\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Wireless communication, by its inherent broadcast nature, is vulnerable to eavesdropping by illegitimate receivers within communication range of the source. Wyner in \cite{wyner}, for the first time, information-theoretically addressed the problem of secure communication in the presence of an eavesdropper and showed that secure communication is possible if the eavesdropper channel is a degraded version of the destination channel. The rate at which information can be transferred from the source to the intended destination while ensuring complete equivocation at the eavesdropper is termed as \textit{secrecy rate} and its maximum over all input probability distributions is defined as the \textit{secrecy capacity} of channel. Later, \cite{078cheongHellman} extended Wyner's result to Gaussian channels. These results are further extended to various models such as multi-antenna systems \cite{105paradaBlahut, 110khistiWornell}, multiuser scenarios \cite{108liuMaric, 108khisti_thesis}, fading channels \cite{108liangPoorShamai, 108gopalaLaiGamal}.

An interesting direction of work on secure communication in the presence of eavesdropper(s) is one in which the source communicates with the destination via relay nodes \cite{108laiGamal, 109dongHanPetropuluPoor, 110zhangGursoy, 110zhangGursoy2, 113yangLiMaChiang}. Such work has considered various scenarios such as different relaying schemes (\textit{amplify-and-forward} and \textit{decode-and-forward}), constraints on total or individual relay power consumption, one or more eavesdroppers. However, tight characterization of secrecy capacity or even optimal achievable rate is not available except for a few specific scenarios.

We consider unicast communication over a network of $M$ parallel relays in the presence of an eavesdropper. The relay nodes, operating under individual power constraints, amplify and forward signals received at their inputs. The objective is to maximize the rate of secure transmission from the source to the destination by choosing the optimal set of scaling factors for the AF-relays. In general, the problem is non-convex and global optima cannot be guaranteed. However, we establish that convexification of this optimization problem is possible for \textit{degraded eavesdropper channels} scenario where each relay to destination channel gain is larger than the corresponding relay to eavesdropper channel gain. Though such a scenario is limited, we argue that it may still provide insights into the nature of the optimal solution for general problem and help us construct low-complexity capacity achieving achievability schemes.
Later, we discuss two special scenarios: \textit{scaled eavesdropper channels} and \textit{symmetric network} and provide a polynomial-time algorithm and a closed-form solution, respectively, to compute the optimal secure AF rate.

To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose a convex optimization based solution to obtain the global optimum for the degraded channel scenario, where channel gains are real numbers\footnote{The more general case with complex channel gains is currently under investigation.}. Previously, the problem addressed in this paper was also considered for general channel scenarios by \cite{110zhangGursoy} for a single eavesdropper and \cite{113yangLiMaChiang} for multiple eavesdroppers. However, the semidefinite relaxation based approaches proposed therein only provide suboptimal performance without any guarantee on the performance (even for simple network models) and the convergence of the proposed iterative algorithms. Unlike such previous work, we propose a novel variable transformation that results in convex optimization for the degraded channel scenario.

Our main contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item For the degraded eavesdropper channel model, we propose a novel transformation for the non-convex problem and present an iterative algorithm with guaranteed convergence to compute the optimal secrecy rate achievable with AF relaying. We also provide a lower-bound to the optimal rate based on the \textit{zero-forcing} approach and an upper bound based on the total relay power constraint.
\item For the network model with scaled eavesdropper channels, motivated by the greedy approaches proposed in  \cite{109jingJafarkhani}-\cite{111agnihotriJaggiChen} to compute the optimal AF rate over diamond networks, we propose a novel efficient scheme to compute the optimal secrecy rate achievable with AF relaying.
\item Finally, for the symmetric network model, we provide a closed form expression for the optimal secrecy rate achievable with AF relaying, along with the corresponding optimal vector of scaling factors.
\end{itemize}

This paper provides some of the key results of our work. Various extensions and detailed discussions can be found in our ArXiv submission \cite{115sarmaAgnihotriKuri}.

\noindent\textit{Organization:} Section~\ref{sec:model} introduces the system model and notation. In Section~\ref{sec:secrate}, we analyze the optimal AF secrecy rate for three specific network models. The performance of proposed approaches is evaluated in Section~\ref{sec:res}. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:concl} concludes the paper.

\section{System Model}
\label{sec:model}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.25]
\tikzstyle{every node}=[draw,shape=circle,minimum size=0.9cm,style=thick]
\node (v0) at (180:2.5) {$s$};
\node (v1) at (90:1.5) {$1$};
\node (v2) at (90:0.5) {$2$};
\node (v3) at (270:1) {$M$};
\node (v4) at (15:3) {$t$};
\node (v6) at (350:3.05) {$e$};
\draw[style=thick,->] (v0) -- (v1);
\draw[style=thick,->] (v0) -- (v2);
\draw[style=thick,->] (v0) -- (v3);
\draw[style=thick,->] (v1) -- (v4);
\draw[style=thick,->] (v2) -- (v4);
\draw[style=thick,->] (v3) -- (v4);
\draw[dashed,->](v1) -- (v6);
\draw[dashed,->](v2) -- (v6);
\draw[dashed,->](v3) -- (v6);
\draw[loosely dotted,line width=1](0,0.10) -- (0,-.6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{The diamond $M$-relay AF network with an eavesdropper}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure}
Consider the Gaussian ``diamond'' or parallel $M$-relay network as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:model}. The source node $s$ transmits a message to the destination $t$ with the help of $M$ parallel relays. However, the signals transmitted by the relays for the destination are also overheard by the eavesdropper $e$. The channel inputs at time $n \in \mathbb{N}$ at the source $s$ and the $i^{th}$ relay are denoted by $x_s[n]$ and $x_i[n]$, respectively. The channel outputs at time $n \in \mathbb{N}$ at the destination $t$, the eavesdropper $e$, and the $i^{th}$ relay are denoted by $y_t[n], y_e[n]$, and $y_i[n]$. These channel inputs and outputs are related as:
\begin{align}
y_i[n] &= h_{si} x_s[n] + z_i[n] \label{eq:rel} \\
y_k[n] &= \sum_{i=1}^M h_{ik} x_i[n] + z_k[n] \label{eq:destEve},\;k\in\{t,e\}
\end{align}
where $(z_i[n])_{i,n}$, $(z_t[n])_n$, and $(z_e[n])_n$ are independent and identically distributed Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$, independent of channel inputs. The channel gains $(h_{si})_{i=1}^M$, $(h_{it})_{i=1}^M$, and $(h_{ie})_{i=1}^M$ are real numbers, constant over time (\cite{111agnihotriJaggiChen, ursdiggavi}) and known (even for the eavesdropper channels) throughout the network \cite{109dongHanPetropuluPoor,110zhangGursoy,110zhangGursoy2}.

In \textit{amplify-and-forward} relaying, each relay scales its received signal before transmitting. The maximum scaling factor at a relay is determined by its individual power constraint. We consider the following average transmit power constraint:
\begin{equation*}
E[x_i^2[n]] \le P_i,\quad  -\infty <n<\infty,\quad i \in \{s,1,2,\dots,M\}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, the channel input at the $i^{th}$ relay can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beta}
x_i[n+1]=\beta_i y_i[n],
\end{equation}
where the scaling factor $\beta$ is subject to the constraint
\begin{align}\label{eq:beta_cons}
0 \le \beta_i^2 \le \beta_{i,max}^2 = P_i/(h_{si}^2 P_s + \sigma^2)
\end{align}

Assuming equal delay along each path, for the network in Figure \ref{fig:model}, the copies of the source signal ($x_s[.]$) and noise signals ($z_i[.]$), respectively, arrive at the destination and the eavesdropper along multiple paths of the same delay. Therefore, the signals received at the destination and eavesdropper are free from intersymbol interference (ISI). Thus, we can omit the time indices and use equations \eqref{eq:rel}-\eqref{eq:beta} to write:
\begin{equation}
y_k=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{M} h_{si}\beta_i h_{ik} x_s + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}\beta_i h_{ik} z_i + z_k,\;k\in\{t,e\}
\end{equation}
The secrecy rate at the destination for such a network model can be written as \cite{wyner},
$R_s(P_s)= [I(x_s;y_d)-I(x_s;y_e)]^+$,
where $I(x_s;y)$ represents the mutual information between random variable $x_s$ and $y$ and $[u]^+=\max\{u,0\}$.
The secrecy capacity is attained for Gaussian channels with the Gaussian input $x_s \sim \mathcal{N}(0,P_s)$, where $\mathbf{E}[x_s^2] = P_s$, \cite{078cheongHellman}. Therefore, the optimal secrecy rate achievable with AF relaying can be written as the following optimization problem.
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:opt1}
\begin{align}
R_s(P_s) &=  \max_{\bm{\beta}} \left[R_d(P_s,\bm{\beta}) - R_e(P_s,\boldsymbol{\beta})\right]\\
         &=  \max_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \left[\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1+SNR_d(P_s,\bm{\beta})}{1+SNR_e(P_s,\bm{\beta})}\right],
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $SNR_k(P_s,\bm{\beta}) =  \gamma_s \Gamma_k(\bm{\beta}),\;k \in \{t,e\}$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:snr_vec}
\Gamma_k(\bm{\beta})= \frac{(\mathbf{h_{s,k}}^t\bm{\beta})^2}{1+\bm{\beta}^t\mathbf{D_k}\bm{\beta}},
\end{equation}
$\gamma_s = \frac{P_s}{\sigma^2}$, $\mathbf{h_{s,k}}=[h_{s1}h_{1k},h_{s2}h_{2k},\cdots,h_{sM}h_{Mk}]^t$, and
$\mathbf{D_k}=diag([h_{1k}^2,h_{2k}^2,\cdots,h_{Mk}^2])$ is a $M\times M$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries written in vector form.

In the following section, we analyze the optimal secure AF rate problem in \eqref{eq:opt1} for three specific network models.

\section{The Optimal AF Secrecy Rate Analysis}
\label{sec:secrate}
We discuss the optimal solution of the maximum AF secrecy rate problem \eqref{eq:opt1} in the $M$-relay diamond networks with single eavesdropper in \textit{degraded eavesdropper channels} scenario. Later we consider two special cases, namely \textit{scaled eavesdropper channels} and \textit{symmetric network}.

\subsection{Degraded Eavesdropper Channels}
\label{subsec:degradedEve}
Consider a general channel model where gains along the source to relays and relays to the destination channels may take arbitrary values. However, the relay to eavesdropper channels are degraded versions of the relay to destination channels, that is, $h_{it}>h_{ie}$ or $\bm{h_e}=\bm{\alpha}^t \bm{h_t}, \alpha_i < 1, i \in \{1, \ldots, M\}$.
{
\subsubsection{Optimal secrecy rate for individual relay constraints}
From equation \eqref{eq:opt1} we can rewrite an equivalent optimization problem in the following manner:
\begin{subequations}
	\label{eq:optindvcons}
	\begin{align}
		\max_\eta\;\;\max_{\bm{\beta}}\;\;& \frac{1+SNR_d(\bm{\beta})}{1+\eta} \label{objfn:optindv}\\
		\text{subject to:}\;\; & SNR_e(\bm{\beta})\le \eta,\\
		& 0 \le \beta_i^2 \le \beta_{i,max}^2, \; i \in \{1,2,\dots M \}
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The optimization problem \eqref{eq:optindvcons} can be solved in two steps. At first, we fix an $\eta$ and solve the inner optimization problem for optimal $\bm{\beta}$. We first present an approach to solve the inner optimization problem, then we address the second step involving the variable $\eta$.

\par We perform the following transformation on the inner optimization \eqref{eq:optindvcons} to convert the non-convex problem into a convex one.
$ v_i={\omega_i}/{(1+\sum_{i=1}^{M}\omega_i^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}$
\text{or, equivalently }
$\bm{\omega}=\frac{\mathbf{v}}{\sqrt{1-\mathbf{v^tv}}}$.\\
The objective function becomes $\mathbf{v^th_sh_s^tv}$ and it can be shown that it suffices to maximize the linear objective $\mathbf{h_s^tv}$. The reformulated inner optimization problem is:
\begin{subequations}\label{opt_indv}
	\begin{align}
	\max_\mathbf{v}&\; \mathbf{h_s^tv}\\
	\text{subject to:}&\;\mathbf{v^tC_e}(\eta)\mathbf{v} \le 1,\label{eq:evecons}\\
	& \mathbf{v^tD_iv} \le 1, \; i \in \{1,2,\dots M \},\label{eq:consindv}
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathbf{C}_e(\eta)=\frac{\hh\hh^\mathbf{t}}{\eta}\frac{P_s}{\sigma^2}+\mathbf{I}-\Dh_e$, $\hh=[h_{s1}\rho_1,h_{s2}\rho_2,$ $\ldots,h_{sM}\rho_M]^\mathbf{t}$, $\Dh_e=diag([\rho_{1}^2,\rho_{2}^2,\ldots,\rho_{M}^2])$ and $\rho_i=\frac{h_{ie}}{h_{id}},\;\forall i$.
$\mathbf{D_i}$ characterizes the constraint for each relay node and is given by $$(\mathbf{D_i})_{mn}=
\begin{dcases}
& 1+ \frac{v_i^2}{h_{id}^2\beta_{i,max}^2},\;\text{if }m=n=i\\
& 1 ,\text{ if }m=n\ne i\\
& 0, \text{ otherwise }
\end{dcases}$$
For the degraded channels $\rho_{i}<1$, so $\mathbf{C}_e(\eta)$ is a positive semidefinite matrix. As the objective function is linear and constraints are convex, so the problem in \eqref{opt_indv} is convex and can be solved optimally using well-known numerical techniques \textit{e.g.} interior-point methods.

Once we have obtained the solution for the inner optimization problem over transformed variable $\bf{v}$, then \eqref{eq:opttotcons} reduces to a one dimensional optimization problem. If we denote the optimal solution for the inner optimization problem by $\bf{v^*}(\eta)$ for a fixed $\eta$, then the following proposition describes the nature of the objection function \eqref{objfn:optindv}.
\begin{pavikp}
	\label{prpn:unimod}
	The objective function  $f(\eta)=\frac{1+(\mathbf{h_s^tv}^*(\eta))^2}{1+\eta}$ is unimodal in $\eta$ for $\eta \in[0, \infty)$.
\end{pavikp}
\begin{IEEEproof}
	Please refer to Appendix \ref{appnd3}
\end{IEEEproof}
As $f(\eta)$ is unimodal, so we can guarantee the convergence to global optima using line search algorithms (\textit{e.g.} golden section \cite{Chong2013}).
Instead of searching over whole positive real line ($\mathbb{R}^+$), we can limit the range of $\eta$ by further analysis.

\textit{Range of $\eta$:} As SNR is always positive, so $\eta=0$ serves as a lower bound. This $\eta$ value corresponds to the zero-forcing solution (\ref{subsubsec:zfc}) which serves as a lower bound for optimization problem \eqref{eq:optindvcons}. For upper bound on $\eta$, we solve the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation*}
\label{eta_range}
\eta_{max}=\max_{\bm{\beta}}\Gamma_e(\bm{\beta}), \text{ subject to: }\;\bm{\beta}^t\Lambda\bm{\beta} \le P_{tot}= P_1 + \ldots + P_M
\end{equation*}
where $\Lambda=diag[h_{s1}^2P_s+\sigma^2,h_{s2}^2P_s+\sigma^2,\cdots,h_{sM}^2P_s+\sigma^2]$. The constraint considered here is total power constraint and corresponds to a larger feasible solution space as compared to individual constraints. Therefore, $\eta_{max}$ calculated here is an over estimate of the maximum value of $\eta$ with individual constraints. The solution of this problem is $\eta_{max}=\mathbf{h_{s,e}}^t\mathbf{\tilde{D}_e}^{-1}\mathbf{h_{s,e}}$, where $\mathbf{\tilde{D}_e}=\frac{1}{P_{tot}}\Lambda+\mathbf{D_e}$.

Along with the solution of the optimal AF secrecy rate in this setting, we also provide upper and lower bounds on the optimal rate. For upper bound, we replace the individual power constraint on each relay by a single total power constraint on $\bm{\beta}$ vector.
 For lower bound, we consider the \textit{zero forcing} solution \cite{109dongHanPetropuluPoor, 113yangLiMaChiang}, where $\bm{\beta}$ values are chosen such that the transmitted signals get canceled at eavesdropper.

\subsubsection{Optimal secrecy rate for the total power constraint}
From equation \eqref{eq:opt1} the total power constraint optimization problem can be expressed in following manner:
\begin{subequations}
	\label{eq:opttotcons}
	\begin{align}
	\max_\eta\;\;\max_{\bm{\beta}}\;\;& \frac{1+SNR_d(\bm{\beta})}{1+\eta} \label{objfn:opttot}\\
	\text{subject to:}\;\; & SNR_e(\bm{\beta})\le \eta,\\
	& \bm{\beta}^t\Lambda\bm{\beta} \le P_{tot},\label{subeq:opttotcons3}
	\end{align}

\end{subequations}
One can check that the total power constraint \eqref{subeq:opttotcons3} results in larger feasible solution space as compared to \eqref{eq:beta_cons}. Therefore, the optimal objective function value obtained will upper bound the original individual constraint problem \eqref{eq:optindvcons}. Using the transformation described above, we can reformulate the optimization problem in the following manner:
\begin{subequations}
	\label{eq:totoptrfm}
	\begin{align}

	\max_{\mathbf{v}}\;\;& \mathbf{h_s^tv}\\
	\text{subject to:}\; & \mathbf{v^t}\mathbf{C}_e(\eta)\mathbf{v} \le 1,\label{constr:totoptcons1}\\
	& \mathbf{v^tD_Tv}\le 1 \label{constr:totoptcons2}
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathbf{D_T}=diag([\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_M])$,  $\zeta_i=(1+\frac{h_{si}^2P_s+\sigma^2}{h_{id}^2P_{tot}})$. As $\mathbf{D_T}$ is a diagonal matrix with positive diagonal elements, so \eqref{constr:totoptcons2} is a convex constraint. This problem can be solved in a manner similar to the one for the individual power constraint.
}

\subsubsection{Zero forcing for individual constraints ($\eta=0$)}\label{subsubsec:zfc}
In this approach we equate $SNR_e$ to zero while maximizing $SNR_d$. By imposing this extra constraint we are reducing the feasible solution space, therefore, the solution obtained will provide a lower bound to original problem. The optimal secure AF rate problem for this case can be written as:
\begin{subequations}
	\label{zfs}
	\begin{align}
	\max_{\bm{\beta}}&\quad\frac{P_s}{\sigma^2}\frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{M} h_{si}\beta_ih_{it}\right)^2}{1 + \sum_{i=1}^{M}(\beta_i h_{it})^2}\label{zfs_obj}\\
	\text{subject to}&\;  \sum\limits_{i=1}^{M} h_{si} \beta_i h_{ie}=0,\\
	& -\beta_{i,max} \le\beta_i \le \beta_{i,max}\label{zfs_rel}
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}

We reformulate it as the following quadratic program.

\begin{pavikp}
	\label{prpn:zf-qp}
	The problem in \eqref{zfs} is equivalent to the following quadratic program which can be solved efficiently
	\begin{equation*}
	\max_{\mathbf{w}}\;\; \mathbf{w^tw},

	\text{ subject to: } {\mathbf{H}}\mathbf{w}=[1 \quad 0]^t, \: \mathbf{H}_\beta\mathbf{w} \le \mathbf{0}
	\end{equation*}
\end{pavikp}
\begin{IEEEproof}
	Please refer to Appendix \ref{appnd2}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\noindent\textit{Remark 1:} As this formulation does not rely on the degradedness assumption, it can be used for general channels also.

\subsection{Scaled Eavesdropper Channels}
\label{subsec:scaledEve}
Scaled eavesdropper scenario is a special case of degraded channel scenario. Here, all the elements of vector $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ have same value, \textit{i.e.} $\alpha_i = \alpha < 1, i \in \{1, \ldots, M\}$.  Therefore, eavesdropper channel can be expressed as $\bm{h_e}=\alpha \bm{h_t}$. Though the approach discussed in the last section can be used to solve the optimal AF secrecy rate problem corresponding to this network model, here we propose another scheme that better exploits the corresponding channel properties, thus resulting in a more efficient implementation.
Before going to details, we provide an overview of the proposed solution to the scaled eavesdropper problem.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Due to the structure of the optimization problem we identify that a common function is present in both numerator and denominator and maximizing that function will result in maximization of the original problem.
	\item Consider a new variable $\omega_i=h_{id}\beta_{i}$, its upper bound $\omega_{i,max}=h_{id}\beta_{i,max}$, and a new parameter $g_{si}=\sqrt{\frac{P_s}{\sigma^2}}h_{si}, i \in \{1,2,\ldots,M\}$. Now we relaxed the derived optimization problem by replacing all the individual constraint by a single total constraint which can be solved efficiently.
	\begin{align*}
		\textrm{ \textbf{Original}:}& \max f(\boldsymbol{\omega})=\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^M g_{s,i}\omega_i\right)^2 \text{subject to: } \omega_i \le \omega_{i,max}\,i \in\{1,2,\ldots,M\} \\
		\textrm{ \textbf{Relaxed:}}&	\max \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^M g_{s,i}\omega_i\right)^2 \text{subject to: }\sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}\omega_i^2=r^2
	\end{align*}
	Here, $r^2 \in [0,||\boldsymbol{\omega}||^2]$
	\item  If the solution of this relaxed problem satisfy individual constraints, then we have solved the problem optimally.
	\item  If the solution of that total constraint problem violates individual constraints, then we have to impose the individual constraint criteria to obtain the solution. In other words, some of the variables have reached their boundary value and others are still inside constraint region. The question is how to identify the variables that have reached their respective upper bounds?

	Let us begin with the obvious scenario, where $r^2=||\boldsymbol{\omega}_{max}||^2$. The solution is trivial \textit{i.e.}  $\omega_i=\omega_{i,max}, \; \forall \{1,2,\ldots,M\}$.  Now, if we want to reduce $\delta$ from all the variables, how should we proceed so that objective is least effected. Consider, $0\le\theta_i\le1$ and $\sum\limits_{i}^{}\theta_i=1$. If we reduce $\delta\theta_i$ from each variable, then for  $\delta \to 0$, neglecting $\delta^2$, the rate of change in objective function with respect to $r^2$ can be written as:
	\[\der[f]{r^2} =\sum\limits_{i}^{}\pder[f]{\omega_i}/\pder[r^2]{\omega_i}=\sum\limits_{i}^{}\theta_i\frac{g_{s,i}}{\omega_{i,max}}\ge \frac{g_{s,i^*}}{\omega_{i^*,max}} \text{where } i^* =\arg \min_i \frac{g_{s,i}}{\omega_{i,max}} \]
	Therefore, we should reduce the variable $\omega_{i^*}$, to keep the rate of decrement of the objective function minimum.
We can keep reducing $\omega_{i^*}$ only till $\frac{g_{s,i^*}}{\omega_{i^*}}=\frac{g_{s,j^*}}{\omega_{j^*,max}}$, where $j^* =\arg \min_{j \ne i} \frac{g_{s,j}}{\omega_{j,max}}$. From that point onwards variables $\omega_{i^*}$ and $\omega_{j^*}$ both has least effect on objective function among all variables and, therefore,  we keep reducing them jointly till we reach $\frac{g_{s,k^*}}{\omega_{k^*,max}}$, where $k^* =\arg \min_{k \ne i,j} \frac{g_{s,k}}{\omega_{k,max}}$ and it continues in similar manner.

	 From the above discussion one can conclude that an ordering among the variables are possible depending on their contribution towards objective function. Variables that contributes more towards objective function have higher tendency of violating individual constraints as compared to other variables. So, we sort the variables in descending order based on there $\frac{g_{s,i}}{\omega_{i,max}}$ value and re-index them in following manner:
	 \[\frac{g_{s,(1)}}{\omega_{(1),max}} \ge \frac{g_{s,(2)}}{\omega_{(2),max}} \ge \cdots \ge \frac{g_{s,(M)}}{\omega_{(M),max}}\]
	 Due to re-indexing, we can say that $\omega_{(i)}$ has higher tendency of violating individual constraint than $\omega_{(i+1)}$. Now, we can divide the range $[0,||\boldsymbol{\omega}_{max}||^2]$ based on this ordering. An interval $[r_m^2,r_{m+1}^2]$ is defined in following manner:
	 \[r_m^2=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}\omega_{(i),max}^2+\frac{\omega_{(m),max}^2}{g_{s,(m)}^2}\sum\limits_{i=m+1}^{M}g_{s,(i)}^2
	 \]
	In simple words, within this interval variables indexed by $(1)$ to $(m)$ has reached their upper bounds and we need to solve the total constraint problem for rest of the variables.
	\item We argue that the solution for each of these subproblems within an interval can be obtained by solving a one-dimensional maximization problem.
	\item We choose the solution that maximizes the original objective function over those sub-intervals.
\end{enumerate}

We rewrite the achievable AF secrecy rate in terms of $\bm{\omega}$:
\begin{equation*}
R_s(\bm{\omega})=\frac{1}{2}\log\left[\frac{1+\varrho_1\Psi(\bm{\omega})}{1+\varrho_2\Psi(\bm{\omega})}\right],
\end{equation*}
where $\Psi(\mathbf{\omega})=\left(\sum_{i=1}^M g_{si}\omega_i\right)^{\!\!2}$, $\varrho_1=\frac{1}{1+r^2}$, and $\varrho_2=\frac{\alpha^2}{1+\alpha^2r^2}$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{M}\omega_i^2=r^2$. So, in this setting the problem in \eqref{eq:opt1} is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:sclEveProb}
R_s(P_s) =  \max_{\bm{\omega}} R_s(\bm{\omega})
\end{equation}

In the rest of this subsection we provide an approach to efficiently compute the optimal solution of the problem in \eqref{eqn:sclEveProb} and then summarize it in an algorithm.

Note that a non-zero secrecy rate can be obtained only if $\alpha <1$. Thus, $\varrho_1 > \varrho_2$. This implies that $\frac{1+\varrho_1\Psi(\bm{\omega})}{1+\varrho_2\Psi(\bm{\omega})}$ is maximized when $\Psi(\bm{\omega})$ is correspondingly maximized. To maximize $\Psi(\bm{\omega})$, we formulate the following problem:
\begin{equation}
\label{opt:scl_eve}
\max \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^M g_{si}\omega_i\right)^2 \text{subject to} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}\omega_i^2=r^2
\end{equation}

It is easy to prove that the optimal $\bm{\omega}(r)$ vector for this problem is equal to $\bm{\omega}(r) = \frac{\mathbf{g_s}}{||\mathbf{g_s}||}r$. By replacing this in the secrecy rate equation \eqref{eqn:sclEveProb} along with the sum constraint we formulate the following optimization problem in $r$:
\begin{align}
\label{opt:onedim}
\max_r \quad\frac{1+\frac{||\mathbf{g_s}||^2r^2}{1+r^2}}{1+\frac{\alpha^2||\mathbf{g_s}||^2r^2}{1+\alpha^2r^2}}
\end{align}

\begin{pavikl}
	\label{lem:optonedim}
	The optimal solution to the problem in \eqref{opt:onedim} is $r^*=(\sqrt{\alpha\sqrt{1+||\mathbf{g_s}||^2}})^{-1}$.
\end{pavikl}
\begin{IEEEproof}
	By differentiating the objective function of \eqref{opt:onedim} with respect to $r$ and then it equating to $0$, we get the solution.
\end{IEEEproof}

Now, if  $\frac{\mathbf{g_s}}{||\mathbf{g_s}||}r^*$ satisfy individual constraints of $\omega_i$ then this is the optimal solution, else we must consider the next step that considers scenarios where the solution obtained using above method violates any of the $\omega_i$'s constraints.

Arrange $\omega_i$'s according to $\frac{g_{si}}{\omega_{i,max}}$ and denote them as $\omega_{(1)} \ge \ldots \ge \omega_{(M)}$. The $g_{si}$ are ordered accordingly with the ordered values denoted as $g_{s,(i)}$. Then, we divide the feasible set of the problem in \eqref{opt:scl_eve} in $M$ non-overlapping subsets, $[r_m, r_{m+1}]$, $m \in \{0, \ldots, M-1\}$. The interval that results in the largest value of the problem in \eqref{eqn:sclEveProb} solved over it as discussed below, is chosen as the one that results in the optimal solution of \eqref{eqn:sclEveProb} over all intervals and the corresponding optimal vector of scaling factors $\bm{\beta}^*$. The correctness of this approach follows from an argument similar to the one in \cite[Lemma 1]{109jingJafarkhani}.

For the ease of exposition, define $p_m = \sum_{i=1}^{m}g_{s,(i)}\omega_{(i),max}$, $q_m = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\omega_{(i),max}^2$, and $s_m = \sum_{i=m+1}^{M}g_{s,(i)}^2$.

The intervals can be calculated as follows. The first interval is $[0,r_1]$, where $r_1$ corresponds to the value at which the first variable (after ordering) is equal to its upper bound. Therefore, $\bm{\omega}^*= \frac{\mathbf{g_s}}{||\mathbf{g_s}||}r_1=\frac{\mathbf{h_s}}{||\mathbf{h_s}||}r_1$ and $\omega_{(1),max}=\frac{g_{s,(1)}}{||\mathbf{g_s}||}r_1$. Thus, $r_1 = \frac{||\mathbf{g_s}||}{g_{s,(1)}}\omega_{(1),max}=\sqrt{(s_1/g_{s,(1)}^2)\omega_{(1),max}^2\!\!+\!q_1}$. Similarly, $r_m=\sqrt{\!(s_m/g_{s,(m)}^2\!)\omega_{(m),max}^2\!\!\!+\!q_m}$, $m \!\in\! \{1,\ldots,\!M\!-1\}$ and $r_M=q_M$.

\noindent\textit{Remark 2:} If $0 \le r \le r_1$, then we can obtain the optimal scaling vector using the solutions of \eqref{opt:scl_eve} and \eqref{opt:onedim}.

Consider evaluating \eqref{eqn:sclEveProb} over the interval $[r_m,r_{m+1}]$. In this stage the first $m$ ordered variables have reached their respective boundaries. These variables are replaced by their respective upper bounds. For the rest of the variables we search for their respective optimum values as discussed next.

The part of the objective function in \eqref{opt:scl_eve} depending on variables $[\omega_{(m+1)},\ldots,\omega_{(M)}]$ can be upper bounded as:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{g}_{s,\{(m+1),\cdot,(M)\}}^t\bm{\omega}_{\{(m+1),\cdot,(M)\}} & \le \lambda_m ||\mathbf{g}_{s,\{(m+1),\cdot,(M)\}}||\\
\text{for all }||\bm{\omega}_{\{(m+1),\cdot,(M)\}}||&=\sqrt{r^2-q_m},
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{u}_{\{(m+1),\cdot,M\}}:=[u_{(m+1)},\cdots,u_{(M)}]^t$ and $\lambda_m > 0$. In other words, the objective function is maximized when the vector variables $[\omega_{(m+1)},\ldots,\omega_{(M)}]^t$ lies in the direction of $[g_{s,(m+1)},\cdots,g_{s,(M)}]^t$ vector. Therefore, we have to find the optimal scaling factor $\lambda_m$ for those variables. Replacing the first $m$ ordered variables by their respective upper bounds and rest of them by a scaled vector of $\mathbf{g}_{s,\{(m+1),\cdot,(M)\}}$, we obtain the following optimization problem in terms of $\lambda_m$.
\begin{equation*}
\max_{\lambda_m: \lambda_m > 0} \frac{1+\gamma_s\frac{(p_m+s_m\lambda_m)^2}{1+q_m+s_m\lambda_m^2}}{1+\gamma_s\frac{\alpha^2(p_m+s_m\lambda_m)^2}{1+\alpha^2q_m+\alpha^2s_m\lambda_m^2}}
\end{equation*}

The solution to the above problem can be calculated by solving the following degree-4 polynomial equation:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:polynm}
\frac{(1+q_m)(1+\alpha^2q_m)}{s_m^2\alpha^2(1+\gamma_ss_m)}
-\frac{p_m(\gamma_sp_m^2\alpha^2+2q_m\alpha^2+\alpha^2+1)}{s_m^2\alpha^2(1+\gamma_ss_m)}\lambda_m\\
-\frac{3p_m^2\gamma_s}{s_m(1+\gamma_ss_m)}\lambda_m^2
-\frac{p_m(2+3\gamma_ss_m)}{s_m(1+\gamma_ss_m)}\lambda_m^3
-\lambda_m^4=0
\end{multline}

The coefficients of this equation are all negative except the first one. Using the \textit{Descartes' rule of sign} there is only one positive root as there is only one variation in sign of the coefficients. Given that $0 < \lambda_m$, it is the desired solution.
Note that, if $\lambda_m > w_{(m+1),max}/g_{s,(m+1)}$, then the solution will not belong to predefined sub-interval $(\because r_{m+1}^2={\!(s_{m+1}/g_{s,(m+1)}^2\!)\omega_{(m+1),max}^2\!\!\!+\!q_{m+1}}<{\!\lambda_ms_{m+1}\!\!\!+\!q_{m+1}})$.\\
We summarize the whole procedure in Algorithm \ref{algo1}.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{algorithm}[!h]
	\caption{Algorithm for Scaled Eavesdropper Channel}
	\textbf{Input:} $\alpha$, $\bm{g_s}$, $\bm{\omega}_{i,max}$, $P$, $\sigma^2$\\
	\textbf{Output:} $\bm{\omega}^*$
	\begin{algorithmic}[1]
		\STATE Calculate $r^*=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha\sqrt{1+||\mathbf{g_s}||^2}}}$
		and	evaluate $\bm{\omega}=\frac{\mathbf{g_s}}{||\mathbf{g_s}||}r^*$.\\
		\IF{$\omega_i \le \omega_{i,max}$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, M\}$}
		\STATE	$\bm{\omega}^* = \bm{\omega}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:optonedim}) and exit.
		\ELSE
		\STATE 	Sort $\omega_i$s according to $\frac{g_{si}}{\omega_{i,max}}$ in the descending order.
		\FOR{$m=1$ to $M-1$}
		\STATE	Solve polynomial equation \eqref{eq:polynm} to calculate the $\lambda_m$.

		\STATE Evaluate $\bm{\omega}_m$ using $\lambda_m$ corresponding to interval $[r_m,r_{m+1}]$ starting from first $i$ for which $\lambda_i < w_{(i+1),max}/g_{s,(i+1)}$. Denote that $i$ as $i_0$.
		\ENDFOR
		\STATE	$\bm{\omega}^* = \bm{\omega}_m^*$, $\bm{\omega}_m^*$ maximizes the solution of \eqref{eqn:sclEveProb} over all $\bm{\omega}_m$, $m \in \{i_0,\ldots,M-1\}$.
		\ENDIF
	\end{algorithmic}
	\label{algo1}

\end{algorithm}

\subsection{Symmetric Network}
\label{subsec:symNet}
A special case of the general $s-t$ and $s-e$ diamond networks introduced above is the \textit{symmetric} setting, where $h_{si} = h_s, h_{it} = h_t$, $h_{ie} = h_e$ and {$P_i=P_R, i \in \{1, \ldots, M\}$.} In this setting, for a given vector of scaling factors, $\bm{\beta} = (\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_M)$, the achievable AF secrecy rate is:
\begin{equation*}
R_s(\bm{\beta}) \! = \! \frac{1}{2}\log\!\left[\left(\!\!1\!+\!\frac{\gamma_s^{'}\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}\beta_i\!\right)^{\!\!2}}{\nu+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}\beta_i^2}\right)\!\bigg/\!\! \left(\!\! 1\!+\!\frac{\gamma_s^{'}\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}\beta_i\!\right)^{\!\!2}}{\mu+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}\beta_i^2}\right)\right]\!\!,
\end{equation*}
where
$\gamma_s^{'}=\gamma_s h_s, \nu=h_t^{-2}$, and $\mu=h_e^{-2}$. Note that $R_s(\bm{\beta})$ is non-zero only if $\nu<\mu$, \textit{i.e.} $h_t>h_e$. Thus, using \eqref{eq:opt1}, the optimal secure AF rate problem in this setting is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:symNetProb}
R_s(P_s) =  \max_{\bm{\beta}} R_s(\bm{\beta})
\end{equation}

\begin{pavikp}
\label{prpn:symNet}
For the symmetric $M$-relay diamond network, the optimum scaling factors for all relays are equal, \textit{i.e.} $\beta^*_1=\beta^*_2=\dots=\beta^*_M = \beta^*$.
\end{pavikp}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Please refer to Appendix \ref{appnd1}.
\end{IEEEproof}

\begin{pavikc}
\label{cor:symNet}
For symmetric $M$ relay diamond network, the optimal value of the scaling factor for each relay is:
\begin{equation*}
\beta^* = \begin{dcases}
            \bigg[\frac{\sigma^2}{P_R M^2h_t^2 h_e^2}\bigg]^{1/4} \beta_{max}^{1/2}, \quad \frac{\sigma^2}{P_R \beta_{max}^2} < M^2h_t^2 h_e^2 \\
            \beta_{max}, \qquad \mbox{o.w.}
            \end{dcases}
\end{equation*}
\end{pavikc}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Using Proposition~\ref{prpn:symNet}, the optimal AF secrecy rate problem in \eqref{eq:opt1} is reduced in this case to the following single parameter optimization problem:
\begin{equation*}
\max_{\beta: 0 \le \beta^2 \le \beta_{max}^2}\left( 1+\frac{P_s}{\sigma^2} \frac{M^2\beta^2 h_s^2 h_t^2}{1 + M\beta^2 h_t^2}\right)\bigg/\left( 1+\frac{P_s}{\sigma^2} \frac{M^2\beta^2 h_s^2 h_e^2}{1 + M\beta^2 h_e^2}\right)
\end{equation*}
With the parameters: $h_{sr}=\sqrt{M}h_s$, $h_{rd}=\sqrt{M}h_t$, and $h_{re}=\sqrt{M}h_e$, this problem reduces to the single relay AF secrecy rate maximization problem, addressed in Lemma~\ref{lem:single-rel} below.
\end{IEEEproof}

\begin{pavikl}
\label{lem:single-rel}
The optimal AF scaling factor for single AF relay network is:
\begin{equation*}
\beta_{AF} = \begin{dcases}
				\bigg[\frac{\sigma^2}{P_R h_{rd}^2 h_{re}^2}\bigg]^{1/4} \beta_{max}^{1/2}, \quad \frac{\sigma^2}{P_R \beta_{max}^2} < h_{rd}^2 h_{re}^2 \\
				\beta_{max}, \quad \mbox{o.w.}
			\end{dcases}
\end{equation*}
\end{pavikl}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Please refer to Appendix \ref{appnd4}.
\end{IEEEproof}

\textit{Remark 3:} One can obtain an upper bound on secrecy rate for degraded channel scenario (\ref{subsec:degradedEve}) by using the result of symmetric channel scenario. For example, if we form a $M$ relay symmetric network by considering $h_{s}=\max\{\bf{h_s}\}$, $h_{t}=\max\{\bf{h_t}\}$ and $h_e=\min\{\bf{h_e}\}$, where $\max\{\bf{x}\}$ and $\min\{\bf{x}\}$ denotes the maximum and minimum element of vector $\bf{x}$, respectively.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:res}
To evaluate the performance of the scheme proposed in subsection~\ref{subsec:degradedEve}, consider a network whose main channel gains are sampled from a Rayleigh distribution with parameter 0.5. The degraded channels for eavesdroppers is obtained by multiplying a factor ($\sim Uniform[0,1]$) with the relay to destination channel gain. We average the results of 1000 such network instances while plotting the graphs.

\begin{figure}[!t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{fig_scrate_Ps_dB}
	\vspace{-0.15in}
	\caption{Plot of the optimal secrecy rate ($R_s^*$) versus source power ($P_s$) for five relay node diamond network using the scheme proposed in subsection~\ref{subsec:degradedEve}. Here we consider $P_r=5$ and $\sigma^2=1$.}
	\vspace{-0.2in}
	\label{fig_secrate}
\end{figure}

In Figure \ref{fig_secrate} we plot the variation of the optimal AF secrecy rate with respect to the source power ($P_s$) for the degraded eavesdropper channels. The zero-forcing lower bound and the total power constraint upper bounds are also plotted.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:concl}
The problem of maximizing the rate of secure unicast transmission over a network of parallel AF relays in the presence of an eavesdropper is considered. Unlike previous work that provides iterative algorithms with suboptimal performance without any performance and convergence guarantees, our work provides either a closed-form expression or polynomial-time algorithm to compute the optimal secure AF rate for three specific network models considered. In future, we plan to investigate optimum secrecy rate of general AF networks.


\section{Introduction}

Calabi-Yau geometry plays a central role for dualities in string theory. The celebrated prediction of counting rational curves on quintic 3-fold \cite{mirror} blows up the mathematical interest on mirror symmetry between symplectic (A-model) and complex (B-model) geometries. A mirror theorem about the equivalence between Gromov-Witten theory and variation of Hodge structures on a large class of mirror Calabi-Yau manifolds has been established by Givental \cite{Givental-mirror} and Lian-Liu-Yau \cite{LLY}.

Calabi-Yau models are closely related to Landau-Ginzburg models \cite{Gepner, vafa-warner, Vafa-LG, Cecotti-LG-CY, chiral-ring, Greene-Vafa-Warner} that are associated to holomorphic functions. Such phenomenon is sometimes called {Calabi-Yau/Landau-Ginzburg correspondence}. The most studied mirror construction involving Landau-Ginzburg models is between toric-varieties and Laurent polynomials \cite{Givental-mirror, Givental-homological, HV}. However, investigation of Landau-Ginzburg mirror pairs was rarely studied in mathematics. This is mainly due to the late appearance of a mathematical theory for Landau-Ginzburg A-models, which was fully established a few years ago by Fan, Jarvis and Ruan \cite{FJR} motivated by work of Witten \cite{Witten}. Now it is commonly referred as FJRW-theory, which can be viewed as a quantum intersection theory on Lefschetz thimbles. See \cite{FT} for a survey.

The mathematical context of Landau-Ginzburg B-models has a longer history. It dates back to the theory of primitive forms introduced by Saito \cite{Saito-primitive, Saito-residue} around early 1980's as a generalization of the elliptic period integral theory associated to an isolated singularity. Saito's theory leads to systematic examples of Frobenius manifold structure on the universal unfoldings of isolated singularities,  characterizing the genus zero structure of topological Landau-Ginzburg B-model. The analogue for compact Calabi-Yau manifolds is developed in \cite{Barannikov-Kontsevich,Barannikov-quantum}. For higher genus, Givental \cite{G2} proposed a remarkable formula for the total ancestor potential of a semi-simple Frobenius manifold.
The uniqueness of Givental's formula was established by Teleman \cite{T}.
According to Milanov \cite{M} (see also \cite{CI}), Givental's formula can be extended to certain limits of semi-simple locus, which is suffice for our purpose.

With both sides of Landau-Ginzburg models having firm foundations, it is natural to investigate whether mirror symmetry between Landau-Ginzburg pairs holds. Here the relevant holomorphic functions are weighted homogeneous as required for Landau-Ginzburg A-model. Such polynomials are partially classified by their \emph{central charges}.  Mirror symmetry for ADE singularities (central charge $<1$) is established by Fan-Jarvis-Ruan \cite{FJR} (see also \cite{JKV,FSZ} for A-types). For simple elliptic singularities (central charge $=1$), this is due to Krawitz-Milanov-Shen \cite{KS, MS}. The difficulty to go beyond central charge $=1$ is the lack of computation method for primitive period maps in those cases.  This problem is solved by a recent development of a perturbative theory of primitive forms \cite{LLSaito} (as an analogue of Calabi-Yau cases \cite{Barannikov-quantum,Kevin-Si-BCOV}) together with the help of WDVV equation. Applied to exceptional unimodular singularities (all with $1<$ central charge $<2$), this leads to a mirror theorem \cite{LLSS} for the first nontrivial examples whose central charges exceed $1$. Recently, a general mirror theorem has been proved \cite{H} by a thorough investigation of the method developed in \cite{LLSS}.

In this note, we will describe a geometric tour toward the general LG/LG mirror theorem based on \cite{H}. This paper is dedicated to Prof. S.-T. Yau on the occasion of his 65th birthday. The author thanks for his sharing of thoughtful views in mathematics and physics and his invaluable support and encouragement all the time. The author would also like to thank Yongbin Ruan for many helpful communications.

\section{The mirror pairs}
The LG/LG mirror pairs originate from  Berglund-H\"ubsch \cite{BH} that was completed by Krawitz \cite{K}, which is usually called the BHK mirror \cite{CR}. Let $W:\mathbb{C}^N \to\mathbb{C}$ be a weighted homogeneous polynomial with an isolated critical point at the origin. There exist positive rational numbers $q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_N\geq 1/2$ such that
\[
W(\lambda^{q_1}x_1, c^{q_2}x_2, \ldots, \lambda^{q_N}x_N) = \lambda\,W(x_1,x_2, \ldots, x_N), \quad \text{for each} \; \lambda \in \mathbb{C}^\times.
\]
The numbers $q_1, \ldots, q_N$ are called the \emph{weights} of $W$. The \emph{central charge} of $W$, which can be thought of as the ``dimension'' of the LG theory, is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\hat c_W=\sum_{j=1}^{N}(1-2q_j).
\end{equation*}

 We define its \emph{maximal group of diagonal symmetries} to be
\begin{equation*}
\Gmax{W} =
\left\{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_N)\in(\mathbb{C}^{\times})^N\Big\vert\,W(\lambda_1\,x_1,\dots,\lambda_N\,x_N)=W(x_1,\dots,x_N)\right\}.
\end{equation*}
In the BHK mirror construction,  the polynomial $W$ is required to be \emph{invertible} \cite{K, CR}, i.e., the number of variables must equal the number of monomials of $W$. By rescaling the variables, we can always write $W$ as
\begin{equation*}
W=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\prod_{j=1}^{N}x_j^{a_{ij}}.
\end{equation*}
We denote its \emph{exponent matrix} {by $E_W =\left(a_{ij}\right)$. The mirror polynomial of $W$ is \cite{BH}
\[
W^T=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\prod_{j=1}^{N}x_j^{a_{ji}},
\]
i.e., the exponent matrix $E_{W^T}$ of the mirror polynomial is the transpose matrix of $E_W$. All invertible polynomials have been classified \cite{KreS}:
a polynomial is invertible if and only if it is a disjoint sum of the three following atomic types, where $a\geq2$ and $a_i\geq2$:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Fermat:}	  $ x^a.$
\item \emph{Chain:}		$x_1^{a_1}x_2 + x_2^{a_2}x_3 + \ldots + x_{N-1}^{a_{N-1}}x_N + x_N^{a_N}.$
\item \emph{Loop:}		$x_1^{a_1}x_2 + x_2^{a_2}x_3 + \ldots + x_N^{a_N}x_1.$
\end{itemize}

Landau-Ginzburg mirror symmetry has to be incorporated with orbifold groups. Let $G\subset \Gmax{W}$ be a subgroup containing
$
   (e^{2\pi i q_1}, \cdots, e^{2\pi i q_n}).
$
Then the mirror group $G^T$ for $W^T$ is constructed by \cite{BHe, K}. The BHK mirror pair is
$$
  (W, G)\leftrightarrow (W^T, G^T).
$$
Landau-Ginzburg A model of $(W, G)$ is expected to be equivalent to Landau-Ginzburg B-model of $(W^T, G^T)$. When $G=G_W$, $G^T=\{1\}$. Since we do not have a satisfactory theory for orbifold Landau-Ginzburg B-model in general, we will restrict our discussion to $G^T=\{1\}$, i.e. $G=G_W$.

\section{FJRW theory}
FJRW theory \cite{FJR} associates a cohomological field theory (in the sense of \cite{Kont-M}) for a pair $(W, G)$. We consider the case $(W, \Gmax{W})$ with maximal orbifold group. It leads to a \emph{state space} $\mathcal A_W$ and a set of linear maps
$$\Lambda_{g,k}^W: (\mathcal A_{W})^{\otimes k}\to H^*(\overline{\mathcal M}_{g,k})$$
for  $2g-2+k>0$.
Here $\overline{\mathcal M}_{g,k}$ is the moduli space of stable $k$-pointed curves of genus $g$. The state space is defined as
\[
\mathcal A_{W}= \bigoplus_{\gamma \in \Gmax{W}} \mathcal A_{\gamma} \qquad \text{where} \qquad \mathcal A_{\gamma}:= \left( H^{N_{\gamma}}({\rm Fix}(\gamma), W_{\gamma}^{\infty}; \mathbb{C} )\right)^{\Gmax{W}}.
\]
Here ${\rm Fix}(\gamma)$ is the fixed locus of $\gamma$ and $N_\gamma$ is its dimension as a $\mathbb{C}$-vector space. Furthermore, $W_{\gamma}$ is the restriction of $W$ to ${\rm Fix}(\gamma)$, and $W_{\gamma}^{\infty}$ is ${\rm Re}(W_{\gamma})^{-1}((M, \infty))$ for $M\gg0$. Thus, $\mathcal A_{W}$ is dual to the space of Lefschetz thimbles.

The linear maps $\Lambda_{g,k}^W$ are obtained as the moduli space of solutions to the Witten equation
$$
   {\dbar \sigma_i}+\overline{\partial W \over \partial \sigma_i}=0
$$
on Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ with specified boundary conditions via Lefschetz thimbles at $k$ marked points. Here $\sigma_i$'s are sections of suitable orbifold line bundles. See \cite{FJR} for details. Naively,  we can think about $\sigma_i$'s as defining a ``map" (twisted by gravity on the surface $\Sigma_g$)
$$
   \sigma:  \Sigma_g  ``\to" \mathbb{C}^N
$$
satisfying a nonlinear deformation (defined by $W$) of the Cauchy-Riemann equation.  Therefore FJRW theory generalizes the usual Gromov-Witten theory to Landau-Ginzburg models.  See also \cite{CLL} for an algebraic construction in the narrow sectors.

The \emph{FJRW invariants} are defined by
$$
    \abracket{\xi_1 \psi_1^{l_1}, \cdots, \xi_k \psi_k^{l_k}}_{g,k}^W=\int_{\overline{\mathcal M}_{g,k}} \Lambda_{g,k}^W(\xi_1, \cdots, \xi_k) \prod_{i=1}^k \psi_i^{l_i}.
$$
Here $\xi_i\in \mathcal A_W$, and $\psi_i$ is the $i$-th $\psi$-class on $\overline{\mathcal M}_{g,k}$. The genus zero invariants define a Frobenius manifold structure on $\mathcal A_W$ with prepotential function
$$
\mathcal F_{0,W}^{FJRW}(\mathbf{t})=\sum_{k\geq 3}{1\over k!} \abracket{\mathbf{t}, \cdots, \mathbf{t}}_{0,k}^W, \quad \mathbf{t}\in \mathcal A_W.
$$

\section{Finding the right B-model}
Let us denote $f=W^T$ in the B-model, with a universal deformation
$$
  F(x,s)=f(x)+ \sum_{\alpha=1}^{\mu} s_\alpha \phi_\alpha(x),
$$
where $\{\phi_1, \cdots, \phi_\mu\}\in \mathbb{C}[x_1, \cdots, x_N]$ are weighted homogeneous polynomials representing an
additive basis of the Jacobian algebra $Jac(f)$, and $\{s_1, \cdots, s_\mu\}$ parametrizes the deformation
space at the germ $(\mathbb{C}^{\mu},0)$. Saito's primitive form is a family of holomorphic volume forms
$$
\zeta(x,s)=P(x,s)d^Nx, \quad d^Nx=dx_1\wedge\cdots \wedge dx_N,
$$
parametrized by the germ of the deformation. One of the key property of $\zeta(x,s)$ is that it induces a (holomorphic) metric
$$
   g(\partial_{s_\alpha}, \partial_{s_\beta})=\Res_F\bracket{{\partial_{s_\alpha}F\zeta, {\partial_{s_\beta}F} \zeta}}
$$
which is \emph{flat}. Here $\Res_F$ is the residue pairing associated to the critical points of the holomorphic function $F$ on $\mathbb{C}^N$. Moreover, in terms of the flat affine coordinates
$$
  \tau_\alpha=\tau_\alpha(s),
$$
the oscillatory integrals satisfy differential equations
$$
   (\partial_{\tau_\alpha}\partial_{\tau_\beta}-z^{-1}\sum_{\gamma}A_{\alpha\beta}^\gamma(\tau) \partial_{\tau_\gamma}) \int e^{F(x,s(\tau))/z}\zeta(x,s(\tau))=0.
$$
$A_{\alpha\beta}^\gamma(\tau)$ defines the quantum product for the Frobenius manifold structure on $\Jac(f)$. Together with the flat metric $g$, they determine the potential function of genus zero invariants in the Landau-Ginzburg B-model.

$\zeta(x,s)$ is constructed by solving a version of Riemann-Hilbert-Birkhoff problem \cite{Saito-primitive}. This abstract nature makes it very difficult to do computations with $\zeta(x,s)$. For weighted homogeneous singularities, the only known expressions are for ADE ($P=1$) and simple elliptic singularities (${1\over P}$ is a period of elliptic curves) \cite{Saito-primitive}. Beyond those, the existence of so-called irrelavant deformations (or negative degree deformations) complicates the situation.

There is a further subtlety in the B-model.  The primitive forms are not unique. Their moduli space can be identified with the choices of \emph{good basis} \cite{Saito-primitive, Saito-existence, Saito-uniqueness}, whose existence for arbitrary isolated singularity is proved in \cite{Saito-existence}. In the case of weighted homogeneous singularities, a good basis is a homogenous representatives $\{\phi_1, \cdots, \phi_\mu\}\in \mathbb{C}[x_i]$ of an
additive basis of $Jac(f)$, satisfying a tower of higher residue vanishing conditions
$$
  K_f^{(m)}(\phi_\alpha d^Nx, \phi_\beta d^Nx)=0, \quad m=1, 2, \cdots.
$$
Here $\{K_f^{(m)}\}_{m\geq 0}$ are Saito's higher residue pairing \cite{Saito-residue}, the leading term $K_f^{(0)}$ being the usual residue pairing. It is shown \cite{Saito-primitive} that each choice of a good basis leads to a primitive form, hence a Frobenius manifold structure on $\Jac(f)$.

Here is a basic example for this phenomenon. Consider a simple elliptic singularity: $f=x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3$.  For any $c\in \mathbb{C}$, the following is a good basis
$$
  \{1, x_1, x_2, x_3, x_1x_2, x_2x_3, x_3x_1, x_1x_2x_3+cf\}.
$$
In particular, we get a one-parameter family of primitive forms (up to rescaling by a constant).  This is related to the fact that there are two linearly independent periods on elliptic curves.

There are multiple choices of good basis in the B-model, leading to different genus zero invariants. We have to find the particular one that mirror symmetry favors for. This is identified in \cite{H} as follows.

\begin{thm}[\cite{H}] Let $f$ be an invertible polynomial of atomic types. Then the following choice $\{\phi_\alpha\}$ is a good basis of $f$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $f=x^a$ be a Fermat, then $\{\phi_{\alpha}\} = \{x^{r} \mid 0\leq r\leq a-2\}$.
\item Let $f = x_1^{a_1}+x_1x_2^{a_2}+\dots+x_{N-1}x_N^{a_N}$ be a chain, then
\[
\{\phi_{\alpha}\} = \left \{\prod_{i=1}^{N}x_i^{r_i}\right\}_{\mathbf{r}}
\]
 where $\mathbf{r}=(r_1,\cdots,r_N)$ with $r_i\leq  a_i-1$ for all $i$ and $\mathbf{r}$  is not of the form $ (*, \cdots, *, k, a_{N-2l}-1,  \cdots, 0, a_{N-2}-1, 0, a_{N}-1)$ with $k\geq 1$.
\item Let $f=x_1^{a_1}x_N+x_1x_2^{a_2}+\dots+x_{N-1}x_N^{a_N}$ be a loop, then
\[
\{\phi_{\alpha}\} =\left \{\prod_{i=1}^{N}x_i^{r_i} \; \middle | \; 0\leq r_i<a_i \right\}.
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}

Note that we have used the mirror expression for $f=W^T$. For an arbitrary invertible polynomial as a disjoint sum of atomic types, a good basis can be obtained from tensor product of the above good basis from its atomic component. We call this the \emph{standard good basis}.

The standard good basis appears also in FJRW theory \cite{K}, where Krawitz finds a natural identification of it with elements in FJRW state space $\mathcal A_W$. We call this Krawitz's mirror map, which defines a vector space isomorphism between $\mathcal A_W$  and $\Jac(W^T)$.

\section{The mirror theorem}
The works  \cite{T, M} imply that Givental's formula \cite{G2} is also valid for Landau-Ginzburg B-models defined by $W^T$. The full theory of Landau-Ginzburg B-model will be called Saito-Givental theory. Moreover, the higher genus invariants are completely determined by the genus zero data. To establish mirror symmetry between Landau-Ginzburg models, it suffices to show that the Frobenius manifold structures are isomorphic under Krawitz's mirror map. One of the main achievement in \cite{H} is the following reconstruction type theorem.

\begin{thm}[\cite{H}] Let $W$ be an invertible polynomial with no chain variables of weight $1/2$. Then for both FJRW theory of $(W, G_W)$ and primitive form of $W^T$ with respect to the standard good basis, the genus zero invariants are completely determined by 2-point, 3-point and 4-point functions accompanied with WDVV equation, String equation, Dimension Axiom and Integer Degree Axiom.
\end{thm}

Here the selection rules of Dimension Axiom and Integer Degree Axiom are natural geometric properties (see \cite{H} for details). The identification of 2-point and 3-point functions is done by Krawitz \cite{K}. This powerful reconstruction theorem therefore reduces the check of mirror symmetry to only 4-point functions (actually a few very special 4-point functions. See \cite{H}). There is a minor situation  for chain types with weight $1/2$ not covered, i.e., $W=x_1^{a_1}x_2 + x_2^{a_2}x_3 + \ldots + x_{N-1}^{a_{N-1}}x_N + x_N^{a_N}$ with $a_N=2$. This is a technical difficulty of missing information about certain FJRW  3-point functions due to the non-algebraic nature of FJRW theory.

The relevant FJRW 4-point functions can be computed using the method developed in \cite{C, Gu}. Historically, people in the subject of mirror symmetry focused on the computation of
explicit examples.  One novelty of our computation is that it works for ALL the cases .In the B-model, the difficulty of primitive forms is solved in \cite{LLSaito} by a recursive formula to compute correlation functions up to arbitrary order. These provide enough information for mirror pairs, and it is checked \cite{H} that data from both sides are completely identical! This leads to our mirror theorem.

\begin{thm}[Landau-Ginzburg Mirror Symmetry Theorem \cite{H}]  Let $W$ be an invertible polynomial with no chain variables of weight $1/2$. Then the FJRW theory of $(W, G_W)$ is equivalent to Saito-Givental theory of $W^T$ at all genera.

\end{thm}

There are several important questions to explore in this direction. For example, it is desirable to construct the full theory of orbifold Landau-Ginzburg B-model for the pair $(W^T, G^T)$ when $G^T\neq \{1\}$ in order to understand the general mirror pairs. Also, it would be quite interesting to incorporate D-branes for homological mirror symmetry \cite{HMS}. This will be investigated in future works.

\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}

\bib{Barannikov-quantum}{article}{
   author={Barannikov, S.},
   title={Quantum periods. I. Semi-infinite variations of Hodge structures},
   journal={Internat. Math. Res. Notices},
   date={2001},
   number={23},
   pages={1243--1264},
   issn={1073-7928},
}

\bib{Barannikov-Kontsevich}{article}{
   author={Barannikov, S.},
   author={Kontsevich, M.},
   title={Frobenius manifolds and formality of Lie algebras of polyvector
   fields},
   journal={Internat. Math. Res. Notices},
   date={1998},
   number={4},
   pages={201--215},
   issn={1073-7928},
}

\bib{BHe}{article}{
   author={Berglund, P.},
   author={Henningson, M.},
   title={Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds, mirror symmetry and the elliptic genus},
   journal={Nuclear Phys. B},
   volume={433},
   date={1995},
   number={2},
   pages={311--332}
}

\bib{BH}{article}
{
author={P. Berglund and T. H\"ubsch},
title={A Generalized Construction of Mirror Manifolds},
journal={Nucl. Phys. B 393 (1993)
377-391.}
}

\bib{mirror}{article}{
   author={Candelas, P.},
   author={de la Ossa, X C.},
   author={Green, P S.},
   author={Parkes, L.},
title={A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble
   superconformal theory},
   journal={Nuclear Phys. B},
   volume={359},
   date={1991},
   number={1},
   pages={21--74}
}

\bib{Cecotti-LG-CY}{article}{
      author={Cecotti, S.},
       title={{$N=2$} {L}andau-{G}inzburg vs.\ {C}alabi-{Y}au
  {$\sigma$}-models: nonperturbative aspects},
        date={1991},
     journal={Internat. J. Modern Phys. A},
      volume={6},
      number={10},
       pages={1749\ndash 1813},
}

\bib{CLL}{article}
{
author={Chang, H-L.},
author={Li, J.},
author={Li, W},
title={Witten's top Chern class via cosection localization},
journal={arXiv:1303.7126[math.AG]},
}

\bib{C}{article}
{
author={Chiodo, A.},
 title={Towards an enumerative geometry of the moduli space of twisted
   curves and $r$-th roots},
   journal={Compos. Math.},
   volume={144},
   date={2008},
   number={6},
   pages={1461--1496},

}

\bib{CR}{article}
{
author={A. Chiodo},
author={Y. Ruan},
title={A global mirror symmetry framework for the Landau-Ginzburg/Calabi-Yau correspondence},
journal={Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) vol. 61, no. 7 (2011), 2803-2864}
}

\bib{CI}{article}
{
author={Coates, T.},
author={Iritani, H.},
title={On the Convergence of Gromov-Witten Potentials and Givental’s Formula},
journal={arxiv:1203.4193[math.AG]},
}

   \bib{Kevin-Si-BCOV}{article}{
   author={Costello, K.},
   author={Li, S.},
   title={Quantum BCOV theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds and the higher genus B-model},
   note={arXiv:1201.4501 [math.QA]}
   }

\bib{FSZ}{article}
{
author={Faber, C.},
author={Shadrin, S.},
author={Zvounkine, D.},
title={Tautological relations and the r-spin Witten conjecture},
journal={Ann. Sci. \'Ec. Norm. Sup\'er},
number={43},
year={2010},
page={621-658},
}

\bib{FJR}{article}
{  author={Fan, H.},
   author={Jarvis, T.},
   author={Ruan, Y.},
   title={The Witten equation, mirror symmetry, and quantum singularity
   theory},
   journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
   volume={178},
   date={2013},
   number={1},
   pages={1--106},

}

\bib{FT}{article}
{
author={Francis, A.},
author={Jarvis, T.}
title={A brief survey of FJRW theory},
journal={arXiv:1503.01223[math.AG]},
}

\bib{Gepner}{article}{
      author={Gepner, D.},
       title={Exactly solvable string compactifications on manifolds of {${\rm
  SU}(N)$} holonomy},
        date={1987},
        ISSN={0370-2693},
     journal={Phys. Lett. B},
      volume={199},
      number={3},
       pages={380\ndash 388},
}

\bib{Givental-mirror}{article}{
   author={Givental, A.},
   title={A mirror theorem for toric complete intersections},
   conference={
      title={Topological field theory, primitive forms and related topics
      (Kyoto, 1996)},
   },
   book={
      series={Progr. Math.},
      volume={160},
      publisher={Birkh\"auser Boston},
      place={Boston, MA},
   },
   date={1998},
   pages={141--175},
}

\bib{Givental-homological}{article}{
   author={Givental, A.},
   title={Homological geometry and mirror symmetry},
   conference={
      title={Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians,
      Vol.\ 1, 2},
      address={Z\"urich},
      date={1994},
   },
   book={
      publisher={Birkh\"auser, Basel},
   },
   date={1995},
   pages={472--480}
}

\bib{G2}{article}
{
author={Givental, A.},
 title={Semisimple Frobenius structures at higher genus},
      journal={Internat. Math. Res. Notices},
   date={2001},
   number={23},
   pages={1265-1286},
}

\bib{Greene-Vafa-Warner}{article}{
      author={Greene, B.},
      author={Vafa, C.},
      author={Warner, N.},
       title={Calabi-{Y}au manifolds and renormalization group flows},
        date={1989},
        ISSN={0550-3213},
     journal={Nuclear Phys. B},
      volume={324},
      number={2},
       pages={371\ndash 390},
}

\bib{Gu}{article}
{
author={Gu\'er\'e, J.}
title={A Landau--Ginzburg mirror theorem without concavity},
journal={arXiv:1307.5070[math.AG]}
}

\bib{H}{article}
{
author={He, W.},
author={Li, S.},
author={Webb, R.},
author={Shen, Y.},
title={Landau-Ginzburg mirror symmetry conjecture},
journal={arXiv:1503.0175[math.AG]},
}

\bib{JKV}{article}
{
author={Jarvis, T.},
author={Kimura, T.},
author={Vaintrob, A.},
title={Moduli spaces of higher spin curves and integrable hierarchies},
journal={Compositio},
volume={126},
year={2001},
page={157-212},
}

\bib{HV}{article}
{
 author={Kentaro, H.},
 author={Vafa, C.},
 title={Mirror symmetry},
 journal={arXiv:0002222[hep-th]},
}

\bib{Kont-M}{article}{
   author={Kontsevich, M.},
   author={Manin, Y.},
   title={Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative
   geometry},
   journal={Comm. Math. Phys.},
   volume={164},
   date={1994},
   number={3},
   pages={525--562}
}

\bib{K}{article}
{
author={M. Krawitz},
title={FJRW rings and Landau-Ginzburg Mirror Symmetry},
journal={Ph.D. thesis,
    University of Michigan,
    2010.}

}

\bib{KS}{article}
{
author={M. Krawitz},
author={Y. Shen},
title={Landau-Ginzburg/Calabi-Yau Correspondence of all Genera for Elliptic Orbifold $\mathbb{P}^1$},
journal={arXiv:1106.6270[math.AG]}
}

\bib{KreS}{article}
{
 author={Kreuzer, M.},
   author={Skarke, H.},
  title={On the classification of quasihomogeneous functions},
   journal={Comm. Math. Phys.},
   volume={150},
   date={1992},
   number={1},
   pages={137--147},

}

\bib{HMS}{article}{
   author={Kontsevich, M.},
   title={Homological algebra of mirror symmetry},
   conference={
      title={Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians,
      Vol.\ 1, 2},
      address={Z\"urich},
      date={1994},
   },
   book={
      publisher={Birkh\"auser, Basel},
   },
   date={1995},
   pages={120--139},
}

\bib{chiral-ring}{article}{
      author={Lerche, W.},
      author={Vafa, C.},
      author={Warner, N.},
       title={Chiral rings in {$N=2$} superconformal theories},
        date={1989},
        ISSN={0550-3213},
     journal={Nuclear Phys. B},
      volume={324},
      number={2},
       pages={427\ndash 474},
}

\bib{LLSaito}{article}
{
author={Li, C.},
author={Li, S.},
author={Saito, K.},
title={Primitive forms via polyvector fields},
journal={arxiv: 1311.1659[math.AG]}
}
\bib{LLSS}{article}
{
author={Li, C.},
author={Li, S.},
author={Saito, K.},
author={Shen, Y.},
title={Mirror symmetry for exceptional unimodular singularities},
journal={To appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc.   Available at arxiv: 1405.4530[math.AG]}
}

\bib{LLY}{article}{
   author={Lian, B-H.},
   author={Liu, K.},
   author={Yau, S-T.},
   title={Mirror principle. I},
   journal={Asian J. Math.},
   volume={1},
   date={1997},
   number={4},
   pages={729--763},
}
\bib{M}{article}
{
author={Milanov, T.},
title={Analyticity of the total ancestor potential in singularity theory},
journal={Advances in Math.},
volume={255},
date={2014},
pages={217--241},
}

\bib{MS}{article}
{
author={Milanov, T.},
author={Shen, Y.},
title={Global mirror symmetry for invertible simple elliptic singularities},
journal={arxiv:1210.6862[math.AG]},
}

\bib{Saito-primitive}{article}{
   author={Saito, K.},
   title={Period mapping associated to a primitive form},
   journal={Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.},
   volume={19},
   date={1983},
   number={3},
   pages={1231--1264},
   issn={0034-5318},

}

\bib{Saito-residue}{incollection}{
      author={Saito, K.},
       title={The higher residue pairings {$K_{F}^{(k)}$} for a family of
  hypersurface singular points},
        date={1983},
   booktitle={Singularities, {P}art 2 ({A}rcata, {C}alif., 1981)},
      series={Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.},
      volume={40},
   publisher={Amer. Math. Soc.},
     address={Providence, RI},
       pages={441\ndash 463},

}

\bib{Saito-existence}{article}{
   author={Saito, M.},
   title={On the structure of Brieskorn lattice},

   journal={Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)},
   volume={39},
   date={1989},
   number={1},
   pages={27--72},
   issn={0373-0956},

}

\bib{Saito-uniqueness}{article}{
   author={Saito, M.},
   title={On the structure of Brieskorn lattices, II},
   journal={arxiv: 1312.6629[math.AG]},
   date={ },
   number={ },
   pages={ },
   issn={ },
}

  \bib{T}{article}
{
  author={Teleman, C.},
   title={The structure of 2D semi-simple field theories},
   journal={Invent. Math.},
   volume={188},
   date={2012},
   number={3},
   pages={525--588},

}

  \bib{Vafa-LG}{article}{
      author={Vafa, C.},
       title={Topological {L}andau-{G}inzburg models},
        date={1991},
     journal={Modern Phys. Lett. A},
      volume={6},
      number={4},
       pages={337\ndash 346},
}

\bib{vafa-warner}{article}{
      author={Vafa, C.},
      author={Warner, N.},
       title={Catastrophes and the classification of conformal theories},
        date={1989},
     journal={Phys. Lett. B},
      volume={218},
      number={1},
       pages={51\ndash 58},
}

\bib{Witten}{article}{
   author={Witten, E.},
   title={Algebraic geometry associated with matrix models of
   two-dimensional gravity},
   conference={
      title={Topological methods in modern mathematics},
      address={Stony Brook, NY},
      date={1991},
   },
   book={
      publisher={Publish or Perish, Houston, TX},
   },
   date={1993},
   pages={235--269},
}

\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}

\address{\tiny MATHEMATICS SCIENCE CENTER,  TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY, BEIJING, CHINA} \\
\indent \footnotesize{\email{sli@math.tsinghua.edu.cn}}

\end{document}