\section{Introduction}

An $n$-dimensional complex space form is an $n$-dimensional K\"ahler manifold with constant sectional
curvature $c$. A complete and simple connected complex space form with $c\neq0$(i.e. a complex projective space
 $\mathbb{C}P^n$ or a complex hyperbolic space $\mathbb{C}H^n$)
 is called a \emph{non-flat complex space form} and denoted by $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$.

 Let $M$ be a real hypersurface of $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$, then
 there exists an almost contact structure $(\phi,\eta,\xi,g)$ on $M$ induced
 from $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$. The study of real hypersurfaces
in a non-flat complex space form is a very interesting and active field in recent decades
and many results of the classification of real hypersurfaces in non-flat complex space
forms were achieved (cf.\cite{B,K2,T1,T2,W}). In particular, if $\xi$ is an eigenvector of shape operator $A$ then $M$ is
called a \emph{Hopf hypersurface}, and
we note that the following conclusion is due to Kimura and Takagi for $\mathbb{C}P^n$ and Berndt for $\mathbb{C}H^n$.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{KI},\cite{T3},\cite{B}]\label{A}
Let $M$ be a Hopf hypersurface in non-flat complex space form $\widetilde{M}^n(c),n\geq2$. If $M$ has constant principal curvatures,
then the classification is as follows:\\
$\bullet$ In case of $\mathbb{C}P^n$, $M$ is locally congruent to one of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item $A_1$: Geodesic hyperspheres.
  \item $A_2$: Tubes over a totally geodesic complex projective space $\mathbb{C}P^k$ for $1\leq k\leq n-2$.
\item $B$:  Tubes over a complex quadric $Q_{n-1}$ and $\mathbb{R}P^n$.
\item $C$: Tubes over Segre embedding of $\mathbb{C}P^1\times\mathbb{C}P^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$ and $n(\geq5)$ and is odd.
\item $D$: Tubes over Pl\"ucker embedding of the complex Grassmannian manifold $G_{2,5}$. Occur only for $n=9$.
\item $E$:  Tubes over the canonical embedding Hermitian symmetry space $SO(10)/U(5)$. Occur only for $n=15$.
\end{enumerate}

$\bullet$ In case of $\mathbb{C}H^n$, $M$ is locally congruent to one of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
 \item $A_1$: Geodesic hyperspheres $(Type\, A_{11})$ and tubes over totally geodesic complex hyperbolic hyperplanes $(Type\, A_{12})$.
 \item $A_2$:  Tubes over totally geodesic $\mathbb{C}H^{k}\subset\mathbb{C}H^n$ for some $k\in\{1,\cdots,n-2\}$.
  \item $B$: Tubes over a totally geodesic real hyperbolic space $\mathbb{R}H^n\subset\mathbb{C}H^n$.
\item $N$: Horospheres.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

In particular, if $M$ has two distinct constant principal curvatures, the classification is as follows:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{T1}, Corollary 2 in \cite{BD2}]\label{B}
Let $M$ be a hypersurface in non-flat complex space form $\widetilde{M}^n(c),n\geq2$, with two distinct constant principal curvatures. Then\\
$\bullet$ in case of $\mathbb{C}P^n$,
$M$ is locally congruent geodesic hyperspheres in $\mathbb{C}P^n$(Type $A_1$);\\
$\bullet$ in case of $\mathbb{C}H^n$, $M$ is locally congruent to one of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A_{11}$: Geodesic hyperspheres in $\mathbb{C}H^n$.
 \item $A_2$: Tubes around a totally geodesic $\mathbb{C}H^{n-1}\subset\mathbb{C}H^n$.
  \item $B$: Tubes of radius $r=\ln(2+\sqrt{3})$ around a totally geodesic real hyperbolic space $\mathbb{R}H^n\subset\mathbb{C}H^n$.
\item $N$: Horospheres in $\mathbb{C}H^n$.
 \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Since there are no Einstein real hypersurfaces in $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$ (see \cite{CR} and \cite{M}), Cho and Kimura in
\cite{CK} considered a real hypersurface in $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$ admitting a Ricci soliton. The notion of Ricci soliton,
introduced firstly by Hamilton in \cite{H}, is the generalization
of Einstein metric, that is, a Riemannian metric $g$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
 \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_W g+Ric-\lambda g=0,
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda$ is a constant and $\mathrm{Ric}$ is the Ricci tensor of $M$. The vector field $W$ is
called \emph{potential vector field}.  Moreover, the Ricci soliton is called
 shrinking, steady and expanding according as $\lambda$ is positive, zero and negative respectively.
 In \cite{CK}, it is proved that there does not admit a Ricci soliton on $M$ when the potential vector field is the structure field $\xi$.
At the same time, by introducing a so-called $\eta$-Ricci soliton $(\eta,g)$ on $M$, which satisfies
\begin{equation*}
 \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_W g+Ric-\lambda g-\mu \eta\otimes\eta=0,
\end{equation*}
for constants $\lambda,\mu$, they gave a classification of a real hypersurface admitting an $\eta$-Ricci soliton
whose potential vector is the structure field $\xi$. In \cite{CK2}, Cho and Kimura also proved that
 a compact real hypersurface of contact-type in a complex number space admitting a Ricci soliton is a sphere and
 a compact Hopf hypersurface in a non-flat complex space form does not admit a Ricci soliton.

As the corresponding of Ricci tensor, in \cite{HA} Hamada  defined the $^*$-Ricci tensor $\mathrm{Ric^*}$ in real hypersurfaces of complex space form as
\begin{equation*}
  Ric^*(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}(trace\{\phi\circ R(X,\phi Y)\}),\quad\hbox{for all}\; X,Y\in TM,
\end{equation*}
and if the $^*$-Ricci tensor is a constant multiple of $g(X,Y)$ for all $X,Y$ orthogonal to $\xi$, then
$M$ is said to be a \emph{$^*$-Einstein manifold}.  Furthermore, Hamada gave the following result of the $^*$-Einstein Hopf hypersurfaces in non-flat space forms.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{HA}]\label{C}
Let $M$ be a $^*$-Einstein Hopf hypersurface in non-flat complex space form $\widetilde{M}^n(c),n\geq2$.\\
$\bullet$ In case of $\mathbb{C}P^n$, $M$ is an open part of one of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item $A_1$: a geodesic hypersphere;
  \item $A_2$: a tuber over a totally geodesic complex projective space $\mathbb{C}P^k$ of radius $\frac{\pi r}{4}$ for $1\leq k\leq n-2$, where $r=\frac{2}{\sqrt{c}}$;
  \item $B$: a tuber over a complex quadric $Q_{n-1}$ and $\mathbb{R}P^n$.
\end{enumerate}
$\bullet$ In case of $\mathbb{C}H^n$, $M$ is an open part of one of the following
\begin{enumerate}
  \item $A_{11}$: a geodesic hypersphere;
  \item $A_{12}:$ a tube around a totally geodesic complex hyperbolic hyperplane;
  \item $B$: a tube around a totally geodesic real hyperbolic space $\mathbb{R}H^n$;
  \item $N$: a horosphere.
 \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Motivated by the work in \cite{CK,CK2,HA}, Kaimakamis and Panagiotidou in \cite{KP} introduced a so-called $^*$-Ricci soliton, that is, a
Riemannain metric $g$ on $M$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{1}
 \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_W g+Ric^*-\lambda g=0,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is constant and $\mathrm{Ric^*}$ is the $^*$-Ricci tensor of $M$.
 They considered the case where $W$ is the structure field $\xi$ and obtained that a real hypersurface in complex projective space does
not admit a $^*$-Ricci soliton and a real hypersurface in complex hyperbolic space admitting a $^*$-Ricci soltion is locally congruent to a geodesic hypersphere.

It is well-known that the tangent bundle $TM$ can be decomposed as $TM=\mathbb{R}\xi\oplus\mathcal{D}$, where $\mathcal{D}=\{X\in TM,\eta(X)=0\}$ is called \emph{holomorphic distribution}. In the last part of \cite{KP}, they proposed two open problems:
\begin{description}
  \item[Problem 1] Are there real hypersurfaces admitting a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose potential vector field is a principal vector field of the real hypersurface?
  \item[Problem 2] Are there real hypersurfaces admitting a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose potential vector field belongs to the holomorphic distribution $\mathcal{D}$?
\end{description}

In the present paper, we shall consider the above two problems. For the Problem 1, we consider the case of 2-dimensional non-flat complex space forms.
Denote by $T_\chi$ the distribution on $M$ formed by principal curvature spaces of $\chi$ and $\Gamma(T_\chi)$
by the all smooth sections of $T_\chi$. We obtain the following conclusions:
\begin{theorem}\label{T1}
Let $M$ be a hypersurface of non-flat complex space form $\widetilde{M}^2(c)$ with a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose
potential vector field $W\in\Gamma(T_\chi),\chi\neq0$. If the principal curvatures are  constant along $\xi$ and $A\xi$
 then\\
$\bullet$ in case of $\mathbb{C}P^2$, $M$ is an open part of a tube around the complex quadric, or a geodesic hypersphere;\\
$\bullet$ in case of $\mathbb{C}H^2$, $M$ is an open part of
\begin{enumerate}
  \item [(1)] a geodesic hypersphere, or
  \item[(2)] a tubes around a totally geodesic $\mathbb{C}H^1$, or
  \item[(3)] a tubes around a totally geodesic real hyperbolic space $\mathbb{R}H^2$, or
   \item[(4)] a horosphere.
 \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{T2}
Let $M$ be a hypersurface of complex projective space $\mathbb{C}P^2$, admitting a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose
potential vector field $W\in\Gamma(T_0)$. Then $M$ is an open part of a tube around the complex quadric.
\end{theorem}

For the Problem 2, we first obtain the following result:
\begin{theorem}\label{T3}
Let $M$ be a hypersurface of complex projective space $\mathbb{C}P^2$ with a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose
potential vector field $W\in\mathcal{D}$.  If the principal curvatures are constant along $\xi$ and $A\xi$,
 then $M$ is locally congruent to a geodesic hypersphere in $\mathbb{C}P^2$. Moreover, if $g(A\xi,\xi)=0$ then $W$ is Killing.
\end{theorem}

Furthermore, due to the decomposition $TM=\mathbb{R}\xi\oplus\mathcal{D}$, we have $A\xi=a\xi+V,$
where $V\in\mathcal{D}$ and $a$ is a smooth function on $M$. The following conclusion is obtained:
\begin{theorem}\label{T4}
Let $M^{2n-1}$ be a hypersurface of complex space form $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$, $n\geq2$. Then \\
$\bullet$ in case of $\mathbb{C}P^n$ there are no real hypersurfaces admitting a $^*$-Ricci soliton with
potential vector field $W=V$;\\
$\bullet$ in case of $\mathbb{C}H^n$, if $M$ admits a $^*$-Ricci soliton with potential vector field $W=V$, it is locally congruent to a geodesic hypersphere.
\end{theorem}
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, some basic concepts and formulas
are presented. To prove $M$ is Hopf under the assumptions of theorems, in Section 3 we give some formulas for the non-Hopf hypersurfaces with $^*$-Ricci solitons, and the proofs of theorems are given in Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6, respectively.

\section{Preliminaries}

  Let ($\widetilde{M}^n,\widetilde{g})$ be a complex $n$-dimensional K\"ahler manifold
   and $M$ be an immersed real hypersurface of $\widetilde{M}^n$ with induced metric $g$.
We denote by $J$ the complex structure on $\widetilde{M}^n$. There exists a local defined
unit normal vector field $N$ on $M$ and we write $\xi:=- JN$
by the structure vector field of $M$.
 An induced one-form $\eta$ is defined by
$\eta(\cdot)=\widetilde{g}(J\cdot,N)$, which is dual to $\xi$.  For any vector field $X$ on $M$ the tangent part of $JX$
is denoted by $\phi X=JX-\eta(X)N$. Moreover, the following identities hold:
\begin{equation}\label{2}
\phi^2=-Id+\eta\otimes\xi,\quad\eta\circ \phi=0,\quad\phi\circ\xi=0,\quad\eta(\xi)=1,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3}
g(\phi X,\phi Y)=g(X,Y)-\eta(X)\eta(Y),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{4}
g(X,\xi)=\eta(X),
\end{equation}
where $X,Y\in\mathfrak{X}(M)$. By \eqref{2}-\eqref{4}, we know that $(\phi,\eta,\xi,g)$ is an almost
contact metric structure on $M$.

Denote by $\nabla, A$ the induced Riemannian connection and the shape operator on $M$, respectively.
Then the Gauss and Weingarten formulas are given by
\begin{equation}\label{5}
\widetilde{\nabla}_XY=\nabla_XY+g(AX,Y)N,\quad\widetilde{\nabla}_XN=-AX,
\end{equation}
 where $\widetilde{\nabla}$ is the connection on $\widetilde{M}^n$ with respect to $\widetilde{g}$.
Also, we have
\begin{equation}\label{6}
  (\nabla_X\phi)Y=\eta(Y)AX-g(AX,Y)\xi,\quad\nabla_X\xi=\phi AX.
\end{equation}
$M$ is said to be a \emph{Hopf hypersurface} if the structure vector field $\xi$ is an eigenvector of $A$.

From now on we always assume that the sectional curvature of $\widetilde{M}^n$ is contant $c\neq0$, i.e. $\widetilde{M}^n$ is a non-flat complex space form, denoted by $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$, then the curvature tensor $R$ of $M$ is given by
 \begin{equation}\label{7}
 \begin{aligned}
R(X,Y)Z=\frac{c}{4}\Big(&g(Y,Z)X-g(X,Z)Y+g(\phi Y,Z)\phi X
-g(\phi X,Z)\phi Y\\
&+2g(X,\phi Y)\phi Z)\Big)+g(AY,Z)AX-g(AX,Z)AY,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and the shape operator $A$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{8}
 (\nabla_XA)Y-(\nabla_YA)X=\frac{c}{4}\Big(\eta(X)\phi Y-\eta(Y)\phi X-2g(\phi X,Y)\xi\Big),
\end{equation}
for any vector fields $X,Y,Z$ on $M$.

Recall that the $^*$-Ricci operator $Q^*$ of $M$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
  g(Q^*X,Y)=Ric^*(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}trace\{\phi\circ R(X,\phi Y)\},\quad\hbox{for all}\, X,Y\in TM.
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{7}, it is proved in Theorem 2 of \cite{IR} that the $^*$-Ricci operator is expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{9}
Q^*=-\Big[\frac{cn}{2}\phi^2+(\phi A)^2\Big].
\end{equation}
In particular, if $Q^*=0$ then $M$ is said to be a \emph{$^*$-Ricci flat hypersurface}.
Due to \eqref{2} the $^*$-Ricci soliton equation \eqref{1} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{10}
\begin{aligned}
  g(\nabla_XW,Y)+g(X,\nabla_YW)&+ncg(X,Y)-nc\eta(X)\eta(Y)\\
   &+2g(\phi AX,A\phi Y)-2\lambda g(X,Y)=0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for any vector fields $X,Y$ on $M$.

\section{Non-Hopf hypersurfaces with $^*$-Ricci solitons}
In this section we assume that $M$ is a non-Hopf hypersurface in $\widetilde{M}^2(c)$ with a $^*$-Ricci soliton. Since $M$ is not Hopf,
 due to the decomposition $TM=\mathbb{R}\xi\oplus\mathcal{D}$,
we can write $A\xi$ as
\begin{equation}\label{11}
  A\xi=\alpha\xi+\beta U,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha=\eta(A\xi),\beta=|\phi\nabla_\xi\xi|$ are the smooth functions on $M$ and
 $U=-\frac{1}{\beta}\phi\nabla_\xi\xi\in\mathcal{D}$ is a unit vector field with $\beta\neq0$.  Write
 $$\mathcal{N}:=\{p\in M:\beta\neq0\quad\hbox{in a neighbourhood of}\;p\}.$$
\begin{lemma}\label{L4.1}
On $\mathcal{N}$, we have $A\phi U=0.$
\end{lemma}
\proof In view of $^*$-Ricci soliton equation \eqref{1}, we know $Ric^*(X,Y)=Ric^*(Y,X)$ for every vector fields $X,Y\in TM$.
That means that for every vector field $X$,
\begin{equation}\label{12}
  \phi A\phi AX=A\phi A\phi X.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{align*}
  \phi^2 A\phi AX &=-A\phi AX+\eta(A\phi AX)\xi \\
   & =-A\phi AX+g(\alpha\xi+\beta U,\phi AX)\xi\\
&=-A\phi AX-\beta g(\phi U,AX)\xi
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
  \phi A\phi A\phi X &=A\phi A\phi^2 X \\
   & =-A\phi AX+\eta(X)A\phi A\xi\\
&=-A\phi AX+\beta\eta(X)A\phi U.
\end{align*}
Since $\beta\neq0$ on $\mathcal{N}$, we get from \eqref{12} that $-g(\phi U,AX)\xi=\eta(X)A\phi U$. Taking $X=\xi$ in this formula we obtain the desired result.\qed\bigskip

Since $\{\xi,U,\phi U\}$ is a locally orthonormal frame on $\mathcal{N}$, there are smooth functions $\gamma,\mu,\delta$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{13}
  AU=\beta\xi+\gamma U+\delta\phi U,\qquad A\phi U=\delta U+\mu\phi U.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{L4.1}, we have $\delta=\mu=0.$
Moreover, in \cite{PX} the following lemma was proved:
\begin{lemma}\label{L2}
With respect to the orthonormal basis $\{\xi,U,\phi U\}$, we have
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
  &\nabla_U\xi=\gamma\phi U,\quad\quad\nabla_{\phi U}\xi=0,\quad\nabla_\xi\xi=\beta\phi U, \\
 &\nabla_UU=k_1\phi U,\quad\quad\nabla_{\phi U}U=k_2\phi U,\quad\nabla_\xi U=k_3\phi U, \\
 &\nabla_U\phi U=-k_1U-\gamma\xi,\quad\nabla_{\phi U}\phi U=-k_2U,\quad\nabla_\xi\phi U=-k_3U-\beta\xi,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $k_1,k_2,k_3$ are smooth functions on $M$.
\end{lemma}

Applying Lemma \ref{L2}, we have
\begin{proposition} The following formulas on $\mathcal{N}$ are valid:
\begin{align}
 & k_3\beta+\alpha\beta-\phi U(\alpha) =0,\quad k_2=0,\label{14} \\
  &k_3\gamma+\beta^2-\phi U(\beta) =-\frac{c}{4}\label{15},\\
  &\xi(\beta)=U(\alpha),\quad\xi(\gamma)=U(\beta),\label{16} \\
  &\beta^2+k_3\gamma-\alpha\gamma-\beta k_1=\frac{c}{4}\label{17},\\
  &k_1\beta+\alpha\gamma-\phi U(\beta) =-\frac{c}{2}. \label{18}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\proof  By taking $X=\xi$ and $Y=\phi U$ in \eqref{8}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
  (\nabla_\xi A)\phi U-(\nabla_{\phi U}A)\xi=-\frac{c}{4}U.
\end{equation*}
In view of \eqref{13} and Lemma \ref{L2}, the above formula leads to $k_2=0$ since $\beta\neq0$.
Also \eqref{14} and \eqref{15} are attained.
By a straightforward computation, the relation \eqref{8} for $X=\xi$ and $Y=U$ implies \eqref{16} and \eqref{17}.
And the relation \eqref{8} for $X=U$ and $Y=\phi U$ gives \eqref{18}.\qed\bigskip

Let us assume that $W$ is an eigenvector of $A$, namely, there is a smooth function $\chi$ such that $AW=\chi W$ holds. On $\mathcal{N}$,
in the basis of $\{\xi,U,\phi U\}$ the potential vector $W$ may be expressed as
\begin{equation*}
  W=f_1\xi+f_2U+f_3\phi U,
\end{equation*}
where $f_1,f_2,f_3$ are the smooth functions on $\mathcal{N}$.

In view of Lemma \ref{L2}, by a direct computation, we have
\begin{align}
\nabla_\xi W&=(\xi(f_1)-f_3\beta)\xi+(\xi(f_2)-f_3k_3)U+(f_1\beta+f_2k_3+\xi(f_3))\phi U,\label{19}\\
\nabla_UW&=(U(f_1)-f_3\gamma)\xi+(U(f_2)-f_3k_1)U+(f_1\gamma+f_2k_1+U(f_3))\phi U,\label{20}\\
\nabla_{\phi U}W&=\phi U(f_1)\xi+\phi U(f_2)U+\phi U(f_3)\phi U.\label{21}
\end{align}

Putting $X=Y=\xi$ in \eqref{10}, by \eqref{19} we find
\begin{equation}\label{22}
  \xi(f_1)-f_3\beta=\lambda.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, putting $X=Y=U$ and $X=Y=\phi U$ in \eqref{10} respectively,  we get from \eqref{20} and \eqref{21} that
\begin{align}
  U(f_2)-f_3k_3+c-\lambda=0,\label{23} \\
  \phi U(f_3)+c-\lambda=0.\label{24}
\end{align}
Also, when $X$ and $Y$ are taken as the different vectors of $\xi,U$, and $\phi U$ in \eqref{10}, a similar computation leads to
\begin{equation}\label{25}
\left\{
  \begin{array}{ll}
  \xi(f_2)-f_3k_3+U(f_1)-f_3\gamma =0, \\
  f_1\beta+f_2k_3+\xi(f_3)+\phi U(f_1)=0,\\
f_1\gamma+f_2k_1+U(f_3)+\phi U(f_2)=0.
  \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}

Actually, Lemma \ref{L4.1} shows that at every point of $\mathcal{N}$ there exists a principal curvature $0$ and $\phi U$ is the corresponding principal vector.
It turns out that there are at least two distinct principal curvatures in non-flat complex space forms (see \cite[Theorem 1.5]{NR}).

Let $\lambda_i$ be the principal curvatures for $i=1,2,3$, where $\lambda_3=0$.
We may assume that $e_1=\cos\theta\xi+\sin\theta U,e_2=\sin\theta\xi-\cos\theta U$ are the unit principal vectors corresponding to $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, respectively, where $\theta$ is the angle between principal vector $e_1$ and $\xi$.
It is clear that $\{e_1,e_2,e_3=\phi U\}$ is also an orthonormal frame.
Namely,
\begin{equation*}
A(e_1,e_2,e_3)=(e_1,e_2,e_3)\left(
  \begin{array}{ccc}
    \lambda_1 &  &  \\
     & \lambda_2 &  \\
     &  & 0 \\
  \end{array}
\right).
\end{equation*}
Denote by
\begin{equation*}
B=\left(
    \begin{array}{ccc}
      \cos\theta & \sin\theta & 0 \\
      \sin\theta & -\cos\theta & 0 \\
      0 & 0 & 1 \\
    \end{array}
  \right)
\end{equation*}
the transformation matrix of two frames, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
  (e_1,e_2,e_3)=(\xi,U,\phi U)B.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, since
\begin{equation*}
  A(\xi,U,\phi U)=(\xi,U,\phi U)\left(
     \begin{array}{ccc}
       \alpha & \beta & 0 \\
       \beta & \gamma & 0 \\
       0 & 0 & 0 \\
     \end{array}
   \right),
\end{equation*}
we get
\begin{equation*}
 \left(
     \begin{array}{ccc}
       \alpha & \beta & 0 \\
       \beta & \gamma & 0 \\
       0 & 0 & 0 \\
     \end{array}
   \right)=
B\left(
  \begin{array}{ccc}
    \lambda_1 &  &  \\
     & \lambda_2 &  \\
     &  & 0 \\
  \end{array}
\right)B^T.
\end{equation*}
A straightforward calculation leads to
\begin{equation}\label{26}
    \alpha=\lambda_1\cos^2\theta+\lambda_2\sin^2\theta,\quad\beta=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\sin2\theta,
\quad\gamma=\lambda_1\sin^2\theta+\lambda_2\cos^2\theta.
\end{equation}

If $M$ has only two distinct  principal curvatures at any point $p\in\mathcal{N}$, then either $\lambda_1=\lambda_2\neq0$, or one of $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ vanishes. However, the second of \eqref{26} will come to $\beta=0$ if $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$, thus it is impossible.
Without loss generality, we set $\lambda_1=0$ and $\lambda_2\neq0$.
In terms of \cite[Theorem 4]{IR2}, $\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$ satisfy
\begin{align*}
\xi(\alpha)=\xi(\beta)&=\xi(\gamma)=0,\\
  U(\alpha)=&\beta(\alpha+\gamma).
\end{align*}
Using \eqref{16}, we thus derive $\alpha+\gamma=0$ because $\beta\neq0$. This shows $\lambda_2=0$ from the first and third of \eqref{26}. It is a contradiction.
Therefore on $\mathcal{N}$ there are three distinct principal curvatures, i.e. $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ are not zero and $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_2$.

Using \eqref{16} again, we derive from \eqref{26} that
\begin{align*}
  U(\lambda_1)\cos^2\theta+U(\lambda_2)\sin^2\theta-(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\sin2\theta U(\theta)\\
=\frac{1}{2}\xi(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\sin2\theta+(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\cos2\theta \xi(\theta),\\
 \xi(\lambda_1)\sin^2\theta+\xi(\lambda_2)\cos^2\theta+(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\sin2\theta \xi(\theta)\\
=\frac{1}{2}U(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\sin2\theta+(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\cos2\theta U(\theta).
\end{align*}
From which we arrive at
\begin{align*}
  \xi(\theta)=\frac{U(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)+U(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)\cos2\theta-\xi(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)\sin2\theta}{2(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)},\\
U(\theta)=\frac{-\xi(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)+\xi(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)\cos2\theta+U(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)\sin2\theta}{2(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)}.
\end{align*}
Thus we obtain
\begin{proposition}\label{P3.2}
 If on $\mathcal{N}$ the principal curvatures are constant along $\xi$ and $A\xi$, then the following equations hold:
\begin{align}
  &\xi(\theta)=U(\theta)=0,\label{27}\\
&\xi(\beta)=U(\alpha)=\xi(\gamma)=U(\beta)=0.\label{28}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}

\section{Proofs of Theorem \ref{T1} and Theorem \ref{T2}}
In order to prove our theorems, we first prove the following two conclusions.
\begin{proposition}\label{P2}
Let $M$ be a real hypersurface in $\widetilde{M}^2(c)$ with a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose
potential vector field $W\in\Gamma(T_{\chi}),\chi\neq0$. If the principal curvatures are constant along $\xi$ and $A\xi$ then $M$ is Hopf.
\end{proposition}
\proof Suppose that $M$ is not Hopf, then $\mathcal{N}$ is not empty. Write $W=a_1e_1+a_2e_2+a_3e_3$, where $a_1,a_2,a_3$ are the smooth functions on $\mathcal{N}$. Since $\chi\neq0$, $a_3=0$ and $\chi=\lambda_1$ or $\lambda_2$.
Since $a_1,a_2$ are not all zero, without loss of generality, we may assume $a_1\neq0$, then
 \begin{equation*}
  AW=\chi W\Rightarrow
                     \chi=\lambda_1\quad\hbox{and}\quad
                     a_2=0\quad\hbox{since}\quad\lambda_1\neq\lambda_2.
\end{equation*}
Thus the potential vector field can be written as
$$W=a_1\cos\theta\xi+a_1\sin\theta U.$$
Replacing $f_1$ in \eqref{22} and $f_2$ in \eqref{23} by $a_1\cos\theta$ and $a_1\sin\theta$, respectively, we have
\begin{equation}\label{29}
  \xi(a_1\cos\theta)=\lambda,\quad U(a_1\sin\theta)=0
\end{equation}
because $c=\lambda$ followed from \eqref{24}.
Similarly, in view of the first equation of \eqref{25}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{30}
  \xi(a_1\sin\theta)+U(a_1\cos\theta)=0.
\end{equation}

 With the help of \eqref{29} and \eqref{30},  we further obtain
 $$a_1(\sin\theta\xi(\theta)-\cos\theta U(\theta))=-\lambda\sin^2\theta.$$
By \eqref{27}, $\lambda\sin^2\theta=0$. If $\sin\theta\neq0$ then $\lambda=0.$
This leads to a contradiction because $\lambda=c\neq0$. If $\sin\theta=0$ then $W=a_1\cos\theta\xi$, i.e. $\xi$ is a principal vector, which is also a contradiction.
Therefore we complete the proof.\qed\bigskip

\begin{proposition}\label{P1}
A real hypersurface in $\mathbb{C}P^2$, admitting a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose
potential vector field $W\in\Gamma(T_0)$, is Hopf.
\end{proposition}
\proof Suppose that $M$ is not Hopf, then $\mathcal{N}$ is not empty. We may write $W=b_1e_1+b_2e_2+b_3e_3$ in the basis $\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$,
where $b_1,b_2,b_3$ are smooth functions on $\mathcal{N}.$
By Lemma \ref{L4.1}, $A\phi U=0$, so $AW=0$ implies
 $b_1=b_2=0$, i.e. $W=b_3\phi U$ with $b_3\neq0$. Hence \eqref{25} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{31}
k_3=-\gamma,\quad \xi(b_3)=0,\quad U(b_3)=0.
\end{equation}
And the formula \eqref{23} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{32}
  -b_3\gamma=c-\lambda.
\end{equation}

Since $b_1=0$, the relation \eqref{22} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{33}
-b_3\beta=\lambda.
\end{equation}
So by taking the differentiation of the formula \eqref{32} along $\phi U$, we derive from \eqref{24} that
\begin{equation}\label{34}
  b_3\phi U(\beta)=(c-\lambda)\beta.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, it follows from \eqref{32} and \eqref{33} that
\begin{equation}\label{35}
  \frac{\gamma}{\beta}=\frac{c}{\lambda}-1.
\end{equation}

If $c=\lambda$, then the equation \eqref{35} shows $\gamma=0$.   Further, in view of \eqref{24} we find $\phi U(b_3)=\lambda-c=0$, which means that $b_3$ is constant
since $\xi(b_3)=U(b_3)=0$. Now we derive from \eqref{33} that $\beta$ is constant. Hence together \eqref{17} with \eqref{18}, we obtain
$\beta^2=-\frac{c}{4}.$ It is impossible.

Next we assume $c\neq\lambda$. Thus the relation \eqref{35} follows $\gamma\neq0$ and the formula \eqref{15} follows from \eqref{31}
\begin{equation*}
  \phi U(\beta)=\beta^2-\gamma^2+\frac{c}{4}.
\end{equation*}
Substituting this into \eqref{34}, we get from \eqref{32} that
\begin{equation*}
  (\beta^2-\gamma^2+\frac{c}{4})\frac{1}{\gamma}=-\beta\Rightarrow 1-(\frac{\gamma}{\beta})^2+\frac{c}{4\beta^2}=-\frac{\gamma}{\beta},
\end{equation*}
which reduces from \eqref{35} that $\beta$ is constant. Finally we derive a contradiction from \eqref{34}.
Hence we complete the proof of proposition.\qed\bigskip

{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{T1}.} Under the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{T1}, by Proposition \ref{P2}, $M$ is a Hopf hypersurface of $\widetilde{M}^2(c)$, i.e. $A\xi=\alpha\xi$.
Due to \cite[Theorem 2.1]{NR}, $\alpha$ is constant. We consider a point $p\in M$ and a unit vector field $e\in\mathcal{D}_p$ such
that $Ae=\kappa e$ and $A\phi e=\nu\phi e$, where $\kappa,\nu$ are smooth functions on $M$. Then $\{\xi,e,\phi e\}$ is a local orthonormal basis of $M$. By Corollary 2.3 in \cite{NR},
\begin{equation}\label{36}
  \kappa\nu=\frac{\kappa+\nu}{2}\alpha+\frac{c}{4}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, by a straightforward computation, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{L3}
With respect to $\{\xi,e,\phi e\}$ the Levi-Civita connection is given by
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
  &\nabla_e\xi=\kappa\phi e,\quad\quad\nabla_{\phi e}\xi=-\nu e,\quad\nabla_\xi\xi=0, \\
 &\nabla_ee=a_1\phi e,\quad\quad\nabla_{\phi e}e=\nu\xi+a_2\phi e,\quad\nabla_\xi e=a_3\phi e, \\
 &\nabla_e\phi e=-a_1 e-\kappa\xi,\quad\nabla_{\phi e}\phi e=-a_2e,\quad\nabla_\xi\phi e=-a_3e,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $a_1= g(\nabla_ee,\phi e),\, a_2=g(\nabla_{\phi e}e,\phi e),\,a_3=g(\nabla_\xi e,\phi e)$
 are smooth functions on $M$.
\end{lemma}
Under the orthonormal basis $\{\xi,e,\phi e\}$ we may assume that there are
smooth functions $g_1,g_2,g_3$ such that the potential vector filed $W$ can be written as
\begin{equation*}
  W=g_1\xi+g_2e+g_3\phi e.
\end{equation*}
Since $AW=\chi W$ with $\chi\neq0$, we get $\alpha g_1=\chi g_1$, $\kappa g_2=\chi g_2$ and $\nu g_3=\chi g_3.$

Next we consider the following cases:\\

$\bullet$ Case I: $g_1,g_2,g_3$ are not equal zero.\bigskip\\
Then $\kappa=\nu=\alpha$, which leads to $c=0$ from \eqref{36}.
This is a contradiction.\bigskip\\

$\bullet$ Case II: Only one of $g_1,g_2,g_3$ is equal zero.\bigskip\\
If $g_1=0$, then $\kappa=\nu$.
  The relation \eqref{36} yields $(\kappa-\frac{\alpha}{2})^2=\frac{\alpha^2+c}{4}$,
  which shows $\kappa=\nu=constant$ and $\alpha\neq\kappa$; If $g_2=0$, then $\alpha=\nu$,
  \eqref{36} implies $\kappa=\frac{c+2\alpha^2}{2\alpha}$ with $\kappa\neq\alpha$; If $g_3=0$, then $\kappa=\alpha$, which implies $\nu=\frac{c+2\alpha^2}{2\alpha},\nu\neq\alpha$ by \eqref{36}.\bigskip\\

$\bullet$ Case III: Two of $g_1,g_2,g_3$ are equal zero.\bigskip\\
 When $g_1=g_2=0.$ The formula \eqref{10} for $X=\xi$ and $Y=e$ implies
  \begin{equation*}
    g(\nabla_\xi W,e)+g(\xi,\nabla_eW)=0.
  \end{equation*}
  In view of Lemma \ref{L3}, a simple calculation leads to $\kappa=-a_3.$ On the other hand, the relation \eqref{8} for $X=e$ and $Y=\xi$
  yields
  $(\nabla_eA)\xi-(\nabla_\xi A)e=-\frac{c}{4}\phi e.$
  By Lemma \ref{L3}, we find
  \begin{equation}\label{37}
  \alpha\kappa-\kappa\nu-\kappa a_3+a_3\nu=-\frac{c}{4}.
\end{equation}
  A similar computation using relation \eqref{8} for $X=\phi e, Y=\xi$ yields
  \begin{equation}\label{38}
  -\alpha\nu+\kappa\nu-\kappa a_3+a_3\nu=\frac{c}{4}.
\end{equation}
  Moreover, inserting $\kappa=-a_3$ into the above equation gives
\begin{equation}\label{39}
  \kappa^2-\alpha\nu=\frac{c}{4}.
\end{equation}

The combination of \eqref{37} and \eqref{38} leads to $(\kappa-\nu)(2\kappa+\alpha)=0$ because $a_3=-\kappa.$
 If $\nu=\kappa$ then $\alpha\neq\kappa$, otherwise, the formula \eqref{39} will lead to $c=0$.
 If $\nu\neq\kappa$ then $\kappa=-\frac{\alpha}{2}$ and $\nu=\frac{\alpha^2-c}{4\alpha}$.

   When $g_1=g_3=0$, we put $X=\xi, Y=\phi e$ in \eqref{10}. By Lemma \ref{L3}, $a_3=-\nu$, so we get
  $(\kappa-\nu)(2\nu+\alpha)=0$ from \eqref{37} and \eqref{38}. If $\kappa=\nu$ then $\alpha\neq\nu$ as before.
  If $\kappa\neq\nu$ then $\nu=-\frac{\alpha}{2}$ and $\kappa=\frac{\alpha^2-c}{4\alpha}.$

  When $g_2=g_3=0$ the relation \eqref{8} for $X=e, Y=\phi e$ leads to $c=0$ by Lemma \ref{L3}, which is a contradiction.

In a word we have proved that there are two or three distinct constant principal curvatures on $M$.
For the case of $\mathbb{C}P^2$, by Theorem \ref{B} and \cite[Theorem 4.1]{W}, $M$ is an open part of a hypersphere, or a tuber around the complex quadric.

For the case of $\mathbb{C}H^2$, if $M$ has three distinct principal curvatures, by the proof of \cite{BD}, we know that the ruled real hypersurfaces can not be Hopf, which is a contradiction with Proposition \ref{P2}. Thus in this case $M$ has only two distinct constant principle curvatures. In view of Theorem \ref{B}, the real hypersurface $M$  is one of Type $A_{11},A_{2},B$ and $N$.

This finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{T1}.\qed\bigskip

{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{T2}.} Under the assumption of Theorem \ref{T2}, by Proposition \ref{P1} we know that $M$ is a Hopf hypersurface of $\mathbb{C}P^2$.
Hence the equation \eqref{36} and Lemma \ref{L3} are valid. We adopt the same notations as the proof of Theorem \ref{T1}.

Since $AW=0$, we have $\alpha g_1=\kappa g_2=\nu g_3=0.$ If $\alpha=0$
then it follows from \eqref{36} that $\kappa\nu=\frac{c}{4}$, which means that $\kappa,\nu$ are non-zero. So we get $g_2=g_3=0$.
From the Case III in the proof of Theorem \ref{T1}, we know it is impossible.

In the following we assume $\alpha\neq0$, then $g_1=0$. If $g_2$ is also equal zero, then $g_3$ must be non-zero, and further we obtain $\nu=0$ and $\kappa=-\frac{\alpha}{2}\neq0$ from the
Case III in the proof of Theorem \ref{T1}.
If $g_2$ is non-zero then $\kappa=0.$ The formula \eqref{36} implies $\alpha\nu=-\frac{c}{2}$, that shows $\nu$ is a non-zero constant.
Further we know $\alpha\neq\nu$ since $c>0$.

Summarizing the above discussion, we have proved that there are three distinct constant principal curvatures in $M$. Therefore we complete the proof of Theorem \ref{T2} by \cite[Theorem 4.1]{W}.\qed

\section{Proof Theorem \ref{T3}}
In this section we suppose that $M$ is a real hypersurface of $\mathbb{C}P^2$ with a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose potential vector field $W$ belongs to the holomorphic distribution $\mathcal{D}.$ First we prove the following result:
\begin{proposition}\label{P3}
Let $M$ be a real hypersurface in $\mathbb{C}P^2$ with a $^*$-Ricci soliton whose
potential vector field $W\in\mathcal{D}$. If the principal curvatures are constant along $\xi$ and $A\xi$ then $M$ is Hopf.
\end{proposition}
\proof If $M$ is not Hopf then $\mathcal{N}$ is not empty. Let $W=c_1e_1+c_2e_2+c_3e_3\in\mathcal{D}$, where $c_i$ are smooth functions on $\mathcal{N}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{40}
c_1\cos\theta+c_2\sin\theta=0.
\end{equation}
The formula \eqref{22} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{41}
  -c_3\beta=\lambda.
\end{equation}
And by Proposition \ref{P3.2},  the equations \eqref{23}-\eqref{25} accordingly become
\begin{align}
  U(c_1)\sin\theta-U(c_2)\cos\theta-c_3k_3+c-\lambda=0,\label{42} \\
  \phi U(c_3)+c-\lambda=0\label{43}
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{44}
\left\{
  \begin{array}{ll}
  \xi(c_1)\sin\theta-\xi(c_2)\cos\theta-c_3k_3-c_3\gamma =0, \\
(c_1\sin\theta-c_2\cos\theta)k_3+\xi(c_3)=0,\\
(c_1\sin\theta-c_2\cos\theta)k_1+U(c_3)+\phi U(c_1\sin\theta-c_2\cos\theta)=0.
  \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
If $c_3=0$, then the equations \eqref{41} and \eqref{43} show $c=\lambda=0$. It is impossible. Thus $c_3\neq0$, which further implies $\lambda\neq0$ from \eqref{41}.  By \eqref{15} and \eqref{43}, differentiating \eqref{41} along $\phi U$  gives
\begin{equation}\label{45}
    k_3\gamma+\beta^2\frac{c}{\lambda}+\frac{c}{4}=0.
\end{equation}
When $\gamma=0$, this shows $\beta$ is constant. So  it follows from the formula \eqref{15} that $\beta^2=-\frac{c}{4}$, which is impossible because $c>0$.
Hence $\gamma\neq0$ and we get from \eqref{45} that
\begin{equation*}
k_3=-\frac{\beta^2\frac{c}{\lambda}+\frac{c}{4}}{\gamma}
\end{equation*}

If $c_1=c_2=0$, as the proof of Proposition \ref{P1}, by using \eqref{41}-\eqref{44}, we arrive at a contradiction.
Thus one of $c_1,c_2$ must be not zero.

Without loss of generality we set $c_1\neq0$. Taking the differentiation of \eqref{41} along $\xi$ and $U$, respectively, we
obtain from \eqref{28} that $\xi(c_3)=U(c_3)=0$ since $\beta\neq0$. In view of the second equation of \eqref{44} and
\eqref{40}, we find $k_3=0,$ that is,
\begin{equation*}
\beta^2\frac{c}{\lambda}+\frac{c}{4}=0,
\end{equation*}
thus $\beta$ is constant. As before from \eqref{15} we have $\beta^2=-\frac{c}{4}$,
which is impossible. This finishes the proof.\qed\bigskip

{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{T3}}. Under the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{T3}, by Proposition \ref{P3} we know that $M$ is a Hopf hypersurface of $\mathbb{C}P^2$. That means that the structure vector field $\xi$
is a principal vector field, i.e. $A\xi=a\xi$ and $a$ is constant as before.

For any point $p\in M$ we consider a unit vector $Z\in\mathcal{D}_p$
such that $AZ=\mu Z$, then
the following relation holds (see \cite[Corollary 2.3]{NR}):
\begin{equation*}
(\mu-\frac{a}{2})A\phi Z=(\frac{\mu a}{2}+\frac{c}{4})\phi Z.
\end{equation*}

If $\mu=\frac{a}{2}$ the above equation implies $\frac{\mu a}{2}+\frac{c}{4}=0$, i.e. $\mu^2+\frac{c}{4}=0,$ that is impossible. Hence
 $\mu\neq\frac{a}{2}$, which means that $\phi Z$ is a principal vector with principal curvature $\nu$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{46}
  \mu\nu=\frac{\mu+\nu}{2}a+\frac{c}{4}.
\end{equation}
Now we know that ${\rm Span}\{Z,\phi Z\}=\mathcal{D}_p$ and $\{\xi,Z,\phi Z\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $T_pM$.
By a straightforward computation, we have
\begin{equation*}
  \nabla_Z\phi Z=-g(\nabla_ZZ,\phi Z)Z-\mu\xi,\quad\nabla_{\phi Z}Z=\nu\xi+g(\nabla_{\phi Z}Z,\phi Z)\phi Z.
\end{equation*}
Taking $X=Z$ and $Y=\phi Z$ in \eqref{8} and using the above formulas, we get
\begin{equation*}
  \mu\nu-\nu a=\frac{c}{4}.
\end{equation*}
Next we divide into two cases to discuss.

  \item[{\bf Case 1.}] If $a\neq0$ then it follows $\mu=\nu$ by combining with \eqref{46} and further $\mu,\nu$ are constant.
Furthermore, we find $\mu=\nu\neq a$, otherwise, the above formula will lead to $c=0$.  By Theorem \ref{B} we get that $M$ is of Type $A_1$.
  \item[{\bf Case 2.}] We assume $a=0$, then $\mu\nu=\frac{c}{4}$. In this case $M$ is a $^*$-Einstein hypersurface(see \cite[Remark 1]{IR}).
The $^*$-Ricci soliton equation \eqref{1} shows $W$ is a conformal Killing vector field, i.e. $\mathcal{L}_Wg=2(\lambda-5c)g$.
From \eqref{7}, we calculate the Ricci operator
\begin{equation*}
  QX=\frac{c}{4}\{5X-3\eta(X)\xi\}+hAX-A^2X,\quad\text{for all}\; X\in TM,
\end{equation*}
where $h=\mathrm{trace}(A)$. Hence by a direct computation we can get that the scalar curvature $r=3c+2\mu\nu$.

Notice that on an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold a conformal Killing vector field $X$, i.e. $\mathcal{L}_Xg=2\rho g$, satisfies
\begin{equation*}
  \mathcal{L}_Xr=2(n-1)\Delta\rho-2\rho r,
\end{equation*}
where $r$ is the scalar curvature (see Eq.(5.38) in \cite{Y}). Since $\mu\nu=\frac{c}{4}$, the scalar curvature $r=\frac{7c}{2}\neq0$. Using the above formula we find that $W$ is a Killing vector field.

Moreover, since $M$ is $^*$-Einstein, we derive from Theorem \ref{C} that $M$ is one of Type $A_1,A_2$, and $B$.
But according to the list of principal curvatures of Type $A_1,A_2$ and $B$ hypersurfaces(see \cite[Theorem 3.13-3.15]{NR}), we find that in this case only Type $A_1$  is satisfied.

Therefore we complete the proof of Theorem \ref{T3}.\qed

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{T4} }

Since the tangent bundle $TM$ can be decomposed as $TM=\mathbb{R}\xi\oplus\mathcal{D}$, where
$\mathcal{D}=\{X\in TM:\eta(X)=0\}$. Then $A\xi$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{47}
  A\xi=a\xi+V,
\end{equation}
where $V\in\mathcal{D}$ and $a$ is a smooth function on $M$. In this
section we assume that the hypersurface $M$ of $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$ is equipped with
a $^*$-Ricci soliton such that the potential vector field $W=V$.
\begin{lemma}\label{L1}
On $M$ the following equation is valid:
\begin{equation}\label{48}
     (\nabla_\xi A)\xi=Da+2A\phi V,
\end{equation}
where $Da$ denotes the gradient vector field of $a$.
\end{lemma}
\proof By \eqref{6} and \eqref{47}, for any vector field $X$
\begin{equation}\label{49}
\begin{aligned}
  (\nabla_XA)\xi&=\nabla_X(A\xi)-A\nabla_X\xi \\
   & =X(a)\xi+a\nabla_X\xi+\nabla_XV-A\phi AX.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{align*}
  g((\nabla_XA)\xi,\xi) & =X(a)+g(\nabla_XV,\xi)-g(A\phi AX,\xi) \\
   &=X(a)-g(V,\nabla_X\xi)-g(\phi AX,A\xi)\\
   &=X(a)+2g(AX,\phi V).
\end{align*}
From the well-known relation $g((\nabla_XA)\xi,\xi)=g((\nabla_\xi A)\xi,X)$ (see \cite[Corollary 2.1]{NR}),  we arrive at \eqref{48}.\qed\bigskip

Next it follows from \eqref{49} and \eqref{8} that
\begin{equation}\label{50}
\begin{array}{ll}
  \nabla_XV & =(\nabla_XA)\xi-X(a)\xi-a\nabla_X\xi+A\phi AX \\
   & =(\nabla_\xi A)X-\frac{c}{4}\phi X-X(a)\xi-a\phi AX+A\phi AX.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{L1} we have
\begin{equation}\label{51}
\begin{aligned}
  \nabla_\xi V=&(\nabla_\xi A)\xi-\xi(a)\xi-a\phi A\xi+A\phi A\xi\\
  =&-a\phi V+Da-\xi(a)\xi+3A\phi V.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

 Since $\eta(V)=0$, differentiating this along any vector $X$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{52}
g(\nabla_XV,\xi)+g(V,\phi AX)=0.
\end{equation}
In particular, by taking $X=\xi$ in \eqref{52}, we find $g(\nabla_\xi V,\xi)=0$
because of $\nabla_\xi\xi=\phi V$. Hence, taking into account $X=Y=\xi$ in \eqref{10},
we conclude that $\lambda=0.$

Take $X=\xi$ and $Y=\xi$ respectively in \eqref{10}, and it follows from \eqref{51} and \eqref{52} that
\begin{align*}
  -a\phi V+Da-\xi(a)\xi+4A\phi V-2\phi A\phi V=0,\\
  -a\phi V+Da-\xi(a)\xi+4A\phi V=0.
\end{align*}
Hence $\phi A\phi V=0$, which implies $A\phi V=0$ because of \eqref{3} and \eqref{47}. Differentiating
$A\phi V=0$ along vector field $\xi$ and using the first equation of \eqref{6}, \eqref{50} and \eqref{51}, we get
\begin{align*}
  0=\nabla_\xi(A\phi V) & =(\nabla_\xi A)\phi V+A(\nabla_\xi\phi)V+A\phi(\nabla_\xi V) \\
   & =\nabla_{\phi V}V-\frac{c}{4}V+(\phi V)(a)\xi+aAV+A\phi(Da).
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{53}
  \nabla_{\phi V}V=\frac{c}{4}V-(\phi V)(a)\xi-aAV-A\phi(Da).
\end{equation}
If we put $X=Y=\phi V$ in \eqref{10}, then the Eq.\eqref{53} leads
to $nc|V|^2=0,$ i.e. $V$ is a zero vector field. Since $\lambda=0$, the following proposition is proved:

\begin{proposition}\label{p}
Every real hypersurface in a non-flat complex space form $\widetilde{M}^n(c)$, $n\geq2$, admitting a $^*$-Ricci soliton with
 potential vector field $V$, is a $^*$-Ricci flat Hopf hypersurface.
\end{proposition}

{\it Proof Theorem \ref{T4}}.  Let $M$ be a $^*$-Ricci flat Hopf hypersurface, namely, $A\xi=a\xi$ and $Q^*X=0$ for all $X$, where $a$ is constant.
In view of \eqref{9}, we have $\frac{cn}{2}\phi^2X+(\phi A)^2X=0$ for all $X$, which further implies
\begin{equation}\label{54}
  \frac{cn}{2}\phi X+A\phi AX=0.
\end{equation}
For any point $p\in M$, let $Z\in\mathcal{D}_p$ is a principal vector, namely, there is a certain function $\mu_1$ such that $AZ=\mu_1 Z$, then
\begin{equation}\label{55}
\mu_1 A\phi Z=-\frac{cn}{2}\phi Z,
\end{equation}
 which shows that $\phi Z$ is also a principal curvature vector, i.e. $A\phi Z=\nu\phi Z$ with $\nu=-\frac{cn}{2\mu_1}$.
On the other hand, as before we know the following relation is also valid:
\begin{align}\label{56}
  (\mu_1-\frac{a}{2})A\phi Z=(\frac{\mu_1 a}{2}+\frac{c}{4})\phi Z.
\end{align}

In the following we divide into two cases.\\

$\bullet$ Case I: $a^2+c\neq0$.\bigskip\\
If $\mu_1=\frac{a}{2}$ then $\frac{\mu_1 a}{2}+\frac{c}{4}=0$, which is a contradiction. Hence $\mu_1\neq\frac{a}{2}$ and from \eqref{56} we find that
the principal curvature $\nu$ is also equal
$(\frac{\mu_1 a}{2}+\frac{c}{4})\Big/(\mu_1-\frac{a}{2})$. Hence we obtain that $\mu_1$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{57}
2a\mu_1^2+(1+2n)c\mu_1-acn=0,
\end{equation}
from which we can see that $\mu_1$ is constant. Thus $M$ has constant principal curvatures. However, since $M$ is $^*$-Ricci flat, in view of Theorem \ref{A} and Section 3 in \cite{HA}, we find that there are no hypersurfaces in $\mathbb{C}P^n$ satisfying this case.

For the case of $\mathbb{C}H^n$, in terms of Section 3 in \cite{HA}, only Type $A_{11}$ and $A_{12}$ hypersurfaces may be $^*$-Ricci flat.
 But for the Type $A_{12}$,  we further get $2n=\tanh^2(u)$, which is impossible since $0<\tanh(u)<1.$\\

$\bullet$ Case II: $a^2+c=0$.\bigskip\\
In this case the ambient space is $\mathbb{C}H^n$, since $c=-a^2<0$, $a\neq0$. If $\mu_1\neq\frac{a}{2}$, by \eqref{57}, we get
$\mu_1=na$ and $\nu=\frac{a}{2}$. If $\mu_1=\frac{a}{2}$ then $\nu=na$. Hence it is proved that there are three distinct constant principal curvatures for all $p\in M$.

However, since $M$ is a Hopf, in terms of Theorem \ref{A} and the analysis of Section 3 in \cite{HA}, we know that the Type $A_2$ hypersurfaces can not be $^*$-Einstein, and the Type $B$ and Type $N$ hyersurfaces can not be $^*$-Ricci flat.\\

Summarizing this two cases we complete the proof of Theorem \ref{T4}.\qed
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The author would like to thank the referees for the helpful
suggestions.


\section{Introduction}

Question Answering is a crucial problem in language understanding and a major milestone towards human-level machine intelligence. Datasets like SQuAD, MS-MARCO and others have led to plethora of contributions in machine reading and comprehension. The next-generation QA systems can be envisioned as the ones which can read passages and write long answers to questions. We formulate generative question answering as a form of QA where we expect the machine to produce an abstractive answer \textbf{A} that encompasses all the information from passage \textbf{P} required to answer a question \textbf{Q}. Eventually, such systems, if capable of understanding what information is necessary and what is not, will enable us to acquire information from multiple sources and present them in the form of a summarized answer.

The assumption, prevalent in most of the existing approaches, that the answer should be always a particular sub-span in the passage is a very strict one.

Generating answers should have to carefully incorporate any facts and entities which is necessary to answer the question as well as simultaneously discarding irrelevant information from P. This requires building complex relations between the question and the passage. What makes it further challenging is not only a need for good generative model but also the readability of the generations. Even if one achieves good results in terms of lexical similarity metrics like ROUGE-L, the determination of how much \textit{correctness} and \textit{readability} is preserved is a very significant concern in this task.

Our generative model is inspired by \textit{Seq2Seq} model (\citet{DBLP:conf/nips/SutskeverVL14} which is the basis of various NLG tasks like translation and summarization. In this paper, we propose our model that learns alignment between question and passage words to produce rich query-aware passage representation and using this same representation to directly decode the answer while attending to all the states in the representation. Learning end-to-end, our approach has no dependency on any external extractive labels. We also propose an approach where we make our decoder RNN state computation attention-aware by modifying the computed state of the previous step with attended encoder context.

While building such model, we noticed that, often, it replaces correct entities with similar incorrect ones (eg. correct year by incorrect year). This hinders the overall correctness of the answer being generated. To tackle this, we incorporate a \textit{copying mechanism} (\citet{DBLP:conf/acl/GuLLL16}, \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/SeeLM17}) that learns when to copy an important entity directly from the passage instead of generating anything from vocabulary. This makes our approach \textit{abstractive-cum-extractive}. Furthermore, a common error in generative models is repetitiveness in the text being generated. This also affects the generation that follows. A common practice, being used in similar tasks, like machine translation and summarization, is keeping track of a coverage vector (\citet{DBLP:conf/acl/TuLLLL16}) that keeps track of which encoder states have been attended to what extent in the past.

Our main novelty lies in demonstrating that it is possible to generate answers directly from modeled relationship between question and passage without the need to build extraction model or providing any positional labels (like start/end). We show that the decoder with the help of pointer-generator networks can itself choose to copy or generate answer words.

\section{Related Work}
Traditional QA models like \citet{DBLP:conf/icml/KumarIOIBGZPS16} and \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/SeoHF16} have shown some fascinating results in the form of relational based QA \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/WestonBCM15} or machine reading and comprehension by \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/WangJ16a}, \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/SeoKFH16} and \citet{DBLP:conf/acl/WangYWCZ17} with promising results. Their methods proved how successful is pointer networks of \citet{DBLP:conf/nips/VinyalsFJ15}. Considerable amount of work has also been done on passage ranking \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/TangDQZ17}. \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/TanWYLZ17} has taken a generative approach where they add a decoder on top of their extractive model and thus leveraging the extracted evidence to synthesize the answer. However, the model still relies strongly on the extraction to perform the generation which means it is essential to have the start and end labels (a span) for every example. Even also, when they are multiple regions in P that contribute to A, the model will need to predict multiple spans.

Our approach differs from this in the sense that it only relies on the content of Q and P to generate the answer and the extraction-abstraction \textit{soft} switch happens as a part of the learning procedure without the need for any dependency on extraction.

\section{Model Details}

Our model consists of an encoder that compute representation by using context and attentive layers and an attentive (\citet{DBLP:journals/corr/BahdanauCB14}) decoder with pointer-generator networks to decide when to copy or generate. We also keep a track of the attention at each time step to maintain a coverage vector to improve readability.

\subsection{Representation}

We use the standard GRU (\citet{DBLP:journals/corr/ChoMGBSB14}) as the building block of our recurrence for computing representations for both questions and passages.

Initially, both \textbf{P} and \textbf{Q} can be expressed by their respective word embeddings as Q = $\{w_t^Q\}_{t=1}^m$ and P = $\{w_t^P\}_{t=1}^n$.Further, the representations are built by multi-layered bi-directional GRU and weight sharing being done between \textbf{P} and \textbf{Q}.
			\begin{align}
			u_t^Q = \mathrm{BiGRU}_\theta(u_{t - 1}^Q, w_t^Q) \nonumber\\
			u_t^P = \mathrm{BiGRU}_\theta(u_{t - 1}^P, w_t^Q)
			\end{align}

where $u_t^Q$ and $u_t^P$ are the hidden states of the GRU at $t_{th}$ time step.

\subsection{Attentive Layer}

			\begin{figure}
				\begin{center}
					\includegraphics[width=3in]{gqa}
				\end{center}
				\caption{Block diagram of our model. Both Attention1 and Attention2 is the scaled multiplicative attention we discuss in (3).}
				\label{r-network_overview}
			\end{figure}

We use a multiplicative attention with a scaling factor \citep{DBLP:conf/nips/VaswaniSPUJGKP17} to compute alignment between question and passage words $u_i^Q$ and $u_i^P$ respectively. Specifically, for each $u_i^P$, we take the weighted sum of all $u^Q$ which is then concatenated to $u_i^P$ to form it's final representation. We also use gating mechanism \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/TanWYLZ17} to provide varying importance to passage words (\ref{gated}).

            			\begin{figure}
				\begin{center}
					\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{32}
				\end{center}
				\caption{An alignment matrix between Q and P shows how the model associates each word in Q with each word in P. As an example, when the model reads the word \textit{long} in the question, it focuses most of it's attention on \textit{6-7 months} in passage. All the columns are softmax normalized.}
				\label{attention}
			\end{figure}

Mathematically, we can express the attentive layer as:

			\begin{table*}[h]
				\centering
				\begin{tabular}{c p{13cm}}
					\hline
					\multicolumn{2}{l}{\textbf{}} \\
					& $\textbf{Question}$: when was the death penalty abolished? \\
					& $\textbf{Passage}$: The last executions UK took place in 1964 , and the death penalty was abolished in 1998 . In 2004 the UK became a party to the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and prohibited the restoration of the death penalty . Death penalty , capital punishment , or execution is the legal process of putting a person to death as a punishment for a crime . Modern History of Death Penalty . 1608 - Earliest death penalty in the British American Colonies handed out for UNK \\
					& $\textbf{Model with copying}$: 1998 \\
                    & $\textbf{Model without copying}$: 1964 \\
				\end{tabular}
                \caption{Replacement of correct entity by negative and similar one. We show two results from two models -- with and without point-gen}
				\label{replacement}
			\end{table*}

			\begin{align}
            u^{Q^-}&=tanh(W^{Q}u^{Q}); u^{P^-}=tanh(W^{P}u^{P}) \nonumber \\
			a_{ij} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt[]{D}}(u_{i}^{P^-}.{u_j^{Q^-}}^T) [D=hidden\_dim]\label{scaled_attention} \\
            w_i &= softmax(a_i) \nonumber \\
            v_t^P&= w_t u^Q \label{attended_p} \\
            g &= \sigma(W_g[v_t^P; u_t^P]) \label{gated} \\
            [v_t^P; u_t^P]^* &= g [v_t^P; u_t^P] \nonumber \\
            c_t &= \mathrm{BiGRU}(c_{t - 1}, [v_t^P; u_t^P]^*) \label{attentive_layer}
			\end{align}

$u^{Q^-}$ and $u^{P^-}$ are non-linear ($tanh$) transformations of question and passage representations $u^Q$ and $u^P$ respectively. $a$ computes dot product attention between transformed query and passage representations followed by a scaling factor $\sqrt[]{D}$. This also implies that for each passage word, we find the weighted importance of all question words, scale them and finally a softmax normalization to produce weights. With the weights, we thus get, we find the weighted sum of all the question words for that particular passage word (\ref{attended_p}). This is the new question-attended passage representation $v_t^P$. We further concatenate this with the original passage representation $u_t^P$ followed by a sigmoid gating (\ref{gated}) to represent how important this passage time step is for the encoding.

The penultimate stage of the attentive layer contains a bi-directional GRU (\ref{attentive_layer}) that acts a smoothing layer over the concatenation of original and question-attended passage representation.

We concatenate $c_T$ and $u_T^Q$  and perform a non-linear transformation of it before passing them to the decoder.
			\begin{align}
            c_T &= [\overleftarrow{c_T};\overrightarrow{c_T}]; h = \mathrm{tanh}(W_h [c_T;u_T^Q]) \label{encoder_output}
			\end{align}

Figure 2 shows a particular example of how relationship between question and passage is modeled.

\subsection{Decoding}

			\begin{table*}[h]
				\centering
				\begin{tabular}{c p{13cm}}
					\multicolumn{2}{l}{\textbf{}} \\
					& $\textbf{Q}$: what is a urethra \\
					& $\textbf{P}$: in anatomy , the urethra is a tube that connects the urinary bladder to the urinary meatus for the removal of fluids from the body . 1 infection of the urethra is urethritis , said to be more common in females than males . 2 urethritis is a common cause of dysuria ( pain when urinating ) . 3 related to urethritis is so called urethral syndrome . 4 passage of kidney stones through the urethra can be painful , which can lead to urethral strictures . \\
					& $\textbf{Model with coverage}$: is a tube that connects urinary bladder to the urinary meatus for the removal of fluids from the body ...... \\
                    & $\textbf{Model without coverage}$: the urethra a tube that connects urinary urinary bladder the the tube that connects the urinary bladder fluids the urinary body \\
				\end{tabular}
                \caption{Here are two types of repetitions we notice: consecutive identical (two times "urinary") words and duplicate phrases ("tube that connects the urinary bladder"). We show two results from two models -- with and without coverage}
				\label{repetition}
			\end{table*}

We use the GRU cell to compute our decoder states and the same scaled attention as in \ref{scaled_attention}.\\
The decoder decodes the information encoded by the query-aware passage encoder, aggregating information from various parts in the passage to produce the final answer. As we have seen in Figure 2, different regions of the passage can be weighted more if they are relevant to the query. In such cases, often we have seen from question-passage heatmaps, several areas in the passage are marked important. For eg. when the query is asking for some \textit{year}, all the words in the passage which denotes a year stands out more or less from other passage words (this issue is also highlighted in Table 1). It is now importantly the decoder's job to pick the correct year. The decoder is initialized with combination of both question representation encoded passage representation (from \ref{encoder_output})

\textbf{Making the RNN attention-aware}: We use the attended context concatenated with previous decoder state as input to the RNN to compute the current state. This makes the RNN aware about previous attentions. This differs from \citep{DBLP:conf/emnlp/LuongPM15}, where they attend after RNN state computation. We have observed that our difference causes a gain of at least 1 ROUGE-L point. The decoder state computation can be expressed as:
          \begin{align}
          h^-&=tanh(W_hh_i); s_{t-1}^-=tanh(W_ss_{t-1}) \nonumber \\
          e_i^t &= \frac{1}{\sqrt[]{D}} (W_h h_i^- W_s s_{t-1}^-)  \\
          a^t &= \text{softmax}(e^t) \nonumber \\
          h^*_t &= \sum\nolimits_i a_i^t h_i; s_{t-1}^*= \tanh(W_c[h_t^*; s_{t-1}]) \nonumber \\
          s_t &= GRU(s^*_{t-1}, y_{t-1}) \nonumber \\
          \end{align}
where $a_t$ is the attention distribution over the encoder states at $t^{th}$ time-step in the decoder and $s_t$ is the $t^{th}$ decoder hidden state. The attention methodology used here is identical to the one used in the attentive layer. Based on $a_t$, the decoder decides which encoder state to focus more on. $h_t^*$ is the attended context vector of the encoder at $t_{th}$ decoding time step. We use this context vector in concatenation with the decoder GRU's previous state $s_{t-1}$ to compute current state $s_t$. Finally, we compute the decoder output probability as $P_{vocab} = \text{softmax}(W_y s_t + b_y)$. This is a \textit{fully} abstractive approach.
\subsubsection{Copying from source}
However, to overcome the limitation of missing out entities from \textbf{P} (Table 1) or when dealing mostly extractive data, we apply pointer-generator networks to make it \textit{abstractive-cum-extractive}.With pointer-generator model, at each decoder time-step, we make a \textit{probabilistic} switch between whether to copy or simply choose from output distribution $P_{vocab}$. This is governed by $p_{gen}$ which is computed as (\citet{DBLP:journals/corr/SeeLM17}):
        \begin{align}
        p_{gen} = \sigma(w_h^T h^*_t + w_s^T s_t + b_\text{ptr})
        \end{align}
At each decoder time step, we use the decoder state $s_t$ and the context vector $h^*_t$, to decide whether to copy from the encoder words or to generate the highest probable word from the decoder output.

		\begin{align}
		P(w) &= p_{gen} p_{vocab}(w) + (1-p_{gen})\sum\nolimits_{i: w_i = w} a^t_i
		\end{align}

From a high-level point of view, the pointer-generator model, at each decoder step $t$, adds the attention probabilities of each encoder words from $a_t$ to their respective probabilities in the decoder output distribution $p_{vocab}$ at that decoder time step. A sigmoid over the affine transformations produce a probability. Higher $p_{gen}$ means the model will mostly choose a word from vocabulary while lower means higher chance of copying a source word from passage. $P(w)$ is the final probability distribution which is used for generating answer word and computing the training loss.
\subsubsection{Mitigating repetitions through coverage}
Readability is a major concern in almost all NLG tasks (Table 2). The copying mechanism helps to preserve information from the encoder side and prevent repetition of words which we have observed in our experiments. We realized that alleviating this problem will eventually lead to better readability of answers. Hence, we incorporated \textit{coverage mechanism}, which is pretty popular approach in machine translation, summarization, into our model. It is a mechanism in MT to avoid over-translation by keeping track of which source words are receiving attention too many times. Specifically, we used the attention distributions being computed at each decoder time step to maintain a coverage vector $cov_t$ which is basically cumulative sum of attention probabilities.
		\begin{align}
		cov_t &= \Sigma_{i=0}^{t-1} a_i \nonumber
		\end{align}
Hence, at each time step, the decoder has information about how much each encoder state has been attended until the previous step. We add an extra term $W_c cov_t$ to (7). This makes the standard attention mechanism has a knowledge about which states has been attended already enough in the past and thus manages to curb repetitions.

\subsection{Loss}
At each decoder time step, we use the negative log-likelihood of the correct word and finally try to minimize the total loss over all the decoder steps.
		\begin{align}
		loss &= - \frac{1}{T}\sum\nolimits_{t=0}^T \log P(w^*_t)
		\end{align}
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|rl|}
\hline \bf Model & \bf  ROUGE-L & \bf Perplexity \\ \hline
Seq2Seq baseline & -/37.70 & -/- \\
gQA (+p-gen,+ cov.) & \textbf{74/59.5} & 4.35/4.62 \\
gQA (+p-gen) & 70/57.5 & 3.36/4.05 \\
gQA (w/o p-gen) & 45/42. & 4.3/4.48\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The best performance on the MS-MARCO development data, given the correct passage. We report the perplexity alongside ROUGE-L score. For each numeric column, score follows the \textit{train/dev} format.}
				\label{marco_dev_result}
\end{table}
			\begin{figure}
				\begin{center}
					\includegraphics[width=3in]{res2}
				\end{center}
				\caption{Example result: core information retained}
				\label{res2}
			\end{figure}
\section{Data and Experiments}
We conducted our experiments on MS-MARCO\footnote{Data is available for download at http://www.msmarco.org/dataset.aspx} data (\citet{DBLP:conf/nips/NguyenRSGTMD16}). In our experiments, to form the passage-answer pair from training data, we select the correct input passage for an answer by determing which passage has a sub-span with highest ROUGE-L score with the reference answer \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/TanWYLZ17}. We also verify that this ROUGE-L score is not less than 0.7. The filtered train data consists of 75000 examples. For evaluation, we take the correct passage for each query and generate answer from them. We relied on Stanford CoreNLP \citet{DBLP:conf/acl/ManningSBFBM14} to tokenize all texts. Also, We restricted the number of words in it to 30000 and lengths of P and A to 200 and 50 respectively. We use a batch of 50 examples for updating our model while training for roughly 15000 iterations. We use \textit{Glove} (\citet{DBLP:conf/emnlp/PenningtonSM14}) to represent words and keep them \textit{fixed}. We use hidden state dimension of 256 throughout the network. We use the Adadelta optimizer (\citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1212-5701}), with \textit{epsilon}=1e-6, \textit{rho}=0.95 and initial learning rate=1, to minimize our loss.
\section{Results and Analysis}
We list our result on MS-MARCO data in Table \ref{marco_dev_result}. We do not consider negative passages and test the model only on correct passages for each query. We also include the results reported in Table 6 of \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/TanWYLZ17} on experimenting with basic sequence-to-sequence model with selected passage as the input. Results show that our model outperforms the generative baseline by a large margin.
The learnt mean value of $p_{gen}$ is mostly 0.7 which tells us that the data is mostly extractive in nature and forces the model to copy mostly. We also tried to use self-attention but that didn't improve performance, most probably, because the decoder attention is already aggregating information from different parts of passage. Not only improvement in score, but also coverage reduced repetitions in multiple instances.
We provide some examples in Fig.\ref{res2} and Fig.\ref{res}.
			\begin{figure}
				\begin{center}
					\includegraphics[width=3in]{res1}
				\end{center}
				\caption{Example result: almost same answer}
				\label{res}
			\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We successfully build a generative model that can not only efficiently model relationship between question and passage but also can generate answers from the encoded relationship. We let the model decide to be in abstractive or extractive mode based on the nature of the data thus removing any dependency on any other external extractive feature. Moreover, we apply coverage in this QA task to mitigate frequent repetitions.