{prop:K-constraint}. The stationary solutions are isometric to the complex hyperbolic plane
(Proposition \ref{stat:sec}). The one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet corresponds to a particular solution
(Proposition \ref{1lp:prop}), interpolating between a stationary solution
and another fixed point of the flow
defined by the subsystem
(\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{secondprime:eq}).

The main result is that the only complete $\mathrm{SO}(2)\ltimes \mathrm{H}$-invariant Einstein metrics
on $\mathbb{R}^4$ are the complex hyperbolic metric and its complete one-loop deformation (Theorem \ref{main:thm}).

{\bfseries Acknowledgements}

This work was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) under Germany's Excellence Strategy  --  EXC 2121 ``Quantum Universe'' -- 390833306.
We thank \'Angel Murcia for useful comments.

\clearpage

\section{Riemannian metrics with Heisenberg symmetry}
In this section we describe the class of metrics for which we will study the Einstein equation.
\subsection{The Heisenberg group}
Recall that the Heisenberg group $H$ is the unique simply connected nilpotent Lie group of dimension $3$, up to isomorphism.
We choose to realize it as $\mathbb{R}^3$ endowed with the following product:
\begin{equation} \label{heis:eq}(x,y,z) \cdot (a,b,c) = (a+x,b+y,c+z+ya-xb) \end{equation}
The advantage over other natural realizations (e.g.\ as the group of unipotent upper triangular matrices of rank $3$) is that
the group $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ of unimodular transformations in the $(x,y)$-plane acts by automorphisms in these coordinates.
This follows from Proposition \ref{aut:prop} below.
Abbreviating $v=(x,y)^\top$, we can write (\ref{heis:eq}) more compactly as $(v_1,z_1)\cdot (v_2,z_2) = (v_1+v_2,z_1+z_2 -\omega (v_1,v_2))$,
where $\omega = dx\wedge dy$. This implies the following.
\begin{prop} \label{aut:prop} For any $A\in \mathrm{GL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ the transformation $(v,z)\mapsto (Av,z\det A )$ is an automorphism of
$H$.
\end{prop}

From (\ref{heis:eq}) we can
immediately read off that the left-invariant parallelization extending the standard basis at the neutral element is given by
\begin{equation}\label{frame:eq} e_1=\partial_x +y\partial_z,\quad e_2= \partial_y-x\partial_z,\quad e_3=\partial_z,\end{equation}
with non-trivial structure constants determined by $[e_1,e_2] = -2e_3$ or, equivalently, by $de^3=2e^1\wedge e^2$ in terms
of the dual frame $(e^i)=(e_i^*)$.

\begin{prop}
The isometry group $\mathrm{Isom}(H,g)$ of any left-invariant metric $g$ on $H$ is conjugate to $\mathrm{O}(2)\ltimes  H$
in  $\mathrm{Aut}(H)\ltimes  H$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
By \cite{W}, the isometry group of $(H,g)$ is $\mathrm{Aut}(H,g)\ltimes  H$,
where $\mathrm{Aut}(H,g)=\mathrm{Aut}(H)\cap \mathrm{Isom}(H,g)$. Since
every isometric automorphism preserves the center and its orthogonal complement,
we see that, up to conjugation in $\mathrm{Aut}(H)$, we have the inclusion
$\mathrm{Aut}(H,g)\subset \mathrm{O}(2)$. On the other hand, any orthogonal
transformation of the orthogonal complement of the center extends uniquely to an isometric automorphism.
This shows that, up to conjugation,  $\mathrm{Isom}(H,g)=
\mathrm{O}(2)\ltimes  H$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Principal action of the Heisenberg group on $\mathbb{R}^4$}
Any complete Riemannian metric $g$ on $\mathbb{R}^4$ invariant under
a principal action of the Heisenberg group $H$ can be brought to the form
\begin{equation}\label{H-inv:eq}g = dt^2 + g_t, \end{equation}
where $\mathbb{R}^4$ is identified with $\mathbb{R}\times H$ by an $H$-equivariant diffeomorphism and
$g_t$ is a family of left-invariant metrics on $H$. This form is obtained by identifying the $H$-orbits by means of the normal geodesic flow,
where $t$ corresponds to the arc length parameter along a normal geodesic.

The action of $\mathrm{Aut}(H)\ltimes  H$ on $H$ trivially extends to $\mathbb{R}^4=\mathbb{R}\times H =\{(t,x,y,z)\}$.

\begin{prop} \label{SO2H:prop}An $H$-invariant Riemannian metric $g= dt^2 + g_t$ on $\mathbb{R}^4=\mathbb{R}\times H$ is invariant under $\mathrm{SO}(2)\subset \mathrm{Aut}(H)$ if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{gt:eq}g_t =  a(t)(dz+xdy-ydx)^2 + b(t)(dx^2+dy^2),\end{equation}
for some positive smooth functions $a, b\in C^\infty (\mathbb{R})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
 We remark
that (\ref{frame:eq}) implies
\begin{equation}e^1=dx,\quad e^2=dy,\quad e^3=dz+xdy-ydx.\end{equation}
Recall that, in terms of the coordinates $(t,x,y,z)$, the group $\mathrm{SO}(2)$ acts simply by rotations in the $(x,y)$-plane.
The induced action on  $H$-invariant one-forms on $\mathbb{R}^4$ is by rotations in the plane spanned by $e^1, e^2$,
whereas the one-forms $e^3$ and $dt$ are invariant.
As a consequence, $g_t$ (and hence $g$) is $\mathrm{SO}(2)$-invariant if and only of it is of the form
(\ref{gt:eq}).\end{proof}
\begin{mydef} $\mathrm{SO}(2)\ltimes H$-invariant metrics on $\mathbb{R}^4$, as described in Proposition \ref{SO2H:prop},
will be called metrics with \emph{maximal Heisenberg symmetry}.
\end{mydef}

The main problem studied in this paper is the following.
\begin{prob}
Determine all Einstein metrics on $\mathbb{R}^4$ with maximal Heisenberg symmetry.\end{prob}
The following consequence of Proposition \ref{SO2H:prop} is used in the calculations
of the connection and the curvature in the next sections. Note also that the map
$(t,x,y,z) \mapsto (t,y,-x,t)$ is an isometry (in the group $\mathrm{SO}(2)$),
which can be also used for that purpose.

\begin{cor} Any metric $g$ with maximal Heisenberg symmetry on $\mathbb{R}^4$ is $\mathrm{O}(2)$-invariant, that is not only
$\mathrm{SO}(2)$-invariant but, in addition,  invariant under the involution $\sigma : (t,x,y,z)\mapsto (t,y,x,-z)$. The
surface
\begin{equation} \Sigma = (\mathbb{R}^4)^\sigma = \{ p\in \mathbb{R}^4 \mid \sigma (p) =p\} = \{ (t,x,x,0)\mid t,x \in \mathbb{R}\}\end{equation}
is totally geodesic and induces an $H$-invariant foliation of $\mathbb{R}^4$ by totally geodesic surfaces.
The leaf through a point $p_0=(t_0,x_0,y_0,z_0)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\Sigma_{p_0}= (x_0,y_0,z_0)\cdot \Sigma = \{  (t,x,y,z)\mid x-y=x_0-y_0,\quad z = (y_0-x_0)(x-x_0)+z_0\}.\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\section{Einstein equation for metrics with maximal Heisenberg symmetry}
In this section we determine the system of ordinary differential equations
satisfied by Einstein metrics with maximal Heisenberg symmetry.
First we compute the Levi-Civita connection and Ricci curvature of such metrics.

Throughout this section
\begin{equation}\label{metric:eq}g=dt^2 + a(t)(dz+xdy-ydx)^2 + b(t)(dx^2+dy^2)\end{equation}
denotes a metric with maximal Heisenberg symmetry on $\mathbb{R}^4$.
\subsection{Connection and Ricci curvature}
\begin{prop} The Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ of a metric (\ref{metric:eq})  with maximal Heisenberg symmetry is given by
\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\partial_t}\partial_t&=0,\quad \nabla_{\partial_t}\partial_z= \frac12 (\ln a)'\partial_z,\quad
\nabla_{\partial_z}\partial_z = -\frac12 a'\partial_t,\\
\nabla_{\partial_t}\partial_x &= \frac{y}{2} \left(\ln \frac{b}{a}\right)'\partial_z +\frac12 (\ln b)'\partial_x,\quad
\nabla_{\partial_t}\partial_y=\frac{x}{2} \left(\ln \frac{a}{b}\right)'\partial_z +\frac12 (\ln b)'\partial_y,\\
\nabla_{\partial_z}\partial_x &= \frac12 a'y\partial_t-\frac{a}{b}x\partial_z+\frac{a}{b}\partial_y,\quad \nabla_{\partial_z}\partial_y=-\frac12 a'x\partial_t-\frac{a}{b}y\partial_z-\frac{a}{b}\partial_x,\\
\nabla_{\partial_x}\partial_x&= -\frac12 (a'y^2+b')\partial_t +2 \frac{a}{b}xy\partial_z-2\frac{a}{b}y\partial_y,\\
\nabla_{\partial_y}\partial_y&= -\frac12 (a'x^2+b')\partial_t -2 \frac{a}{b}xy\partial_z-2\frac{a}{b}x\partial_x,\\
\nabla_{\partial_x}\partial_y &= \frac12 a'xy\partial_t +\frac{a}{b}(y^2-x^2)\partial_z +\frac{a}{b}y\partial_x +
\frac{a}{b}x\partial_y.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop} The Ricci curvature $\mathrm{Ric}_g = \sum R_{ij}dx^idx^j$, of $g$ is given in the coordinates $(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3) = (t,x,y,z)$ by
\begin{align*}
R_{00} &= -\left( \frac{1}{4}((\ln a)')^2 +\frac12((\ln b)')^2 +\frac12(\ln a)'' + (\ln b)''\right) g_{00},\\
R_{11} &= -\frac12 (a''y^2+b'') -\frac14 (\ln a)'b' + 2 \frac{a^2}{b^2}y^2  +\frac{y^2}{4}(\ln a)'a' -\frac12 a'y^2(\ln b)'-2\frac{a}{b},\\
R_{22} &= -\frac12 (a''x^2+b'') -\frac14(\ln a)'b' + 2\frac{a^2}{b^2}x^2+\frac{x^2}{4} (\ln a)'a'  -\frac12 a'x^2(\ln b)'
-2\frac{a}{b},\\
R_{33}&= \left( -\frac{a''}{2a} +\frac{(a')^2}{4a^2} - \frac{a'b'}{2ab}+2\frac{a}{b^2}\right)g_{33},\\
R_{12} &= \frac12 a''xy -\frac{(a')^2}{4a}xy -2\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^2xy +\frac12 a'(\ln b)'xy,\\
R_{13} &= \frac12 a''y +\frac{y}{4}a'\left( \ln \frac{b}{a}\right)' -2 \left( \frac{a}{b}\right)^2y +\frac14 a'(\ln b)'y,\\
R_{23} &= -\left( \frac12 a''x +\frac{x}{4}a'\left( \ln \frac{b}{a}\right)' -2 \left( \frac{a}{b}\right)^2x +\frac14 a'(\ln b)'x\right),\\
R_{01} &= 0 =g_{01},\quad R_{02} =0=g_{02},\quad R_{03} =0=g_{03}.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\subsection{Einstein equation}
\begin{cor} A metric (\ref{metric:eq})  with maximal Heisenberg symmetry is Einstein, $\mathrm{Ric}_g = \Lambda g$, with constant $\Lambda$ if and only if
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 &\frac{1}{4}((\ln a)')^2 +\frac12((\ln b)')^2 +\frac12(\ln a)'' + (\ln b)'' = \frac{a''}{2a} -\frac{(a')^2}{4a^2} + \frac{a'b'}{2ab}-\frac{2a}{b^2} =-\Lambda,\\
 &\frac12 \frac{b''}{b} +\frac14 (\ln a)'(\ln b)'    +\frac{2a}{b^2} =
 -\Lambda .
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{cor}
\begin{cor} The metric $g$ is Einstein with constant $\Lambda$ if and only if
the functions $\lambda = (\ln a)'$ and $\mu = (\ln b)'$ satisfy the following overdetermined system of
ordinary differential equations:
\begin{align}
 \label{first:eq}2\lambda' + 4\mu' +\lambda^2 +2\mu^2  +4\Lambda &= 0,\\
 \label{second:eq}2\lambda'+\lambda^2+2\lambda\mu -\frac{8a}{b^2}+4\Lambda &= 0,\\
 \label{third:eq}2\mu'+2\mu^2+\lambda\mu +\frac{8a}{b^2}+4\Lambda &= 0.
 \end{align}
 The system is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\label{firstprime:eq}2\lambda'&= -(\lambda^2+2\mu^2+6\lambda\mu +12 \Lambda ) ,\\
\label{secondprime:eq}2\mu' &= 3\lambda \mu +4 \Lambda, \\
\label{thirdprime:eq}0 &= \mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +\frac{4a}{b^2}+4 \Lambda.
 \end{align}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The first system is obtained by substitution of the variables.
Adding the equations (\ref{second:eq}) and (\ref{third:eq}) we obtain
\[
2\lambda' +2\mu' +\lambda^2+2\mu^2+3\lambda\mu +8\Lambda =0.
\]
Using this equation we eliminate respectively $\mu'$ and $\lambda'$ from (\ref{first:eq})
arriving at (\ref{firstprime:eq}) and (\ref{secondprime:eq}).
Finally, comparing (\ref{third:eq}) with (\ref{secondprime:eq}) yields (\ref{thirdprime:eq}).
\end{proof}
\section{Solutions}
\subsection{Classification of stationary solutions}
\label{stat:sec}
We call a solution $(a(t),b(t))$ of the ode system (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq}) \emph{stationary}
if $\lambda'=\mu'=0$.
\begin{prop} \label{stat:prop}The stationary solutions $(a,b)$ of the Einstein equations (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq})
are given by
\begin{equation} \label{stat:eq}a = -\frac{\Lambda}{6} b^2,\quad b= Ce^{\mu t},\end{equation}
where $\mu \neq 0$ and $C>0$ are constants.
The corresponding Einstein manifold $(\mathbb{R}^4,g)$ is isometric to the complex hyperbolic plane
of Einstein constant $\Lambda = -\frac32 \mu^2<0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Since $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are constant for stationary solutions, we see from
(\ref{thirdprime:eq}) that the function $a/b^2$ is constant and, hence,
\[ \lambda -2\mu =0.\]
Inserting this into (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{secondprime:eq}) we obtain
\[ \Lambda = -\frac32 \mu^2\]
and (\ref{thirdprime:eq}) then yields
\[ \Lambda = -\frac{6a}{b^2}.\]
This shows that $\Lambda <0$ and, hence, $\mu\neq0$.
The above metrics are all homothetic to
\begin{equation}\label{cxhyp:eq}dt^2+e^{2t}(dz+xdy-ydx)^2 + e^t(dx^2+dy^2),\end{equation}
by Remark \ref{homoth:rem} below. This is the complex hyperbolic metric of holomorphic sectional curvature $-4$ (i.e.\ $\Lambda =-6$) written
as a left-invariant metric on the simply transitive solvable Iwasawa subgroup of its group of holomorphic isometries $\mathrm{PSU}(1,2)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{homoth:rem}
The two parameters of the solution (\ref{stat:eq}) correspond to the freedom to re-parametrize
the $t$-variable by an affine transformation. In fact, a transformation of the coordinates
$(t,x,y,z)$ by a pure translation in $t$ yields another  stationary
solution but with another $C$-parameter,
whereas rescaling of the $t$-variable in the coordinate system yields an
Einstein metric which, up to a constant conformal factor, is a stationary solution in our class (\ref{metric:eq}),
the latter with another $\mu$-parameter.

Note that the transformation $(a,b)\mapsto (\tilde{a},\tilde{b})$, where
\begin{equation} \tilde{a}(t):= \frac{a(kt)}{k^2},\quad  \tilde{b}(t):= \frac{b(kt)}{k^2},\quad
 k\in \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0 \},
\end{equation}
maps arbitrary solutions of (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq}) to (homothetic) solutions. In this
way one can always normalize a given solution with $\Lambda \neq 0$ such that $\Lambda=-6$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Ricci-flat solutions}
\begin{prop} \label{HK:prop}There exist solutions $(a,b)$ of the Einstein equations (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq})
with $\lambda = \frac{\ell}{t}$ and $\mu=\frac{m}{t}$, $\ell , m\in \mathbb{R}$. They are all hyper-K\"ahler and of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ab-hk}
a(t)=a_1|t|^{-2/3},\quad b(t) = b_1|t|^{2/3},
\end{equation}
where $a_1, b_1$ are positive constants such that $a_1/b_1^2=1/9$. The maximal domains
of definition of these (incomplete) metrics are $\mathbb{R}_{>0}\times \mathbb{R}^3$ and
$\mathbb{R}_{<0}\times \mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}Under the ansatz $\lambda = \frac{\ell}{t}$ and $\mu=\frac{m}{t}$, the equation (\ref{secondprime:eq}) implies
that $\Lambda=0$. The equations (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{secondprime:eq}) can then
be easily solved in terms of $(\ell , m)$. We find that $(\ell ,m)$ is one of the
following: $(-\frac23,\frac23), (-\frac23,\frac43), (2,0), (0,0)$. However, the last three cases
are clearly inconsistent with equation (\ref{thirdprime:eq}). (The case $(0,0)$ is also
excluded, because such a solution would be stationary contrary to Proposition \ref{stat:prop}.)
So we are left with studying equation (\ref{thirdprime:eq}) in the case $(\ell ,m)=(-\frac23,\frac23)$.
Inserting $a=a_1|t|^\ell =a_1|t|^{-2/3}$ and $b=b_1|t|^m=b_1|t|^{2/3}$ we obtain $a_1/b_1^2=1/9$.

The given metric can now be explicitly shown to be hyper-K\"ahler. Consider the following two-forms:
\begin{align*}
	\omega_1 &= \sqrt{a}\,dt \wedge (dz + xdy - ydx) + \mathrm{sign}(t) bdx \wedge dy\\
	&=\sqrt{a_1}|t|^{-1/3}dt \wedge (dz + xdy - ydx) + 3\,\mathrm{sign}(t) \sqrt{a_1}|t|^{2/3}dx \wedge dy,\\
	\omega_2 &=   \sqrt{b}\,dt \wedge dy + \mathrm{sign}(t)\sqrt{ab}(dz + xdy - ydx)\wedge dx\\
	&=\sqrt{b_1}|t|^{1/3}dt \wedge dy + \mathrm{sign}(t)\sqrt{a_1b_1}(dz + xdy - ydx)\wedge dx,\\
	\omega_3 &= \sqrt{b}\,dt \wedge dx + \mathrm{sign}(t) \sqrt{ab}\,dy\wedge(dz + xdy - ydx)\\
	&=\sqrt{b_1}|t|^{1/3}dt \wedge dx +\mathrm{sign}(t) \sqrt{a_1b_1}\,dy\wedge(dz + xdy - ydx).
\end{align*}
These are (anti-)self-dual and closed, and so form a hyper-K\"ahler structure.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{pr:flat-case}
	If $(a,b)$ is a Ricci-flat solution of the Einstein equations (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq}) not isometric to \eqref{eq:ab-hk}, then the associated functions $\lambda$ and $\mu$ satisfy
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:flat-gen-soln}
	\frac{2}{3\mu}\left(\mp _{2}F_1\bigg(\!\!-\!\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{4};-C|\mu|^{4/3}\bigg)+1\right) = t - t_0, \qquad \lambda =  \pm \frac{\mu\sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}{1\mp \sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}},
	\end{equation}
	where $C >0$ and $t_0$ are constants and $_2F_1$ is the hypergeometric function. The corresponding metrics are incomplete. In fact, the maximal domains of definition of these metrics are
	\begin{equation}
	\begin{split}
	\left]-\infty, t_0 - \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg)\right[ \times \mathbb{R}^3, \quad &\left]t_0 - \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg), t_0\right[ \times \mathbb{R}^3, \\
	\left]t_0 + \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg), +\infty\right[ \times \mathbb{R}^3, \quad &\left]t_0, t_0 + \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg)\right[ \times \mathbb{R}^3.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
	Setting $\Lambda=0$ in  (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq}) gives us
	\begin{align}
	2\lambda'&=-(\lambda^2 + 6\lambda\mu+ 2\mu^2),\label{eq:dlamb}\\
	2\mu'&=3\lambda\mu,\label{eq:dmu}\\
	-\frac{4a}{b^2}&=\mu(\mu + 2\lambda).\label{eq:constraint}
	\end{align}
	On a domain where $\mu$ and $\mu + 2\lambda$ are non-vanishing, \eqref{eq:dlamb} and \eqref{eq:dmu} imply \begin{equation*}
	\frac{d(\mu(\mu  + 2\lambda ))}{\mu(\mu  + 2\lambda )} = \lambda dt - 2\mu dt.
	\end{equation*}
	Integrating  and then exponentiating both sides gives
	\begin{equation*}
	\mu^2 + 2\lambda\mu = -\frac{4ka}{b^2},
	\end{equation*}
	where $k$ is a non-zero constant of integration. Notice however that given $\lambda = (\ln a)'$ and $\mu= (\ln b)'$, the positive  functions  $a$ and $b$ are determined only up to overall positive constant factors. Thus, the constant $k$ may be absorbed into this indeterminacy so that the constraint \eqref{eq:constraint} is satisfied, provided that $k>0$.

	In particular, this argument fails when either $\mu$ or $\mu +2\lambda$ vanish. In fact, \eqref{eq:constraint} then necessarily means that $a$ vanishes, which is not allowed. Therefore, the constraint amounts to stipulating that $\mu$ and $\mu +2\lambda$ are non-vanishing on the domain of definition and of opposite sign.

	We will now describe general non-stationary solutions of \eqref{eq:dlamb} and \eqref{eq:dmu}. If $\lambda$ is a constant function, then so is $\mu$. We may thus assume that $\lambda$ is not everywhere $0$. As $\mu$ is constrained to be non-vanishing, $\mu'=\frac{3}{2}\lambda\mu$ must also be non-vanishing on the (open) complement of the vanishing set of $\lambda$. On this open set, we may regard $t$, and hence $\lambda(t)$, as an implicit function of $\mu$. Then $\lambda$ satisfies the following ode:
	\begin{equation*}
		\frac{d\lambda}{d\mu} = \frac{\lambda'}{\mu'}=-\frac{\lambda^2 + 6\lambda\mu+ 2\mu^2}{3\lambda\mu}.
	\end{equation*}
	Define a function $\nu$ by $\lambda = \mu\nu$. Substituting this into the above equation and rearranging the terms gives us
	\begin{equation*}
	\mu\frac{d\nu}{d\mu}= -\frac{4\nu^2 +  6\nu +2}{3\nu}.
	\end{equation*}
	There are two cases to be considered now: either the numerator of the right-hand side is identically zero or it is not.

	Let us suppose the first case, that is
	\begin{equation*}
	4\nu^2 +  6\nu +2 = 2(\nu + 1)(2\nu +1) = 0.
	\end{equation*}
	Then $\nu$ takes the value $-1$ or $-1/2$. Note that if $\nu = -1/2$, then
	\begin{equation*}
	\mu + 2\lambda = \mu +2\mu\nu = 0.
	\end{equation*}
	So this is not allowed, and $\nu$ must necessarily be $-1$. Thus, $\lambda = -\mu$ and $\mu'=\frac{3}{2}\lambda\mu=-\frac{3}{2}\mu^2$. Up to constant shifts in $t$, this gives the same solution as in \eqref{eq:ab-hk}, and so is excluded as well.

	So $4\nu^2 +  6\nu +2$ cannot be identically zero. On the complement of its vanishing set, we we may separate the variables and integrate to obtain
	\begin{equation*}
	\ln|\nu + 1| - \frac{1}{2}\ln|2\nu + 1| = -\frac{2}{3}\ln|\mu| + \mathrm{const.}
	\end{equation*}
	Multiplying by $-2$ throughout and then exponentiating  both sides gives us
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:C}
	\frac{2\nu + 1}{(\nu + 1)^2} = -C|\mu|^{4/3},
	\end{equation}
	where $C$ is some non-zero constant.
Then solving for $\nu$, we get
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
	\nu &= \pm \frac{\sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}{1\mp \sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}
	Thus, $\lambda$ as a function of $\mu$ is given by
	\begin{equation*}
	\lambda = \mu\nu = \pm \frac{\mu\sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}{1\mp \sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}.
	\end{equation*}
	To now obtain $\mu$ as function of $t$, we substitute the above expression into \eqref{eq:dmu}:
	\begin{equation*}
	2\mu'=\pm\frac{3\mu^2\sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}{1\mp \sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}.
	\end{equation*}
	Separating the variables and integrating gives us the equation
	\begin{equation}\label{hypergeom:eq}
		\frac{2}{3\mu}\left(\mp _2F_1\bigg(\!\!-\!\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{4};-C|\mu|^{4/3}\bigg)+1\right) = t - t_0,
	\end{equation}
	where $t_0$ is a constant of integration. To see this we remark that the hypergeometric function $_2F_1( a, b;c;x)$
	for $c=a+1$, $a\neq 0$, is related to the incomplete beta function $B_x(a,1-b)$ by
	\[ B_x(a,1-b) = {_2F_1( a, b;a+1;x) \frac{x^a}{a}}.\]
	This implies that $_2F_1( a, b;a+1;x)$ satisfies the first order ode $F'(x)= \frac{a((1-x)^{-b}-F(x))}{x}$, which leads to
	(\ref{hypergeom:eq}).

	To determine the maximal domains of definition of the metric, we determine the values of $t$ for which either at least one of $\lambda$ and $\mu$ becomes infinite or for which we have $\mu(\mu + 2\lambda) = 0$.

	We find that for the upper branch of the solution, that is
	\begin{equation*}
	\frac{2}{3\mu}\left(- _{2}F_1\bigg(\!\!-\!\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{4};-C|\mu|^{4/3}\bigg)+1\right) = t - t_0, \qquad \lambda =   \frac{\mu\sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}} {1- \sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}},
	\end{equation*}
	taking the limit $\mu\rightarrow 0^\pm$ gives us  $t = t_0$ and $\lambda \rightarrow \mp \infty$. By contrast, on the lower branch of the solution, that is
	\begin{equation*}
	\frac{2}{3\mu}\left(+ _{2}F_1\bigg(\!\!-\!\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{4};-C|\mu|^{4/3}\bigg)+1\right) = t - t_0, \qquad \lambda =   -\frac{\mu\sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}{1+ \sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}},
	\end{equation*}
	the limit $\mu \rightarrow 0^\pm$ gives $t\rightarrow \pm\infty$ and $\lambda \rightarrow 0$.

	Meanwhile, setting $\mu + 2\lambda=0$ is the same as setting $\nu = \frac{\lambda}{\mu} = -\frac12$, giving us:
	\begin{equation*}
		\begin{split}
			-\frac{1}{2} &= \pm \frac{\sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}{1\mp \sqrt{1+C|\mu|^{4/3}}}.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}
This is solved only by $\mu = 0$ on the lower branch of the solution, and therefore for no finite value of $t$.

In the case that $C$ is positive, we can take the limit $\mu \rightarrow \pm \infty$ to obtain on the upper branch
\begin{equation*}
	t = t_0 \mp \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg), \quad \lambda \rightarrow \mp \infty,
\end{equation*}
and on the lower branch
\begin{equation*}
t = t_0 \pm \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg), \quad \lambda \rightarrow \mp \infty.
\end{equation*}
Note that the above cases automatically take care of the limits in which $\lambda$ becomes infinite. The above limits are obtained by specializing the
asymptotics for $|x|\rightarrow \infty$ of the hypergeometric function $F(x)= {_{2}F_1(a,b;c;x)}$ for $a-b\not\in\mathbb{Z}$ to $(a,b,c)= (-\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{4})$:
\[ F(x) \sim \frac{\Gamma (b-a)\Gamma(c)}{\Gamma(b)\Gamma (c-a)}(-x)^{-a} +\frac{\Gamma (a-b)\Gamma(c)}{\Gamma(a)\Gamma (-b)}(-x)^{-b}.
\]

Putting everything together, we find that the maximal domains of definition for $t$ are  the open intervals $\left]-\infty, t_0\right[$ and $]t_0,+\infty[$ when $C < 0$, and the following open intervals when $C>0$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
	\left]-\infty, t_0 - \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg)\right[, \quad \left]t_0 - \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg), t_0\right[, \\
	\left]t_0 + \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg), +\infty\right[,\quad \left]t_0, t_0 + \frac{2C^{3/4}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\,\Gamma\bigg(\frac{1}{4}\bigg)\Gamma\bigg(\frac{5}{4}\bigg)\right[.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Now that we have described all the solutions to the ode system, we check which of them satisfy the sign constraint $\mu (\mu + 2 \lambda)<0$  to determine which of them correspond to Riemanninan metrics. Dividing the sign constraint by $\mu^2>0$, we find that it is equivalent to $2\nu + 1 < 0$. From \eqref{eq:C} we see that this happens precisely when $C>0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}By taking $t$ purely imaginary and the integration constant $t_0$ complex, one can similarly describe
Ricci-flat Lorentzian metrics of the form
\[ g=-dt^2 + a(t)(dz+xdy-ydx)^2 + b(t)(dx^2+dy^2)\]
from solutions of
(\ref{hypergeom:eq}) with $C<0$. As in the Riemannian case, these are $\mathrm{O}(2)\ltimes H$-invariant. Lorentzian solutions of the
Einstein equations invariant under a principal action of a three-dimensional Lie group with space-like orbits have been studied as cosmological models in general relativity, see
\cite{EM}.\end{rem}

\begin{rem}
	The limit $C \rightarrow +\infty$ is in fact well-defined. In this limit, \eqref{eq:flat-gen-soln} becomes
	\begin{equation*}
	\frac{2}{3\mu} = t - t_0, \qquad \lambda =  -\mu.
	\end{equation*}
	A constant shift $t \mapsto t - t_0$ then reproduces the solution \eqref{eq:ab-hk}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{The one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet}
In this section we exhibit a family of solutions of the Einstein equations (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq})
with $\Lambda=-6$ depending on a real parameter $c$. The solution is stationary only for $c=0$, in which case the metric is
the complex hyperbolic metric (\ref{cxhyp:eq}).

Let $c$ be a real constant and let $I$ be a connected component of the set
\begin{equation} \{ \rho \in \mathbb{R} \mid \rho\neq 0,\; \rho+c>0\;\mbox{and}\;\rho +2 c>0\}. \end{equation}
 Let $\rho : J \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}I$, $t\mapsto \rho (t)$, be a (maximal) solution of the differential equation
\begin{equation} \label{ode:eq}\rho'(t) = 2\rho(t) \sqrt{\frac{\rho(t) +c}{\rho(t)+2c}}\end{equation}
which is defined on some interval $J$ and has the interval $I$ as its range.
The  functions
\begin{equation}\label{ab:eq}
a(t) = \frac{\rho(t) +c}{4\rho(t)^2(\rho(t) +2c)}\quad\mbox{and}\quad b(t)=\frac{\rho (t)+2c}{2\rho(t)^2}
\end{equation}
are  positive on their domain $J$.

Recall (see Remark \ref {homoth:rem}) that the Einstein constant $\Lambda$ of a solution of (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq})
is either zero or the metric can be rescaled such that $\Lambda$ is any constant negative number.
\begin{prop} \label{1lp:prop} The functions  $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ defined by (\ref{ab:eq}) and (\ref{ode:eq}) constitute a one-parameter family of
solutions of the Einstein equations (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq}) with
$\Lambda=-6$. The corresponding metrics are complete if and only if $c>0$ and $I=\{ \rho \mid \rho >0\}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Writing the metric $g=dt^2+a(t)(dz+xdy-ydx)^2 + b(t)(dx^2+dy^2)$ in terms of the
coordinates $(\rho , x,y,z)$ instead of $(t,x,y,z)$ shows that it coincides with the
one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet metric, as given in equation (1.1) of \cite{CS}. (For the physical origins and significance of this metric see \cite{AMTV,RSV2006}.) The metric is not only Einstein of Einstein constant $-6$ but is
half conformally flat and is complete if and only if $c>0$ and $I=\{ \rho \mid \rho >0\}$, see \cite{ACDM}.
Moreover, it was shown in \cite[Theorem 4.5]{CST} that for $c\neq 0$ the metric has the isometry group $\mathrm{O}(2) \rtimes H$, where $H$ denotes the Heisenberg group. (For $c=0$ the metric is the complex hyperbolic metric discussed in Section \ref{stat:sec}.) This proves Proposition \ref{1lp:prop}.

Alternatively, one can check directly that the functions $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ solve the system (\ref{firstprime:eq})-(\ref{thirdprime:eq}).
In fact, the equations (\ref{secondprime:eq}) and (\ref{thirdprime:eq}) are easily checked and (\ref{thirdprime:eq})
implies (\ref{firstprime:eq}) on the set where $\mu\neq 0$. The latter is shown by differentiating  (\ref{thirdprime:eq})
and using the simple equation
\[ \left( \frac{a}{b^2}\right)' = \frac{a}{b^2}(\lambda -2 \mu).\]
A short calculation shows that for the above functions $a$ and $b$, the function $\mu$
vanishes only if $c<0$ and $-4c\in I$. In that case, the zero is at $\rho = -4c$, i.e.\ at
$t=\rho^{-1}(-4c)$. The equation (\ref{firstprime:eq}) follows by continuity, since the complement
of the zero set is dense.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
	A solution $(\lambda(t),\mu(t))$ of the Einstein equations \eqref{firstprime:eq}-\eqref{thirdprime:eq} corresponding to the one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet satisfies the following polynomial constraint of degree $4$:
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:P}
		P(\lambda, \mu):=(\lambda + \mu)^3\mu -4(3\lambda^2 +18\lambda\mu +  11 \mu^2) + 512 = 0.
	\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
	From \eqref{ab:eq}, we obtain the following parametrisation of $\lambda$ and $\mu$ in terms of $\rho$:
	\begin{align}
		\label{lamb-rho:eq}\lambda &= (\ln a)' = \frac{\rho'}{\rho}\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho + c} - 2 - \frac{\rho}{\rho + 2c}\right),\\
	\label{mu-rho:eq}	\mu &= (\ln b)' = \frac{\rho'}{\rho}\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho + 2c} - 2\right)=-\frac{\rho'}{\rho}\left(\frac{\rho +4c}{\rho + 2c}\right).
	\end{align}
In particular, on a domain where $\mu$ is non-vanishing, we have $\frac{4c}{\rho} + 1 \neq 0$ and we can combine the above equations to get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lplusm}
	\frac{\lambda + \mu}{\mu} = \left(\frac{\rho}{\rho + c} - 4 \right)\bigg(\frac{\rho}{\rho + 2c} - 2\bigg)^{-1} = 2 + \bigg(\frac{4c}{\rho} + 1\bigg)^{-1}\bigg(\frac{c}{\rho} + 1\bigg)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
By subtracting $2$ throughout, we see that this implies that $\lambda - \mu$ is non-vanishing. In particular, we have a quadratic equation in $\frac{c}{\rho}$, which we can then solve to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:D}
	\frac{c}{\rho} = \frac{-5 \pm \sqrt{D}}{8} \quad \mbox{where}\quad D = \frac{9\lambda + 7\mu}{\lambda - \mu}.
\end{equation}
Now substituting \eqref{ode:eq} into \eqref{lamb-rho:eq} and \eqref{mu-rho:eq}, we get
\begin{equation}
	\lambda + \mu = 2\sqrt{\frac{\rho + c}{\rho + 2c}}\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho + c} - 4 \right) = -\frac{2(3 + 4c/\rho)}{\sqrt{(1 + 2c/\rho)(1 + c/\rho)}}.
\end{equation}
Upon substituting \eqref{eq:D} into the above and eliminating the square roots, we then obtain
\begin{equation}
	(\lambda + \mu)^2P(\lambda, \mu)=0
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:lplusm} we see that $\lambda + \mu$ vanishes if and only if $(3\rho + 4c)(\rho + 2c)$ vanishes. Since this is not generically the case, the constraint \eqref{eq:P} follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
	More generally, if we introduce the polynomial
	\begin{equation*}
		P_\Lambda(\lambda, \mu):=(\lambda + \mu)^3\mu +\frac{2\Lambda}{3}(3\lambda^2 +18\lambda\mu + 11 \mu^2) + \frac{128\Lambda^2}{9},
	\end{equation*}
	 then \eqref{firstprime:eq} and \eqref{secondprime:eq} imply
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:Plamb}
		P_\Lambda' = - 3\mu P_\Lambda.
	\end{equation}
	So the vanishing set of $P_\Lambda(\lambda,\mu)$ contains a flowline. When $\Lambda = - 6$, this becomes the constraint \eqref{eq:P}.
\end{rem}

\begin{prop}\label{prop:K-constraint}
 Any solution $(\lambda(t),\mu(t))$ of the Einstein equations \eqref{firstprime:eq}-\eqref{thirdprime:eq} satisfies the following constraint on each maximal domain of definition:
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:flowlines}
 \left(\frac{\mu^2 +\lambda\mu +2\Lambda}{\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda}\right)^3 P_\Lambda(\lambda,\mu) = K,
 \end{equation}
 for some constant $K$. Furthermore, when $K=0$, the solution has to be one of the following:
 	\begin{itemize}
 		\item Stationary solutions at $\pm(2\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3},\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3})$.
 		\item Solutions with maximal domains of definition $\left]-\infty,t_0\right[$ and $\left]t_0,+\infty\right[$ which are given by
 		\begin{equation}\label{eq:sol1}
 		\mu =  \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}} \frac{ e^{\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} \pm 1}{ e^{\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} \mp 1}, \quad \lambda =  2\sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}\frac{ e^{2\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} \pm 4e^{\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} + 1}{ e^{2\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} - 1}.
 		\end{equation}
 		\item A solution with maximal domains of definition $\left]-\infty,t_0\right[$ and $\left]t_0,+\infty\right[$ which is given by
 		\begin{equation}\label{eq:sol2}
 		\begin{split}
 			&\lambda = \frac{\mathrm{sign}(t-t_0)8\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}}{\sqrt{3 + 18\sigma +11\sigma^2- \sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}},\quad \mu = \lambda\sigma, \quad \mbox{where $0<\sigma<1$,} \\
 			&\int_{0}^\sigma \frac{-8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 -\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}\,du}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) - 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}= \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}|t-t_0|.
 		\end{split}
 		\end{equation}
 		\item A solution with maximal domains of definition $\left]-\infty,t_0\right[$ and $\left]t_0,+\infty\right[$ which is given by
 		\begin{equation}\label{eq:sol3}
 		\begin{split}
 		&\lambda = \frac{-\mathrm{sign}(t-t_0)8\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}}{\sqrt{3 + 18\sigma +11\sigma^2+ \sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}},\quad \mu = \lambda\sigma, \quad \mbox{where $-1<\sigma<\frac12$,} \\
 		&\int_{-1}^\sigma \frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 +\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}\,du}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) + 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}= \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}|t-t_0|.
 		\end{split}
 		\end{equation}
 		\item Solutions defined for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$ given by
 		\begin{equation}\label{eq:sol4}
 		\begin{split}
 		&\lambda = \frac{\pm 8\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}}{\sqrt{3 + 18\sigma +11\sigma^2+ \sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}},\quad \mu = \lambda\sigma,\quad \mbox{where $\frac12<\sigma<1$,} \\
 		&\int_{3/4}^\sigma \frac{\mp 8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 +\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}\,du}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) + 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}= \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}(t-t_0).
 		\end{split}
 		\end{equation}
 	\end{itemize}
 	With the exception of \eqref{eq:sol2}, all of them correspond to Riemannian metrics.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
	Equations \eqref{firstprime:eq} and \eqref{secondprime:eq} imply
	\begin{align}
		(\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda)' &= (\lambda - 2\mu)(\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda),\label{eq:flow1}\\
		(\mu^2 +\lambda\mu +2\Lambda)' &= (\lambda -\mu)(\mu^2 +\lambda\mu +2\Lambda).\label{eq:flow2}
	\end{align}
	On the domain where $\mu^2 + 2\lambda \mu + 4\Lambda$ is non-vanishing, \eqref{eq:flow1} can be written as
	\begin{equation*}
		\frac{d(\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda)}{\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda} = \lambda dt - 2\mu dt.
	\end{equation*}
	Integrating and then exponentiating gives
	\begin{equation*}
		\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda = -\frac{4ka}{b^2},
	\end{equation*}
	where $k$ is a non-zero constant of integration. As we had noted in the proof of Proposition~\ref{pr:flat-case}, given $\lambda = (\ln a)'$ and $\mu= (\ln b)'$, the functions $a$ and $b$ are determined only up to overall non-zero constant factors. Thus, the constant $k$ may be absorbed into this indeterminacy so that \eqref{thirdprime:eq} is automatically
	satisfied, provided that $k>0$. So, we see that \eqref{thirdprime:eq} is equivalent to the condition $\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda<0$.

	Given that $\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda$ is nowhere vanishing, \eqref{eq:Plamb}, \eqref{eq:flow1}, and \eqref{eq:flow2} can be combined into a single equation:
	\begin{equation*}
		\left(\frac{(\mu^2 +\lambda\mu +2\Lambda)^\ell P_\Lambda^m}{(\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda)^n}\right)'= (\ell(\lambda - \mu) -3m\mu - n(\lambda - 2\mu))\frac{(\mu^2 +\lambda\mu +2\Lambda)^\ell P_\Lambda^m}{(\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda)^n},
	\end{equation*}
	where $\ell, m, n$ are arbitrary non-negative integers. In particular, we see that the right-hand side vanishes for the choice $\ell = 3, m = 1, n = 3$. The constraint \eqref{eq:flowlines} follows.

	For $K=0$, we have either
	\begin{equation*}
		\mu^2 + \lambda \mu + 2\Lambda = 0 \quad \mbox{or}\quad P_\Lambda(\lambda,\mu) = 0.
	\end{equation*}
	If $\mu^2 + \lambda \mu + 2\Lambda=0$, then \eqref{secondprime:eq} becomes
	\begin{equation*}
		2\mu' = -3\mu^2 - 2\Lambda.
	\end{equation*}
	If the right-hand side vanishes, then we obtain the stationary solutions
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:general-stationary}
	\mu = \pm \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}, \quad \lambda = -\mu-\frac{2\Lambda}{\mu} =\pm 2\sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}.
	\end{equation}
	Otherwise, we can separate the variables and integrate to obtain
	\begin{equation*}
		\log\left|\frac{\mu + \sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}}{\mu - \sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}}\right| = \sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0),
	\end{equation*}
	where $t_0$ is an integration constant. This gives the solutions
	\begin{equation*}
		\mu =  \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}} \frac{ e^{\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} \pm 1}{ e^{\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} \mp 1}, \quad \lambda = -\mu-\frac{2\Lambda}{\mu} =  2\sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}\frac{ e^{2\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} \pm 4e^{\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} + 1}{ e^{2\sqrt{-6\Lambda}(t - t_0)} - 1}.
	\end{equation*}
	Both the upper and lower solutions are well-defined eveywhere except $t=t_0$. Moreover, the vanishing sets of $\mu^2 + \lambda\mu + 2\Lambda$ and $\mu^2 + 2\lambda\mu + 4\Lambda$ do not intersect. Thus, their maximal domains of definition are the open intervals $\left]-\infty,t_0\right[$ and $\left]t_0,+\infty\right[$.

	Now we consider the case $P_\Lambda(\lambda,\mu)=0$. Observe that at $\lambda = 0$,  we have
	\begin{equation*}
		P_\Lambda(0,\mu)= \left(\mu^2 + \frac{11\Lambda}{3}\right)^2 + \frac{7\Lambda^2}{9} > 0.
	\end{equation*}
	Thus, it follows that $\lambda\neq 0$ on the vanishing set of $P_\Lambda$. We can therefore define $\sigma = \frac{\mu}{\lambda}$ and rewrite $P_\Lambda(\lambda,\mu)=0$ in terms of it as
	\begin{equation*}
		(1 + \sigma)^3\sigma +\frac{2\Lambda}{3\lambda^2}(3 +18\sigma + 11 \sigma^2) + \frac{128\Lambda^2}{9\lambda^4}=0.
	\end{equation*}
	This is quadratic in $\frac{1}{\lambda^2}$, so we can solve for it to obtain
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:lamsig}
		\frac{1}{\lambda^2} = \frac{-3(3 + 18\sigma +11\sigma^2)\pm 3\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}{128\Lambda}.
	\end{equation}
	In order for the right-hand side to be real, we must have $-\frac{9}{7}\le \sigma \le 1$. Given that $\Lambda<0$, the upper solution is positive for $0<\sigma \le 1$ and the lower solution is positive for $-1<\sigma \le 1$. Note however that the case $\sigma = 1$ has to be excluded as it implies $\mu = \lambda = \pm 2\sqrt{-\Lambda/3}$ and these are precisely the points where the vanishing sets of $P_\Lambda$ and $\mu^2 + 2\lambda\mu + 4\Lambda$ intersect. To summarise, the allowed range for $\sigma$ in the upper solution is $\left]0,1\right[$ while that in the lower solution is $\left]-1,1\right[$. Moreover, for each such case, there are two solutions for $\lambda$, one positive and one negative.

	Meanwhile, from \eqref{firstprime:eq} and \eqref{secondprime:eq}, we can derive the following ode for $\sigma$:
	\begin{equation*}
		2\sigma' = 2\sigma(1+\sigma )(2+\sigma)\lambda + \frac{4\Lambda(1+3\sigma )}{\lambda}.
	\end{equation*}
	We can now obtain separable odes for $\sigma$ by substituting the solutions for $\lambda$ in \eqref{eq:lamsig} into the above:
	\begin{align}
		&\mp \frac{8\sqrt{3 +18\sigma + 11\sigma^2 -\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}}{\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}}\,\sigma'\nonumber\\
		&\qquad\qquad=(1-\sigma)(1-5\sigma)(9+7\sigma) - 3(1+3\sigma)\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)},\label{eq:sigmaode1}\\
		&\mp \frac{8\sqrt{3 +18\sigma + 11\sigma^2 +\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}}{\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}}\,\sigma'\nonumber\\
		&\qquad\qquad=(1-\sigma)(1-5\sigma)(9+7\sigma) + 3(1+3\sigma)\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}.\label{eq:sigmaode2}
	\end{align}
	The $\mp$ in the above refers to the choice of sign $\pm$ of $\lambda$. The allowed range for $\sigma$ in  \eqref{eq:sigmaode1} is $\left]0,1\right[$ while that in \eqref{eq:sigmaode2} is $\left]-1,1\right[$. The right-hand side in \eqref{eq:sigmaode1} is non-vanishing for all $\sigma$ in the allowed range $\left]0,1\right[$, while the right-hand side in \eqref{eq:sigmaode2} vanishes only at $\sigma = \frac12$ in the allowed range $\left]-1,1\right[$. This corresponds to the stationary solution at $2\mu = \lambda =\pm 2\sqrt{-2\Lambda/3}$ that we already encountered in \eqref{eq:general-stationary}. On the complement of this, we can separate the variables and integrate to obtain
	\begin{align}
		\int_{\sigma_0}^\sigma \frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 -\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}\,du}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) - 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}=\mp \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}(t-t_0),\label{eq:integral1}\\
		\int_{\sigma_0}^\sigma \frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 +\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}\,du}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) + 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}=\mp \sqrt{-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}}(t-t_0),\label{eq:integral2}
	\end{align}
	where $u$ is a dummy integration variable while $\sigma_0$ and $t_0$ are integration constants. The integration constants are redundant and the choice of $\sigma_0$ may be absorbed into the choice of $t_0$.

	We now make the general observation that if the integrand $f(u)$ of a given integral $F(\sigma):=\int^\sigma_{\sigma_0} f(u)du$ has the asymptotic behaviour $f(u)\sim(u-u_0)^\alpha$ as $u\rightarrow u_0$ and is well-defined over the half-closed interval $\left[\sigma_0,u_0\right[$ (if $\sigma_0 < u_0$) or $\left]u_0,\sigma_0\right]$ (if $\sigma_0 > u_0$), then $F(\sigma)$ converges in the limit $\sigma \rightarrow u_0$ when $\alpha > -1$ and diverges otherwise. For \eqref{eq:integral1},  the integrand has the asymptotic behaviour
	\begin{align*}
		\frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 -\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) - 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}&\sim -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3u}} \, &\mbox{as} \; u \rightarrow 0,\\
		\frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 -\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) - 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}&\sim  -\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3\sqrt{(1-u)^3}}  \, &\mbox{as} \; u \rightarrow 1.
	\end{align*}
	Thus, the integral is well-defined in the limit $\sigma\rightarrow 0$, so we can set $\sigma_0=0$. Then, as $\sigma \rightarrow 0$, we have $t \rightarrow t_0$, while as $\sigma \rightarrow 1$, we have $t \rightarrow \pm \infty$. For all other values of $\sigma$ between these two limits, the integral is well-defined. So, the maximal domains of definition of the upper and lower solutions are $\left]t_0,+\infty\right[$ and $\left]-\infty,t_0\right[$ respectively. These can be combined into a single solution \eqref{eq:sol2}.

	For \eqref{eq:integral2}, the integrand has the asymptotic behaviour
	\begin{align*}
		\frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 +\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) + 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}&\sim -\frac{\sqrt{u+1}}{2} \, &\mbox{as}& \; u \rightarrow -1,\\
		\frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 +\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) + 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}&\sim- \frac{1}{\big(u-\frac12\big)} \, &\mbox{as}& \; u \rightarrow \frac{1}{2},\\
		\frac{8\sqrt{3 +18u + 11u^2 +\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}}{(1-u)(1-5u)(9+7u) + 3(1+3u)\sqrt{(1-u)^3(9+7u)}}&\sim \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3\sqrt{(1-u)^3}} \, &\mbox{as}& \; u \rightarrow 1.
	\end{align*}
	The integral is ill-defined when $\sigma=\frac12$ lies in the domain of integration. So we have two qualitatively different choices, namely $\sigma_0 <\frac12$ and $\sigma_0 >\frac12$. In the first case, since the integral is well-defined in the limit $\sigma\rightarrow -1$, we can set $\sigma_0 = -1$. Then, as $\sigma \rightarrow -1$, we have $t \rightarrow t_0$, while as $\sigma \rightarrow \frac12$ from below, we have $t \rightarrow \mp \infty$. For all other values of $\sigma$ between these two limits, the integral is well-defined. So, the maximal domains of definition of the upper and lower solutions are $\left]-\infty,t_0\right[$ and $\left]t_0,+\infty\right[$ respectively. These can be combined into a single solution \eqref{eq:sol3}.

	However, if $\sigma_0 >\frac12$, say $\sigma=\frac34$, then as $\sigma\rightarrow \frac12$ from above, we have $t\rightarrow \pm\infty$ while as $\sigma \rightarrow 1$, we have $t\rightarrow \mp\infty$. For all other values of $\sigma$ between these limits, the integral is well-defined, so we have two solutions defined for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$, namely \eqref{eq:sol4}.

	It remains to check which of the solutions satisfy the sign constraint $\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda<0$ necessary for the metric to be positive definite. Note that the condition $\mu^2 +\lambda\mu +2\Lambda=0$ automatically implies
		\begin{equation*}
			\mu^2 +2\lambda\mu +4\Lambda = 2(\mu^2 +\lambda\mu +2\Lambda) - \mu^2 = -\mu^2 < 0.
		\end{equation*}
	So the stationary solutions and the solution \eqref{eq:sol1} satisfy the sign constraint.

	For the rest of the solutions, we see using \eqref{eq:lamsig} that
	\begin{equation*}
		\sigma^2 + 2\sigma + \frac{4\Lambda}{\lambda^2} =   \frac{(\sigma-9)(1-\sigma) \pm 3\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}{32}.
	\end{equation*}
	For $-1<\sigma < 1$, the right-hand side is positive for the upper solution and negative for the lower solution. Multiplying by $\lambda^2$ throughout then tells us that \eqref{eq:sol2} (which corresponds to the upper solution) does not satisfy the sign constraint, while \eqref{eq:sol3} and \eqref{eq:sol4} (which correspond to the lower solution) do satisfy the sign constraint.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}\label{rem:UHasKzero}
	For $\Lambda=-6$, the two stationary solutions are the solutions associated to the complex hyperbolic plane with holomorphic section curvature $-4$, while the non-stationary solutions  in \eqref{eq:sol3} and \eqref{eq:sol4}  are the solutions associated to the one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet.

	The change of coordinates between $\sigma$ and $\rho$ may be deduced from \eqref{eq:D} to be
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:rhobyc}
		\frac{\rho}{c} = -8\left(5 \mp  \sqrt{\frac{9+7\sigma}{1-\sigma}}\right)^{-1}.
	\end{equation}
	This is well-defined for $-1 < \sigma < 1$.
	 Multiplying \eqref{mu-rho:eq} by $\frac{dt}{d\sigma}$ and using the chain rule on the right-hand side gives us
	 \begin{equation}\label{eq:consistency}
	 	\mu \frac{dt}{d\sigma} = -\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\frac{\rho +4c}{\rho + 2c}\right)\frac{d\rho}{d\sigma}.
	 \end{equation}
 	Using the explicit expressions in \eqref{eq:sol3} and \eqref{eq:sol4} we find that
 	\begin{equation*}
 		\mu \frac{dt}{d\sigma} = \frac{-64\sigma}{(1-\sigma)(1-5\sigma)(9 + 7\sigma)+3(1+3\sigma)\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}.
 	\end{equation*}
 	Meanwhile, using \eqref{eq:rhobyc} we find that
 	\begin{equation*}
 		-\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\frac{\rho +4c}{\rho + 2c}\right)\frac{d\rho}{d\sigma} = \frac{-64\sigma}{(1-\sigma)(1-5\sigma)(9 + 7\sigma)\pm 3(1+3\sigma)\sqrt{(1-\sigma)^3(9+7\sigma)}}.
 	\end{equation*}
	Thus, we see that \eqref{eq:consistency} holds only for the upper solution
	\begin{equation}
			\frac{\rho}{c} = -8\left(5 - \sqrt{\frac{9+7\sigma}{1-\sigma}}\right)^{-1} = -\frac{1-\sigma}{2(1 -2\sigma)}\left(5+\sqrt{\frac{9 + 7\sigma}{1 - \sigma}}\right).
	\end{equation}
	When $\frac{1}{2}<\sigma <1$, we have $\frac{\rho}{c}>0$, while when $-1<\sigma< \frac{1}{2}$, we have $\frac{\rho}{c}<-2$. This is consistent with the fact that the one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet metric is complete over the domain $\frac{\rho}{c}>0$ and incomplete over the domain $\frac{\rho}{c}<-2$.

\end{rem}

In principle, for arbitrary values of $K$, the constraint \eqref{eq:flowlines} allows us to write $\lambda$ as an implicit function of $\mu$, which can then be used to turn \eqref{secondprime:eq} into a separable ode in $\mu$. However, as \eqref{eq:flowlines} amounts to a bivariate polynomial equation of degree $7$, the implicit function cannot be expected to have a closed form in terms of radicals. Nevertheless, it is possible to make conclusions about the completeness of the solutions.

\begin{thm}\label{main:thm}
	The complex hyperbolic metric \eqref{cxhyp:eq} of constant holomorphic sectional curvature $-4$ and the one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet metric  with $\frac{\rho}{c}>0$ are the only complete solutions of the Einstein equations \eqref{firstprime:eq}-\eqref{thirdprime:eq} for $\Lambda = -6$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
	Suppose we have a complete solution $(\lambda(t), \mu(t))$ of \eqref{firstprime:eq}-\eqref{thirdprime:eq}. The solution is either bounded in both the limits $t\rightarrow \pm\infty$ or unbounded in at least one.

	We first consider the bounded case. Fix a real number $k$ and define
	\begin{align*}
		f(\lambda,\mu)&= 2(\lambda + k\mu)P_\Lambda(\lambda,\mu)^2, \\
		h(\lambda,\mu)&= \lambda^2+(2+12k)\mu^2+(18-3k)\lambda\mu +(12-4k) \Lambda.
	\end{align*}
	By \eqref{firstprime:eq}, \eqref{secondprime:eq}, and \eqref{eq:Plamb}, we have
	\begin{equation*}
		f' = -hP_\Lambda^2.
	\end{equation*}
	The function $h$ is strictly positive, and so $-hP_\Lambda^2$ is non-positive, for all $\lambda,\mu$ and all $\Lambda<0$ whenever $k$ satisfies
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:range}
		3 < k \le \frac{26 + 6\sqrt{10}}{3}.
	\end{equation}
	Thus, given that $k$ is in the above range, we have a  monotonically decreasing function $f(\lambda(t),\mu(t))$ of $t$.

	Any monotonically decreasing function of $t$ is either unbounded or has well-defined (finite) limits as $t\rightarrow \pm \infty$. Since our solution is assumed to be bounded, it has to be the latter case. In fact,
	the limiting value of $f$ must be one for which $f'=-hP_\Lambda^2$ (and hence $P_\Lambda$) vanishes. Thus, we have a well-defined limit
	\begin{equation*}
		\lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} P_\Lambda(\lambda(t),\mu(t)) = 0.
	\end{equation*}
	The constant $K$ in the constraint \eqref{eq:flowlines} is either zero or non-zero. We have already explicitly described the $K=0$ case in Proposition \ref{prop:K-constraint}  and seen in Remark \ref{rem:UHasKzero} that the only complete solutions for $\Lambda = -6$ correspond to precisely the complex hyperbolic metric with holomorphic sectional curvature $-4$ and the one-loop deformed universal hypermultiplet metric with $\frac{\rho}{c}>0$. So we may assume $K \neq 0$ now. Since the solution is bounded, this implies that
	\begin{equation*}
		\lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} (\mu(t)^2 + 2\lambda(t)\mu(t) + 4\Lambda)^3 = 	\lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} \frac{1}{K}(\mu(t)^2 + \lambda(t)\mu(t) + 2\Lambda)^3P_\Lambda(\lambda(t),\mu(t)) = 0.
	\end{equation*}
	The vanishing sets of the polynomials $\mu^2 + 2\lambda \mu+ 4\Lambda$ and $P_\Lambda$ intersect in precisely the
	points $\pm \Big(  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3},  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3}\Big)$.
	 These can be checked to be fixed points of the first-order ode system \eqref{firstprime:eq} and \eqref{secondprime:eq}.  Moreover, $\Big(  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3},  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3}\Big)$ is a stable fixed point, while $-\Big(  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3},  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3}\Big)$ is an unstable fixed point. It thus follows that
	\begin{equation*}
	\lim_{t\rightarrow \pm\infty} (\lambda(t),\mu(t)) = \pm\bigg( \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3},  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3}\bigg).
	\end{equation*}
	Now, as the vanishing set of $\mu^2 + \lambda \mu + 2\Lambda$ is a hyperbola, its complement in $\mathbb{R}^2$ consists of three connected components. The two fixed points
	$\pm\Big(  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3},  \frac{2\sqrt{-\Lambda}}{\sqrt 3}\Big)$ are on two different connected components, hence any complete solution has to intersect the hyperbola $\mu^2 + \lambda \mu + 2\Lambda=0$. But this is not possible since $K$ vanishes if  $\mu^2 + \lambda \mu + 2\Lambda$ vanishes, and we have assumed that $K\neq 0$.

	Next, we consider the case where the solution $(\lambda(t), \mu(t))$ is unbounded in at least one of the limits $t\rightarrow \pm\infty$. Without loss of generality, we may assume the solution is unbounded as $t\rightarrow +\infty$. Then there exists a sequence $t_i\rightarrow +\infty$ such that at
	least one of the following holds:
	\begin{equation*}
		\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}   \frac{1}{\lambda(t_i)}=	\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}  \left(\frac{1}{\lambda(t_i)}\right)'=0 \quad \mbox{or} \quad \lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}  \frac{1}{\mu(t_i)}=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}  \left(\frac{1}{\mu(t_i)}\right)'=0.
	\end{equation*}

	Since the solution satisfies a polynomial constraint, by regarding it  as the vanishing set of a polynomial on $\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^2$, we  even see that
	$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{\lambda (t)} =0$ or  $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{\mu (t)} =0$.

	If we let $\sigma = \frac{\mu}{\lambda}$ and $\nu = \frac{\lambda}{\mu}$, then the constraint \eqref{eq:flowlines} may be rewritten in the following manner over suitable domains:
	\begin{align*}
	\left(\frac{\sigma +1 +2\Lambda\lambda^{-2}}{\sigma +2 +4\Lambda\lambda^{-2}}\right)^3 \left((1 + \sigma)^3\sigma +\frac{2\Lambda}{3\lambda^2}(3 +18\sigma + 11\sigma^2) + \frac{128\Lambda^2}{9\lambda^4}\right) &= \frac{K}{\lambda^4},\\
	\left(\frac{1 +\nu +2\Lambda\mu^{-2}}{1 +2\nu +4\Lambda\mu^{-2}}\right)^3 \left((\nu + 1)^3 +\frac{2\Lambda}{3\mu^2}(3\nu^2 +18\nu + 11) + \frac{128\Lambda^2}{9\mu^4}\right) &= \frac{K}{\mu^4},
	\end{align*}
	where $K$ is some constant.	The above imply that in the limit $|\lambda| \rightarrow \infty$, we have either $\sigma = -1$ or $\sigma = 0$, while in the limit $|\mu| \rightarrow \infty$, we have $\nu = -1$. Meanwhile \eqref{firstprime:eq} and \eqref{secondprime:eq} imply that
	\begin{align*}
	\left(\frac{2}{\lambda}\right)' &= 1 + 2\sigma^2 + 6\sigma + \frac{12\Lambda}{\lambda^2},\\
	\left(\frac{2}{\mu}\right)' &= -3\nu -\frac{4\Lambda}{\mu^2}.
	\end{align*}
	Thus, in the limit $|\lambda| \rightarrow \infty$, we have either $\big(\frac{2}{\lambda}\big)' \rightarrow -3$ or $\big(\frac{2}{\lambda}\big)'\rightarrow  1$, while in the limit $|\mu| \rightarrow \infty$, we have $\big(\frac{2}{\lambda}\big)'\rightarrow3$. This gives a contradiction.
\end{proof}


\section{Introduction}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.225]{figures/span_pointer_model.png}
\caption{Illustration of a span pointer network for task-oriented semantic parsing based on seq2seq, non-autoregressive, mask-predict models \cite{ghazvininejad2019maskpredict}. In this example, we map the utterance $x$ ``message I'll be there at 6pm'' to the frame $y$ \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT\_EXACT 1 5 ] ]} where \texttt{[1, 5]} corresponds to the span ``I'll be there at 6pm''. Our model operates in three stages: (1) an encoder consumes the utterance; (2) a length module creates $|y|\: \times$ \texttt{[MASK]} tokens corresponding to the frame's length; and (3) a decoder swaps each \texttt{[MASK]} token with an utterance or ontology (e.g., intent or slot) token. Unlike typical methodology, we model span endpoints, which empirically simplifies the parsing task.}
\label{fig:span_pointer_model}
\end{figure}

Task-oriented conversational assistants typically first employ semantic parsers to map utterances to frames \cite{gupta2018semantic, decoupled, rongali2020don, hemphill1990atis, coucke2018snips}. Due to performance constraints in real-world deployments, recent work in task-oriented semantic parsing has shifted towards building seq2seq, non-autoregressive parsers optimized for both quality and latency \cite{nar_semantic_parsing, Zhu2020DontPI}. These models enforce strong independence assumptions during decoding, allowing frame components (e.g., ontology and utterance tokens) to be generated in parallel. However, the application of off-the-shelf, non-autoregressive algorithms to task-oriented semantic parsing is not trivial, often leading to brittle implementations with sub-optimal, opinionated components \cite{nar_semantic_parsing}.

One popular family of seq2seq, non-autoregressive, task-oriented parsers is based on the mask-predict algorithm \cite{ghazvininejad2019maskpredict}, which operates in three steps: (1) an \textbf{encoder} consumes an utterance $x$; (2) a \textbf{length module} predicts the frame's length $|y|$ and generates $|y|\: \times$ \texttt{[MASK]} tokens; (3) a \textbf{decoder} imputes the appropriate ontology (e.g., intents and slots) and utterance tokens for each \texttt{[MASK]} token. Unlike machine translation, task-oriented semantic parsing does not benefit much from iterative refinement; therefore, frames are typically generated in one step. However, this increases the burden of upstream components, namely placing a major bottleneck on the length prediction module. Therefore, even off-by-one length errors can change the syntactic and semantic characteristics of resulting frames.

In this work, we create \textbf{span pointer networks} which model a seq2seq, non-autoregressive parsing task centered around span prediction as opposed to text generation. Figure \ref{fig:span_pointer_model} illustrates an application of our model; when parsing the utterance ``message I'll be there at 6pm'', our model produces span endpoints \texttt{[1, 5]} as opposed to exact text ``I'll be there at 6pm'' in the appropriate leaf slot. As a result, our length module implicitly predicts the syntax of a frame (i.e., how many intents and slots does the utterance have?) and the decoder resolves leaf arguments with span endpoints (i.e., what utterance spans should be included in the frame?). This additionally creates a parallel among our approach and coarse-to-fine \cite{Dong2018CoarsetoFineDF} modeling as our length predictor predicts a general structure that our decoder further refines. Despite this shift in behavior, our approach is largely compatible with the typical mask-predict methodology, as we largely modify the frame representation and model architecture to be span-based.

We evaluate span pointer networks on three axes: quality, generalizability, and resources. First, we benchmark exact match (EM) on multiple task-oriented semantic parsing datasets, including TOPv2 \cite{chen-2020-topv2} and TOP \cite{gupta2018semantic}. Our non-autoregressive parser is competitive, achieving 87 EM on TOPv2, and matches or exceeds autoregressive parsers in many cases.
Second, we evaluate generalizability by setting up cross-domain and cross-lingual transfer experiments. Our non-autoregressive outperforms strong baselines, notably outperforming autoregressive parsers by +15 EM when averaged across 5 zero-shot multilingual settings.
Third, due to the restricted decoder vocabulary, we measure resource savings, in particular, latency and memory usage. Compared to non-autoregressive models our parser achieves 70\% reduction in latency and 83\% reduction in memory with a beam size of 5.

To summarize, our contributions are: (1) We propose span pointer networks, non-autoregressive parsers which use span prediction as opposed to text generation; (2) We evaluate several aspects of span pointer networks, conducting a series of experiments around quality, generalizability, and resources; (3) We empirically show improvements on all three axes, notably outperforming both non-autoregressive and autoregressive parsers.

\section{Background and Related Work}

Task-oriented semantic parsing broadly consists of mapping textual utterances to structured frames \cite{gupta2018semantic, decoupled, chen-2020-topv2, li-2020-mtop, rongali2020don}. Frames are structured semantic representations of utterances, and are comprised of both ontology tokens (e.g., intents and slots) and utterance tokens. For example, we can map the utterance ``message I'll be there at 6pm'' into a frame \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT\_EXACT \textrm{I'll be there at 6pm} ] ]}, which has several components: (1) a ``send message'' intent; (2) a ``content exact'' slot; and (3) a span ``I'll be there at 6pm'', which is an argument of the ``content exact'' slot. Here, intents and slots are akin to functions and arguments, respectively, in an API call.

Modern parsers are typically based on seq2seq transformers which encode utterances and decode frames. These parsers, by virtue of being seq2seq models, can be learned either in an autoregressive or non-autoregressive fashion. Autoregressive parsers generate frame components in sequence, while non-autoregressive parsers generate frame components in parallel. Both paradigms have their advantages and disadvantages, primarily trading-off latency and quality: while non-autoregressive models are optimized for inference and suitable in production settings, they are often qualitatively worse than autoregressive models due to strong independence assumptions during generation \cite{gu2017non, lee2018, ghazvininejad2019maskpredict, kasai2020parallel, nar_semantic_parsing}.

Our work focuses on improving the performance of one family of non-autoregressive parsers, namely those based on the mask-predict algorithm \cite{ghazvininejad2019maskpredict}. These parsers operate in three stages: (1) on the source-side, an encoder consumes an utterance $x$; (2) using its representations, a length module predicts a frame's length $|y|$ and creates $|y|\: \times$ \texttt{[MASK]} tokens; and (3) a length-conditioned decoder produces a frame $y$ with ontology and utterance tokens. Frames are typically generated in one step as, unlike machine translation, task-oriented semantic parsing does not benefit much from iterative refinement \cite{nar_semantic_parsing}. Consequently, this increases the burden of accuracy on upstream components, especially placing a major bottleneck on the length prediction module. Even off-by-one length errors can dramatically change resulting frames, which is one of the drivers behind the quality gap between non-autoregressive and autoregressive models.

\section{Span Pointer Networks}

In this section, we introduce span pointer networks: seq2seq, non-autoregressive parsers which model a span-based, task-oriented semantic parsing task. Our approach is based on the mask-predict algorithm, which requires an encoder, length module, and decoder to map utterances to frames. However, our core idea is shifting from \textbf{text generation} to \textbf{span prediction} when creating leaf arguments in frames; that is, replacing text spans (e.g., ``I'll be there at 6pm'') with index spans (e.g., \texttt{[1, 5]}). Text generation and span prediction are \textit{functionally} identical; though span prediction requires converting index spans to text spans post-hoc, both resolve to the same frame. However, text generation and span prediction are \textit{technically} different, as they present distinct targets for non-autoregressive parsing. Note that our approach is different from \citet{pasupat-etal-2019-span}, who develop a CKY-based parser which maps spans to labels; in contrast, we explore span prediction with seq2seq modeling.

To build intuition for how these paradigms affect mask-predict parsers, in particular, consider the utterance ``message I'll be there at 6pm'' and frames \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT\_EXACT \textrm{I'll be there at 6pm} ] ]} and \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT\_EXACT 1 5 ] ]}, one with text spans (requiring text generation) and one with index spans (requiring span prediction). \textbf{For accurate parsing, a length module needs to understand both frame syntax \textit{and} semantics with text generation, but \textit{only} frame syntax with span prediction.} Specifically, with text generation, the length module outputs 9 \texttt{[MASK]} tokens, which requires it to implicitly guess the entire frame---both its syntactic structure and semantic arguments---before decoding. In contrast, with span prediction, the length module outputs 6 \texttt{[MASK]} tokens, which requires it to implicitly guess syntactic structure but leave semantic arguments to the decoder, which will subsequently resolve the exact span indices. We view span prediction as analogous to coarse-to-fine modeling \cite{Dong2018CoarsetoFineDF}; the length module predicts a coarse-grained frame structure and the decoder infills incomplete parts (e.g., leaf arguments) with fine-grained details.

Below, we elaborate on the core components required to implement span pointer networks: a span-based \textbf{frame representation} and the \textbf{model architecture}.

\subsection{Frame Representation}
\label{sec:index_span}

\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{2.25cm}p{10cm}}
\toprule
Form & Utterance / Decoupled Frame \\
\midrule
 & message I'll be there at 6pm \\
Canonical & \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT [} I'll be there at 6pm \texttt{] ] ]} \\
Index & \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] ] ]} \\
Span & \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT [ 1 6 ] ] ]} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of the canonical, index, and span forms of the decoupled frame representation.} Given the utterance ``mesasge I'll be there at 6pm'', we present several decoupled representation forms, which each convey the same information, albeit in a different manner. Our span-based, non-autoregressive parser uses the span form.}
\label{tab:decoupled-comparison}
\end{table*}

Our span-based frame representation is a variant of the \textbf{decoupled} frame representation \cite{decoupled}, following prior work in task-oriented semantic parsing \cite{decoupled, li-2020-mtop}. This representation requires frames to mimic tree structures comprised of ontology tokens (e.g., intents and slots) and utterance tokens, where, critically, utterance tokens appear only as leaf arguments to slots. However, seq2seq parsers fine-tuned on decoupled frames typically require text generation, as leaf arguments consist of text spans. We refer to the original decoupled representation as the \textbf{canonical form} and propose two successive modifications, the \textbf{index form} and \textbf{span form} which, together, enable span prediction. A side-by-side view of these forms is depicted in Table \ref{tab:decoupled-comparison}, and we elaborate on the non-canonical forms below:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item \textbf{Index Form:} We capitalize on the closed nature of the semantic parsing task, replacing utterance tokens with index tokens which instead ``point'' to utterance positions \cite{rongali2020don}. Here, the definition of an index is contingent on the tokenization algorithm used and requires careful preprocessing of utterances and frames. However, when used consistently, index form yields several advantages. Transformers can model index-based frames out-of-the-box by leveraging the positional embeddings of utterance tokens \cite{transformer}. Furthermore, we can significantly restrict the decoder vocabulary as the maximum sequence length (e.g., 100) is typically several orders of magnitude smaller than the size of popular subword vocabularies (e.g., 50K BPE \cite{sennrich2015neural, roberta} and 250K SentencePiece \cite{kudo-richardson-2018-sentencepiece, conneau-2020-xlmr}).
    \item \textbf{Span Form:} From the index form, where utterance tokens are represented as index tokens, we create the span form, where the frame representation is simplified by collapsing index tokens into spans. Put simply, we modify leaf arguments to be index endpoints corresponding to utterance spans. To represent these spans, we use index tokens instead of text tokens primarily to eliminate ambiguity: if an utterance contains multiple instances of the same text token, it might be unclear which instance a span is referring to, but assigning tokens unique indices resolves this issue. In comparison to index form, one advantage of span form is that it reduces the absolute length of the frame in tail settings as large utterance spans are naturally compressed.
\end{enumerate}

These forms, as we have described them, are different ``views'' of the same underlying decoupled frame representation, which allows for simple interoperability. Implementation-wise, to enable span prediction, we create \texttt{to\_span\_form()} and \texttt{from\_span\_form()} functions, which we use to encode and decode gold frames, respectively.

\subsection{Model Architecture}
\label{sec:model_arch}

We create a seq2seq, non-autoregressive semantic parser which maps an utterance $\mathbf{x} = (x_1, \cdots, x_n)$ to a frame $\mathbf{y} = (y_1, \cdots, y_m)$, where the frame is preprocessed into the span-based representation outlined above. Following \citet{nar_semantic_parsing}, we leverage the mask-predict algorithm \cite{ghazvininejad2019maskpredict}. We build our seq2seq model using an encoder, length module, and decoder; though, unlike prior approaches, we optimize the decoder to better support span prediction. Below, we elaborate on our model's components and objective:

\paragraph{Encoder.} First, we encode an utterance
\begin{equation*}
    \mathbf{h}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{h}_n = \mathrm{Encoder}(x_1, \cdots, x_n)
\end{equation*}
where the encoder is a pre-trained transformer encoder \cite{transformer}, such as RoBERTa \cite{roberta} or XLM-R \cite{conneau-2020-xlmr}.

\paragraph{Length Module.} Next, using the encoder's hidden states, a length module uses an MLP to predict the frame's length $\ell$, subsequently creating $\ell\: \times$ \texttt{[MASK]} tokens:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
    \texttt{[MASK]}_1, \cdots, \texttt{[MASK]}_\ell = \\\mathrm{LengthModule}(\mathbf{h}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{h}_n)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\paragraph{Decoder.} Finally, using the length module's \texttt{[MASK]} tokens and encoder's hidden states, we decode a frame:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
    y_1, \cdots, y_m = \mathrm{Decoder}(\texttt{[MASK]}_1, \cdots, \texttt{[MASK]}_\ell;\\ \mathbf{h}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{h}_n)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the decoder is a randomly-initialized transformer decoder. Because our frames are comprised of utterance and ontology tokens, we account for this structure by equipping our decoder with a pointer-generator module \cite{see2017get, decoupled, rongali2020don}; our decoder, therefore, builds a frame by either ``copying'' utterance tokens ($y_t \in V_\textrm{cpy}$) or ``generating'' ontology tokens ($y_t \in V_\textrm{gen}$).

We critically adjust $V_\textrm{cpy}$ because our span-based frames consist of utterance \textit{index} tokens as opposed to \textit{text} tokens. Therefore, we compute the maximum index $i'$ across all utterances, and initialize $V_\textrm{cpy} = \{i : 0 \le i \le i'\}$. This setup naturally supports span prediction by enabling the decoder to unambiguously reference the endpoints of utterance spans. Furthermore, because the number of index tokens (e.g., 100) is typically far smaller than the number of text tokens (e.g., 50-200K), our parser uses substantially less memory during train- and test-time.

\paragraph{Model Objective.} Our model requires inference at two stages; the length module predicts the frame's length $\ell$ and, conditioned on this length, the decoder predicts the frame $\mathbf{y}$. As such, we jointly optimize for two objectives---a \textbf{length loss} $\mathcal{L}_\textrm{length} = \mathrm{NLL}(\ell^*, \ell) + \beta_1 \mathrm{LS}(\ell)$ and \textbf{label loss} $\mathcal{L}_\textrm{label} = \mathrm{NLL}(\mathbf{y}^*, \mathbf{y}) + \beta_2 \mathrm{LS}(\mathbf{y})$---for training the length module and decoder, respectively; though, both backpropagate to the encoder. For both objectives, we compute the negative log likelihood loss between the targets ($\ell^*$, $\mathbf{y}^*$) and predictions ($\ell$, $\mathbf{y}$) and, additionally, regularize over-confident predictions via label smoothing \cite{pereyra2017regularizing}. Empirically, we find the length loss converges quickly, so we control its influence using a scalar mixing parameter $\lambda_1$.

\begin{equation*}
    \mathcal{L}_\textrm{NAR} = \mathcal{L}_\textrm{label} + \lambda_1 \mathcal{L}_\textrm{length}
\end{equation*}

We also integrate R3F \cite{RXF}, a trust-region-based algorithm which maintains the generalizability of pre-trained representations. Following \citet{RXF}, we create auxiliary terms for both objectives

\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
    \mathcal{L}_\textrm{R3F-length} = \mathrm{KL}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{LengthModule}(x) || \\ \mathrm{LengthModule}(x + z) \\
    \mathcal{L}_\textrm{R3F-label} = \mathrm{KL}_\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{Decoder}(x) || \\ \mathrm{Decoder}(x + z) \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

where $\mathrm{KL}_\mathrm{S}$ represents the symmetric Kullback-Leibler divergence between a regular and noised input and $z \sim \mathcal{U}(-\sigma, \sigma)$. Then, we add these terms to the length and label losses, respectively, resulting in a smoother objective:

\begin{equation*}
    \mathcal{L}_\textrm{R3F-NAR} = \mathcal{L}_\textrm{NAR} + \lambda_2 \mathcal{L}_\textrm{R3F-length} \\+ \lambda_3 \mathcal{L}_\textrm{R3F-label}
\end{equation*}

\paragraph{Beam Search.} During inference, the length module predicts the top $k$ lengths and we decode a parse for each length in parallel. This is similar to beam search in autoregressive decoding as we get $k$ candidates from our model during inference; however, unlike autoregressive generation, mask-predict, non-autoregressive models are only capable of generating a single beam per target length \cite{ghazvininejad2019maskpredict}.

\section{Experimental Setup}

Our goal is to benchmark span pointer networks on three axes: \textbf{quality}, \textbf{generalizability}, and \textbf{resources}. We benchmark quality by inspecting exact match (EM) on semantic parsing datasets, generalizability by probing cross-domain and cross-lingual performance, and resources by measuring latency and memory usage during inference.

\subsection{Datasets}

We experiment with the following task-oriented semantic parsing datasets: TOP (Task Oriented Parsing) \cite{gupta2018semantic}, TOPv2 \cite{chen-2020-topv2}, and MTOP (Multilingual Task Oriented Parsing) \cite{li-2020-mtop}. TOP evaluates parsers' abilities to produce nested frames across the event and navigation domains. In comparison, TOPv2 consists of both linear and nested frames and extends TOP to the alarm, messaging, music, navigation, timer, and weather domains. While TOP and TOPv2 consist entirely of utterances in English, MTOP provides gold translations in Spanish, French, German, Hindi, and Thai, making it useful for evaluating parsers in multilingual settings.

\subsection{Evaluation}

\paragraph{Quality.} When benchmarking our parser on task-oriented semantic parsing datasets, we primarily evaluate the exact match (EM) between predicted and gold frames. Note that, because our parser produces index tokens as opposed to text tokens in leaf arguments, we post-process predicted frames, mapping index $\rightarrow$ text tokens.

\paragraph{Generalizability.} Recent work evaluates the generalizability of task-oriented semantic parsers when the data distribution changes \cite{chen-2020-topv2,li-2020-mtop}. Similarly, we evaluate how generalizable our parser is in both cross-domain and cross-lingual settings, largely to understand whether span prediction is a fundamentally good paradigm for non-autoregressive parsing.

We conduct cross-domain experiments on TOPv2 \cite{chen-2020-topv2}. Our experiments proceed in two stages: we fine-tune on a high-resource, source dataset, then fine-tune on a low-resource, target dataset. Following \citet{chen-2020-topv2}, we use the alarm, event, messaging, music, navigation, and timer domains as the source dataset and reminder and weather as (separate) target datasets. We also compare our parser's EM at different levels of samples per intent slot (SPIS)\footnote{By performing random sampling with $k$ SPIS, we ensure that at least $k$ samples exist for each intent/slot label, ensuring full coverage over the ontology space. Empirically, the total number of examples sampled is 10 $\times$ $k$ SPIS, so, for example, we can roughly expect 100 unique examples with 10 SPIS. See \citet{chen-2020-topv2} for more details.}, \cite{chen-2020-topv2}, a metric used to subsample target datasets; specifically, we compute EM at 10, 25, 50, 100, and 1000 SPIS.

In addition, we conduct cross-lingual experiments on MTOP \cite{chen-2020-topv2}. We primarily evaluate the zero-shot capabilities of our parser when transferred to a different language. Specifically, we create a multilingual version of our parser using XLM-R \cite{conneau-2020-xlmr} as the pre-trained encoder. Then, we train our parser on English samples and test it on non-English samples (i.e., Spanish, French, German, Hindi, or Thai).

\paragraph{Resources.} Production-ready conversational assistants typically have stringent resource requirements; if deployed in a real-world setting, how many resources would our parser require? We focus on latency (ms) and memory consumption (mb), as these are standard metrics practitioners track during deployment. To begin, we export our model with TorchScript \cite{NEURIPS2019_PyTorch} and dynamically quantize it to compress its weights. Our benchmark server uses a Intel Xeon CPU with 256GB RAM, and we restrict our models to run on 4 threads. For latency, we run our TorchScript model on a CPU against the TOPv2 dev split \cite{chen-2020-topv2}. And, for memory, we track the amount of memory allocated or released during the execution of the model's operators using the PyTorch profiler.\footnote{\url{https://pytorch.org/tutorials/recipes/recipes/profiler\_recipe.html}} Unless specified otherwise, we report the 99th percentile (P99) latency and for memory consumption we measure maximum memory consumption on the longest parse.

\subsection{Systems for Comparison}

We chiefly compare against three task-oriented semantic parsing models, which combine a seq2seq transformer with a pointer-generator-based decoder and cover both autoregressive (AR) and non-autoregressive (NAR) training:

\paragraph{BART (AR).} BART is a seq2seq transformer combining a transformer encoder and autoregressive transformer decoder, and is pre-trained with a denoising autoencoder objective on monolingual corpora \cite{lewis2019bart}. For task-oriented semantic parsing, \citet{decoupled} shows BART achieves state-of-the-art EM on multiple datasets.

\paragraph{RoBERTa AR.} RoBERTa is a transformer encoder pre-trained using an optimized BERT objective on monolingual corpora \cite{roberta}. Because transduction-based semantic parsing requires a seq2seq model, \cite{decoupled, rongali2020don} combine a RoBERTa encoder and an autoregressive, randomly-initialized transformer decoder (3L, 768/1024H, 16/24A).

\paragraph{RoBERTa NAR.} Unlike RoBERTa AR, RoBERTa NAR assumes strong independence assumptions during decoding, using the mask-predict algorithm to enable non-autoregressive generation \cite{ghazvininejad2019maskpredict}. We use the framework outlined in \citet{nar_semantic_parsing}, creating a seq2seq transformer with a RoBERTa encoder, MLP length module, and a non-autoregressive, randomly-initialized transformer decoder. Empirically, we find RoBERTa NAR relies on the transformer encoder more, so we make the transformer decoder shallower (1L, 768/1024H, 16/24A); these observations are also consistent with the recent ``deep encoder, shallow decoder'' findings in efficient machine translation \cite{Kasai2020DeepES}.

Because span pointer networks build on top of RoBERTa NAR, subsequently modifying the frame representation and model architecture to be span-based, we denote our parser as RoBERTa NAR + Span Pointer in our experiments.

\subsection{Training Details}

\paragraph{Implementation.} For RoBERTa AR and RoBERTa NAR, we reference the open-source implementation of \citet{nar_semantic_parsing} in PyText \cite{aly2018pytext}. For BART AR, we reference its implementation in fairseq \cite{ott2019fairseq}. For experimentation on TOPv2 \cite{chen-2020-topv2}, we use 8 16GB GPUs, due to its large dataset size, and for TOP \cite{gupta2018semantic}, we use 1 16GB GPU. For BART$_\textrm{LARGE}$, we use 1 32GB GPU.

\paragraph{Hyperparameters.} We determine model hyperparmeters by sweeping across the pre-defined ranges in Appendix \ref{appendix:hp}. For optimization of RoBERTa and XLM-R, specifically, we use Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} and learning rate schedulers; autoregressive models use exponential learning decay and non-autoregressive models use decay on plateau, following the guidance in \citet{nar_semantic_parsing}. For optimization of BART, we use stochastic weight averaging (SWA) \cite{swa} and LAMB \cite{lamb} following \citet{decoupled}.

Though fine-tuning with R3F typically yields the best results on generation tasks \cite{RXF}, we treat it as a hyperparameter, and report the max performance both with and without R3F. We also perform an ablation in Appendix \ref{sec:r3f_ablation} to demonstrate its importance.

\section{Results and Discussion}

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
    \toprule
    Model & TOPv2 & TOP \\
    \midrule
    \multicolumn{3}{l}{Type: Autoregressive Models (Prior)} \\
    \midrule
    BERT$^\diamondsuit_\textrm{LARGE}$ & --- & 83.13  \\
    RoBERTa$^\diamondsuit_\textrm{LARGE}$ & --- & 86.67  \\
    RoBERTa$^\heartsuit_\textrm{LARGE}$ & --- & 84.52  \\
    BART$^\heartsuit_\textrm{LARGE}$ & --- & \textbf{87.10} \\
    \midrule
    \multicolumn{3}{l}{Type: Autoregressive Models (Ours)} \\
    \midrule
    RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ & 86.62 & 83.17 \\
    RoBERTa$_\textrm{LARGE}$ & 86.51 & 82.64  \\
    BART$_\textrm{BASE}$ & 86.73 & 84.33  \\
    BART$_\textrm{LARGE}$ & \textbf{87.48} & \textbf{85.71} \\
    \midrule
    \multicolumn{3}{l}{Type: Non-Autoregressive Models (Ours)} \\
    \midrule
    RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ & 85.78 & 82.37  \\
    \quad+ Span Pointer & 86.93 & 84.45  \\
    RoBERTa$_\textrm{LARGE}$ & 86.25 & 83.40 \\
    \quad+ Span Pointer & \textbf{87.37} & \textbf{85.07}  \\
    \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{EM performance on TOPv2 and TOP.} We close the quality gap between non-autoregressive and autogressive parsing; our span pointer parser matches the BART parser, despite parallel decoding. Note that, unlike prior work, we minimize the amount of hyperparameter tuning, therefore absolute EM scores are not directly comparable. $^\diamondsuit$\citet{rongali2020don}; $^\heartsuit$\citet{decoupled}}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table}

\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{SPIS} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-7}
 & 10 & 25 & 50 & 100 & 1000 & Avg \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{7}{l}{Target Domain: Weather} \\
\midrule
RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ AR & 69.71 & \textbf{74.90} & \textbf{77.02} & \textbf{78.69} & 86.36 & 77.34 \\
RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ NAR & 59.01 & 72.12 & 73.41 & 78.48 & 87.42 & 74.09 \\
\quad + Span Pointer & \textbf{72.03} & 74.74 & 74.85 & 78.14 & \textbf{88.47} & \textbf{77.65} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{7}{l}{Target Domain: Reminder} \\
\midrule
RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ AR & \textbf{49.38} & 56.98 & 62.18 & 69.17 & 78.48 & 63.24 \\
RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ NAR & 33.90 & 40.19 & 49.87 & 54.76 & 76.71 & 51.09 \\
\quad + Span Pointer & 48.27 & \textbf{60.55} & \textbf{68.11} & \textbf{73.19} & \textbf{80.44} & \textbf{66.11} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Cross-domain generalizability experiments on TOPv2, comparing EM with SPIS.} We perform high-resource fine-tuning on multiple source domains, then low-resource fine-tuning on two target domains, weather and reminder, separately. Each target domain consists of multiple subsets for fine-tuning; these are created by randomly sampling $k$ samples per intent slot (SPIS) \cite{chen-2020-topv2}.}
\label{tab:sample-efficiency}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Quality}

Table \ref{tab:results} shows EM results on TOPv2 and TOP. We see that, with our span pointer formulation, we improve upon prior non-autoregressive parsers by +1-2 EM. These gains are consistent across pre-trained encoders, particularly RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$, indicating real-world applicability where smaller model architectures are preferred. We also compare against strong autoregressive parsers. Though non-autoregressive parsers typically underperform autoregressive parsers, often requiring additional tricks like distillation \cite{gu2017non, ghazvininejad2019maskpredict, zhou2019understanding}, we see that span pointer networks largely close this quality gap. The non-autoregressive RoBERTa$_\textrm{LARGE}$ span pointer parser is comparable to the autoregressive BART$_\textrm{LARGE}$ parser, the current state-of-the-art parser, despite being non-autoregressive.

\subsection{Generalizability}

We investigate our parser's generalizability: how does it perform when the data distribution suddenly changes? We experiment with two types of distribution shifts, setting up cross-domain and cross-lingual experiments.

For cross-domain experiments, we conduct high-resource fine-tuning on multiple source domains, then low-resource fine-tuning on two target domains: weather and reminder. Table \ref{tab:sample-efficiency} lists individual EM scores at 10, 25, 50, 100, and 1000 SPIS as well as an average EM score across all SPIS values. Although there is a large EM gap between RoBERTa AR and RoBERTa NAR, our span-based, non-autoregressive parser closes this gap, matching or exceeding the EM of the autoregressive parser in most cases. Our parser notably outperforms on reminder, which is a more challenging domain given its large ontology and high compositionality \cite{chen-2020-topv2}.

For cross-lingual experiments, we perform zero-shot evaluations where a multilingual version of our parser (using XLM-R as the pre-trained encoder) is trained on English samples and tested on non-English samples. Table \ref{tab:xl} shows EM scores for five such zero-shot settings: English $\rightarrow$ Spanish, French, German, Hindi, and Thai. Our span-based, non-autoregressive parser consistently outperforms both non-autoregressive and autoregressive baselines, achieving +14-15 average EM. We attribute the improvement in our model to be due to the length predictor indirectly predicting frame syntax which is language-agnostic allowing for more general language transfer. Our findings are consistent with prior work showing that non-autoregressive modeling can be beneficial in zero-shot multilingual settings \cite{Zhu2020DontPI}.

\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrr}
\toprule
 & \multicolumn{7}{c}{Zero-Shot Evaluation} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-8}
 & \texttt{en} & \texttt{en$\rightarrow$es} & \texttt{en$\rightarrow$fr} & \texttt{en$\rightarrow$de} & \texttt{en$\rightarrow$hi} & \texttt{en$\rightarrow$th} & Avg \\
\midrule
XLM-R$_\textrm{LARGE}$ AR$^\diamondsuit$ & 83.9 & 50.3 & 43.9 & 42.3 & 30.9 & 26.7 & 38.8 \\
XLM-R$_\textrm{LARGE}$ NAR & 80.5 & 50.9 & 51.5 & 38.7 & 31.6 & 22.8 & 39.1 \\
\quad + Span Pointer & \textbf{84.5} & \textbf{60.4} & \textbf{63.1} & \textbf{56.2} & \textbf{41.2} & \textbf{41.7} & \textbf{52.5} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Cross-lingual generalizability experiments on MTOP, comparing EM across zero-shot setups.} We perform zero-shot experiments where we fine-tune a parser on English (\texttt{en}), then evaluate it a non-English language---Spanish (\texttt{es}), French (\texttt{fr}), German (\texttt{de}), Hindi (\texttt{hi}), and Thai (\texttt{th})---without fine-tuning. Average EM (Avg) is taken over the five non-English languages. $^\diamondsuit$\citet{li-2020-mtop}}
\label{tab:xl}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Resources}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrrrr@{}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Model} & \multirow{2}{*}{EM (NQ / Q) $\uparrow$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Latency (ms) $\downarrow$} &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{Memory (mb) $\downarrow$} \\ \cmidrule(lr){3-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-6}
& & $k$ = 1 & $k$ = 5 & $k$ = 1 & $k$ = 5 \\ \midrule
BART$_\textrm{BASE}$ & \textbf{87.00} / 84.67 &  1,143 & 2,131  & 93 & 437\\
RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ AR & 86.51  / 86.26 & 1,154 & 3,983 & 582 &  2,390 \\
RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ NAR & 85.78 / 85.60 & 149 & 680 & 52 & 211  \\
\quad+ Span Pointer (Index Form) & 86.12 / 86.05 & 145 & \textbf{199} & 23 & \textbf{35} \\
\quad+ Span Pointer (Span Form) & \textbf{86.99} / \textbf{86.80} & \textbf{134} & 208 & \textbf{22} & 42 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Latency and memory benchmarking on TOPv2.} We report EM (non-quantized / quantized) in addition to latency (ms) and memory (mb) at variable beam sizes ($k \in \{\textrm{1}, \textrm{5}\}$). Our span pointer parser achieves the best quantized EM as well as resource reductions over both autoregressive and non-autoregressive baselines.}
\label{tab:resources}
\end{table*}

Our results above indicate that the RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$ NAR + Span Pointer parser is qualitatively strong, despite its smaller transformer encoder, but we have not yet investigated its resource requirements. Using the base variants of BART AR, RoBERTa AR, and RoBERTa NAR with variable beam sizes ($k$ = 1 and 5), we quantize each model to compress its weights, then benchmark latency and memory on a CPU-based server.\footnote{We use 1 decoder layer for RoBERTa AR and RoBERTa NAR to ensure fair comparison, though note RoBERTa AR typically requires 3 decoder layers for best quality.} Table \ref{tab:resources} shows these results; from here, we make a couple of observations. First, our quantized parser achieves both higher EM and lower latency/memory compared to autoregressive BART and RoBERTa parsers. When compared to BART, our parser cuts latency by 8.5$\times$ and 10$\times$ at $k$ = 1 and 5, respectively, which is largely due to high parallelism during generation. Second, we also improve upon RoBERTa NAR, the base non-autoregressive parser, which we attribute to the variants of the decoupled frame representation we explore. Specifically, index form targets memory by avoiding the need to store large subword vocabularies and span form targets latency by minimizing the size of leaf arguments in frames. Overall, with $k$ = 5, our parser cuts latency by 3.2$\times$ and memory by 4.9$\times$, indicating its usability in real-world settings.

\section{Analysis}

Having evaluated span pointer networks on several axes, we now turn towards understanding the driving factors behind its performance.

\subsection{Frame Syntax vs. Semantics}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Decoupled Frame} \\
 \cmidrule(lr){2-3}
 & Syn Only & Syn + Sem \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Type: Base Models} \\
\midrule
BART & 88.29 & \textbf{86.10} \\
RoBERTa AR & 88.11 & 86.29 \\
RoBERTa NAR & \textbf{88.53} & 84.63 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Type: Large Models} \\
\midrule
BART & 89.01 & \textbf{87.47} \\
RoBERTa AR & 88.40 & 85.94 \\
RoBERTa NAR & \textbf{89.32} & 85.66 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{EM performance in ``syntax only'' (Syn Only) and ``syntax + semantics'' (Syn + Sem) settings. Here, ``syntax only'' and ``syntax + semantics'' refer to decoupled frames without and with leaf arguments, respectively. In the ``syntax only'' setting, the non-autoregressive parser outperforms, suggesting the generation of leaf arguments is a major bottleneck.}
\label{tab:syntax-and-semantics}
\end{table}

Our initial motivation for modifying non-autoregressive, mask-predict parsers stems from the argument that, when shifting to span prediction from text generation, a length module only needs to predict frame syntax as opposed to both frame syntax and semantics. We make the implicit assumption that frame syntax is \textit{easier} to learn than frame semantics; we now devise an experiment to test this hypothesis.

We refer to a regular decoupled frame \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT [} I'll be there at 6pm \texttt{] ] ]} as ``syntax + semantics'', while a decoupled frame without leaf arguments \texttt{[IN:SEND\_MESSAGE [SL:CONTENT ] ]} as ``syntax only''. Here, the ``syntax only'' frame mimics a constituency tree, representing coarse-grained \textit{structure} rather than fine-grained \textit{meaning}. Using TOPv2, we create two training sets, one with ``syntax only'' frames and one with ``syntax + semantics'' frames. Table \ref{tab:syntax-and-semantics} shows EM scores when fine-tuning BART, RoBERTa AR, and RoBERTa NAR parsers on these training sets.

In the ``syntax only'' setting, RoBERTa NAR slightly outperforms both BART and RoBERTa AR, while in the ``syntax + semantics'' setting, it consistently lags behind. Recall that, operationally, the main difference between these settings is that, in ``syntax only'', RoBERTa NAR's length module is only responsible for frame structure, while in ``syntax + semantics'', it is responsible for both frame structure and arguments. Our results suggest that the main difficulty in non-autoregressive modeling is handling leaf arguments, so simplifications of frame semantics (i.e., our proposed span form) are likely to improve quality.

\subsection{Model Ablations}

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
Model (RoBERTa$_\textrm{BASE}$) & TOPv2 & TOP \\
\midrule
Span Pointer & \textbf{86.99} & \textbf{84.74} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Ablation: Representation + Architecture} \\
\midrule
\quad- Span Form & 85.82 & 82.99 \\
\quad\quad- Index Form$^*$ & 85.45 & 82.50 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Ablation: Fine-tuning} \\
\midrule
\quad- R3F & 86.73 & 83.64 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Model ablation experiments, comparing EM scores when the representation + architecture and fine-tuning components are modified. $^*$To isolate the index form's contribution, we use the canonical frame representation (\S \ref{sec:index_span}) and standard non-autoregressive architecture (\S \ref{sec:model_arch}).}
\label{tab:ablation}
\end{table}

Our parser critically relies on three components: frame representation, model architecture, and fine-tuning. In Table \ref{tab:ablation}, we present a series of ablation experiments to isolate the contribution of each component. First, we consider our span pointer network without the span and index forms (\S \ref{sec:index_span}). Here, to remove index form, specifically, we also have to undo our architectural changes (\S \ref{sec:model_arch}), making the resulting model identical to RoBERTa NAR. Our complete parser achieves higher EM, suggesting our representation and architecture changes, together, have a positive impact on performance. Second, we consider our span pointer network with and without R3F fine-tuning. While our parser achieves better EM with R3F, especially on TOP, these results indicate our method is not entirely contingent on better fine-tuning.

\section{Conclusion}

In this work, we present span pointer networks for task-oriented semantic parsing: seq2seq, non-autoregressive models which focus on span prediction as opposed to text generation. Our approach requires creating a span-based frame representation and model architecture, which, together, enable simple and consistent non-autoregressive modeling. We benchmark our parser on three axes---quality, generalizability, and resources---and demonstrate real-world applicability by improving upon both non-autoregressive and autoregressive baselines. Future work can extend our approach to work with discontinuous spans, as is important in session-based \cite{decoupled} and free word order \cite{li-2020-mtop} modeling.