\section*{Acknowledgment}
We acknowledge useful conversations with Bela Bauer, Vadim Oganesyan, Vipin Varma, Sung-Sik Lee, Tom Faulkner, and
Steve Shenker who introduced us to the concept of shredded horizons.  We acknowledge support by SciDAC-DOE grant DE-FG02-12ER46875 (BKC and XY) as well as DOE DE-SC0020165 (BKC) during part of this work. DP acknowledges support from the Charles E. Kaufman foundation and NSF PIRE-1743717.  We thank the Aspen Center for Physics (DP and BKC) and the Galileo Galilei Institute (BKC) for their hospitality.
This research is part of the Blue Waters sustained petascale computing project, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (awards OCI-0725070 and ACI-1238993) and the State of Illinois. Blue Waters is a joint effort of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and its National Center for Supercomputing Applications.


\section{Introduction}\label{intro}

When two heavy ions collide with a nonzero impact parameter, a strong magnetic field with a magnitude of the order of $\mathrm{eB} \sim m_{\pi}^{2}$ \cite{Bloczynski:2012en,Skokov:2009qp,Voronyuk:2011jd,Bzdak:2011yy,Deng:2012pc,Mo:2013qya,Zhong:2014cda,Feng:2016srp}  ($ m_{\pi}$ is the pion mass), is generated in the direction of the angular momentum of the collision. The chirality imbalance should have experimental consequences in such a strong  magnetic field.
If the chirality is non-zaro, the quark spins are locked either parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic field direction, depending on the quark charge.
 This would lead to the charge separation in the final state and to an electromagnetic current along the direction of the magnetic field
 \cite{Kharzeev:2007jp,Fukushima:2008xe,Muller:2010jd,Liu:2011ys}. Such charge separation and  electromagnetic current phenomena are called the chiral magnetic effect (CME) \cite{Liao:2010nv,Jiang:2014ura,Liao:2016diz,She:2017icp,Li:2018ufq,Kharzeev:2009pj}.

It has been argued that positive charges separate from negative charges along the direction of the angular momentum of the collision if the P and CP-violating processes occur in  QGP generated in relativistic heavy-ion collisions\cite{Bzdak:2019pkr,Kharzeev:2015znc}. The directional movement of positive and negative charges in a strong magnetic field should produce an electromagnetic current, which is an intriguing phenomenon that originates in the interplay of a quantum anomaly with the
magnetic field. The electromagnetic current $\overrightarrow{J} = \sigma \overrightarrow{B}$ would be induced by the chirality imbalance in an external magnetic field $\overrightarrow{B}$ , where $\sigma = e^{2}\mu_{5}/(2\pi^{2})$ is the chiral magnetic conductivity and $\mu_{5}$ is the chiral chemical potential.

Although there exists an obvious background contamination, it was suggested that signals of charge separation are seen in relativistic heavy ion collision data of
the STAR\cite{Abelev:2009ac,Abelev:2009ad,Adamczyk:2013hsi} and PHENIX \cite{Ajitanand:2010rc}experimental groups at RHIC and the ALICE \cite{Abelev:2012pa}collaboration at the LHC. With a new background subtraction method, the data obtained in the RHIC Beam Energy Scan (BES) \cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf} by the STAR experimental group further demonstrated the possible existence of the CME signal. It seems that the CME signal in the energy range from 19.6 to 62.4 GeV\cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf} is more clearer. A new phase of the RHIC energy scan  will be performed during 2020, which will allow a more accurate study of CME.

In this paper, we consider three important issues: 1) the magnetic field response of the quark gluon plasma (QGP) to the time evolution of the strong magnetic field; 2) the interplay of charge separation with the magnetic field; and 3) the dynamical processes in chiral magnetic current in response to the time-dependent magnetic field. We choose the simplified  KMW model to discuss the charge separation and to compare it with the experimental results at the RHIC and LHC energies. For the study of the electromagnetic current, we take into account the finite frequency response of CME to a time-varying magnetic field, find a significant impact of the QGP medium feedback, and study the generated electromagnetic current as a function of beam energy at the RHIC and LHC energies.

This paper is organized as follows: the magnetic field response of the QGP medium in relativistic heavy-ion collisions is given in sect. 2. The charge separations at the RHIC and LHC energies is discussed in sect.3. In sect.4, we use the Kubo formula to compute the electromagnetic current at the energies of the RHIC BES, the top RHIC energy, and at the LHC energy 2.76 TeV. The conclusions are summarized in sect.5.

\section{The magnetic field with the response of QGP medium}\label{eb}
One of the main issues of CME is the time evolution of the magnetic field in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. This issue has been investigated in many studies\cite{Skokov:2009qp,Voronyuk:2011jd,Bzdak:2011yy,Deng:2012pc,Feng:2016srp,Kharzeev:2007jp,Shi:2017cpu,Jiang:2016wve,Huang:2017tsq}, which found that enormous magnetic fields $\left(\mathrm{B} \sim 10^{15} \mathrm{T}\right)$  can be generated at the very beginning of the collisions. However, according to these studies, the intensity of the magnetic field rapidly decreases with time. The higher the collision energy, the faster is the magnetic field decrease is problematic. Recently, a limit of the magnetic field effect at late times was reported in \cite{Guo:2019joy,Guo:2019mgh,Muller:2018ibh} by studying the chiral vortex effect in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Nevertheless, it was suggested in \cite{Feng:2016srp,She:2017icp} that the calculation of the magnetic field in vacuum is appropriate only for the early stage of collisions, and that the magnetic field response of the QGP medium should be considered after the formation of QGP.

Tuchin studied \cite{Tuchin:2010vs} the magnetic field properties in the QGP medium and suggested that due to the large electric conductivity, the magnetic field is partially 'frozen' during the entire plasma lifetime. The magnetic conductivity of the QGP medium was also quantitatively studied in \cite{Tuchin:2013ie,Zakharov:2014dia,McLerran:2013hla,Tuchin:2014iua,Tuchin:2015oka}. We also made a study of the space-time evolution of the magnetic field in QGP in~\cite{Feng:2016srp,She:2017icp}. The magnetic field at the center of QGP has only the $y$ component, and the magnitude of the magnetic field is given as
\begin{equation}\label{equ.01}
B_{y}\left(t \geq t_{0}, \mathbf{0}\right)=\frac{t_{0}}{t} e^{-\frac{c_{s}^{2}}{2 a_{x}^{2}}\left(t^{2}-t_{0}^{2}\right)} B_{y}^{0}(\mathbf{0}) .
\end{equation}
where $t_0$ is the formation time of partons, $B_{y}^{0}(\mathbf{0})$ is the magnetic field at t = $t_0$ and at the central point $(\vec{r}=0)$, $c_s$ is the speed of sound, and $a_{x}$ is the root-mean-square of the transverse entropy distribution. Here, we use $c_{s}^{2} \sim {1}/{3}$ and $a_{x} \sim 3$ . The formation time $t_0$ is given as \cite{Feng:2016srp,She:2017icp}

\begin{equation}\label{equ.02}
t_{0} \simeq 1 / Q_{s} ,
\end{equation}
where $Q_{s}$ is the saturation momentum, which is

\begin{equation}\label{equ.3}
Q_{S}^{2} \sim A^{1 / 3} x^{-\varpi}, \quad x=Q_{S} / \sqrt{s},
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the atomic number of the colliding nucleus, and $\varpi$ is a parameter between 0.25 and 0.3 ($\varpi=0.3$ in this paper). The saturation momentum for different nuclei and center-of-mass energies is

\begin{eqnarray}\label{equ.4}
Q_{s}^{2}(\sqrt{s}, b, A)  &=&
\left(\frac{A}{197}\right)^{\frac{2}{3(2+\varpi)}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{130}\right)^{\frac{2{\varpi}}{(2+\varpi)}}\nonumber\\[1mm]
&&\times Q_{s}^{2}(\sqrt{s}=130GeV, b, A=197)
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q_{s}^{2}(\sqrt{s}=130 \textrm{GeV}, b, A = 197)$ was given in Ref. \cite{Kharzeev:2000ph}. The results for $t_0$ and  $B_{y}^{0}(\mathbf{0})$ for two centralities at the RHIC BES and LHC collision energies are given in Table 1.

\begin{center}
	\tabcaption{\label{tab.1}Results for $t_0$ and $B_{y}^{0}(\mathbf{0})$ for two centralities for collision energy at the RHIC BES and LHC energies.}
	\footnotesize
	\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
	\toprule
	$\sqrt{s}$(GeV) & \multicolumn{2}{l}{centrality: $10 \%-30 \%$}     & \multicolumn{2}{l}{centrality: $30 \%-60 \%$} \\
		\cline{2-5}
		\multicolumn{1}{c}{}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t_{0}(f m)$} & $e B_{y}^{0}\left(M e V^{2}\right)$ & $t_{0}(f m)$  & $e B_{y}^{0}\left(M e V^{2}\right)$ \\
		\hline
		11.5&	0.209&	4275.0&	0.260&	6214.4\\
		19.6&	0.195&	6407.1&	0.242&	8045.0\\
		27  &	0.187&	7616.7&	0.232&	8687.4\\
		39  &	0.178&	8569.5&	0.221&	8753.0\\
		62.4&	0.168& 	8481.6&	0.208&	7653.7\\
		200 &	0.144& 	3980.8&	0.179&	2766.2\\
		2760&	0.102& 	579.3 &	0.126&	156.1\\
		\bottomrule
	\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\end{multicols}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{fig1.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig.1} Time evolutions of the magnetic field for two centralities in the Au - Au collisions, for $\sqrt{s}$ = 11.5. 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4, 200 GeV, and in the Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}$  = 2760 GeV. The solid squares and solid triangles correspond to the results in the QGP medium and for centralities of $10 \%-30 \%$ and $30 \%-60 \%$,respectively. The hollow squares and hollow triangles are the results in vacuum with centralities  $10 \%-30 \%$ and $30 \%-60 \%$, respectively. }
\end{center}
\begin{multicols}{2}

The time evolutions of magnetic field is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig.1} for two centralities at the RHIC BES energies, the top RHIC energy, and the LHC energy of 2.76 TeV.  The magnetic fields in vacuum at different energies are also plotted for comparison. Recently, the RHIC STAR collaboration~\cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf} presented the results of the dependence of charge correlations in the Au-Au collisions at midrapidity for center-of-mass energies of 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 62.4 GeV. It was observed \cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf} that the signal gradually reduces as beam energy is decreased, and tends to vanish below 7.7 GeV after background subtraction. This suggested that hadronic interactions dominate over partonic interactions at lower collision energies. Therefore, the chiral magnetic effect was analyzed starting from $\sqrt{s}=11.5$ GeV in the article.
It is found that the magnetic fields with QGP response last longer in the 27 - 62.4 GeV energy region. Compared with the magnetic field in vacuum, the lifetime of the magnetic field is longer when the QGP medium response is considered. The strength of the magnetic field decreases rapidly with time, and the higher the collision energy, the faster is the magnetic field decrease. Compared with the RHIC energies, the initial magnetic field (at $t = 0$) at the LHC energy is much bigger, but the magnetic field decreases much faster both in vacuum and with the QGP response. For the non-central collisions, the magnetic field is mainly due to the contribution of the spectator nucleus. When the two colliding nuclei are closer, the magnetic field generated is bigger, and for larger separations of the two nuclei, the magnetic field becomes smaller. For example, for the LHC energy, the spectator nucleus moves away almost at the speed of light, so that at higher collision energies, the magnetic field decreases faster.

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig2.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig.2}
Comparison of the time evolution of the magnetic field, normalized to its peak value ,given in the studies: ECHO-QGP~\cite{Inghirami:2016iru} (dashed line curve), M-S~\cite{Muller:2018ibh} (dotted line curve), D-H~\cite{Deng:2012pc} (dash-dotted line curve), and in our model (real line curve).}
\end{center}

Figure 2 shows a comparison of the time evolution of the magnetic field normalized to its peak value, obtained in the studies by ECHO-QGP~\cite{Inghirami:2016iru}, M$\ddot{u}$ller and Sch$\ddot{a}$fer~\cite{Muller:2018ibh} (M-S) model, Deng and Huang~\cite{Deng:2012pc} (D-H) magnetic field calculation, and in our model. The magnetic field evolution in our model decreases more rapidily than the other models, and might induce a weaker CME signal. The results presented in the next sections are based on our model.

\section{Charge Separation at the RHIC and LHC Energies}\label{cme}
In this section, we first introduce the KMW model \cite{Kharzeev:2007jp}, and then give a detailed analysis of the CME in relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the RHIC and LHC energies.

The potential transition with non-zero winding number $Q_W$ passes through a barrier associated with QCD which exceeds the strong coupling constant $\alpha_{s}$. The transition can be implemented by an instanton \cite{Diakonov:2002fq,Schafer:1995pz} or sphaleron \cite{Arnold:1987zg,Fukugita:1990gb}. At low temperature, the transition is mainly achieved by the quantum tunneling effect, which is exponentially depressed by a transition called instanton. The transition at high temperatures is not forbidden and can be achieved by a transition called sphaleron. This may occur in the background of extremely high temperature quark gluon plasma (QGP). Thus, it provides a choice for generating chirality. On the other hand, the discovery of CME in relativistic heavy-ion collisions also implies generation of QGP.

The transition rate in QCD was given by the KMW model in Ref.~\cite{Kharzeev:2007jp} as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{equ.5}
\frac{\mathrm{d} N_{\mathrm{t}}^{ \pm}}{\mathrm{d}^{3} x \mathrm{d} t} \equiv \Gamma^{ \pm} \sim 192.8 \alpha_{S}^{5} T^{4},
\end{equation}
where the superscript $\pm$ defines the transition of $Q_W=\pm1$. The total transition rate is the sum of the rates of the ascending and descending transitions
\begin{equation}\label{equ.6}
\frac{\mathrm{d} N_{\mathrm{t}}}{\mathrm{d}^{3} x \mathrm{d} t}=\sum_{ \pm} \frac{\mathrm{d} N_{\mathrm{t}}^{ \pm}}{\mathrm{d}^{3} x \mathrm{d} t}.
\end{equation}

In the case of a suitable magnetic field with a large temperature $T$ and non-zero winding number $Q_W$, the charge separation given in Ref. \cite{Kharzeev:2007jp} is
\begin{equation}\label{equ.7}
Q \approx 2 Q_{\mathrm{w}} \sum_{f}\left|q_{f}\right| \gamma\left(2\left|q_{f} \Phi\right|\right)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{equ.8}
\gamma(x) = \begin{cases}
x, & \text{for } x \leq 1, \\
1, & \text{for } x \geq 1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and $\varPhi=eB\rho^{2}$ is the magnitude of the magnetic flux.

We define by $N_{a}^{ \pm}$ and $N_{b}^{ \pm}$ the total positive/negative charge in units of $e$ above (a) and below (b) the reaction plane, respectively.  $\Delta_{ \pm}=N_{a}^{ \pm}-N_{b}^{ \pm}$   is the difference in charge between each side of the reaction plane. A charge difference will be generated locally when there is a transition from one vacuum to another. If the quarks experience many interactions in QGP, the observed final observed charge separation is suppressed. A suppression function
\begin{equation}\label{equ.9}
\xi_{ \pm}\left(x_{\perp}\right)=\exp \left(-\left|y_{ \pm}(x)-y\right| / \lambda\right)
\end{equation}
is introduced to describe nuclear screening, where $y_{\pm}(x)$ is the upper and lower $y$ coordinate of the overlap region, and $\lambda$ is the screening length. The expectation value of the change of  $\Delta_{+}$ and $\Delta_{-}$ due to a transition is either positive or negative with equal probability, and is given by
\begin{equation}\label{equ.10}
\pm \sum_{f}\left|q_{f}\right| \gamma\left(2\left|q_{f} \Phi\right|\right) \xi_{ \pm}\left(x_{\perp}\right),
\end{equation}
where only the most probable transitions $\left(Q_{W}=\pm 1\right)$ are considered.

One can calculate the variation of $\Delta_{ \pm}$ by assuming that all transitions occur independently from each other.
By using Eq.~(\ref{equ.5}) and $\rho \sim\left(\frac{\Gamma^{ \pm}}{\alpha_{s}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{4}} \sim 1 /\left(\alpha_{s} T\right)$, we calculate
$\langle \Delta^2_\pm \rangle$ and $\langle \Delta_+ \Delta_- \rangle$  for small magnetic fields $\left(2\left|q_{f} \mathrm{eB}\right| \leq 1 / \rho^{2}\right)$.
Since the magnetic field is a function of the rapidity $\eta$, one can compute $\left\langle\Delta_{ \pm}^{2}\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle\Delta_{+} \Delta_{-}\right\rangle$ as
\begin{align} \label{equ.11}
\langle \Delta^2_\pm \rangle &= 2\kappa \alpha_S \Bigl[ \sum_f q_f^2 \Bigr]^2 \int_{V_\perp} \dd[2]{x_\perp} \nonumber\\*
&\times [\xi_-(x_\perp)^2 + \xi_+(x_\perp)^2] \int_{\tau_i}^{\tau_f} \dd{\eta} \dd{\tau} \tau [eB(\tau, \eta, x_\perp)]^2,  \\ \label{equ.12}
\langle \Delta_+ \Delta_- \rangle &= -4\kappa \alpha_S \Bigl[ \sum_f q_f^2 \Bigr]^2 \int_{V_\perp} \dd[2]{x_\perp} \nonumber\\*
&\times \xi_+(x_\perp)\xi_-(x_\perp) \int_{\tau_i}^{\tau_f} \dd{\eta} \dd{\tau}  \tau [eB(\tau, \eta, x_\perp)]^2.
\end{align}
where the space-time rapidity is $\eta=\frac{1}{2} \log [(t+z) / t-z]$, and the proper time $\tau=\left(t^{2}-z^{2}\right)^{1 / 2}$. The magnetic field should not alter the transition rate dramatically. There is also a constant $\kappa$, of the order of magnitude of one  but with large uncertainties \cite{Kharzeev:2007jp}.
$\left\langle\Delta_{ \pm}^{2}\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle\Delta_{+} \Delta_{-}\right\rangle$ are connected to the correlators $a_{++}\left(a_{+-}\right)$ by:
\begin{equation}\label{equ.13}
a_{++}=a_{--}=\frac{1}{N_{+}^{2}} \frac{\pi^{2}}{16}\left\langle\Delta_{ \pm}^{2}\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{equ.14}
a_{+-}=a_{-+}=\frac{1}{N_{+} N_{-}} \frac{\pi^{2}}{16}\left\langle\Delta_{+} \Delta_{-}\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $N_{\pm}$ is the total number of positively or negatively charged particles in the corresponding $\eta$ interval.

Early studies of charge separation fluctuations perpendicular to the reaction plane in high energy physics experiments used the three-point correlator $\gamma \equiv  \left\langle\left\langle\cos \left(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2\Psi_{\mathrm{RP}}\right)\right\rangle\right\rangle$, where the double averaging is done over all particles in an event and over all events \cite{Abelev:2009ac,Abelev:2009ad,Abelev:2012pa}. Unfortunately, the $\gamma$ correlator includes some background contributions not related to CME \cite{Bzdak:2010fd,Bzdak:2012ia,Liao:2015Pr}. The background contribution is mainly from the elliptic flow $\left(v_{2}\right)$ in combination with the two-particle correlations. The two-particle correlator $\delta \equiv\left\langle\cos \left(\phi_{\alpha}-\phi_{\beta}\right)\right\rangle$ was introduced to solve this problem.

By inducing $H$ and $F$ as CME and no CME background contribution, one can express  $\gamma$ and  $\delta$ in the following way \cite{Bzdak:2012ia,Liao:2015Pr}.
\begin{equation}\label{equ.15}
\gamma \equiv\left\langle\cos \left(\phi_{1}+\phi_{2}-2 \Psi_{R P}\right)\right\rangle= k v_{2} F-H
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{equ.16}
\delta \equiv\left\langle\cos \left(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}-\boldsymbol{\phi}_{2}\right)\right\rangle= F+H
\end{equation}
The $H$ factor related to chiral magnetic signal can be obtained as:
\begin{equation}\label{equ.17}
H^{k}=\left(k v_{2} \delta-\gamma\right) /\left(1+k v_{2}\right)
\end{equation}

where coefficient $\kappa$ ranges from $1$ to $2$, due to the finite detector acceptance and theoretical uncertainties \cite{Bzdak:2012ia,Liao:2015Pr}; we take the experimental results with $\kappa = 1.5$ in the following. A one-to-one correspondence is made between the charge separations $a_{++}\left(a_{+-}\right)$ of the KWM model and the experimental results $H_{\mathrm{SS}}\left(H_{\mathrm{OS}}\right)$. Therefore, the calculated result $a_{++}-a_{+-}$ can be compared with the experimental result $H_{\mathrm{SS}}-H_{\mathrm{OS}}$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.3}.

\end{multicols}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{fig3.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig.3} Comparison between the centrality dependence of $a_{++}-a_{+-}$ from our model and that of the background subtracted experimental observable $H_{\mathrm{SS}}-H_{\mathrm{OS}}$ at the RHIC and LHC energies\cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf}.}
\end{center}
\begin{multicols}{2}

It can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig.3} that the model explains better the experimental data at the energies of RHIC BES and the top RHIC energy than at the LHC energy. For the Au-Au collisions at RHIC, the CME signal given by our calculations increases from the central to peripheral collisions, and the general trend of our results is consistent with the experiment. However, for the Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC energy of $\sqrt{s}=2760$ GeV, the experimental CME signal~\cite{Abelev:2012pa} is very small, and only a small signal is present at the centrality of $60\%-70\%$. Our model predicts no CME signal in this case.

Fig.~\ref{fig.4} shows $H_{\mathrm{SS}}-H_{\mathrm{OS}}$ as a function of beam energy for two centrality bins at the RHIC energies. The experimental results with $\kappa = 1.5$  from Ref. \cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf} are used as reference for our theoretical calculations.
The results in Fig.~\ref{fig.4} show that our calculated CME signal has a very similar trend  as the  experimental measurements. The magnitude of our predictions is lower than the experimental data, presumably because our magnetic field decreases very quickly, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.2}. A quickly decreasing trend in the interval from 19.6 GeV to 7.7 GeV is seen, which suggests that hadronic interactions dominate over partonic interactions at low beam energies. Generally speaking, our model closely follows the evolution of the magnetic field, so the results of our calculations include certain model limitations.

\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig4.eps}
	\figcaption{\label{fig.4} $H_{\mathrm{SS}}-H_{\mathrm{OS}}$ as a function of beam energy for two
		centrality bins at the RHIC energies. The solid
		curves are our calculation results. The experimental
		results are from Ref.\cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf} with $\kappa = 1.5$. }
\end{center}

\section{Chiral magnetic current}\label{cmc}
Let us now turn to the induced chiral magnetic current generated by the magnetic field in relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the RHIC and LHC energies. Assuming that the generated magnetic field has a homogeneous distribution, one can calculate the induced current as \cite{She:2017icp,Kharzeev:2009pj}:
\begin{equation}\label{equ.18}
j(t)=\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{d} \nu}{\pi} \tilde{B}(\nu) \left[\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime}(\nu) \cos (\nu t)+\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime \prime}(\nu) \sin (\nu t)\right] ,
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the frequency, and the Fourier transform of the magnetic field is given by
\begin{equation}\label{equ.19}
\tilde{B}(\nu)=\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} t B(t) e^{i \nu t}.
\end{equation}

The real $\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime}(\nu)$ and imaginary $\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime \prime}(\nu)$ parts of the chiral magnetic conductivity are related by the Kramers-Kroning relation
\begin{equation}\label{equ.20}
\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime}(\nu)=\frac{1}{\pi} \mathcal{S} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d q_{0} \frac{\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime \prime}\left(q_{0}\right)}{q_{0}-\nu},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{equ.21}
\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime \prime}(\nu)=-\frac{1}{\pi} \mathcal{S} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d q_{0} \frac{\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime}\left(q_{0}\right)}{q_{0}-\nu},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\chi}(\nu)=\lim _{\vec{p} \rightarrow 0} \sigma_{\chi}\left(p_{0}=\nu, \vec{p}\right)$. The symbol $\mathcal{S}$ in eqs.~(\ref{equ.20}) and (\ref{equ.21}) defines the integral of a singularity in the upper and the lower complex plane. The chiral magnetic conductivity should be complex, and is given as
\begin{equation}\label{equ.22}
\sigma_{\chi}(p)=\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime}(p)+i \sigma_{\chi}^{\prime \prime}(p),
\end{equation}
where both $\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime}(p)$ and $\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime \prime}(p)$ are real functions. They can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{equ.23}
\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime}(p)=\frac{1}{p^{i}} \operatorname{Im} R_{R}^{i}(p),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{equ.24}
\sigma_{\chi}^{\prime \prime}(p)=-\frac{1}{p^{i}} \operatorname{Re} R_{R}^{i}(p),
\end{equation}
where $R_{R}^{i}(p)=\frac{1}{2} \varepsilon^{i j k} \widetilde{\Pi}_{R}^{j k}(p)$ is the retarded correlator, which can be calculated as
\begin{align}\label{equ.25}
\begin{aligned} R_{R}^{i}(p)=& \frac{i e^{2}}{16 \pi^{2}} \frac{p^{i}}{p} \frac{p^{2}-p_{0}^{2}}{p^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} q g(q)\sum_{t=\pm}\left(2 q+t p_{0}\right)
\\ & \times \log\left[ \frac{\left(p_{0}+i \varepsilon+t q\right)^{2}-(q+p)^{2}}{\left(p_{0}+i \varepsilon+t q\right)^{2}-(q-p)^{2}}\right],
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}\label{equ.26}
g(q)=\sum_{s=\pm} s\left(\tilde{n}\left(q-\mu_{s}\right)-\tilde{n}\left(q+\mu_{s}\right)\right),
\end{equation}
and $\tilde{n}(x)=[1+\exp (\beta x)]^{-1}$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. One can compute the imaginary part of the logarithm in Eq.~(\ref{equ.25}) with $\mathrm{p}=|\vec{p}| \geq 0$ and $\mathrm{q} \geq 0$ as
\begin{equation}\label{equ.27}
\begin{split}
&\operatorname{Im} \sum_{t=\pm}\left(2 q+t p_{0}\right) \log \frac{\left(p_{0}+i \varepsilon+t q\right)^{2}-(q+p)^{2}}{\left(p_{0}+i \varepsilon+t q\right)^{2}-(q-p)^{2}} =\\  & \pi\left[2 q-\left|p_{0}\right| \theta\left(p_{0}^{2}-p^{2}\right)\right]\left[\theta\left(q_{+}-q\right)-\theta\left(q_{-}-q\right)\right]\\  & +\pi p_{0} \theta\left(p^{2}-p_{0}^{2}\right)\left[\theta\left(q-q_{+}\right)-\theta\left(q-q_{-}\right)\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $q_{ \pm}=\frac{1}{2}\left|p_{0} \pm p\right|$.

After computing the real and imaginary parts of the magnetic conductivity, we use Eq.~(\ref{equ.18}) to calculate the electromagnetic current. In order to use Eqs.~(\ref{equ.18}) and (\ref{equ.19}), we need the dependence of the magnetic field on time after the formation of a parton. The magnetic field evolution for $t \geq t_{0}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{equ.01}).
\end{multicols}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{fig5.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig.5} Time evolution of the induced electromagnetic current, normalized to zero frequency chiral magnetic conductivity $(\sigma_{0})$, fot the RHIC and LHC collision energies. The solid curves show the results with the QGP response, and the dashed curves in vacuum. The centrality is $10\% \sim 30 \%$.}
\end{center}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\end{multicols}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{fig6.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig.6} As Fig.5, but for the centrality of $30\% \sim 60\%$.}
\end{center}

\begin{multicols}{2}
Fig.~\ref{fig.5} shows the time dependence of the induced electromagnetic current, normalized to the zero frequency chiral magnetic conductivity $\left(\sigma_{0}\equiv\sigma_{\chi}(\omega=0)=\frac{e^{2}}{2 \pi^{2}} \mu_{5}\right)$, for collisions with the centrality of $10\% \sim 30 \%$ at the RHIC and LHC energies.
It can be observed that the electromagnetic current signal manifests as a strong pulse, which reaches a maximum at $t\sim$ 1fm. The maximum value of the electromagnetic current signal directly reflects the intensity of the induced electromagnetic current. It increases with the collision energy from $\sqrt{s} = 19.6 \textrm{GeV}$ to $\sqrt{s} = 39 \textrm{GeV}$,  remains almost unchanged from $\sqrt{s} = 39 \textrm{GeV}$ to $\sqrt{s} = 62.4 \textrm{GeV}$, and then decreases from $\sqrt{s} = 39 \textrm{GeV}$ to $\sqrt{s} = 2760 \textrm{GeV}$.

Fig.~\ref{fig.6} is the same as Fig.~\ref{fig.5}, but for the centrality of $30\% \sim 60\%$. It can be seen that the maximum value of the electromagnetic current increases from $\sqrt{s} = 19.6 \textrm{GeV}$ to $\sqrt{s} = 39 \textrm{GeV}$, and then decreases from $\sqrt{s} = 39 \textrm{GeV}$ to $\sqrt{s} = 2760 \textrm{GeV}$. Figures.~\ref{fig.5} and \ref{fig.6} both indicate that the intensity of the induced electromagnetic current is clearly larger with the QGP response than in vacuum, and both show that the CME signal almost vanishes at the LHC energy $\sqrt{s} = 2760 \textrm{GeV}$.

The dependence of the time-integrated current signal $\left(\mathrm{Q}=\int \mathrm{j}(\mathrm{t}) \mathrm{dt}\right)$ on the center-of-mass energy at RHIC and LHC is shown for two centralities in Fig.~\ref{fig.7}(a, b). It is found that the time-integrated current signal reaches a maximum around $\sqrt{s} \approx 39$ GeV, and then decreases with $\sqrt{s}$. The qualitative trends of Figs.~\ref{fig.5}, \ref{fig.6} and \ref{fig.7} are in agreement with the CME experimental results obtained at RHIC and  LHC in a wide range of beam energies \cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf}.

\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig7.eps}
	\figcaption{\label{fig.7} Dependence of the time-integrated current signal $\left(\mathrm{Q}=\int \mathrm{j}(\mathrm{t}) \mathrm{dt}\right)$ on collision energy at RHIC and LHC for the centrality of $10\%  \sim  30 \%$ (a), and the centrality $30\% \sim 60\%$ (b). The solid curves are the results with the QGP response  and the dashed lines in vacuum. }
\end{center}
\section{Summary}\label{Summary}
Considering the magnetic field response of the QGP medium, we performed a systematical study of the charge separation  and compared it with the experimental results for the background-subtracted correlator $H$ at the RHIC and LHC energies. The results show that our calculated chiral magnetic effect signal has same trend as the experimental results at RHIC. Quantitatively, our results from appear to be lower than the experimentally measured correlations, which may be due to the rapid decrease of the magnetic field.

The time evolution of the chiral electromagnetic current at the energies of the RHIC Beam Energy Scan and the LHC energy was systematically investigated. The dependence of the time-integrated current signal on the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ at RHIC and LHC and different centralities was also studied.
 In such a wide range of collision energies, it is important to identify the collision energy at which the electromagnetic current is largest, so as to help steer the experimental study of CME. Our phenomenological analysis showed that the time-integrated electromagnetic current has a maximum $\sqrt{s} \approx 39$ GeV
 The qualitative trend of the induced electromagnetic current with collision energy is in agreement with the CME experimental results from RHIC and LHC \cite{Adamczyk:2014mzf}. We argue that the electromagnetic current at the LHC energy $\sqrt{s} = 2760 \textrm{GeV}$ is so small that CME cannot be produced.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (11875178, 11475068, 11747115),the CCNU-QLPL Innovation Fund (QLPL2016P01) and the Excellent Youth Foundation of Hubei Scientific Committee (2006ABB036)
\end{multicols}

\begin{multicols}{2}


\section{Introduction}

In 2005, Stilman et al. \cite{stilman_navigation_2005} formulated the field of Navigation Among Movable Obstacles (NAMO). The NAMO problem consists in planning a path from a start to a goal position, while moving obstacles if necessary. It extends the well known Piano Mover’s Problem by differentiating static and movable obstacles, and allowing the manipulation of the later if it minimizes the chosen cost function (eg. travel distance, time, energy). Contexts like service robotics or search and rescue, in particular, would definitely benefit from algorithms capable of dealing with manipulable clutter, doors or objects.

In the last two decades, the growing interest in service robotics, implying robot navigation in human-populated environments, has sparked interest in Social Robotics, and more specifically Socially-Aware Navigation (SAN) \cite{kruse_human-aware_2013, rios-martinez_proxemics_2015, charalampous_recent_2017}. Basically, it also extended the basic navigation problem: now not only must the robot find a plan that ensures physical safety (no collisions), minimizes the travel distance, time or energy, but also the disturbance to humans\footnote{In Socially-Aware Navigation, disturbance is used as synonym for 'discomfort', the feeling of being unsafe \cite{rios-martinez_proxemics_2015}.}.

Until now, to the best of our knowledge, has never been considered in NAMO problems the necessity of minimizing disturbance to humans (or any other type of autonomous agents). Thus, we want to create Social NAMO algorithms: ones that allow an autonomous agent to go from an initial pose to a goal pose, forbidding collision with obstacles but not their displacement, minimizing both robot's displacement cost (distance, time or energy) and disturbance to humans.

To achieve this, we make the following contributions: in Section \ref{analysis_section}, we provide an analysis
of existing NAMO-related works. Then, in Section \ref{extension_section}, we define the expectations for Social NAMO and propose two extensions applied to Wu \& Levihn's approach
\cite{wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014}. We introduce social movability evaluation in obstacle selection, and a semantic map layer to deal with social placement of objects.
Finally, in Section \ref{experimentations_section}, we propose
experiments based on our open simulator and the Pepper robot, in the view of our \href{http://www.robocupathome.org/}{RoboCup@Home} participation (\href{https://robocup-lyontech.github.io/}{LyonTech Team}).
We provide closing remarks and discuss future work in Section \ref{conclusion_section}.

\section{NAMO: Analysis of Existing Works}\label{analysis_section}

The following paragraphs give an overview of NAMO through the discussion of the used world representations, notion of cost \& optimality, manipulation characteristics and finally, the actual planning algorithms that rely on them. Also, we will point out how they relate to socially-aware navigation and its constraints. A synthesis of the main comparison criteria is given in table \ref{synthesis_table}.

\paragraph{\textbf{World representation}} NAMO relies on an object-based representation of the world \cite{chen_practical_1991, okada_environment_2004, stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, stilman_planning_2008, van_den_berg_path_2009, kakiuchi_working_2010, wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_planning_2013, levihn_foresight_2013, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, levihn_locally_2014, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1, moghaddam_planning_2016, scholz_navigation_2016, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018} (in opposition to an occupation-space-based one): in order to chose the best obstacle placement, it is necessary to reason about them as separate entities. Final placement selection is what actually tells NAMO apart from the well-known field of Rearrangement Planning \cite{ota_rearrangement_2004}. Inspired by the works of Kim et al. on traversability affordance \cite{kim_traversability_2006}, Clingerman et al. \cite{clingerman_estimating_2014, clingerman_dynamic_2015} represent movable obstacles as high values in a costmap, but they recon that it can't be called a NAMO algorithm, since it does not allow to control obstacle placement (the robot simply tries to "go through the obstacle").

Semantic information about Movable Obstacles is key to these algorithms. The most basic need is the 'movability' attribute, in addition to the obstacles position and shape. In the literature, individual obstacles are simply assumed to have a boolean attribute of being movable or not. This attribute has until now been given as input \cite{chen_practical_1991, okada_environment_2004, stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, stilman_planning_2008, van_den_berg_path_2009, levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_planning_2013, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1, moghaddam_planning_2016} (mainly for simulation-only algorithms), determined on-line from obstacle visual recognition results \cite{levihn_foresight_2013, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, scholz_navigation_2016, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018} or by manipulation tentative \cite{kakiuchi_working_2010, wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014} (for real-world experiments). In order to be more realistic, other semantic information is used in more advanced approaches, like object kinematics and physics (mass, center of inertia, \dots), but successfully used only in simulated propositions \cite{chen_practical_1991, stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1}, with mixed results in actual real-world implementations \cite{scholz_navigation_2016} (these characteristics are hard to determine with current robot sensing capabilities). Other types of obstacles than movable or unmovable, like humans or autonomously moving objects have never been considered in the NAMO literature: a standard hypothesis is that the robot is the only autonomous agent in the environment. We recapitulate this in the 'Movability' column of Table \ref{synthesis_table}.

We must also say that rather few NAMO propositions have been applied in a real-world setting \cite{stilman_planning_2007, kakiuchi_working_2010, levihn_foresight_2013, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, scholz_navigation_2016, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018}, and when they are, they always maintain a 3D representation of the world, though all NAMO algorithms execute their path finding subroutines in a 2D plane. 3D data is mainly used to allow for proper grasping of obstacles, but also for cross-plane rearrangement planning \cite{meng_active_2018}(e.g. pick\&place an object from ground to tabletop). Data is either acquired through external cameras and markers \cite{stilman_planning_2007, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, scholz_navigation_2016} to position priorly known polyhedral models of movable obstacles (eg. chairs, tables, \dots), guaranteeing negligible uncertainty as to the environment's state, or by on-board sensors only \cite{kakiuchi_working_2010, levihn_foresight_2013,sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018}. A limited number of propositions actually are able to deal with no prior or partial geometric knowledge \cite{levihn_foresight_2013, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018, kakiuchi_working_2010, wu_navigation_2010,  levihn_locally_2014}, uncertainty as to object positioning \cite{stilman_planning_2007, kakiuchi_working_2010, levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_planning_2013, levihn_foresight_2013, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1, scholz_navigation_2016, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018}, object movability \cite{kakiuchi_working_2010, levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_planning_2013, levihn_foresight_2013, scholz_navigation_2016} or object kinematics/physics \cite{levihn_planning_2013, scholz_navigation_2016} (Recapitulated in Table \ref{synthesis_table}, columns 'Prior', 'Uncertainty' and 'Real-World').

In the end, SAN and NAMO both depend on semantic knowledge in addition to spatial knowledge: the robot needs to differentiate objects, associate proper attributes with them, but also understand their relations to the whole environment. Systematic segmentation and identification of as many obstacles as possible thus appears to be a basic requirement for a Social NAMO.

\paragraph{\textbf{Cost \& Optimality}} There is a wide variety of cost functions used in NAMO: distance, time, energy, number of moved obstacles, probability of success, that are sometimes combined or used alternatively: these are synthesized in Table \ref{synthesis_table}, column 'Cost'. The choice of a cost that only takes displacement distance into account can be motivated by the hypothesis that the weight of the movable obstacles is negligible in regard to the physical capabilities of the robot. It is however evident that if manipulating an obstacle results in a significant change of speed and energy requirements compared to a sole navigation task, time and energy become way more appropriate choices.

NAMO Algorithms rarely seek completeness like \cite{stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, moghaddam_planning_2016, nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, van_den_berg_path_2009}. None have achieved global optimality, and only Levihn \cite{levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014} can claim a local optimality for a very simplified variant of the problem where a plan can only contain one movable obstacle (see Table \ref{synthesis_table}, 'Comp.' and 'Opt.' columns). This situation actually makes sense, when one knows that a simplified variation of the NAMO problem, where the robot is considered as a square, all planar obstacles as rectangles of four sizes or “L-Shaped”, parallel to the x- or y-axis, has been proved to be NP-Hard \cite{wilfong_motion_1991}, and even PSPACE-hard if the final positions are predetermined. When obstacles are further reduced to square blocks limited to translations on a planar grid, the problem still remains NP-Complete \cite{demaine_pushpush_2000}.

In SAN, the presence of humans brings strong uncertainty that prevents proving global optimality and completeness of navigation strategies. It also results in the need to take social costs into account during navigation \cite{kruse_human-aware_2013, rios-martinez_proxemics_2015, charalampous_recent_2017} to represent risk of disturbance to humans. In a Social NAMO, we must thus also take social costs into account, and extend them from the robot to the moved obstacles: other entities can now suffer the consequences and risks of a carelessly moved obstacle.

\paragraph{\textbf{Manipulation}} In \cite{stilman_navigation_2007}, Stilman formalized three main classes of obstacle manipulation procedures: Grasping (constrained contact), Pushing (constrained motion), and Manipulation Primitives (relies on forward simulation of object dynamics, translational or rotational slip may occur). According to the results exposed in Table \ref{synthesis_table}, Column 'Manipulations', grasping is the most popular class, likely because it is the most reliable. Pushing has also been considered because large objects cannot necessarily be grasped. Manipulation Primitives have also been experimented with, but real-world implementations require external cameras to work \cite{stilman_planning_2007, scholz_navigation_2016}.

In order to reduce the manipulation search space, there are 3 common strategies. The first, applied by all but \cite{chen_practical_1991}, is to consider that only one obstacle may be manipulated at once (no cascade effect on nearby movables). The second, also commonly used by all but \cite{chen_practical_1991, van_den_berg_path_2009, moghaddam_planning_2016} (which have never been applied in a real-world situation), is to consider a limited set of contact/grasping points, facilitating backward search for robot pose for manipulation. This semantically makes sense, in particular since some obstacles have specific contact points (eg. top of chair, regularly spaced points on table side, \dots) \cite{okada_environment_2004, stilman_planning_2007, levihn_foresight_2013, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018, stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2008, levihn_planning_2013, scholz_navigation_2016, kakiuchi_working_2010, wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_locally_2014}. Finally, the third strategy is to limit manipulation to translations in specific directions \cite{stilman_planning_2007, van_den_berg_path_2009, kakiuchi_working_2010, wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_locally_2014}.

In a Social NAMO, the robot should bring a particular attention to human safety and comfort. Favoring the most reliable manipulation classes when possible, and reducing the complexity of the manipulation (thus, its chance to fail in a way that may put humans or their belongings at risk) would be of circumstance.

\paragraph{\textbf{Planning algorithms}} While some solutions \cite{chen_practical_1991, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1} propose tightly woven algorithms that do not clearly distinguish the different aspects of NAMO (iteration over movable obstacles, possible actions and path computations), we can usually tell apart a high-level decision planner and two path planning subroutines. These subroutines can loosely be identified as transit (robot only) and transfer (+obstacle) path planners.

The most proposition-specific planner is generally the high-level task planner. While some propositions are explicitly based on existing algorithms, like Dijkstra \cite{chen_practical_1991}, DFS \cite{stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, stilman_planning_2008, moghaddam_planning_2016}, BHPN \cite{levihn_foresight_2013}, Markov Decision Processes + Monte-Carlo Tree Search \cite{levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_planning_2013, scholz_navigation_2016}, KPIECE+A* \cite{castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1}, others appear to have developed their approach from scratch \cite{okada_environment_2004, nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, van_den_berg_path_2009, kakiuchi_working_2010, wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, levihn_locally_2014, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018}, though \cite{levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014} is based off \cite{wu_navigation_2010}, and \cite{meng_active_2018} has been inspired by \cite{wu_navigation_2010, levihn_locally_2014}. In order to reduce computation time, most high-level planners resort to ways of prioritizing the most promising obstacles but \cite{chen_practical_1991, nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, van_den_berg_path_2009, levihn_foresight_2013, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1} do not. The most common way is to use a heuristic path planner that ignores movable obstacles to find 'blocking' obstacles \cite{stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, stilman_planning_2008, moghaddam_planning_2016, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018}. Then, the last blocking object is selected by last intersection \cite{stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, stilman_planning_2008, moghaddam_planning_2016} or by least euclidean cost to go from obstacle to goal \cite{meng_active_2018}. The propositions of Wu \& Levihn \cite{wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014} use a priority queue ordered by heuristic euclidean distance from obstacle to goal. Finally, the last approach is to use a graph that links obstacles to free space components so that obstacles are considered in the order they can be reached, as in Levihn \& Scholz's NAMO-MDP \cite{levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_planning_2013, scholz_navigation_2016} or Okada's Task Graph \cite{okada_environment_2004}.

\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption{Synthesis table with main differentiating criteria}
\label{synthesis_table}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}{m{2.7cm}|x{1cm}x{1.6cm}x{2.2cm}x{1cm}x{1cm}x{1.6cm}x{1.8cm}x{2.4cm}x{1.5cm}x{1.6cm}x{1.9cm}x{1cm}}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Reference} & Prior & Movability & Uncertainty & Comp. & Opt. & Cost & C-Space & Task P. & Transit P. & Transfer P. & Manipulations & Real-World \\ \hline
Chen \cite{chen_practical_1991} & Full & Given & None & - & - & D & Disc. & Dij. + GD & N/A & N/A & Prim. & No \\
Okada \cite{okada_environment_2004} & Full & Given & None & - & - & D$\|$E & Disc. & Custom & NG & NG & Grasp & No \\
Stilman \cite{stilman_navigation_2005} & Full & Given & None & RC & - & E+NMO & Disc. & DFS & A* & BFS & Prim. & No \\
Stilman \cite{stilman_planning_2007} & Full & Given & Pos. & RC & - & E+NMO & Disc. & DFS & A* & BFS & Prim. & \textbf{Yes} \\
Nieuwenhuisen \cite{nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008} & Full & Given & None & PC & - & D+PS & Cont. & Custom & RRT & RRT & Grasp & No \\
Stilman \cite{stilman_planning_2008} & Full & Given & None & - & - & D+NMO & Disc. & DFS & A* & BFS & Grasp & No \\
Van den Berg \cite{van_den_berg_path_2009} & Full & Given & None & PC & - & (D) & Disc. & Custom & N/A & N/A & Grasp & No \\
Kakiuchi \cite{kakiuchi_working_2010} & \textbf{None} & Manip. & Pos. Mov. & - & - & (D+NMO) & Cont. & Custom & RRT & N/A & Push & \textbf{Yes} \\
Wu \cite{wu_navigation_2010} & \textbf{None} & Manip. & None & - & - & (D$\|$T$\|$E) & Disc. & Custom & A* & DFS & Push & No \\
Levihn \cite{levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014} & \textbf{None} & Manip. & None & - & \textbf{LO} & (D$\|$T$\|$E) & Disc. & Custom & D*Lite & DFS & Grasp & No \\
Levihn \cite{levihn_hierarchical_2013} & Full & Given & Pos. Mov. & - & - & PS & Disc. & MDP + MCTS & N/A & N/A & Prim. & No \\
Levihn \cite{levihn_planning_2013} & Full & Given & Pos. Mov. Kin. & - & - & T+E & Cont. & MDP + MCTS & PRM & RRT & Prim. & No \\
Levihn \cite{levihn_foresight_2013} & Partial & Recog. & Pos. Mov. & - & - & (D$\|$T$\|$E) & Cont. & BHPN & RRT & RRT & Grasp & \textbf{Yes} \\
Mueggler \cite{mueggler_aerial-guided_2014} & Full & Recog. & None & - & - & T & Disc. & Custom & A* & Dij. & Grasp & \textbf{Yes} \\
Castaman \cite{castaman_sampling-based_2016-1, levihn_locally_2014} & Full & Given & Pos. & - & - & T & Disc. & KPIECE + A* & N/A & N/A & Grasp$\|$Push & No \\
Moghaddam \cite{moghaddam_planning_2016} & Full & Given & None & \textbf{CO} & - & E & Cont. & DFS & Dij. + VG & Dij. + VG & Grasp & No \\
Scholz \cite{scholz_navigation_2016} & Full & Recog. & Pos. Mov. Kin. & - & - & T+E & Cont. & MDP + MCTS & PRM & RRT & Prim. & \textbf{Yes} \\
Sun \cite{sun_semantic_2017} & Partial & Recog. & Pos. & - & - & (D) & Cont. & Custom & RRT & RRT & Grasp$\|$Push & \textbf{Yes} \\
Meng \cite{meng_active_2018} & Partial & Recog. & Pos. & - & - & D & \textbf{Cont. MP} & Custom & RRT & RRT & Grasp$\|$Push & \textbf{Yes} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{13}{p{22.5cm}}{\textbf{Legend:} () = Not given but likely; '+' = Combination of; '$\|$' = Alternative to; Manip. = Found through manipulation; Recog. = Found through visual recognition; Pos. = Manage uncertainty on position; Mov. = Same on movability; Kin. = Same on object kinematics; '-' = Depending on columns, either Not Optimal or Not Complete; CO = Complete; RC = Resolution-Complete; PC = Probabilistically Complete; LO = Locally Optimal; D = Distance; E = Energy; T = Time; NMO = Number of Moved Obstacles; PS = Probability of Success; Disc. = Discrete; Cont. = Continuous; MP = Multi-Plane; Dij. = Dijkstra; GD = Generalized Distance; VG = Visibility Graph; NG = Not Given; N/A = Non Applicable; Prim. = Motion Primitives}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}

As for transit path planners, used ones are traditional A* \cite{stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, stilman_planning_2008, wu_navigation_2010, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014}, D*Lite \cite{levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014} over discrete environments, and RRT \cite{nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, kakiuchi_working_2010, levihn_foresight_2013, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018} or PRM \cite{levihn_planning_2013, scholz_navigation_2016} variants and Dijkstra over Visibility Graph \cite{moghaddam_planning_2016} for continuous ones. On the other hand, obstacle placements are either decided through incremental application of motion primitives (forward search, eg. little translations/rotations) \cite{chen_practical_1991, stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008,stilman_planning_2008,van_den_berg_path_2009, kakiuchi_working_2010, wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_hierarchical_2013, levihn_planning_2013, levihn_foresight_2013, levihn_locally_2014, scholz_navigation_2016}, or by growing sampling of possible placements in the obstacle's vicinity and subsequent path verification \cite{okada_environment_2004, mueggler_aerial-guided_2014, castaman_sampling-based_2016, castaman_sampling-based_2016-1, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018}. In some cases, when planning for successive obstacles, placement is constrained by the need to keep a taboo zone for the next manipulations \cite{nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, stilman_planning_2008, van_den_berg_path_2009, levihn_foresight_2013, moghaddam_planning_2016, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018}. In the end, in discrete environments, transfer path planners iterate over possible obstacle placements using Best-First Search \cite{stilman_navigation_2005, stilman_planning_2007, stilman_planning_2008} or Depth-First Search \cite{wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014}, or in continuous ones, using an RRT variant \cite{nieuwenhuisen_effective_2008, levihn_planning_2013, levihn_foresight_2013, scholz_navigation_2016, sun_semantic_2017, meng_active_2018} or again Dijkstra+VG \cite{moghaddam_planning_2016}.

Approaches mentioned for the three planning tasks are given in Table \ref{synthesis_table}. We can note they are commonly found in SAN, thus incorporating social cost in NAMO planners should be possible. Although, many of them are offline planners: efficient online or anytime-oriented variants will be needed. In conclusion to this state of the art, we underline that none of the existing NAMO literature directly addresses social constraints, though a few references quickly mention the idea of taking object fragility into account \cite{stilman_navigation_2005, kakiuchi_working_2010}.

\section{Extension of NAMO Algorithms}\label{extension_section}

\subsection{Objectives of Socially-Aware NAMO}

From our previous analysis, three general objectives of S-NAMO can be identified. The first is \textbf{Social Movability Evaluation}, or determining the movability of an object by human-acceptance for a robot to move it. The second is \textbf{Social Placement Choice}, or ensuring that the final environment reconfiguration is the least disturbing to humans compared to the initial one. Finally, the third is \textbf{Social Action Planning}, or making sure that all robot actions are in themselves as safe and comfortable for humans as possible.

In the light of the classification in SAN literature \cite{kruse_human-aware_2013, rios-martinez_proxemics_2015}, we can elaborate three levels of problems of growing difficulty: \textit{delayed human-object interaction} due to future human presence, \textit{indirect interaction} due to actual human presence, and \textit{direct human-robot interaction}. At the first level, like in usual NAMO, the robot can assume to be the only autonomous agent around (eg. cleaning robot servicing while humans are away), thus it only needs to be concerned about \textbf{Social Movability Evaluation} and \textbf{Social Placement Choice}. At the next levels, the robot must also integrate the dynamic and social aspects of human presence, and answer the additional objective of \textbf{Social Action Planning}, exhibiting behaviors such as kindly asking humans to let it pass. In the rest of the paper, we make a first S-NAMO proposition addressing \textbf{Social Movability Evaluation} and \textbf{Social Placement Choice}, in the context of \textit{delayed human-object interaction}.

\subsection{Extension of Wu and Levihn's approach}

\SetKwFunction{algo}{make-and-execute-plan}
\SetKwFunction{subproc}{make-plan-for-obstacle}
\SetKwFunction{plan}{plan}
\SetKwFunction{path}{A*}
\SetKwFunction{update}{update-robot-knowledge}
\SetKwFunction{checkinvalid}{is-plan-invalid}
\SetKwFunction{iterate}{iterate-over-heurObsLists}
\SetKwFunction{updateml}{update-mL}
\SetKwFunction{execute}{try-execute-next-step}
\SetKwFunction{affordable}{affordable-actions}
\SetKwFunction{qfor}{q-for}
\SetKwFunction{lastlook}{get-last-look-q}
\SetKwFunction{splitatpose}{split-at-pose}
\SetKwFunction{computecs}{compute-$c_0$-$c_1$}
\SetKwFunction{ismovable}{is-movable}
\SetKwFunction{isunknown}{is-unknown}
\SetKwFunction{customcopy}{copy}
\SetKwFunction{simonestep}{sim-one-step}
\SetKwFunction{cest}{$C_{est}$}
\SetKwFunction{checknewopening}{check-new-opening}
\SetKwFunction{notintaboo}{not-in-taboo}
\SetKwFunction{cost}{cost}
\SetKwFunction{isstepsuccess}{is-step-success}
\SetKwFunction{customline}{line}
\SetKwFunction{getql}{get-qL}
\SetKwFunction{multigoalastar}{multigoal-A*}
\SetKwFunction{shortestcs}{shortest-$c_0$-$c_1$}

We chose to build our proposition upon the solution proposed by Wu \& Levihn \cite{wu_navigation_2010, levihn_navigation_2011, levihn_locally_2014} mainly for two reasons. First, it is designed for unknown environments, thus covers plan invalidation in the light of new knowledge, which is eventually essential for real-world applications. Second, as long as the problem is solvable by a single obstacle move in a single direction in the current robot knowledge, local optimality is guaranteed. It basically follows the general form of a NAMO algorithm presented in Section \ref{analysis_section}: iterate over known obstacles following a heuristic order, and evaluate potential plans that include obstacle movement as long as it can create a better plan. We introduce the S-NAMO Algorithm (see below), which extends the Wu \& Levihn approach. The algorithm relies on two procedures: a main obstacle-level one, \algo{\null}, that when needed calls a combined transfer/transit path planning sub-procedure \subproc{\null}. We first present these two procedures ignoring our S-NAMO extensions highlighted in red and blue in Algorithm \ref{snamo_algo}, then detail the extensions.

\begin{wrapfigure}[14]{L}{0.33\textwidth}
    \raisebox{0pt}[\dimexpr\height-2.0\baselineskip\relax]{
    \begin{minipage}{0.33\textwidth}
         \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/c1_c2_c3.png}
         \caption{The robot (grey disc) executes a three-step $p_{opt}$ plan to move M1.}
         \label{path_components_fig}
    \end{minipage}
    }
\end{wrapfigure}

\vspace{3mm}

\noindent The main procedure, \algo{$w$, $q_{init}$, $q_{goal}$}, builds and executes the optimal navigation plan $p_{opt}$ from world knowledge $w$ (2D metric map with polygonal entities) and robot configurations \{$q_{init}$, $q_{goal}$\}. $p_{opt}$ is either a path avoiding all obstacles or constructed from three path components (see Figure \ref{path_components_fig}): $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, respectively paths from $q_r$ to $q_{manip}$, from $q_{manip}$ to $q_{sim}$ where the robot stops moving obstacle $o$, and from $q_{sim}$ to $q_{goal}$. It always first tries to find the best plan avoiding all obstacles, and only then, iterates over movable obstacles to find out whether moving one of them will yield a better plan.
Robot knowledge is updated after each execution step, and if $p_{opt}$ is no longer valid (future collision with other obstacles by robot or manipulated obstacle, failure in manipulation, or disrupting update of the manipulated obstacle geometry), re-planning is triggered.
Since our contributions do not concern this procedure, we refer the reader to \cite{levihn_locally_2014} to better understand the iteration through obstacles.

\vspace{3mm}

\noindent The sub-procedure, \subproc{$w$, $q_{r}$, $q_{goal}$, $o$, $p_{opt}$}, is called during the iteration over obstacles, and returns the best plan $p_{best}$ implying the manipulation of obstacle $o$. It iterates over actions $act$ that can be done on $o$, assuming (line \ref{qforline}) there is only one robot configuration $q_{manip}$ for every \{$o$, $act$\} pair (middle of $o$'s side). The plan components are computed sequentially, starting with $c_1$. If $c_1$ is found, successive unit actions $act$ of constant length are simulated ($count$ times) in a copy of $w$ until impossible (collision with other obstacle). To avoid unnecessary computations of $c_2$ and $c_3$, the simulation is stopped as soon as an underestimated cost $C_{est}$ of the currently evaluated plan gets higher than the one of $p_{opt}$ (l.\ref{cestline}). $C_{est}$ is the sum of $c_1$'s cost, a $c_2$ estimate (product of $count$ by unit length), and a $c_3$ estimate (minimal euclidean distance between $o$ and $q_{goal}$). Also, full evaluation is only done if a new local opening has been created around $o$ (l.\ref{taboo_line}, method described in \cite{levihn_efficient_2011}).

\begin{algorithm}[H]
	\label{snamo_algo}
    \caption{\textbf{S-NAMO} - Extension of the Wu\&Levihn approach: Social Movability Evaluation in \color{blue}blue \color{black} and Social Placement Choice in \color{red}red\color{black}}

    \DontPrintSemicolon
    \scriptsize
    \footnotesize

    \SetKwProg{makeexe}{Procedure}{}{}
    \SetKwProg{planforobs}{Procedure}{}{}
    \SetKwProg{compute}{Procedure}{}{}

    \makeexe{\algo{$w$, $q_{init}$, $q_{goal}$}}{
        $\rhd$ when plan is invalidated, makes a plan avoiding all obstacles, then tries to improve it by iterating over obstacles and calling \subproc{$w$, $q_r$, $q_{goal}$, $o$, $p_{opt}$}\;
    }{}

    \setcounter{AlgoLine}{0}

    \planforobs{\subproc{$w$, $q_{r}$, $q_{goal}$, $o$, $p_{opt}$}}{
        $p_{best} \gets \emptyset$\;
        \ForEach{$act$ {\normalfont\textbf{in}} \affordable{$o$}}{
            $q_{manip}, c_1 \gets$ \qfor{$o$, $act$}, \path{$w$, $q_r$, $q_{manip}$}\;
            \label{qforline}
            \If{$c_1 \neq \emptyset$}{
                \color{blue}
                \If{\isunknown{$o$}}{ \label{unknown_check_line}
                    $q_{look} \gets$ \lastlook{$w$, $o$, $c_1$}\; \label{c1_obs_line}
                    \lIf{$q_{look} \neq \emptyset$}{$c_0, c_1 \gets$ \splitatpose{$c_1$, $q_{look}$}}
                    \lElse{$c_0, c_1 \gets$ \computecs{$w$, $o$, $q_r$, $q_{manip}$}} \label{compute_c0_c1_line}
                }
                \lElse{$c_0 \gets \emptyset$}
                \color{black}

                \If{\color{blue}\ismovable{$o$} \textbf{or} (\isunknown{$o$} \textbf{and} $c_0 \neq \emptyset$ \textbf{and} $c_1 \neq \emptyset$)\color{black}}{
                    $w_{sim} \gets$ \customcopy{$w$}\;
                    $count, q_{sim} \gets$ 1, \simonestep{$w_{sim}$, $act$, $o$, $q_r$}\;
                    \While{\cest{$w_{sim}$, $c_1$, $count$, $act$} $\leq$ \cost{$p_{opt}$} \\ \ \textbf{and} \isstepsuccess{$q_r$, $q_{sim}$, $count$, $act$}}{ \label{cestline}
                        \If{\checknewopening{$w$, $w_{sim}$, $o$} \color{red}\textbf{and} \notintaboo{$w$, $o$}\color{black}}{ \label{taboo_line}
                            $c_2 \gets$ \customline{$q_{manip}$, $q_{sim}$}\;
                            $c_3 \gets$ \path{$w$, $q_{sim}$, $q_{goal}$}\;
                            \If{$c_3 \neq \emptyset$}{
                                $p \gets$ \plan{\color{blue}$c_0$, \color{black}$c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, $o$, $act$}\;
                                \lIf{\cost{$p$} $<$ \cost{$p_{best}$}}{$p_{best} \gets p$}
                                \lIf{\cost{$p_{best}$} $<$ \cost{$p_{opt}$}}{$p_{opt} \gets p_{best}$}
                            }
                        }
                        $count, q_{sim} \gets$ $count + 1$, \simonestep{$w_{sim}$, $act$, $o$, $q_{sim}$}\;
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        \KwRet $p_{best}$ \;
    }

    \setcounter{AlgoLine}{0}

    \color{blue}
    \compute{\computecs{$w$, $o$, $q_r$, $q_{manip}$}}{
        $qL \gets$ \getql{$w$, $o$}\; \label{get_ql_line}
        $paths$-$qL$-$q_{manip} \gets$ \multigoalastar{$w$, $q_{manip}$, $qL$}\; \label{first_multigoal_astar_line}
        $paths$-$q_r$-$qL \gets$ \multigoalastar{$w$, $q_r$, $qL$}\; \label{second_multigoal_astar_line}
        \KwRet \shortestcs{$paths$-$q_r$-$qL$, $paths$-$qL$-$q_{manip}$}\; \label{return_best_line}
	}
	\color{black}
\end{algorithm}
\smallskip
\noindent \textbf{Social Movability Evaluation} The initial approach of Wu \& Levihn supposes that any obstacle is movable unless a manipulation tentative failed, in which case it is blacklisted. However, in S-NAMO this is not an acceptable behavior since it could lead to unauthorized objects manipulations. As a first approach, we propose a simple white-listing system: unregistered obstacles are considered unmovable. But a robot often relies on multiple sensors, and their respective Fields Of View (FOV) are not necessarily equal. An obstacle may have been detected geometrically, but not yet identified, leading to three possible states: unknown, movable, unmovable. As in the initial algorithm, we suppose a perfect conical `geometry sensor' (eg. high resolution laser range finder), with perfect segmentation of obstacles (blue disk in Figure \ref{fig:obs_1}), but we add a perfect `semantic sensor' that guarantees identification if the obstacle is in its FOV (eg. using a RGB-D Camera). The geometric FOV (G-FOV) is assumed to cover more space than the semantic one (S-FOV). White-listed obstacles are assumed to fit into the S-FOV, anything that doesn't is automatically classed as unmovable.

The \subproc{\null} procedure has been adapted to work under these hypotheses. When obstacle $o$ is known as movable, the algorithm is unchanged. When $o$ is unknown, we first check whether the usual computation of $c_1$ can provide observation certainty (lines \ref{unknown_check_line}-\ref{c1_obs_line}); if not, we try to find another path that guarantees observation (line \ref{compute_c0_c1_line}). To do that, in \computecs{\null}, we determine the discrete robot configurations list $qL$ that would allow observation (l.\ref{get_ql_line}): first, we get all non-colliding configurations within the area between the inflated obstacle polygons by minimal and maximal observation distances, and among them we only return these where $o$ is included in the S-FOV. Then, we execute the multi-goal A* algorithm between $q_{manip}$ and every configuration in $qL$ (l.\ref{first_multigoal_astar_line}). The same is done from the current robot configuration $q_r$ to all elements of $qL$ (l.\ref{second_multigoal_astar_line}). Finally, we return the best pair of paths \{$c_0$, $c_1$\} (l.\ref{return_best_line}): see illustration Fig. \ref{fig:obs_2}.

\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-0.2in}
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/obs_1.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:obs_1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/obs_2.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:obs_2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.20\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/taboo_1.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:taboo_1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.20\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/taboo_2.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:taboo_2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{In (a)}, G-FOV (blue) detected two obstacles, S-FOV (green) only identified unmovable obstacle O1. Robot is too close from other obstacle to observe it. Going through best intermediate observation configuration is necessary: final best path with $c_0$ is shown in (b). \textbf{(c)} represents two facing rooms separated by a corridor. In typical NAMO (c), robot will push M1 just enough to pass, blocking the other doorway. In our S-NAMO proposition, the taboo zone (red) prevents blocking, but may end up with a longer plan.}
\label{fig:propal_illus}
\vspace*{-0.3in}
\end{figure}

\smallskip
\noindent \textbf{Social Placement Choice} In current NAMO approaches, the robot does not care about placing obstacles in socially-critical spots (eg. around doors, often-used furniture, \dots). As a first step, we answer this problem with a binary approach: either the zone is taboo for obstacle placement, or it is not.

We extend the definition of $w$ by adding a social placement semantic map layer, where
taboo zones are defined as a set of polygons $P$.
We assume for now that $P$ is provided by human users. Now, whenever the polygonal footprint of an obstacle intersects with any polygonal taboo zone in $P$, \notintaboo{$w$, $o$} returns $False$, preventing full plan evaluation (see \subproc{\null} procedure, line \ref{taboo_line}). Figure \ref{fig:taboo_2}) illustrates this process on a simple scenario. Next section presents experiments with more complex scenarios.

\section{Experiments

\label{experimentations_section}

We implemented the S-NAMO algorithm in a custom simulator based on ROS standards. This is a first step toward an implementation on a real robot (Pepper), simplifying object detection and identification, which could later be addressed with an existing package such as \href{https://github.com/tue-robotics/ed}{ED} from TU-Eindhoven. For the sake of implementation ease, movable obstacles are assumed to be convex polygons. All computations are done on the 2D vectorial model, except for path planning, which is implemented as a grid-search A* Algorithm, as in \cite{wu_navigation_2010} \footnote{\label{code_footnote}All the code and its execution instructions are available on the following repository: \url{https://gitlab.inria.fr/brenault/s-namo-sim}}.

\vspace{2mm}

\noindent \textbf{Social Placement Choice} We tested the Social Placement Choice process in a scenario where a robot has to successively reach two goals represented as empty circles in Fig.\ref{fig:test}. The environment consists of two rooms separated by a corridor, but two yellow boxes are blocking the doorways (Fig.\ref{fig:sub1}). The robot (blue circle, FOV is the cone) starts from the bottom room.

\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-0.2in}
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\begin{subfigure}{0.193\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/taboo/not_taboo_1.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:sub1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.193\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/taboo/not_taboo_2.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:sub2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.193\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/taboo/taboo_1.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:sub3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.193\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/taboo/taboo_2.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:sub4}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.193\textwidth}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/taboo/taboo_3.png}
  \caption{}
  \label{fig:sub5}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{-0.08in}
\caption{Simulation of a two-goals scenario with NAMO (a,b) vs. S-NAMO (c,d,e)
}
\label{fig:test}
\vspace*{-0.3in}
\end{figure}

In Fig.\ref{fig:sub2} we see that a standard NAMO approach like Wu \& Levihn's results in blocking the other doorway: only the first goal is reached. In Fig.\ref{fig:sub3} we introduce the social semantic layer which consists in two taboo areas for objects (in red), respectively related to the doorways and a `precious carpet'. Fig.\ref{fig:sub4} shows how our algorithm deals with the first discovered object: the computed path moves the box on the right and outside taboo areas, leaving in particular the doorway area free. In Fig.\ref{fig:sub5}, the robot encountered the second box and pushed it outside the taboo area, leading to a path reaching the second goal. This S-NAMO scenario (and others) are available as videos \footnote{\label{video_footnote}Link to videos : \url{https://gitlab.inria.fr/brenault/s-namo-sim/wikis/Videos}}.

\noindent \textbf{Pushing Experiments with Pepper} In the view of a real-world implementation, we experimented with Pepper's base pushing abilities, using our existing robot architecture developed for the Robocup@Home 2018 \cite{jumel_context_2018}. In Fig.\ref{fig:pepper_01} and \ref{fig:pepper_02}, Pepper successfully pushes a garbage bin in a straight line with little deviation. We have also verified that with other light objects such as cardboard boxes, that when the object's side is properly centered relatively to the robot, pushes are more likely to succeed. However, we also learned that, as seen in Fig.\ref{fig:pepper_03} and \ref{fig:pepper_04}, heavier objects of interest such as chairs with wheel-casters will need to be accompanied with the arms in some way to avoid unpredictable drift, but even so, the manipulation could still fail (videos available at footnote \ref{video_footnote}). Thus, in our future work, we will also strive to address uncertainty as to manipulation success, like in \cite{levihn_planning_2013}.

\begin{figure}
    \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
        \centering\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
        \begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
          \centering
          \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/Pepper/bin_01.jpg}
          \caption{}
          \label{fig:pepper_01}
        \end{subfigure}
        \begin{subfigure}{0.15\textwidth}
          \centering
          \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/Pepper/obj03.jpg}
          \caption{}
          \label{fig:pepper_02}
        \end{subfigure}
        \begin{subfigure}{0.15\textwidth}
          \centering
          \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/Pepper/obj02.jpg}
          \caption{}
          \label{fig:pepper_03}
        \end{subfigure}
            \begin{subfigure}{0.15\textwidth}
          \centering
          \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/Pepper/obj01.jpg}
          \caption{}
          \label{fig:pepper_04}
        \end{subfigure}
    \end{minipage}
    \vspace*{-0.08in}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\caption{Pepper pushing a bin and a chair}\label{fig:pepper_push}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}\label{conclusion_section}

In this paper, we first analyzed existing NAMO approaches in order to adapt them to social constraints. This led us to extend the Wu\&Levihn approach, by defining the S-NAMO algorithm which introduces Social Movability Evaluation and Social Placement Choice for object manipulations. We implemented these propositions in an open source ROS compatible simulator.
Experiments showed how social semantic areas can prevent obstruction of places like circulation zones, and how the robot can identify obstacles to compute its plan.
In future works, we plan to refine the semantic layer and address actual human presence with indirect or direct human-robot interaction, while integrating ways to manage uncertainty as to sensor data or success of manipulation. We will continue to experiment and validate these social NAMO abilities with robots such as Pepper and demonstrate their interest in the RoboCup@Home challenge.

\newpage

\bibliographystyle{unsrt_mod}


\section{Introduction}

There exists quite a large number of exact and approximate solutions of the Einstein field equations (EFE) in the literature \cite{stefanietal, bqr12}. We mainly focus here only on two exterior solutions: The exact Erez--Rosen (ER) \cite{erro59} and approximate Hartle--Thorne (HT) \cite{hartle1967, ht1968} solutions. Both of them describe the gravitational field of astrophysical objects. Though the ER metric is exact and describes only the exterior part of the static deformed object, in turn, the HT metric is approximate and  can be used to investigate both interior and exterior fields of slowly rotating and slightly deformed astrophysical objects in the strong field regime. In this regard, it is interesting to show the relationship between these solutions in the limiting static case with a small deformation.

Erez and Rosen obtained their solution in 1959 \cite{erro59} by using the Weyl method \cite{weyl}. This metric was also analyzed by applying the spheroidal coordinates, which are adapted to characterize the gravitational field of non-spherically symmetric bodies. The original solution contained some typos and misprints, which were later corrected in several numerical coefficients by Doroshkevich (1966)~\cite{doretal1966}, Winicour et al. (1968) \cite{winietal1968} and Young and Coulter (1969) \cite{yc1969}. The physical properties of the ER metric were investigated by Zeldovich and Novikov \cite{zn71} and later by Quevedo and Parkes \cite{qp1989}. More~general solutions involving multipole moments were obtained by Quevedo~\cite{quev89, quev90}, Quevedo and Mashhoon (QM)~\cite{qm1985, qm1990}.

The QM solution is an exact exterior metric describing the gravitational field of a rotating deformed mass \cite{qm1990}, which is a stationary axisymmetric solution of the vacuum Einstein equations belonging to the class of Weyl--Lewis--Papapetrou \cite{weyl, lewis, pap}. The QM solution involving only the mass parameter $m$, quadrupole parameter $q$ and rotation parameter $a$ (angular momentum per unit mass)  is a generalization of the Kerr metric \cite{kerr63}, so it reduces to the exact Kerr solution when the quadrupole parameter vanishes $q\rightarrow0$, and to the ER spacetime when the rotation parameter vanishes $a\rightarrow0$ \cite{bglq09}. It has been also shown that the general form of the QM solution with the Zipoy--Voorhees parameter in the limiting case is equivalent to the exterior HT solution up to the first order in the quadrupole parameter $q$ and to the second order terms in the rotation parameter $a$ \cite{bqr12, bglq09}.

Hartle developed his formalism in order to investigate the physical properties of slowly rotating relativistic stars in his pioneering paper in 1967 \cite{hartle1967}. All physical quantities describing the equilibrium configurations of rotating stars such as the change in mass, gravitational potential, eccentricity, binding energy, quadrupole moment, etc., were proportional to the square of the star's angular velocity  $\Omega^2$. Hartle and Thorne tested the formalism for different equations of state of relativistic objects~\cite{ht1968}. Since~then the solution has been known as the Hartle--Thorne solution in the literature. Unlike~well-known exact solutions, the HT solution possesses an internal counterpart \cite{hartle1967, ster03}, which makes it more practical in the astrophysical context to investigate the equilibrium structure and physical characteristics of relativistic compact objects such as white dwarfs, neutron stars and hypothetical quark stars \cite{brrs2013, bbrr2014, gw1992, ums2013}. Recently, the HT metric has been extended up to an $\Omega^4$ approximation \cite{ykpya2014}.

The purpose of this work is to find the relationship between the ER and HT solutions and show their equivalence in the limiting static case with a small deformation. The signature of the line elements throughout this article is adopted as (-- + + +) and the geometrical units are used ($G=c=1$).

It should be emphasized that the relationship between the ER and HT solutions was established by Mashhoon and Theiss in 1991 \cite{mth1991}. However, in this work we derive the same result in an instructive way, providing all technical details. The paper pursues pure scientific and academic purposes.

The work is organized as follows. We review the main properties of the ER solution in Section \ref{ER}.
The linearized, up to the first order in $q$, Erez--Rosen solution in terms of the Zipoy--Voorhees parameter $\delta=1+sq$  is considered in Section \ref{lER}. The main physical characteristics of the exterior Hartle--Thorne solution are discussed in Section \ref{HT}. Using the perturbation method, the coordinate transformations are sought in Section \ref{CT}. Finally, we summarize our conclusions and discuss future prospects.

\section{The Erez--Rosen Metric}\label{ER}

The Erez--Rosen metric is an exact exterior solution with mass and quadrupole parameters that describes the gravitational field of static deformed objects in the strong field regime \cite{qta2012}. It belongs to the Weyl class of static axisymmetric vacuum solutions in prolate spheroidal coordinates $(t,x,y,\varphi)$, with $x\geq 1$  and $-1\leq y \leq1$

\begin{equation} \label{lel}
 ds^2 =-e^{2\psi} dt ^2 + m^2 e^{-2\psi}\left[ e^{2\gamma}(x^2-y^2)\left( \frac{dx^2}{x^2-1} + \frac{dy^2}{1-y^2} \right) + (x^2-1)(1-y^2) d\varphi^2\right] \ ,
\end{equation}
where the metric functions $\psi$ and $\gamma$ depend on the spatial coordinates $x$ and $y$, only, and $m$ represents the mass parameter.

The solution found by Erez and Rosen has the following form \cite{quev12}
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi  & = & \frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right) + \frac{1}{2}q(3y^2-1) \left[\frac{1}{4}(3x^2-1)\ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right)+\frac{3}{2} x\right] \,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma = & &\frac{1}{2}(1+q)^2 \ln\left( \frac{x^2-1}{x^2-y^2}\right) - \frac{3}{2} q(1-y^2)\left[x \ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right) + 2\right]\nonumber\\
& + & \frac{9}{16}q^2(1-y^2)\bigg[ x^2+4y^2 - 9 x^2y^2-\frac{4}{3}
+ x\left(x^2+7y^2-9x^2y^2-\frac{5}{3}\right)\ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right) \\
& + & \frac{1}{4}(x^2-1)(x^2+y^2-9x^2y^2-1)\ln^2\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right)\bigg]\ . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

However, nowadays, it is considered to be one particular type of a more general class of solutions of the field equations.

To generate a more general solution the Zipoy--Voorhees \cite{zip66, voor70} transformation is applied to the Erez--Rosen metric with line element (\ref{lel})
as $\psi\rightarrow \delta\psi$ and $\gamma\rightarrow \delta^2 \gamma$.
For this new generalized Erez--Rosen solution with the Zipoy--Voorhees parameter $\delta$, the Geroch--Hansen multiples \cite{ger, hans, quev89, quev90, ernst, fqs2018, fs2018} are given~by \begin{eqnarray}
&&M_{2k+1}=0, \qquad k=0, 1, 2, ... ,\\
&&M_0=m\delta, \qquad M_2=\frac{1}{15}m^3\delta(5+2q-5\delta^2), ...
\end{eqnarray}

Furthermore, if we adopt that $\delta=1+sq$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqmm15}
M_0=m(1+sq), \qquad M_2=\frac{1}{15}m^3q(1+sq)(2-10s-5s^2q), ...
\end{equation}

For vanishing $s=0$ or, equivalently, $\delta=1$ we obtain the multipole moments of the original Erez--Rosen solution.
If we retain only linear terms in the quadrupole parameter $q$ then (\ref{eqmm15}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eqmm16}
M_0=m(1+sq), \qquad M_2=\frac{2}{15}m^3q(1-5s), ...
\end{equation}

\section{The Linearized Erez--Rosen Solution in Terms of the Zipoy--Voorhees Parameter}\label{lER

The new generalized Erez--Rosen metric with $\delta$ is linearized up to the first order in $q$ and the final result is written in spherical-like coordinates $x=r/m-1$ and $y=\cos\theta$
\begin{equation}\label{lelzv}
\begin{split}
ds^2&= -\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right)\left[1+2q(\psi_1+s\psi_0)\right]dt^2 \\
&+\left[1+2q(\gamma_1-\psi_1+2s\gamma_0-s\psi_0)\right]\left(\frac{dr^2}{1-\frac{2m}{r}}+r^2d\theta^2\right)+\left[1-2q(\psi_1+s\psi_0)\right]r^2\sin^2\theta d\phi^2 \ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_0 &=& \frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right),  \quad \psi_1 = \frac{1}{2}(3y^2-1) \left[\frac{1}{4}(3x^2-1)\ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right)+\frac{3}{2} x\right] \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_0 &=& \frac{1}{2} \ln\left( \frac{x^2-1}{x^2-y^2}\right), \quad  \gamma_1 = \ln\left( \frac{x^2-1}{x^2-y^2}\right)- \frac{3}{2}(1-y^2)\left[x \ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right) + 2\right] .
\end{eqnarray}

In the limiting case $q=0$, we recover from here
the Schwarzschild solution:
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{1-\frac{2m}{r}}+r^2d\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta d\phi^2 \ .
\end{equation}

Consequently, the linearized Equation (\ref{lelzv}) can be considered as a generalization of the Schwarzschild metric, which includes the quadrupole contribution of the Erez--Rosen solution up to the first order in $q$.

\section{The Exterior Hartle--Thorne Solution}\label{HT}
The general form of the exterior approximate HT metric \cite{hartle1967, ht1968} in spherical ($t, R, \Theta, \phi$) coordinates is given by
\begin{align}\label{ht1}
ds^2&=-\left(1-\frac{2{ M }}{R}\right)\bigg[1+2k_1P_2(\cos\Theta)
-2\left(1-\frac{2{ M}}{R}\right)^{-1}\frac{J^{2}}{R^{4}}(2\cos^2\Theta-1)\bigg]dt^2\nonumber\\
&+\left(1-\frac{2{ M}}{R}\right)^{-1}\bigg[1-2\left(k_1-\frac{6 J^{2}}{R^4}\right)P_2(\cos\Theta)-2\left(1-\frac{2{ M}}{R}\right)^{-1}\frac{J^{2}}{R^4}\bigg]dR^2 \\
&+R^2[1-2k_2P_2(\cos\Theta)](d\Theta^2+\sin^2\Theta d\phi^2) -\frac{4J}{R}\sin^2\Theta dt d\phi \,\nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
k_1&=\frac{J^2}{M R^3}\left(1+\frac{M}{R}\right)+\frac{5}{8}\frac{Q-J^{2}/{M}}{M^3}Q_2^2(x) \;,\\
k_2&=k_1+\frac{J^{2}}{R^4}+\frac{5}{4}\frac{Q-J^{2}/{ M}}{M^2R}\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right)^{-1/2}Q_2^1(x) \;,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\label{legfunc}
Q_2^1(x)&=(x^2-1)^{1/2}\left[\frac{3x}{2}\ln\left(\frac{x+1}{x-1}\right)-\frac{3x^2-2}{x^2-1}\right] \;, \\
Q_2^2(x)&=(x^2-1)\left[\frac{3}{2}\ln\left(\frac{x+1}{x-1}\right)-\frac{3x^3-5x}{(x^2-1)^2}\right] \;,
\end{align*}
\noindent are the associated Legendre functions of the second kind, being $P_2(\cos\Theta)=(1/2)(3\cos^2\Theta-1)$ the Legendre polynomial, and $x=R/M -1$. This form of the metric is known in the literature as the Hartle--Thorne metric. The constants $M$, $J$  and $Q$  are the total mass, angular momentum and mass quadrupole moment of the rotating object, respectively. To obtain the exact numerical values of $M$, $J$ and $Q$, the exterior and interior line elements have to be matched at the surface of the star \cite{ht1968, bglq09, bbrs2013}.

For vanishing angular momentum the HT solution reduces to
\begin{equation
\begin{split}
ds^2&=-\left(1-\frac{2{ M }}{R}\right)\bigg[1+2k_1P_2(\cos\Theta)\bigg]dt^2+\left(1-\frac{2{ M}}{R}\right)^{-1}\bigg[1-2k_1P_2(\cos\Theta)\bigg]dR^2\\
&+R^2[1-2k_2P_2(\cos\Theta)](d\Theta^2+\sin^2\Theta d\phi^2) \ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $k_1$ and $k_2$ now are
\begin{equation}
k_1=\frac{5}{8}\frac{Q}{M^3}Q_2^2(x) \ , \qquad k_2=k_1+\frac{5}{4}\frac{Q}{ M^2R}\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right)^{-1/2}Q_2^1(x) \;,
\end{equation}

To find the relationship with the ER solution, we will use Equation (\ref{lelzv}).
The Geroch--Hansen multipole moments for the HT metric are
\begin{equation}\label{mmmq}
M_0=M, \qquad M_2=-Q, ...
\end{equation}
where $Q$ has positive sign for oblate objects and negative for prolate objects, according to Hartle's~definition.

\section{Coordinate Transformations}\label{CT}

To obtain the correspondence between the  ER solution, with coordinates ($t, r, \theta, \phi$), and the HT solution, with coordinates ($t, R, \Theta, \phi$), both solutions must be written in the same coordinates. We~search for a coordinate transformation of the following form

\begin{equation}
r \rightarrow R+q f_1(R,\Theta) \, \qquad \theta \rightarrow \Theta+q f_2(R,\Theta)
\end{equation}
where $f_1(R,\Theta)$ and $f_2(R,\Theta)$ are the unknown  functions.
The total differentials of the coordinates are given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqct}
dr &=& \frac{\partial r}{\partial R}dR+\frac{\partial r}{\partial \Theta}d\Theta=\left(1+q \frac{\partial f_1(R,\Theta) }{\partial R}\right)dR +q\left(\frac{\partial f_1(R,\Theta)}{\partial \Theta}\right)d\Theta \ , \\
d\theta &=& \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial R}dR+\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial \Theta}d\Theta=q\left(\frac{\partial f_2(R,\Theta)}{\partial R}\right)dR+\left(1+q \frac{\partial f_2(R,\Theta) }{\partial \Theta}\right)d\Theta\ .
\end{eqnarray}

These expressions should be plugged into  Equation (\ref{lelzv}), taking into account Equations~(\ref{eqmm16})~and~(\ref{mmmq}),~i.e.,
\begin{equation}
m=M(1-sq) \ , \qquad q=-\frac{15}{2(1-5s)}\frac{Q}{M^3} \, .
\end{equation}

Then, only linear terms in the quadrupole moment $Q$  must be retained. We thus obtain the linearized ER metric in the same coordinates as the HT solution. Furthermore, if we compare the components of the metric tensor $g_{tt}$   of the ER and HT solutions, we find the value of the sought function $f_1(R,\Theta)$  as
\begin{equation}
f_1(R,\Theta)=f_{10}(R,\Theta)+(1+s)\left[f_{11}(R)+f_{12}(R,\Theta)\right] \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{10}(R,\Theta) &=& M+\frac{3}{2}M\sin^2\Theta\left[\frac{R}{M}-1+\frac{R}{M}\left(\frac{R}{2M}-1\right)\ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right) \right] \ , \nonumber \\
f_{11}(R) &=& -M \left[\frac{5}{6}+\frac{8R}{3M}-\frac{15R^2}{4M^2}+\frac{5R^3}{4M^3}-\frac{R}{M}\left(1-\frac{3R}{M}+\frac{5R^2}{2M^2}-\frac{5R^3}{8M^3}\right)\ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right) \right] \ ,  \nonumber \\
f_{12}(R,\Theta) &=& M \sin^2\Theta\left[\frac{5}{4}+\frac{5R}{2M}-\frac{45R^2}{8M^2}+\frac{15R^3}{8M^3}+\frac{15R^2}{4M^2}\left(1-\frac{R}{M}+\frac{R^2}{4M^2}\right) \ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right) \right] \ . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

Analogously, by comparing only the azimuthal components of the metric tensor $g_{\phi\phi}$  of the ER and HT solutions, we find the value of the sought function $f_2(R,\Theta)$ as
\begin{equation}
f_2(R,\Theta)=f_{20}(R,\Theta)+(1+s)\left[f_{21}(R)+f_{22}(R,\Theta)\right] \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{20}(R,\Theta) &=& -\frac{3}{2}\cos\Theta \sin\Theta\left[2+\left(\frac{R}{M}-1\right)\ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right) \right] \ , \nonumber \\
f_{21}(R) &=& \frac{47}{12}-\frac{5R}{2M}+\frac{5R^2}{4M^2}+\left(-\frac{7}{4}+\frac{3R}{M}-\frac{15R^2}{8M^2}+\frac{5R^3}{8M^3}\right)\ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right)  \ , \nonumber\\
f_{22}(R,\Theta) &=& - \sin^2\Theta\left[\frac{35}{8}-\frac{15R}{4M}+\frac{15R^2}{8M^2}-\left(\frac{15}{8}-\frac{15R}{4M}+\frac{45R^2}{16M^2}-\frac{15R^3}{16M^3}\right) \ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right) \right] \ . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

We need to find also the exact value of $s$. To this end, we equate the mixed component of the metric tensor $g_{R\Theta}$  of the ER solution, written in  ($R,\Theta$) coordinates, to zero as it is absent in the HT solution. This gives the following condition
\begin{equation}
\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right)^{-1}\frac{\partial f_1(R,\Theta)}{\partial \Theta}+R^2\frac{\partial f_2(R,\Theta)}{\partial R} = 0 \ .
\end{equation}

As a result, we find from this condition that $s=-1$ . Correspondingly, the multipole moments will be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GH}
M=m(1-q) ,\, \qquad Q=-\frac{4}{5}m^3q \ ,  ...
\end{equation}
and the coordinate transformations will have the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
r &\rightarrow & R+q \left\{M+\frac{3}{2}M\sin^2\Theta\left[\frac{R}{M}-1+\frac{R}{M}\left(\frac{R}{2M}-1\right)\ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right) \right]\right\} \ , \label{coorR} \\
\theta &\rightarrow & \Theta-\frac{3}{2}q\cos\Theta \sin\Theta\left[2+\left(\frac{R}{M}-1\right)\ln\left(1-\frac{2M}{R}\right) \right]  \ . \label{coorTh}
\end{eqnarray}

These coordinate transformations were originally obtained by Mashhoon and Theiss \cite{mth1991}. Here, we simply reproduced their results including all intermediate calculations.
In the limit of linear quadrupole moment, to our knowledge, the only way to find the relationship between the two solutions is to consider the Zipoy--Voorhees transformation.
However, recently  Frutos-Alfaro and Soffel \cite{fs2017} showed that in the limit of $\sim M^2$ and $\sim Q$ (negleting also terms $\sim M^2Q$) the Zipoy--Voorhees transformation is not needed. They obtained the following transformations
\begin{eqnarray}
r &\rightarrow & R-\frac{1}{9}\frac{M}{R^3}Q\left[5P_2^2-4P_2-1\right] \ , \label{rFS} \\
\theta &\rightarrow & \Theta+\frac{1}{6}\frac{M}{R^4}Q\left[5P_2-2\right]\cos\Theta \sin\Theta  \ , \label{thFS}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$P_2=P_2(\cos\Theta)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GHFS}
M=m ,\, \qquad Q=-\frac{2}{15}m^3q \ ,  ...
\end{equation}

Obviously, Equations~\eqref{rFS} and \eqref{thFS} are different from Equations~\eqref{coorR} and \eqref{coorTh} even in the limiting case. { Indeed, there is no any agreement between Equations~\eqref{coorR} and~\eqref{coorTh} and Equations~\eqref{rFS} and~\eqref{thFS} in any given limit}. However, Equations~\eqref{rFS} and \eqref{thFS} are valid only in the limit of $\sim M^2$ and $\sim Q$ and Equations~\eqref{coorR} and \eqref{coorTh} are correct in the limit of $\sim Q$ when no other approximation is made. This means that the explicit form of the coordinate transformation depends upon the approximation, which is adopted in each particular case, and the use of the Zipoy--Voorhees transformation. { This can  be already seen from the definitions of the Geroch--Hansen multipole moments (see Equations~\eqref{eq:GH}~and~\eqref{eq:GHFS}).}

\section{Conclusions}

In this work, we investigated the  Erez--Rosen and  Hartle--Thorne metrics for small quadrupole moment and found their relationship in the absence of rotation by using the perturbation method.
We~showed that the approximate Erez--Rosen line element coincides with the Hartle--Thorne solution, in the limit of $\sim q$, when the former is considered with a  Zipoy--Voorhees transformation. Accordingly, using the invariant definition proposed by Geroch and Hansen, we have shown that   the corresponding mass monopole and quadrupole moment coincide in this approximation as well.

To find the explicit form of the coordinate transformation, we compared the metric functions and obtained that the Zipoy--Voorhees transformation should be subject to the condition $s=-1$. { We~showed that the condition $s=-1$ is a direct consequence of $g_{R\Theta}=0$, though the procedure to obtain this value was obscure and unclear in the literature}. Moreover, we found that the explicit form of the coordinate transformation depends entirely on the approximation which is used in each particular case.

In view of the results obtained recently in \cite{bqaks2016, bggqt2016, allahyari2019, allahyari2019b}, it would be interesting to establish the relationship between the Erez--Rosen and q-metrics. This will be the issue of future studies.\vspace{6pt}

\section*{Acknowledgments} The authors thank the journal editorial board for the invitation to publish the paper and anonymous referees for useful comments and remarks, which improved the presentation of the work. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Program IRN: BR05236494 and Grant IRN: AP05135753.