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

Phase 1b expansion cohort trials are a relative new type of studies to investigate the anti-tumor effects of multiple doses of a new treatment in multiple indications. Here, indications can be different cancer types according to histology, biomarker status, or both. Figure \ref{fig:phase-1} is a stylized depiction of a phase 1a/1b trial for a new drug: Part A refers to the phase 1a dose escalation in which different dose levels of the drug are investigated for safety; Part B is the phase 1b cohort expansion stage, in which one or more candidate dose levels with reasonable safety profiles are selected for further evaluation of efficacy. Both parts can be incorporated seamlessly in a single design or separated as two different trials, depending on the practical situation for each drug development. In phase 1b, patients with different indications are enrolled in parallel to these candidate doses,  and their efficacy outcomes are recorded. Since multiple doses and multiple indications may be tested, we refer to a dose-indication combination as an ``arm'',
e.g., arms B1--B6 in Figure \ref{fig:phase-1}.
At the end, the response rate of an arm is estimated, based on which a go/no-go decision about further development of the dose and indication is made.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./phase1-scheme}
\caption{A stylized depiction of a two-part phase 1 study. Part A is the phase 1a dose escalation and Part B is the phase 1b cohort expansion. In the dose-escalation stage, four candidate dose levels are investigated for safety, and dose level 3 is identified as the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), i.e., the highest dose with tolerable side effects.
In the cohort-expansion stage, the MTD and the dose  below (dose level 2) are considered for further investigation. Patients with three different indications are enrolled in parallel for both doses.
This leads to a total of six cohorts, cohorts B1--B3 for dose level 3 and cohorts B4--B6 for dose level 2. } \label{fig:phase-1}
\end{figure}

In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a draft guidance \citep{us2018expansion} that recommends the use of  multiple expansion cohort  trials to expedite oncology drug development. A statistical design  mentioned in this draft guidance is the Simon's two-stage design \citep{simon1989}. The Simon's two-stage design provides trial sample size calculation and trial conduct for a binary endpoint (efficacy response/no response) under the hypothesis test of  $H_{0k}: p_{k} \leq \pi_{k0}$ versus $H_{1k}: p_{k} \geq \pi_{k1}$. Here, $k$ is a specific arm in the phase 1b trial, $p_{k}$ is the objective response rate (ORR) in arm $k$, $\pi_{k0}$ is the reference response rate, such as the rate under the standard of care (SOC), and $\pi_{k1}$ is the target response rate, with which the drug is regarded superior. An objective response refers to a partial or complete response according to the RECIST guideline \citep{eisenhauer2009}.
The Simon's two-stage design proceeds as follows: in the first stage, $n_1$ patients are enrolled, and the trial is stopped if $r_1$ or fewer patients respond. Otherwise, additional $(N-n_1)$ patients are enrolled in the second stage. The drug is considered promising and $H_0$ is rejected if more than $r$ patients (including those from the first stage) respond. The tuple $(r_1, n_1, r, N)$ is determined based on the desired control of frequentist type I and II error rates and certain optimality conditions, such as minimizing the expected sample size.  The Simon's two-stage design is appealing for single-arm studies, since the design can limit the number of patients exposed to an inefficacious drug.
To apply the Simon's two-stage design to multi-arm trials, one could treat each arm as a separate study, and the tuple $(r_1, n_1, r, N)$ is determined for each arm under arm-specific type I and type II error rates.
The BRAF-V600 study in \cite{hyman2015} is an example of using the Simon's two-stage design in a multi-arm trial.
However, the Simon's two-stage design was developed for single-arm trials and may not be the most efficient design for multi-arm trials (including multiple expansion cohort trials) for at least two reasons.
First, an important rationale to include multiple arms (e.g., multiple doses and indications) into a single study is
that the treatment effects in some arms may provide information about the treatment effects in other arms.
Therefore, it is desirable to borrow information across arms when we design the trial and perform data analysis. Second, in a multi-arm trial, applying the Simon's two-stage design independently to each arm does not take into account the family-wise type I error rate (FWER). For example, consider a trial with 4 arms. Suppose each arm is designed with a type I error rate of 0.1, then the FWER can be as high as $1-(1-0.1)^4 = 0.35$, which means that with a probability of $0.35$ an inefficacious arm may be recommended for further development.
Of course, to guarantee that the FWER is no higher than $\alpha$, one could apply the Bonferroni correction and require the type I error rate for each arm to be no higher than $\alpha / K$, where $K$ is the number of arms. However, that may result in  a large sample size for early-phase trials.

Several Bayesian designs have been proposed for multi-arm clinical trials, such as \cite{thall2003hierarchical}, \cite{berry2013bayesian}, \cite{neuenschwander2016robust}, \cite{simon2016bayesian}, \cite{liu2017increasing}, \cite{cunanan2017efficient}, \cite{chu2018bayesian}, \cite{chu2018blast}, \cite{hobbs2018bayesian} and \cite{psioda2019bayesian}, among others.
A majority of these designs make use of Bayesian hierarchical models to borrow information across arms and increase statistical efficiency.
Most of these designs are developed for basket trials \citep{heinrich2008,menis2014,hyman2015}, which evaluate a new treatment in multiple indications (without the notion of multiple doses).
In this paper, we extend the idea of existing Bayesian designs for multi-arm trials and develop a design specifically for multiple expansion cohort trials.
The proposed design is called MUCE, which stands for \underline{mu}ltiple \underline{c}ohort \underline{e}xpansion.
A unique feature of multiple expansion cohort trials is that they could have a two-dimensional dependency structure across doses and indications.
For example in Figure \ref{fig:phase-1}, when two  doses are expanded in three indications, dependence in both doses and indications may affect model performance.

\paragraph{A motivating example.}
We introduce a case study that motivates the MUCE design.
Consider a seamless phase 1a/1b trial that evaluates the safety and efficacy of a bispecific monoclonal cancer drug.
In phase 1a, five doses are tested for safety. The endpoint is dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Phase 1a is guided by the i3+3 design \citep{liu2019design}, which employs a set of rules to make dose-escalation decisions. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) will be identified from phase 1a dose finding. Up to three doses, none higher than the MTD, will be considered for expansion in the phase 1b study, and four different indications based on histology will be considered. This leads to a maximum of 12 arms, each with a unique dose-indication combination. The phase 1b endpoint is objective response. The ORR of each arm is compared to a historical rate. Specifically, for arm $k$, we intend to test the null hypothesis $H_{0k}: p_{k} \leq \pi_{k0}$ versus the alternative hypothesis $H_{1k}: p_{k} > \pi_{k0}$, with $\pi_{k0} = 0.2$ being the historical response rate for all arms.
The Simon's two-stage design may not be the best choice for this trial. To see this, consider applying the Simon's two-stage design independently to each arm.
In the extreme case, 12 arms will be expanded in phase 1b. Then, the Simon's two-stage design with an arm-specific type I error rate of $\alpha = 0.1$ would result in a FWER of  $1-(1 - 0.1)^{12} = 0.72$. Apparently, this is not acceptable since such a FWER would render a great risk for downstream clinical development.
In addition, the trial budget only allows about 10 patients per arm, making it difficult to use the Simon's two-stage design with decent power. It is important to borrow information to allow reasonable power. We will present numerical results for this trial based on the MUCE design later.

Motivated by the case study, we develop the MUCE design to power multi-dose-indication expansion cohort trials.
The MUCE design is based on a class of Bayesian hierarchical models that allows different degrees of borrowing across the two dimensions -- doses and indications.
For example, the drug may perform more similarly across different doses than across different indications.
This is different from existing Bayesian designs for multi-arm trials, which were developed aiming for one-dimensional borrowing.
In addition, the MUCE design makes inference directly based on the posterior probability of the alternative hypothesis $\Pr(H_{1k} \mid \text{Data})$.
Through a Bayesian hierarchical model including prior probabilities of the hypotheses, we follow the argument in \cite{scott2010bayes} to realize Bayesian multiplicity control.
We will demonstrate through simulation studies that the MUCE design has desirable operating characteristics.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:rev}, we provide a brief review of existing Bayesian designs for multi-arm trials. In Section \ref{sec:method}, we propose the probability model and the decision rules for the MUCE design.
In Section \ref{sec:result}, we evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed MUCE design and present simulation results. The paper concludes
with a discussion in Section \ref{sec:discussion}.

\section{Review of Bayesian Designs for Multi-arm Trials}
\label{sec:rev}

In this section, we provide an overview of existing Bayesian designs for multi-arm trials.
Let $K$ denote the number of arms in the trial.
For example, in a multiple expansion cohort trial, $K$ is the number of arms, i.e., dose-indication combinations; in a basket trial, $K$ is the number of indications.
Let $n_k$ and $y_k$ denote the number of patients and responders in arm $k$, respectively.
Here, a responder refers to a cancer patient who has a beneficial outcome after the treatment, where the beneficial outcome is usually defined based on tumor shrinkage or some meaningful anti-tumor activities (e.g., those in \citealp{eisenhauer2009}).
Denote by $p_k$ the true and unknown response rate for arm $k$.
A natural sampling model for $y_k$ is the binomial model, $y_k \mid p_k \sim \text{Bin}(n_k, p_k)$.

\cite{berry2013bayesian} propose a Bayesian hierarchical model (BBHM) which  borrows strength across different arms.
For each arm $k$, BBHM considers a hypothesis test:
\begin{align*}
H_{0k}: p_k \leq \pi_{k0} \quad \text{versus} \quad H_{1k}: p_k \geq \pi_{k1},
\end{align*}
where $\pi_{k0}$ and $\pi_{k1}$ are the reference and target response rates for arm $k$, respectively.
Let $\theta_k = \text{logit}(p_k) - \text{logit}(\pi_{k1})$ denote the log-odds of the response rate including an adjustment for the targeted rate $\pi_{k1}$, where $\text{logit}(x) = \log[x / (1-x)]$.
BBHM models the $\theta_k$'s via a shrinkage prior given by
\begin{align}
\theta_k \mid \theta, \sigma^2 \stackrel{iid}{\sim} \text{N}(\theta, \sigma^2), \quad k = 1, \ldots, K.
\label{eq:theta_k}
\end{align}
The hyperparameters $\theta$ and $\sigma^2$ are given conjugate hyperpriors,
\begin{align*}
\theta \sim  \text{N}(\theta_0,\sigma^2_0), \quad \text{and} \quad
\sigma^2 \sim  \text{Inv-Gamma}(\alpha_0,\beta_0).
\end{align*}
This prior construction assumes that the $\theta_k$'s
across different arms are exchangeable and are shrunk toward a shared mean $\theta$, which enables borrowing information across the $K$ arms. The degree of borrowing is determined by the value of $\sigma^2$. The smaller the $\sigma^2$, the stronger the borrowing.
On one extreme, when $\sigma^2=0$, all the $\theta_k$'s are equal, resulting in full shrinkage.
On the other extreme, when $\sigma^2$ goes to infinity, the degree of borrowing goes to zero.

The BBHM design incorporates interim analyses for futility stopping. Specifically, each interim analysis occurs after a pre-specified number of patients are enrolled.
If
\begin{align}
\Pr \left( p_k > \frac{\pi_{k0}+\pi_{k1}}{2} \mid \text{Interim data} \right) < {\phi_1},
\label{eq:interval-futility}
\end{align}
enrollment to arm $k$ is stopped for futility; otherwise, enrollment to arm $k$ continues until the next interim analysis or the end of the trial.
At the end of the trial, a final analysis is conducted, and arm $k$ is declared efficacious and promising for further study if
\begin{align}
\Pr(p_k > \pi_{k0} \mid \text{Final data})> {\phi_2}.
\label{eq:interval}
\end{align}
Here, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are tuning parameters, which may be determined through simulation studies to generate desirable frequentist operating characteristics.

BBHM design shows superior power when most arms are truly efficacious. The cost is the inflated frequentist type I error rates for non-promising arms, if the degree of borrowing is overestimated.
See, e.g., \cite{neuenschwander2016robust},  \cite{chu2018bayesian} and \cite{chu2018blast} for discussions.
Several alternative methods have been proposed, attempting to mitigate the issue.
\cite{neuenschwander2016robust} propose the exchangeability-nonexchangeability (EXNEX) design, which models the $\theta_k$'s in Equation \eqref{eq:theta_k} with a mixture distribution,
\begin{align*}
\theta_k  \sim \sum_{c = 1}^C w_{kc} \text{N}(\theta_{\text{EX}, c}, \sigma_{\text{EX}, c}^2) + w_{k0} \text{N}(\theta_{\text{NEX}, k}, \sigma_{\text{NEX}, k}^2).
\end{align*}
In other words, with probability $w_{kc}$, $\theta_k$ belongs to an exchangeability (EX) component $c$, and with probability $w_{k0}$, $\theta_k$ belongs to a nonexchangeability (NEX) component;  $\sum_{c = 0}^C w_{kc} = 1$.
The parameters of the EX components, $\theta_{\text{EX}, c}$ and $\sigma_{\text{EX}, c}$, are shared across arms within component $c$. In contrast, the parameters of the NEX components, $\theta_{\text{NEX}, k}$ and $\sigma_{\text{NEX}, k}$, are arm-specific.
The number of EX components $C$ and the weights of the components $\bm w_k = (w_{k1}, \ldots, w_{kC}, w_{k0})$ are prespecified.
The authors recommend as a default setting that the same NEX components and mixture weights are used for all arms, i.e., $\theta_{\text{NEX}, 1} = \ldots = \theta_{\text{NEX}, K} = \theta_{\text{NEX}}$, $\sigma^2_{\text{NEX}, 1} = \ldots = \sigma^2_{\text{NEX}, K} = \sigma^2_{\text{NEX}}$, and $\bm w_1 = \ldots = \bm w_K = \bm w$. The NEX variance $\sigma_{\text{NEX}}^2$ should be chosen large to ensure a good performance.
Interestingly, this default setting collapses all the nonexchangeable components into a single component, effectively rendering the model ``exchangeable''.
However, the use of the mixture model in EXNEX reduces the extent of borrowing across arms thus leads to less type I error inflation compared to BBHM.
The original EXNEX design does not have a futility stopping rule, but the same rule as in Equation \eqref{eq:interval-futility} may be included.

\cite{chu2018bayesian} propose a calibrated Bayesian hierarchical model (CBHM), which uses an empirical Bayes
estimate of $\sigma^2$ in Equation \eqref{eq:theta_k} rather than placing a prior on it.
This calibration process results in more conservative estimation of $\sigma^2$ compared to BBHM when the treatment effects in different arms are less homogeneous, leading to less borrowing and type I error inflation.
The CBHM design has the same decision rules for futility stopping and declaring efficacy as the BBHM design.

\section{The MUCE Design}
\label{sec:method}

The MUCE design takes a slightly different angle.
Instead of using the posterior credible interval of the estimated response rate (Equations \ref{eq:interval-futility} and \ref{eq:interval}) for decision and inference, in MUCE we propose a hierarchical model incorporating the hypotheses as a parameter, i.e., Bayesian hypothesis testing.
Also, to exploit the data structure in multiple expansion cohort trials, we construct a latent probit model that allows different degrees of borrowing across doses and indications.
This will be more clear in the upcoming discussion.

\subsection{Probability Model}
\label{sec:prob_model}

Consider a phase 1b trial that evaluates $J$ different dose levels of a new drug in $I$ different indications.
Let $(i, j)$ denote the arm for indication $i$ and dose level $j$, $i = 1, \ldots, I$, $j = 1, \ldots, J$.
The total number of arms is $K = I \times J$.
Suppose $n_{ij}$ patients have been treated in arm $(i, j)$, and $y_{ij}$ of them are responders.  Let $p_{ij}$ denote the true and unknown response rate for the arm $(i, j)$.  We assume $y_{ij}$ follows a binomial distribution,
$y_{ij} \mid p_{ij} \sim \text{Bin}(n_{ij},p_{ij})$.
Whether dose level $j$ is efficacious for indication $i$ can be examined by the following hypothesis test:
\begin{align}
H_{0,ij}: p_{ij}\leq \pi_{i0} \quad \text{versus} \quad
H_{1,ij}: p_{ij} > \pi_{i0},
\label{eq:test}
\end{align}
where $\pi_{i0}$ is the reference response rate for indication $i$.
For simplicity, we do not separately consider a target response rate $\pi_{i1}$ as in the Simon's two-stage and BBHM designs. This is because only the reference response rate is used for declaring treatment efficacy in the final analysis for all the existing Bayesian designs (Equation \ref{eq:interval}).

Under a formal Bayesian testing framework for \eqref{eq:test}, let $\lambda_{ij}$ be a binary and random indicator of the hypothesis, such that $\lambda_{ij} = 0$ (or 1) represents that hypothesis $H_{0,ij}$ (or $H_{1,ij}$) is true.
We formally construct a hierarchical model treating $\lambda_{ij}$ as a model parameter and perform inference on $\lambda_{ij}$ directly.
In the first step, we build a prior model for $p_{ij}$ under each hypothesis. Similar to BBHM, we consider the logit transformation of $p_{ij}$, $\theta_{ij}=\text{logit}(p_{ij})$. The null hypothesis $p_{ij} \leq \pi_{i0}$ is equivalent to $\theta_{ij} \leq \theta_{i0}$, and the alternative hypothesis is equivalent to $\theta_{ij} > \theta_{i0}$, where $\theta_{i0}=\text{logit}(\pi_{i0})$. Conditional on $\lambda_{ij}$, we assume
\begin{align*}
\theta_{ij} \mid \lambda_{ij} = 0 &\sim \text{Trunc-Cauchy}(\theta_{i0}, \gamma; (-\infty, \theta_{i0}]), \\
\theta_{ij} \mid \lambda_{ij} = 1 &\sim \text{Trunc-Cauchy}(\theta_{i0}, \gamma; (\theta_{i0}, \infty)),
\end{align*}
where $\text{Trunc-Cauchy}(\theta, \gamma; A)$ denotes a Cauchy distribution with location $\theta$ and scale $\gamma$ truncated within interval $A$. The use of the Cauchy distribution priors follows \cite{gelman2008weakly} due to its heavy tail, thus inducing large prior variability and less prior influence.

In the second step, we construct prior models for the probabilities of the hypotheses, $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1)$ and $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 0)$. To borrow strength across dose levels and indications, we construct a hierarchical prior model for $\lambda_{ij}$.
A natural and conventional Bayesian approach is to impose a common prior for the probability of $\{\lambda_{ij}=1\}$ (e.g., similar to the prior in Equation \ref{eq:theta_k}), which shrinks the probabilities to a common value.
To better exploit the data structure in multiple expansion cohort trials, we propose to differentiate the borrowing strength from two factors: dose and indication.
For example, two arms with the same indication or dose might exhibit more similar treatment effects than two arms with different indications and doses.
To achieve this, we use a latent probit two-way ANOVA prior. Let $Z_{ij}$ be a latent Gaussian random variable, and $\lambda_{ij} = I(Z_{ij} \geq 0)$, where $I(\cdot)$ is an indicator function.
Hence $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1) = \Pr(Z_{ij} \geq 0)$.
We model
\begin{align*}
Z_{ij} \sim N({\xi_{i}+\eta_{j}},\sigma_0^2).
\end{align*}
Here, $\text{E}(Z_{ij}) = \xi_i + \eta_j$, in which $\xi_i$ characterizes the  effect of indication $i$ and $\eta_j$ of dose $j$. The indication-specific effects and dose-specific effects are then separately modeled by common priors,
\begin{align*}
\xi_i \mid \xi_0, \sigma_\xi \stackrel{iid}{\sim} N(\xi_0,\sigma_{\xi}^2),
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
\eta_j \mid \eta_0, \sigma_\eta \stackrel{iid}{\sim} N(\eta_0,\sigma_{\eta}^2).
\end{align*}
Lastly, we put hyperpriors on $\xi_0$ and $\eta_0$, $\xi_0 \sim N(\mu_{\xi_0},\sigma_{\xi_0}^2)$ and $\eta_0 \sim N(\mu_{\eta_0},\sigma_{\eta_0}^2)$.

The entire hierarchical model is summarized in the following display:
\begin{alignat}{2}
&\text{Likelihood:}
&&y_{ij} \mid n_{ij}, p_{ij} \sim  \text{Bin}(n_{ij}, p_{ij}); \nonumber \\
&\text{Transformation:}
&&\theta_{ij}  = \text{logit}(p_{ij}), \theta_{i0} = \text{logit}(\pi_{i0});
\nonumber  \\
&\text{Prior for $(\theta_{ij} \mid \lambda_{ij})$:}
&&\theta_{ij} \mid \lambda_{ij} = 0 \sim \text{Trunc-Cauchy}(\theta_{i0}, \gamma; (-\infty, \theta_{i0}]),
\nonumber \\
&
&&\theta_{ij} \mid \lambda_{ij} = 1 \sim \text{Trunc-Cauchy}(\theta_{i0}, \gamma; (\theta_{i0}, \infty));
\nonumber \\
&\text{Prior for $\lambda_{ij}$:}
&&\lambda_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
0,  \quad \text{if $Z_{ij} < 0$}, \\
1,   \quad \text{if $Z_{ij} \geq 0$};
\end{cases}
\label{eq:bhm} \\
&\text{Latent probit regression:}
&&Z_{ij} \mid \xi_{i}, \eta_{j}, \sigma_{0}^2  \sim  N(\xi_{i}+\eta_{j},\sigma_{0}^2); \nonumber \\
&\text{Indication-specific effects:} \qquad
&&\xi_{i} \mid \xi_0,\sigma_{\xi}^2  \sim  N(\xi_0,\sigma_{\xi}^2); \nonumber \\
&\text{Dose-specific effects:}
&&\eta_{j} \mid \eta_0,\sigma_{\eta}^2 \sim N(\eta_0,\sigma_{\eta}^2); \nonumber  \\
&\text{Hyperpriors:}
 &&\xi_{0} \mid \mu_{\xi_0},\sigma_{\xi_0}^2  \sim  N(\mu_{\xi_0},\sigma_{\xi_0}^2), \nonumber \\
& &&\eta_{0} \mid \mu_{\eta_0},\sigma_{\eta_0}^2 \sim N(\mu_{\eta_0},\sigma_{\eta_0}^2). \nonumber
\end{alignat}
The values of the hyperparameters $\gamma$, $\mu_{\xi_0}$, $\mu_{\eta_0}$, $\sigma_{0}^2$, $\sigma_{\xi}^2$, $\sigma_{\eta}^2$, $\sigma_{\xi_0}^2$ and $\sigma_{\eta_0}^2$ are
fixed, and the specification of these hyperparameters will be discussed next.

Under the proposed hierarchical model, different $Z_{ij}$'s are \textit{a priori} correlated, thus the model borrows information across arms. To see this, consider the prior correlations of $(Z_{ij}, Z_{i'j'})$ in the following three cases:
\begin{alignat}{2}
&\text{(I) Same indication ($i = i'$):}  &&\text{Corr}(Z_{ij},Z_{ij^{\prime}}) = \frac{\sigma_{\xi}^2+(\sigma_{\xi_0}^2+\sigma_{\eta_0}^2)}{\sigma_0^2+\sigma_{\xi}^2+\sigma_{\xi_0}^2+\sigma_{\eta}^2+\sigma_{\eta_0}^2}, \nonumber\\
&\text{(II) Same dose ($j= j'$):} &&\text{Corr}(Z_{ij},Z_{i^{\prime}j})=\frac{ \sigma_{\eta}^2+(\sigma_{\xi_0}^2 +\sigma_{\eta_0}^2)}{\sigma_0^2+\sigma_{\xi}^2+\sigma_{\xi_0}^2+\sigma_{\eta}^2+\sigma_{\eta_0}^2}, \label{eq:corr}\\
&\text{(III) Different indication \& dose:} \qquad &&\text{Corr}(Z_{ij},Z_{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}}) =\frac{( \sigma_{\xi_0}^2+\sigma_{\eta_0}^2 )}{\sigma_0^2+\sigma_{\xi}^2+\sigma_{\xi_0}^2+\sigma_{\eta}^2+\sigma_{\eta_0}^2}. \nonumber
\end{alignat}
We can see that the degree of borrowing is determined by the relative magnitude of $\sigma_{0}^2$, $\sigma_{\xi}^2$, $\sigma_{\eta}^2$, $\sigma_{\xi_0}^2$ and $\sigma_{\eta_0}^2$,
with the correlation being the smallest for case (III). For the other two cases, if $\sigma_{\xi}^2>\sigma_{\eta}^2$ (or $\sigma_{\xi}^2<\sigma_{\eta}^2$), the correlation for case (I) is larger (or smaller) than the correlation for case (II), respectively.
By default, we set $\sigma_{0}^2 = 1$. We will show sensitivity analyses in which desirable degrees of borrowing  could be realized with different choices of variance values.

Lastly, the values of $\mu_{\xi_0}$ and $\mu_{\eta_0}$ affect the prior probability of $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1)$. In particular, more negative values of $\mu_{\xi_0}$ and $\mu_{\eta_0}$ make the prior $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1)$ smaller, and hence the posterior $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1 \mid \text{Data})$ is also smaller given the same likelihood.
We will show that this feature is useful in calibrating MUCE to make it conservative or not in practice, thereby controlling type I error.

\subsection{Posterior inference}
Let $\bm{\theta}$, $\bm{Z}$, $\bm{\xi}$, $\bm{\eta}$ be the set of all $\theta_{ij}$'s, $Z_{ij}$'s, $\xi_{i}$'s and $\eta_j$'s, respectively.
The joint posterior  distribution of the parameters is given by
\begin{multline*}
p(\bm{\theta},\bm{Z},\bm{\xi},\bm{\eta}, \xi_0, \eta_0 \mid \bm{y}, \bm{n})
\propto
\left\{ \prod_{i,j} f(y_{ij}\mid n_{ij}, \theta_{ij}) \cdot \pi(\theta_{ij} \mid Z_{ij})\cdot \pi(Z_{ij}\mid \xi_i,\eta_j) \right\} \cdot \\
\left\{ \prod_{i}\pi(\xi_i \mid \xi_0)\right\} \cdot \left\{ \prod_{j} \pi(\eta_j \mid \eta_0)\right\}  \cdot \pi(\xi_0) \cdot \pi(\eta_0),
\end{multline*}
where $f(y_{ij}\mid n_{ij}, \theta_{ij}) = [e^{\theta_{ij}} / (1 + e^{\theta_{ij}})]^{y_{ij}} \cdot [1 / (1 + e^{\theta_{ij}})]^{n_{ij} - y_{ij}}$, and $\pi(\cdot)$ represents the corresponding prior densities as in Equation \eqref{eq:bhm}.
Posterior samples of the unknown parameters,
\begin{align*}
\{\bm{\theta}^{(r)},\bm{Z}^{(r)},\bm{\xi}^{(r)},\bm{\eta}^{(r)},{\xi_0}^{(r)},{\eta_0}^{(r)}; r = 1, \ldots, R\},
\end{align*}
are obtained through Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation, where $R$ denotes the maximum number of MCMC iterations.
The MCMC simulation follows standard Gibbs and Metropolis-Hastings steps, the detail of which is omitted.

\subsection{Proposed Trial Design}

Based on the probability model in Section \ref{sec:prob_model}, we propose the MUCE design for multiple expansion cohort trials.
The MUCE design without interim looks can be derived based on the following logic.
We enroll $n_{ij}$ patients to arm $(i, j)$, and declare the arm promising if
\begin{align*}
\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1 \mid \mathcal{D}) > \phi_2
\end{align*}
or not promising if $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1 \mid \mathcal{D}) < \phi_1$.
Here, $\mathcal{D} = \{ (n_{ij}, y_{ij}); i = 1, \ldots, I, j = 1, \ldots, J \}$ denotes the observed data at the end of the trial, where $y_{ij}$ is the number of responders in arm $(i, j)$. The posterior probability of $H_{1,ij}$ being true (i.e., $\lambda_{ij} = 1$) can be approximated from the posterior MCMC samples,
\begin{align*}
\Pr(\lambda_{ij}=1 \mid \mathcal{D}) \approx \frac{1}{R} \sum_{r=1}^R  I(Z_{ij}^{(r)}\geq 0).
\end{align*}
Recall that $\{ Z_{ij}^{(r)}; r = 1, \ldots, R \}$ denotes $R$ posterior samples of $Z_{ij}$.
From a Bayesian perspective, cutoff $\phi_2$ is specified so that $(1-\phi_2)$ gives a desired posterior probability of null (PPN) when arm $(i,j)$ is considered promising, i.e., a false positive decision is made. For example, $\phi_2=0.9$ gives a PPN of 0.1 as the upper bound for making a false positive decision using the Bayesian inference. Similarly, the value of $\phi_1$ provides the upper bound of the posterior probability of alternative (PPA). For example, $\phi_1 = 0.3$ gives a small PPA and indicates a small probability of making a false negative decision given the data and the MUCE model.
After $\phi_2$ and $\phi_1$ are specified, the sample sizes $\{ n_{ij}; i = 1, \ldots, I, j = 1, \ldots, J \}$ are decided based on simulation so that desirable frequentist type I/II error rates are achieved.

Once $\phi_2$, $\phi_1$ and $\{ n_{ij} \}$ are decided, one can add futility interim looks to the MUCE design. Suppose $L (\geq 1)$ interim looks are planned, and interim analysis $l$ is conducted after $n_{ij}^l$ patients have been enrolled in arm $(i, j)$, where $n_{ij}^l < n_{ij}$.
Let $\mathcal{D}^l = \{ (n_{ij}^l, y_{ij}^l); i = 1, \ldots, I, j = 1, \ldots, J \}$ denote the observed data at interim analysis $l$, where $y_{ij}^l$ is the number of responders among the $n_{ij}^l$ patients. At each interim analysis, arm $(i, j)$ is stopped early for futility if $\Pr(\lambda_{ij} = 1 \mid \mathcal{D}^l) < \phi_1$. See Box 1.
Note that the maximum sample sizes $\{ n_{ij} \}$ may be recalibrated if interim looks are planned, again based on simulation.

\begin{center}
\fbox{
\parbox{.96\textwidth}
{
\textbf{Box 1: The MUCE design with $L$ futility interim looks. }
\vskip -.1in
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*, label*=\arabic*., start=0]
\item Let $l=1$.
\item After $n_{ij}^l$ patients
have been enrolled in arm $(i, j)$, calculate $\Pr(\lambda_{ij}=1 \mid \mathcal{D}^l)$.
If $\Pr(\lambda_{ij}=1 \mid \mathcal{D}^l)  <\phi_1$, stop patient accrual in this arm for futility.
\item If patient accrual in all arms has been stopped, stop the trial. Otherwise, let $l=l+1$.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*, label=(\alph*)]
\item If $l \leq L$, go back to step 1;
\item Otherwise, enroll patients until the maximum sample size $n_{ij}$ is reached for arm $(i, j)$. Evaluate each arm based on the final observed data. If $\Pr(\lambda_{ij}=1 \mid \mathcal{D})>\phi_2$, declare arm $(i,j)$ promising at the end of the trial.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
}}
\end{center}

\section{Results}\label{sec:result}

\subsection{Two Trial Examples}\label{sec:example_simulate}

In this section, we  illustrate the application of the MUCE design through two hypothetical trials, denoted as trial examples I and II.
These examples are based on a simplified version of the motivating example described in Section \ref{sec:intro}. In both examples, one dose is expanded in four indications  (i.e., $J = 1$ and $I = 4$), with the reference response rate $\pi_{i0} = 20\%$  for all indications.
We set $\phi_1 = 0.3$ as the threshold for futility stopping at each interim analysis and $\phi_2 = 0.9$ for declaring treatment efficacy at the final analysis. Recall that $\phi_1$ represents the upper bound of the PPA when a negative decision is made, and $(1 - \phi_2)$ represents the upper bound of the PPN when a positive decision is made.
For simplicity, we set the maximum sample size to be 29 per arm, which is chosen to match the sample size of the Simon's two-stage design with a type I error rate of 0.1, a type II error rate of 0.3, a reference response rate of $\pi_{i0} = 20\%$, and a target response rate of $\pi_{i1} = 35\%$. In practice, the maximum sample size may be chosen based on simulation to attain desirable frequentist properties.
Two interim looks for futility stopping are conducted after the responses of 10 and 20 patients have been evaluated in every arm, respectively.
Through these two trial examples, we will show the effect of borrowing across arms and the benefit of  futility stopping.

We apply MUCE under the following three hyperparameter settings:
\begin{enumerate}[label*=(\roman*), noitemsep]
\item Setting 1: $\gamma=2.5$, $\mu_{\xi_0}=\mu_{\eta_0}=0$, and $\sigma_{0}^2=\sigma_{\xi}^2=\sigma_{\eta}^2=\sigma_{\xi_0}^2=\sigma_{\eta_0}^2=1$;
\item Setting 2: Same as Setting 1 except $\sigma_{\xi_0}^2=\sigma_{\eta_0}^2=3^2$;
\item Setting 3: Same as Setting 1 except  $\mu_{\xi_0}=\mu_{\eta_0}=-3$.
\end{enumerate}
Here, Setting 1 is the default hyperparameter setting. Setting 2 imposes more information borrowing compared to Setting 1, as it increases the correlation of $Z_{ij}$ across different arms (see Equation \ref{eq:corr}). Setting 3 places a lower prior probability for $H_{1, ij}$, which makes it easier to stop an arm early due to futility and more difficult to declare treatment efficacy at the end of the trial.

Table \ref{tab:example1} shows the simulated data
for trial example I and inference based on MUCE
under the three hyperparameter settings.
At the first interim look, respectively 1, 5, 6, and 3 responders are reported in the four arms among the first 10 enrolled patients.
Under Setting 1, the posterior probability of $H_{1,ij}$ is greater than $\phi_1 = 0.3$ for all arms, and therefore patient accrual continues in all arms.
The estimated response rates under MUCE show the effect of ``borrowing'', as the smaller observed response rates in arms 1 and 4 are up-shifted and those in arms 2 and 3 are down-shifted. See Figure \ref{fig:shrinkage} for an illustration.
Setting 2 leads to stronger borrowing, which can be seen from the greater degree of shrinkage of the estimated response rates compared to that under Setting 1.
Again, no arm is stopped early for futility.
Setting 3 leads to lower estimated response rates and posterior probabilities of $H_{1, ij}$'s, because it assumes a lower prior probability of $H_{1, ij}$ by imposing negative $\mu_{\xi_0}$ and $\mu_{\eta_0}$ values in the latent probit regression. As a result, the posterior probabilities of $H_{1, ij}$'s are also lower, and arm 1 is stopped early due to futility. In other words, negative values of $\mu_{\xi_0}$ and $\mu_{\eta_0}$ lead to more conservative decisions.

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:example1} Trial example I under the MUCE design. ``Est. $p$'' denotes the estimated response rate, and ``Prob. $H_1$'' denotes the posterior probability of the alternative hypothesis, i.e., $\Pr(\lambda_{ij}=1 \mid \mathcal{D})$. The bold values indicate the arms that are declared promising at the final analysis. The values in square brackets indicate the arms that are stopped early due to futility. The values in parentheses indicate that the interim data are carried forward for the subsequent analyses after the arms are stopped early. }
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline\hline
&& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Interim 1} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Interim 2} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Final Analysis}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{arm}& 1 & 2& 3 & 4& 1 & 2& 3 & 4& 1 & 2& 3 & 4\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$n$}& 10 & 10& 10 & 10& 20 & 20& 20 & 20& 29 & 29& 29 & 29\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$y$}& 1 & 5& 6 & 3& 4 & 10& 9 & 8& 6 & 13& 11 & 10\\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$y/n$}& 0.1 & 0.5& 0.6 & 0.3& 0.2 & 0.5& 0.45 & 0.4& 0.21 &0.45 &0.38 &0.34\\\hline
    \multirow{3}[2]{*}{Est. $p$} & Set. 1 & 0.139 & 0.473 & 0.572 & 0.304 & 0.240  & 0.483 & 0.435 & 0.388 & 0.237 & 0.437 & 0.371 & 0.340 \\
    & Set. 2 & 0.199 & 0.478 & 0.574 & 0.326 & 0.258 & 0.482 & 0.437 & 0.387 & 0.254 & 0.438 & 0.368 & 0.340 \\
    & Set. 3 & [0.076] & 0.361 & 0.462 & 0.198 & (0.082) & 0.479 & 0.426 & 0.370  & (0.084) & 0.431 & 0.355 & 0.314 \\
    \hline
   \multirow{3}[2]{*}{Prob. $H_1$} & Set. 1 & 0.482 & 0.987 & 0.997 & 0.862 & 0.814  & 0.999  & 0.998  & 0.993  & 0.828  & \textbf{1.000 } & \textbf{0.995 } & \textbf{0.987 } \\
   & Set. 2 & 0.747 & 0.994 & 0.999 & 0.944 & 0.930  & 1.000  & 0.999  & 0.997  & \textbf{0.945 } & \textbf{1.000 } & \textbf{0.999 } & \textbf{0.997 } \\
   & Set. 3 & [0.076] & 0.687 & 0.762 & 0.370  & (0.144) & 0.987  & 0.969  & 0.923  & (0.130) & \textbf{0.977 } & \textbf{0.932 } & 0.864  \\
   \hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{./shrinkage}
\caption{An illustration of the effect of information borrowing under MUCE.
The dotted circles represent the observed/raw response rates in the four arms.
The solid arrows show the shrinkage direction of the estimated response rates based on MUCE.
In this example, the estimated response rates in the four arms are shrunk toward the overall mean, with smaller observed response rates in arms 1 and 4 up-shifted and those in arms 2 and 3 down-shifted.}
\label{fig:shrinkage}
\end{figure}

The second interim analysis occurs after 20 patients have been assessed for response in every arm. Again, under Setting 1, the futility stopping boundary is not crossed, and the trial continues with all four arms. At the end of the trial, 6, 13, 11 and 20 responders are observed in arms 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The posterior probabilities of $H_{1, ij}$ for arms 2, 3 and 4 are over the efficacy threshold $\phi_2 = 0.9$, and the dose is considered promising in these arms.
Under Setting 2, the posterior probability of $H_{1, ij}$ is higher in all arms due to stronger borrowing compared to that under Setting 1, and the dose is considered promising in all arms.
Under Setting 3, due to the lower prior probability of $H_{1, ij}$, the posterior probability of $H_{1, ij}$ is lower in all arms, and the dose is considered promising only in arms 2 and 3.
Hyperparameter Setting 3 may be chosen if the investigators place strong emphasis on type I error control.
Note that under Setting 3, although patient accrual in arm 1 is stopped after the first interim analysis,  the interim data for arm 1 (1 responder out of 10 patients) are still included in the second interim and the final analyses, a benefit of Bayesian modeling.

Table \ref{tab:example2} presents the second trial example.
At the first interim analysis, 0, 3, 6 and 4 responders are observed in arms 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
The posterior probability of $H_{1, ij}$ is only 0.046 for arm 1 under Setting 1.  As a result, arm 1 is stopped for futility. We can see similar performance of the MUCE design in the second trial example: Setting 2 has stronger borrowing strength than Setting 1, and Setting 3 has strong type I error control.
Notice that due to early stopping of arm 1 under all three settings, we did not simulate any additional data for arm 1 in the second and final analysis. The arm is terminated after interim look 1 to avoid treating more patients in this potentially non-promising arm. Under Setting 3,  arm 2 is also terminated after interim look 1. At the end of the trial, the posterior probabilities of $H_{1, ij}$ for arms 2, 3 and 4 are over the efficacy threshold $\phi_2 = 0.9$ under Settings 1 and 2. For Setting 3, only arms 3 and 4 are declared promising due to the strong type I error control.

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:example2} Trial example II under the MUCE design. ``Est. $p$'' denotes the estimated response rate, and ``Prob. $H_1$'' denotes the posterior probability of the alternative hypothesis. The bold values indicate the arms that are declared promising at the final analysis. The values in square brackets indicate the arms that are stopped early due to futility. The values in parentheses indicate that the interim data are carried forward for the subsequent analyses after the arms are stopped early.}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hline\hline
&& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Interim 1} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Interim 2} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Final Analysis}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{arm}& 1 & 2& 3 & 4& 1 & 2& 3 & 4& 1 & 2& 3 & 4\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$n$}& 10 & 10& 10 & 10& 10 & 20& 20 & 20& 10 & 29& 29 & 29\\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$y$}& 0 & 3& 6 & 4& 0 & 6& 10 & 8& 0 & 9& 14 & 11\\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$y/n$}& 0.0 & 0.3& 0.6 & 0.4& 0.0 & 0.3& 0.5 & 0.4& 0.00& 0.31& 0.48& 0.38\\\hline
\multirow{3}[2]{*}{Est. $p$} & Set. 1 & [0.002] & 0.286  & 0.574  & 0.371  & (0.000) & 0.295  & 0.484  & 0.385  & (0.004) & 0.303  & 0.471  & 0.369  \\
& Set. 2 & [0.003] & 0.298  & 0.572  & 0.382  & (0.001) & 0.299  & 0.484  & 0.386  & (0.006) & 0.307  & 0.473  & 0.369  \\
& Set. 3 & [0.000] & [0.171] & 0.397  & 0.220  & (0.000) & (0.235) & 0.464  & 0.343  & (0.000) & (0.272) & 0.470  & 0.353  \\
\hline
\multirow{3}[2]{*}{Prob. $H_1$} & Set. 1 & [0.069] & 0.800  & 0.996  & 0.918  & (0.059) & 0.887  & 0.999  & 0.980  & (0.084) & \textbf{0.936 } & \textbf{0.999 } & \textbf{0.988 } \\
& Set. 2 & [0.184] & 0.840  & 0.996  & 0.940  & (0.153) & 0.910  & 0.998  & 0.983  & (0.229) & \textbf{0.956 } & \textbf{1.000 } & \textbf{0.992 } \\
& Set. 3 & [0.004] & [0.233] & 0.620  & 0.366  & (0.010) & (0.550) & 0.941  & 0.823  & (0.003) & (0.749) & \textbf{0.996 } & \textbf{0.924 } \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}

We can also observe the effect of borrowing strength across arms by comparing the two trial examples. For example, arm 3 in trial example I and arm 4 in trial example II have exactly the same observed data (29 patients in total with 11 responders), while inference about $H_{1, ij}$ for these two arms is slightly different in the two trial examples. This is because such inference is affected by the observed data in the other arms,  which are different between the two trials.

\subsection{Simulation 1: One Dose and Multiple Indications}
\label{sec:sim1}

We conduct extensive simulations to examine the operating characteristics of the proposed MUCE design.
In the first simulation study, we aim to benchmark the performance of MUCE against the Simon's two-stage design in terms of frequentist power, type I error rate, and average sample size.
We also include the BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM designs in the comparison.
For a fair comparison, we only consider one dose and four indications (i.e., $J = 1$ and $I = 4$), since BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM are developed for basket trials rather than expansion cohort trials with two factors: doses and indications.

We consider five different scenarios, shown in Table \ref{tab:scenario1}.
We assume the reference response rate is $\pi_{i0} = 0.2$ for all indications.
We also set the target response rate $\pi_{i1} = 0.35$, which is required for implementing the Simon's two-stage, BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM designs.
Under each scenario, patient responses are generated according to the true response rates. The first scenario is a global null scenario, in which all arms are non-promising having a response rate of 0.2.
The second scenario is a global alternative scenario with all arms promising having a response rate of 0.35.
Scenarios 3--5 are mixed scenarios, with different numbers of promising and non-promising arms.

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:scenario1}True response rates of the four arms (indications) under the five scenarios in Simulation 1. The bold values mark the promising arms. }
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hline\hline
Scenario & arm 1 & arm 2&arm 3&arm 4\\\hline
1 &0.2& 0.2& 0.2& 0.2\\
2&\bf 0.35& \bf0.35& \bf0.35& \bf0.35\\
3&0.2& 0.2& \bf0.35& \bf0.45\\
4&0.2&\bf0.35&\bf0.35&\bf0.45\\
5&0.2&0.2&0.2&\bf0.35\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The Simon's two-stage design with a prespecified type I error rate of 0.1 and a type II error rate of 0.3 is given by the following:
for each arm, treat 13 patients in the first stage. If $\leq 2$ patients respond, stop the arm early; otherwise, treat additional 16 patients in the second stage (29 patients in total), and declare the arm promising if $> 8$ patients respond in total.
To match the maximum sample size of the Simon's two-stage design, the maximum sample sizes for MUCE, BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM are also set at 29 for every arm.
Two interim looks for futility stopping are conducted after 10 and 20 patient outcomes are observed in every arm for these four Bayesian designs.
The MUCE design is implemented under hyperparameter Setting 1 (see Section \ref{sec:example_simulate}). The futility stopping boundary and the efficacy thresholds are chosen as $\phi_1^{\text{MUCE}} = 0.25$ and $\phi_2^{\text{MUCE}} = 0.924$, respectively.
The BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM designs are implemented under the default hyperparameter settings recommended in the corresponding publications.
The futility and efficacy thresholds for BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM are set at $\phi_1^{\text{BBHM}} = \phi_1^{\text{EXNEX}} = \phi_1^{\text{CBHM}} = 0.08$,  $\phi_2^{\text{BBHM}} = 0.879$,  $\phi_2^{\text{EXNEX}} = 0.950$ and $\phi_2^{\text{CBHM}} = 0.957$, respectively.
These thresholds are chosen such that (i) all designs yield approximately the same average sample size ($\approx 21$) under the global null scenario (Scenario 1), and (ii) all Bayesian designs have the same family-wise type I error rate (FWER) ($= 0.15$) under the global null scenario.
Here, a  family-wise type I error refers to a decision in which at least one non-promising arm is falsely declared to be promising (i.e., at least one true null hypothesis is rejected).
The purpose of calibrating the threshold values is to benchmark the comparison among different designs.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./fig_sim1}
\caption{Comparison of power, type I error rate (left panel), and average sample size (right panel) of the Simon's two-stage, BBHM, EXNEX, CBHM, and MUCE designs under the five scenarios in Simulation 1 (all with one dose level and four indications).}
\label{fig:simul1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

We simulate 1,000 trials under each scenario (Table \ref{tab:scenario1}) for each design.
We record (i) the percentage of trials in which an arm is declared promising. This is the type I error rate if the arm is actually non-promising, or the power if the arm is truly promising. In addition to (i), we also record (ii) the percentage of trials in which any non-promising arm is falsely declared promising, i.e., the FWER, and (iii) the average sample size.
The simulation results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:simul1}.
In Scenario 1, although the arm-wise type I error rate of the Simon's two-stage design is controlled at 0.1,  it has a FWER of 0.34. All the four Bayesian designs have arm-wise and family-wise type I error rates lower than those of the Simon's two-stage design.
In Scenario 2, BBHM has the highest power in all arms, followed by MUCE, Simon's two-stage, CBHM and EXNEX.
The high power of BBHM in Scenario 2 is attributed to its strong borrowing of strength across arms, as shown in \cite{berry2013bayesian}.
In the mixed scenarios (Scenarios 3--5), the Simon's two-stage design is able to control the type I error rates for the non-promising arms at 0.1, because inference for each arm is conducted separately. The BBHM design has elevated type I error rates in the non-promising arms due to its strong borrowing behavior. We can also observe some type I error inflation for the MUCE design, but such inflation is less extreme compared to the BBHM design and is considered reasonable.
Given that MUCE is not designed for basket trials, its performance exhibited in this simulation seems satisfactory.
In summary, MUCE is able to
\begin{enumerate}[label*=(\roman*), noitemsep]
\item Control arm-wise and family-wise type I error rates under the global null scenario,
\item Exhibit desirable power under the global alternative scenario, and
\item Strike a good balance between type I error rate and power under the mixed scenarios. That is, MUCE shows sufficient power in selecting the promising arms without greatly inflating the type I error rate in selecting the non-promising arms.
\end{enumerate}
The average sample sizes of the five designs are also reported in Figure \ref{fig:simul1}, which are generally similar, although the Simon's two-stage design has slightly lower average sample sizes in some cases.

\subsection{Simulation 2: Multiple Doses and Multiple Indications}
\label{sec:sim2}

In the second simulation study, we consider the motivating
phase 1b multiple expansion cohort trial example described in Section \ref{sec:intro}.
Suppose three doses are graduated from phase 1a dose-escalation to phase 1b expansion cohort, and four indications are of interest (i.e., $J = 3$ and $I = 4$).
As a result, 12 different dose-indication arms are available for expansion.
The trial budget only allows a total sample size of 120 patients with 10 patients per arm.
We conduct simulation to examine the frequentist operating characteristics as part of the initial new drug (IND) application to the regulatory agency.

We consider six scenarios (Table \ref{tab:scenario2}) that specify the true response rates of the 12 arms.
We assume the reference response rate is $\pi_{i0} = 0.2$ for all the four indications.
The first scenario is a global null scenario with all arms non-promising having a response rate of 0.2. The second scenario is a global alternative scenario with all arms promising having a response rate of 0.5. This value is considered clinically beneficial to patients, and an arm exhibiting such a response rate deserves further clinical development.
Scenario 3 is also a global alternative scenario, in which all the arms have response rates higher than 0.2 but ranged from 0.3 to 0.5.
Scenarios 4--6 are mixed scenarios with promising and non-promising arms. The promising arms in Scenarios 4 and 6 have a response rate of 0.5 regardless of the dose, and the promising arms in Scenario 5 show an increasing dose-response trend.

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:scenario2} True response rates of the twelve arms under the six scenarios in Simulation 2. The bold values mark the promising arms.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|cccc}
\hline\hline
Scenario & dose level & indication 1 & indication 2&indication 3&indication 4\\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{1} &1 & 0.2& 0.2& 0.2& 0.2\\
&2 & 0.2& 0.2& 0.2& 0.2\\
&3 & 0.2& 0.2& 0.2& 0.2\\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{2} &1 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5\\
&2 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5\\
&3 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5\\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{3} &1 & \bf 0.3& \bf 0.3& \bf 0.3& \bf 0.3\\
&2 & \bf 0.4& \bf 0.4& \bf 0.4& \bf 0.4\\
&3 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5\\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{4} &1 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& 0.2& 0.2\\
&2 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& 0.2& 0.2\\
&3 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& 0.2& 0.2\\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{5} &1 & \bf 0.3& \bf 0.3& 0.2& 0.2\\
&2 & \bf 0.4& \bf 0.4& 0.2& 0.2\\
&3 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& 0.2& 0.2\\ \hline
 \multirow{3}{*}{6} &1 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2& 0.2\\
&2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2& 0.2\\
&3 & \bf 0.5& \bf 0.5& 0.2& 0.2\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

We assess the performance of the MUCE design under the default hyperparameter Setting 1 and compare it with that of the BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM designs.
The Simon's two-stage design is not considered here since it will lead to unacceptable FWER with 12 arms.
We simulate 1,000 trials under each scenario (Table \ref{tab:scenario2}) for each design.
With 10 patients per arm, no interim look is implemented for all designs. Therefore, we do not need to specify the target response rate for BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM, which is only used for interim futility stopping.
For a fair comparison, the efficacy thresholds $\phi_2$ for these four methods are calibrated to generate an identical FWER of 0.1 under Scenario 1 (global null).
We obtain $\phi_2^{\text{MUCE}} = 0.988$, $\phi_2^{\text{BBHM}} = 0.948$,  $\phi_2^{\text{EXNEX}} = 0.976$ and $\phi_2^{\text{CBHM}} = 0.989$.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./fig_sim2}
\caption{Comparison of power and arm-wise and family-wise type I error rates of the BBHM, EXNEX, CBHM, and MUCE designs under the six scenarios in Simulation 2 (all with three dose levels and four indications).}
 \label{fig:simul2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig:simul2} shows the power, arm-wise, and family-wise type I error rates of the different designs under the six scenarios.
In Scenario 1, all designs have the same FWER of 0.1 because of the threshold calibration.
In Scenarios 2 and 3, BBHM has the highest power to detect the promising arms, followed by MUCE $\geq$ EXNEX $>$ CBHM. This is expected, as BBHM has the highest degree of borrowing, which allows it to perform better in the global alternative scenarios.
In the mixed scenarios (Scenarios 4--6),  although BBHM still has the highest power for detecting the promising arms, it shows inflated arm-wise and family-wise type I error rates. Furthermore, MUCE generally has better power and type I error control compared to EXNEX. Lastly, CBHM has the best type I error control but lacks sufficient power to detect the promising arms.
The reason why MUCE has both decent power and type I error control is that it exploits the two-way expansion data structure and employs a latent probit model that allows different degrees of borrowing across doses and indications.
In contrast, BBHM, EXNEX and CBHM only consider one-dimensional information borrowing.

\subsection{Sensitivity Analysis and Multiplicity Control}
\label{sec:sens}

In Section \ref{sec:example_simulate}, we have demonstrated the behavior of the MUCE design under three hyperparameter settings through two trial examples.
In this section, we conduct sensitivity analysis to assess the frequentist operating characteristics of MUCE under more hyperparameter settings and investigate the effect of different hyperparameters.
In addition to hyperparameter Settings 1--3 in Section \ref{sec:example_simulate}, we consider two more hyperparameter settings:
\begin{enumerate}[label*=(\roman*), noitemsep]\addtocounter{enumi}{3}
\item Setting 4: Same as Setting 1 except $\sigma_{\xi_0}^2=\sigma_{\eta_0}^2=0.1^2$;
\item Setting 5: Same as Setting 1 except $\mu_{\xi_0} = -3$.
\end{enumerate}
Setting 4 imposes weaker borrowing across arms than Setting 1, as it decreases the correlation of $Z_{ij}$ across arms (see Equation \ref{eq:corr}).
Setting 5 provides weaker multiplicity control compared to Setting 3, although it still has stronger multiplicity control than Setting 1.

We consider simulation Scenarios 1--3 in Table \ref{tab:scenario1} with one dose level and four indications.
For each scenario, we simulate 1,000 trials with the MUCE design under each hyperparameter setting.
Again, we set the maximum sample size for each arm at 29.  For simplicity, we do not implement interim looks for futility stopping during the trial.
At the end of the trial, the threshold for declaring treatment efficacy is $\phi_2 = 0.95$ for every hyperparameter setting.

The frequentist type I error rates and powers of MUCE under different hyperparameter settings are reported in Figure \ref{fig:simul_sensitivity}.
The results using the Simon's two-stage design are also included in Figure \ref{fig:simul_sensitivity} as a benchmark.
The FWERs of MUCE under Settings 1, 2 and 4 are around 0.15 in Scenario 1,
which are smaller than that of the Simon's two-stage design.
The two settings with stronger multiplicity control, Settings 3 and 5, lead to much lower FWERs in Scenario 1.
In Scenario 2, the power ordering of Settings 1, 2 and 4 is Setting 2 $>$ Setting 1 $>$ Setting 4, which means that the power in the global alternative scenario increases as the strength of borrowing increases.
However, the ordering of type I error rate in Scenario 3 among Settings 1, 2 and 4 is also Setting 2 $>$ Setting 1 $>$ Setting 4, meaning that strong borrowing strength leads to inflation of the type I error rate in the mixed scenario.
Because of the multiplicity control, the type I error rates are well controlled under Settings 3 and 5, but the powers under Settings 3 and 5 are also lower than those under the other settings in both Scenarios 2 and 3.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{./fig_sens}
\caption{Comparison of operating characteristics of the MUCE design under five different hyperparameter settings. The results are benchmarked with the Simon's two-stage design.}
\label{fig:simul_sensitivity}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}

We have proposed the MUCE design, which is a new Bayesian design for phase 1b multiple expansion cohort trials.
We take a formal Bayesian hypothesis testing approach to decide which dose-indication combinations are promising for further investigation.
Priors on the null and alternative hypotheses are constructed, which lead to inference directly based on conditional (posterior) probabilities of the hypotheses.
To adaptively borrow information across arms, we build a latent probit model that allows different degrees of borrowing across doses and indications.
Through simulation studies, we have shown that the MUCE design has desirable operating characteristics and compares favorably to existing designs for multiple expansion cohort trials.
We have also shown that the degree of borrowing and
multiplicity control can be adjusted through intuitive hyperparameter tuning.

Elicitation of the prior hyperparameters in the MUCE design can be discussed with the clinical team based on the following two considerations. First, how strongly the team prefers to borrow information across doses. This can be realized by increasing (or decreasing) the variances of $\xi_i$ and $\eta_j$'s, which lead to larger (or smaller) correlations of the latent probit scores.
Second, how strongly the team prefers to control the type I error rate in the presence of multiple tests. This can be realized by assigning a more negative mean value for $\mu_{\xi_0}$ and $\mu_{\eta_0}$, as shown in Section \ref{sec:sens}.

Bayesian designs like MUCE may improve the efficiency of multi-arm trials by borrowing information across arms, which can ideally lead to improved power to detect a treatment effect with a reduced sample size.
We note that borrowing may result in inflated type I error rates for the non-promising arms if only part of the arms are truly promising.
In addition, multiplicity issues in multiple expansion cohort trials should be of concern, since multiple decisions are made at the end that would result in further development of multiple doses/indications of the drug. A type I error would lead to future failures and waste of resources.

\bibliographystyle{rss}


\section{Introduction}
In this paper we deal with {generic submanifolds} of a Sasakian manifold, and we
establish a sufficient condition for two of them to have non empty intersection,
following Frankel's classical approach, which goes back to \cite{Frankel}.
We shall also consider the case when one of the submanifolds  is generic and
the other one is invariant. In \cite{Ornea} and \cite{Pitis} this kind of results were
discussed for the case of two invariant submanifolds.

The definition of  generic submanifold we shall adopt here is weaker than
the standard one, see for instance \cite{Yano-Kon2} and \cite{Yano-Kon}.
Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a Sasakian manifold. A submanifold $N$ of $M$
will be called {\em generic} provided:

\medskip
a) the Reeb vector field $\xi$ is nowhere normal to $N$;

b) $\varphi(TN^\perp)\subset TN$, where $TN^\perp$ is the normal bundle of $N$.

\medskip
We remark that in the literature it is customary to  assume $N$  tangent to $\xi$,
so our assumption is less stringent.

\medskip
Our approach will be based on the fact that such a submanifold is naturally endowed with a $CR$ structure
$(HN,J)$ of codimension $p+1$,
where $p=\dim(M)-\dim(N)$ (see Prop. \ref{generic_CR_srtucture}). Like the canonical $CR$ structure of the ambient manifold $M$, this induced structure is also strongly pseudoconvex, namely the scalar Levi form $\mathfrak{L}_\eta$ determined by the restriction to $N$ of the contact form $\eta$ is, up to a constat factor, the restriction
to $HN$ of the Riemannian  metric $g$.
We refer the reader to \S\ref{prelim} for the definition of the
(scalar) Levi forms of a $CR$ manifold; here we just recall that each of them
is a Hermitian symmetric bilinear form on the holomorphic
tangent space $H_xN$ at a point $x\in N$,  intrinsically attached
to a cotangent vector $\omega\in T_xN^*$ annihilating $H_xN$.
Observe that a) ensures that $\eta$ is everywhere non vanishing on our
submanifold.

We shall focus instead on the Levi forms $\mathfrak{L}_\nu$ determined by
the normal directions $\nu$ to $N$; by definition,
$\mathfrak{L}_\nu$ is attached to the covector:
$$\omega(X)=g(\varphi\nu,X).$$
Each of these Levi forms will be called {\em characteristic};
we shall denote its index by $i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)$ and by $n(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)$ its
nullity.

\bigskip
With this terminology, our main result is the following.

\begin{theorem}\label{main_theorem}
	Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a connected, complete  Sasakian manifold with non negative
	$\varphi$-bisectional curvature. Let $N$ and $P$ submanifolds of $M$, and assume one of them closed and the other compact.

	\medskip
	a) If $N$ is generic and $P$ is invariant, we have
	$$N\cap P\not=0,$$
	provided for each characteristic Levi form of $N$ it holds:
	\begin{equation}\label{hp(a)}
		i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)\ge\dim(M)-\dim(P).
	\end{equation}

	b) If both $N$ and $P$ are generic submanifolds, set
	\begin{equation}\label{q,s}
		q:=\min_{\nu\in TN^\perp}i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu) \quad\text{and}\quad s:=\min_{\nu'\in TP^\perp}(i(\mathfrak{L}_{\nu'})+n(\mathfrak{L}_{\nu'})).
	\end{equation}
	Then we have
	$$N\cap P\not=0,$$
	provided $q>0$, $s>0$ and
	\begin{equation}\label{hp(b)}
		q+s\ge\dim(M)-1.
	\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\medskip
As an application, we get the following results:

\begin{corollary}\label{cor.1}
	Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a complete, connected, regular Sasakian manifold with nonnegative $\varphi$-bisectional curvature and assume that $M$ fibers onto a K\"ahler manifold biholomorphic to a product $S\times\mathbb{C}$, where $S$ is a complex manifold.

	Then every generic submanifold $N$ of $M$ whose characteristic Levi forms have all positive index is non compact.
\end{corollary}

\medskip
\begin{corollary}\label{cor.2}
	Let $N$ be a generic submanifold of the Sasakian space form $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)$ with $\varphi$-sectional
	curvature $c$, $c>-3$. If all the characteristic Levi forms of $N$
	have positive index, then $N$ cannot be contained in an open hemisphere.
\end{corollary}

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{prelim}
Let's start by recalling the definitions of $CR$ manifolds, Levi-Tanaka forms and scalar Levi forms.
In the following, given a vector bundle $E$ over a smooth differential manifold $M$, we will denote by $\Gamma(E)$ the $\mathcal{C}^\infty(M)$-module of global smooth sections of $E$.\\

Let $M$ be a smooth real differential manifold of dimension $n$, and let $m,k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $2m+k=n$. If $HM$ is a real vector subbundle of rank $2m$ of the tangent bundle $TM$ and $J:HM\to HM$ is a bundle isomorphims such that $J^2=-Id$, the couple $(HM,J)$ is said to be a \textit{CR structure} on $M$ if the following properties hold for all $X,Y\in\Gamma(HM)$ smooth section of $HM$:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
	\item $[JX,JY]-[X,Y]\in\Gamma(HM)$;
	\item $N_J(X,Y):=[JX,JY]-J[JX,Y]-J[X,JY]-[X,Y]=0$.
\end{enumerate}
In this case $(M,HM,J)$ is called a \textit{CR manifold of type (m,k)} and $m,k$ are the \textit{CR dimension} and the \textit{CR codimension} of the $CR$ structure, rispectively.\\

\begin{definition}
	Let $(M,HM,J)$ be a $CR$ manifold of type $(m,k)$. Given a point $x\in M$, the \textit{Levi-Tanaka form of $M$ at $x$} is the bilinear map $$L_x:H_xM\times H_xM\to T_xM/H_xM$$ defined by \begin{equation}
	L_x(X,Y):=\pi_x([\tilde{X},J\tilde{Y}]_x)\quad \forall X,Y\in H_xM,
	\end{equation}
	where $\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}\in\Gamma(HM)$ are two arbitrary extensions of $X,Y$ and $\pi:TM\to TM/HM$ is the canonical projection on the quotient bundle $TM/HM$.
\end{definition}
It is known that $L_x$ is well defined because the value $\pi_x([\tilde{X},J\tilde{Y}]_x)$ only depends on the values of $\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}$ at $x$, that is on $X$ and $Y$.\\
Moreover, according to (i) above, $L_x$ turns to be a vector valued symmetric Hermitian form on the holomorphic tangent space $H_xM$ with respect to the complex structure $J:=J_x$, that is
\begin{equation}
L_x(X,Y)=L_x(JX,JY),\quad L_x(X,Y)=L_x(Y,X)
\end{equation}
for all $X,Y\in H_xM$.

Given a point $x$ on the $CR$ manifold $(M,HM,J)$, we will denote by $$H^0_xM:=\{\omega\in T^*_xM\ |\ \omega(X)=0\quad \forall X\in H_xM\}$$
the annihilator of $H_xM\subset T_xM$. Then we have the following definition.
\begin{definition}
	Let $(M,HM,J)$ be a $CR$ manifold, $x\in M$ and $\omega\in H^0_xM$. The Hermitian form \begin{equation}
	\mathfrak{L}_\omega:H_xM\times H_xM\to\mathbb{R}\quad\text{s.t.}\quad \mathfrak{L}_\omega(X,Y):=\omega L_x(X,Y)
	\end{equation}
	is called the \textit{scalar Levi form determined by $\omega$ at $x$}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
	Since the scalar Levi forms $\mathfrak{L}_\omega$ are symmetric, it makes sense to consider their index $i(\mathfrak{L}_\omega)$, defined as the minimum between the number of positive and negative eigenvalues of $\mathfrak{L}_\omega$.
\end{remark}

More specifically we recall the following terminology from $CR$ geometry; see for instance \cite{Nacinovich-Medori}.

\begin{definition}
	Let $(M,HM,J)$ be a $CR$ manifold of type $(m,k)$ and let $x\in M$.\\
	$M$ is said \textit{pseudoconvex} at $x$ if $\mathfrak{L}_\omega$ is positive definite for some $\omega\in H^0_xM$.
	If there exists a global section $\omega\in\Gamma(H^0M)$ such that $\mathfrak{L}_\omega$ is positive definite at each point $x\in M$, $M$ is called \textit{strongly pseudoconvex}.\\
	$M$ is said \textit{pseudoconcave} at $x$ if $i(\mathfrak{L}_\omega)>0$ for every $\omega\in H_x^0M$, $\omega\neq0$.\\
	$M$ is said \textit{Levi-flat at $x$} if $\mathfrak{L}_\omega=0$ for every $\omega\in H^0_xM$, i.e. $L_x\equiv0$.
\end{definition}

We close this section by recalling that a Sasakian manifold $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$, as defined in \cite{Blair}, is a particular kind of strongly pseudoconvex $CR$ manifold of hypersurface type, i.e. of $CR$ codimension 1. We shall refer to \cite{Blair} for the notation and basic facts concerning Sasakian geometry. We only remark that in this case the $CR$ structure is given by the contact distribution $\mathcal{D}=\ker\eta=\left<\xi\right>^\perp$ and the almost complex structure is $J=\varphi_{|\mathcal{D}}$. Therefore, for any $x\in M$, $H^0_xM$ is spanned by $\eta_x$ and, up to scaling, we have only one scalar Levi form $\mathfrak{L}_{\eta_x}$. Moreover, since $M$ is a contact metric manifold, the identity $$d\eta(X,Y)=g(X,\varphi Y)$$ yields that $$\mathfrak{L}_{\eta_x}=2{g_x}_{| H_xM\times H_xM}.$$

\section{Invariant and generic submanifolds of Sasakian manifolds}
Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a Sasakian manifolds. We shall consider two kind of submanifolds of $M$: the invariant submanifolds and the generic submanifolds, defined as follows.

\begin{definition}
	An \textit{invariant submanifold} of a Sasakian manifold $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a real submanifold $N$ of $M$ such that $\dim N<\dim M$ and $\varphi(TN)\subset TN$.
\end{definition}

It is known that invariant submanifolds are always tangent to $\xi$ and they inherit a Sasakian structure from the Sasakian structure of the ambient manifold by restriction (\cite{Blair}). Thus invariant submanifolds have odd dimension.
Moreover, the second fundamental form $\alpha$ of $N$ satisfies the following property:
\begin{equation}\label{invariant subm./sec.f.f.}
\alpha(X,X)+\alpha(\varphi X,\varphi X)=0\quad\forall X\in\mathfrak{X}(N).
\end{equation}

\smallskip
\begin{definition}
	A \textit{generic submanifold} of a Sasakian manifold $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a submanifold $N$ such that $\xi$ is nowhere normal to $N$ and $\varphi(TN^\perp)\subset TN$, where $TN^\perp$ is the normal bundle of $N$.
\end{definition}

\begin{example}\label{Rmk:Hypersurface}
	Every hypersurface $N$ with $\xi$ nowhere normal to $N$ is a generic submanifold of $M$.
\end{example}

If $N$ is a generic submanifold of a Sasakian manifold $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$, the component $\zeta$ of $\xi$ tangent to $N$ is always nonzero and we can consider the following orthogonal decomposition of the tangent bundle of $N$:
\begin{equation}
TN=\left<\zeta\right>\oplus\left<\zeta\right>^\perp=\left<\zeta\right>\oplus\varphi(TN^\perp)\oplus HN,
\end{equation}
where $\varphi(TN^\perp)$ is a subbundle of $TN$ because for every $\nu\in TN^\perp$, $\nu\neq0$, we always have that $\varphi\nu\neq0$, since $\xi$ is nowhere normal to $N$.\\ Note that in each point $x\in N$ $H_xN$ is given by
\begin{equation}
H_xN=\{X\in T_xN\ |\ X\perp\zeta_x\ \text{and}\ \varphi X\in T_xN\}.
\end{equation}

\begin{remark}\label{HN_normal_to_xi}
	It is clear that for any $X\in H_xN$, we have $\eta_x(X)=0$, since $X$ is both tangent to $N$ and normal to $\zeta$. However this is not true in general for vectors which are normal to $N$, unless $\xi$ is everywhere tangent to $N$.
\end{remark}

Let us consider the restriction $J:=\varphi_{|HN}:HN\to HN$ of $\varphi$ to $HN$. $J$ is well defined bacause $\varphi(HN)\subset HN$.  Indeed, for all $x\in N$ and for all $X\in H_xN$, we have $$g(\varphi X,\zeta_x)=g(\varphi X,\xi_x)=0,$$ and for all $\nu\in T_xN^\perp$: $$g(\varphi X,\varphi\nu)=g(X,\nu)-\eta(X)\eta(\nu)=0,$$ by the previous remark. Thus $\varphi X$ is orthogonal to $\varphi(T_xN^\perp)$ and therefore $\varphi X\in H_xN$.\\
Moreover, since $HN\subset\left<\xi\right>^\perp$, we have that $J^2=-Id$, which means that $J$ is an almost complex structure on $HN$.

\begin{proposition}\label{generic_CR_srtucture}
	Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a Saskian manifold of dimension $2n+1$ and let $N\subset M$ be a generic submanifold of codimension $p$. Then the couple $(HN,J)$ defines a $CR$ structure on $N$ of $CR$ codimension $p+1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
	First we recall that Sasakian manifolds are characterized by means of the following identity, involving the covariant derivative of $\varphi$ with respect to the Levi-Civita connection (see \cite{Blair}):
	\begin{equation}\label{Sasaki}
		(\nabla_X\varphi)Y=g(X,Y)\xi-\eta(Y)X.
	\end{equation}
	Now, fix $x\in N$, $X,Y\in H_xN$ and take two smooth section in $\Gamma(HN)$ which extend $X,Y$. Since $X,Y$ are normal to $\xi_x$, $\eta(X)=\eta(Y)=0$ so that $d\eta(X,Y)=-\frac12\eta[X,Y]$. The same holds for $JX$ and $JY$.
	Thus we have
	$\eta([X,Y]-[JX,JY])=0$, namely $[X,Y]-[JX,JY]$ is normal to $\xi_x$. But since $[X,Y]-[JX,JY]$ is tangent to $N$ this means that $[X,Y]-[JX,JY]$ is normal to $\zeta_x$.\\
	Now, by using (\ref{Sasaki}),
	we have:
	\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn1}
		&&\varphi([JX,JY]-[X,Y])=\nonumber\\
		&=&\varphi(\nabla_{\varphi X}{\varphi Y}-\nabla_{\varphi Y}{\varphi X})-\varphi(\nabla_XY-\nabla_YX)= \nonumber \\
		&=&-\nabla_{\varphi X}Y+\nabla_{\varphi Y}X-\varphi\nabla_XY+\varphi\nabla_YX=\nonumber\\
		&=&-\nabla_{\varphi X}Y+\nabla_{\varphi Y}X+(\nabla_X\varphi)Y-\nabla_X\varphi Y - (\nabla_Y\varphi)X+\nabla_Y\varphi X=\nonumber\\
		&=&[Y,\varphi X]+[\varphi Y,X]-\eta(Y)X+\eta(X)Y=\nonumber\\
		&=&-[\varphi X,Y]-[X,\varphi Y],
	\end{eqnarray}
	which is tangent to $N$ since so are $X,\varphi X,Y,\varphi Y$. \\
	Thus we have proved that $[X,Y]-[JX,JY]\in H_xN$. Finally, rewriting (\ref{eqn1}) as $$J([JX,JY]-[X,Y])=-[JX,Y]-[X,JY],$$ by applying $J$ and by using $J^2=-Id$, it follows that $N_J=0$.
\end{proof}

Thanks to this result, for each point $x\in N$ it make sense to consider the Levi-Tanaka form at $x$ and the scalar Levi forms $\mathfrak{L}_\omega$ where $\omega$ varies in $H_x^0N$. \\
In particular, given a non zero normal direction $\nu\in T_xN^\perp$, consider the 1-form $\omega:T_xN\to\mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\omega(X):=g(X,\varphi\nu)\quad\forall X\in T_xN.
\end{equation}
Clearly $\omega\neq0$ because of $\varphi\nu\in T_xN$ and $\omega(\varphi\nu)=\|\varphi\nu\|^2\neq0$. Furthermore $\omega\in H_x^0N$ by definition of $H_xN$.\\
The scalar Levi form $\mathfrak{L}_\omega$ determined by $\omega$
will be denoted by $\mathfrak{L}_\nu$; for convenience, we shall adopt the following terminology:

\begin{definition}
	For any $x\in N$ the scalar Levi forms $\mathfrak{L}_\nu$ determined by $\nu\in T_xN^\perp$, $\nu\neq0$, will be called \textit{characteristic Levi forms} of $N$ at $x$.
\end{definition}

The following proposition establishes a relationship between the second fundamental form of a generic submanifold $N$ and its characteristic Levi forms.

\begin{proposition}\label{scalar-Levi-form/second-fund.form}
	Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a Sasakian manifold and let $N\subset M$ be a generic submanifold with second fundamental form $\alpha$. Given $x\in N$ and $0\neq\nu\in T_xN^\perp$, one has \begin{equation}
	\mathfrak{L}_\nu(X,X)=g_x(\alpha(X,X)+\alpha(\varphi X,\varphi X),\nu)
	\end{equation}
	for every $X\in H_xN$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
	Fix $x\in N$, $X\in H_xN$ and consider a smooth section in $\Gamma(HN)$ which extends $X$.
	Then $\varphi X$ is again tangent to $N$.
	Using the fact that $X$, $\varphi X$ and $\varphi\nu$ are all orthogonal to $\xi$ and identity (\ref{Sasaki}), we get:
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		&&\mathfrak{L}_\nu(X,X)=\\
		&=&g_x([X,\varphi X],\varphi\nu)=\\
		&=&g_x(\nabla_X\varphi X,\varphi\nu)-g_x(\nabla_{\varphi X}X,\varphi\nu)=\\
		&=&g_x(\varphi\nabla_X X,\varphi\nu)+g_x(\varphi\nabla_{\varphi X}X,\nu)=\\
		&=&g_x(\nabla_X X,\nu)+g_x(\nabla_{\varphi X}{\varphi X},\nu)=\\
		&=&g_x(\alpha(X,X)+\alpha(\varphi X,\varphi X),\nu).
	\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

In the following we will deal with generic and invariant submanifolds of Sasakian manifolds with nonnegative $\varphi$-bisectional curvature. So we recall the definition of this kind of curvature which was introduced by Tanno and Baik in \cite{Tanno-Baik} and used by in \cite{Ornea} and \cite{Pitis} to obtain Frankel type theorems about the intersection of two invariant submanifolds. It is an adaptation to the Sasakian case of the notion of holomorphic bisectional curvature introduced by Goldberg and Kobayashi in \cite{Golgberg-Kobayashi} for K\"ahler manifolds.

\begin{definition}\label{fi-bisectional curvature}
	Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a Sasakian manifold. We say that $M$ has  \textit{nonnegative $\varphi$-bisectional curvature} if
	 \begin{equation}
		H(X,Y):=K(X,Y)+K(X,\varphi Y)\ge 0
	\end{equation}
	for any $x\in M$ and for any $X,Y\in T_xM$ such that $X,Y,\varphi Y,\xi_x$ are mutually orthonormal, where $$K(X,Y):=R(X,Y,X,Y)=g(R(X,Y)Y,X)$$ denotes the sectional curvature at $x$ of the 2-plane $\left<X,Y\right>\subset T_xM$, and similarly for $K(X,\varphi Y)$.\\
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:curvature}
	Let $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a Sasakian manifold with nonnegative $\varphi$-bisectional curvature. Let $x\in M$ and $X,W\in T_xM$ such that $\eta(X)=0$ and $X,\varphi X,W$ are mutually orthonormal. Then one has:
	$$R(X,W,X,W)+R(\varphi X, W,\varphi X,W)\ge0.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
	Here $W$ might not be normal to $\xi_x$. However, by decomposing $W$ as $W=Y+Z$ with $Y,Z\in T_xM$, $Y\perp\xi_x$ and $Z=\lambda\xi_x$,  we get:
	\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:curv1}
		R(X,W,X,W)
		&=&R(X,Y,X,Y)+R(X,Z,X,Z)+2g(R(X,Y)Z,X)=\nonumber\\
		&=&R(X,Y,X,Y)+R(X,Z,X,Z),
	\end{eqnarray}
	where we have used the following curvature characterization of Sasakian manifolds (see \cite{Blair}):
	$$R(X,Y)\xi=\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y\quad \forall X,Y\in\mathfrak{X}(M).$$
	From this formula we also get that $R(X,Z,X,Z)$ is nonnegative. Similarly,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:curv2}
		R(\varphi X,W,\varphi X,W)=R(\varphi X,Y,\varphi X,Y)+R(\varphi X,Z,\varphi X,Z),
	\end{equation}
	where $R(\varphi X,Z,\varphi X,Z)\ge0$.
	Thus, by adding the identities (\ref{eq:curv1}) and (\ref{eq:curv2}), we have: $$R(X,W,X,W)+R(\varphi X,W,\varphi X,W)\ge0,$$ since, up to scaling, it is the sum of a $\varphi$-bisectional curvature and two nonnegative terms.
\end{proof}

\section{Examples}
In this section we wish to exhibit some examples of Sasakian manifolds with nonnegative $\varphi$-bisectional curvature and of generic submanifolds whose characteristic Levi forms have all positive index.\\

Let's consider a regular Sasakian manifold $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ of dimension $2n+1$ which fibers on a K\"{a}hler manifold $(N,J,g')$ of dimension $2n$. Then it is given a Riemannian submersion $\pi:M\to N$ whose fibers are 1-dimensional submanifolds of $M$ tangent to $\xi$. Hence the vertical distribution $\mathcal{V}$ is locally spanned by $\xi$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{V}_x=T_x\pi^{-1}(p)=\ker(d\pi)_x=\left<\xi_x\right>
\end{equation}
for all $x\in M$ such that $\pi(x)=p\in N$. Moreover the differential $d\pi$ commutes with the tensor $\varphi$ and the complex structure $J$: \begin{equation}\label{J,fi}
d\pi\circ\varphi=J\circ d\pi.
\end{equation}

In \cite{Tanno-Baik} it is shown that, given a point $x\in M$ and two tangent vector $X,Y\in T_xM$ such that $X,Y,\varphi Y,\xi_x$ are mutually orthonormal, the $\varphi$-bisectional curvature $H(X,Y)$ is given by $$H(X,Y)=H'(X',Y'),$$ where $H'(X',Y')$ is the holomorphic bisectional curvature of $N$ at $p=\pi(x)$, related to the vectors $X':=(d\pi)_xX$ and $Y':=(d\pi)_xY$. Hence, if $H'$ is nonnegative, so is the $\varphi$-bisectional curvature $H$ of $M$.

For instance, Takahashi's globally $\varphi$-symmetric spaces are examples of regular Sasakian manifolds and  from Theorem 6.4 in \cite{Takahashi} it follows that those of compact type have nonnegative $\varphi$-bisectional curvature. \\

Now we consider the same Riemannian submersion $\pi:M\to N$ to construct examples of generic submanifolds of the Sasakian manifold $M$.\\
Let's point out that, since $\pi$ is a surjective submersion, if $S'\subset N$ is a submanifold of $N$, then $S:=\pi^{-1}(S')$ is a submanifold of $M$ with the same codimension of $S'$. Moreover, since $$T_xS=(d\pi)_x^{-1}(T_{\pi(x)}S')\quad\forall x\in S,$$ we have that $S$ is tangent to $\xi$.
In particular, if $S'$ is a real hypersurface of $N$, $S$ is a hypersurface of $M$ tangent to $\xi$ and so $S$ is a generic submanifold of $M$, due to Remark \ref{Rmk:Hypersurface}.\\
We want to show that if $S'$ is a psedoconcave hypersurface of $N$, then $S$ is a generic submanifold of $M$, whose characteristic Levi forms have positive index. \\
First of all we recall that the canonical $CR$ structure on a hypersurface $S'$ of the K\"{a}hler manifold $(N,J,g')$ is given by
\begin{equation}
HS':=TS'\cap J(TS').
\end{equation}
Then, by using identity (\ref{J,fi}) and $\varphi^2_{|HS}=-Id$, it follows that $(d\pi)_xX\in H_pS'$ for any $x\in S$ such that $\pi(x)=p\in S'$ and for any $X\in H_xS$.\\
Now, let $x\in S$, $p=\pi(x)\in S'$, $X\in H_xS$ and set $X':=(d\pi)_xX\in H_pS'$.
For any non zero normal vector $\nu\in T_xS^\perp$, from the definition of the characteristic Levi form $\mathfrak{L}_\nu$ and from an elementary property of Riemannian submersions (see for instance Proposition 1.1 in \cite{Falcitelli-Ianus-Pastore}), we get:
\begin{eqnarray*}
	\mathfrak{L}_\nu(X,X)&=&g_x([X,\varphi X],\varphi \nu)=\\
	&=&g_x(h[X,\varphi X],\varphi\nu)=\\
	&=&g'_p([X',JX'],J\nu')=\\
	&=&\mathfrak{L}'_{\nu'}(X',X'),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $h[X,\varphi X]$ is the horizontal component of $[X,\varphi X]$, $\nu'=(d\pi)_x\nu\in(T_pS')^\perp$ and $\mathfrak{L}'_{\nu'}$ is the scalar Levi form on $H_pS'$ determined by the covector $$\omega'(X')=g'_p(X',J\nu')\quad \forall X'\in T_pS'.$$
In conclusion we have proved that, for every real hypersurface $S'$ of  $N$:
\begin{equation}\label{L=L'}
\mathfrak{L}_\nu(X,X)=\mathfrak{L}_{\nu'}(X',X')\quad \forall X\in H_xS.
\end{equation}
In particular, this implies that all the Levi forms $\mathfrak{L}_\nu$ have positive index if $S'$ is pseudoconcave.

\section{Proofs of the results}
In this section we give the proof of our Frankel type theorem. We begin by proving a lemma which provides us a way to construct an orthonormal set $\{E,\varphi E\}$ consisting of parallel vector fields along a geodesic $\gamma$.

\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma:Etilde=fE}
	Let $N$ be a generic submanifold of a Sasakian manifold	\\ $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ and let $\gamma:[0,l]\to M$ be a geodesic starting from $x\in N$ and orthogonal to $N$ at $x$. If $e\in H_xN$ and $E,\tilde{E}\in\mathfrak{X}(\gamma)$ are obtained by parallel translation of $e,\varphi e$ respectively along $\gamma$, then $E$ is orthogonal to $\xi$ along $\gamma$ and $\tilde{E}=\varphi E$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	To prove that $\tilde{E}=\varphi E$ we need to show that $\varphi E$ is parallel along $\gamma$ and for this purpose we follow the same idea of a proof in \cite{Ornea}.\\ Since $e\in H_xN$ is tangent to $N$, while $\dot\gamma(0)$ is normal to $N$, we have that $e\perp\dot\gamma(0)$. Moreover, since $E$ and $\dot\gamma$ are parallel along $\gamma$ and the parallel transport is a linear isometry, we have that $E\perp\dot\gamma$ along $\gamma$, that is $g(E,\dot\gamma)(t)=0$ for every $t\in[0,l]$. Hence:
	\begin{equation}
	(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\varphi)E=g(\dot\gamma,E)\xi-\eta(E)\dot\gamma=-\eta(E)\dot\gamma.
	\end{equation}
	On the other hand, \begin{equation}
	(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\varphi)E=\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\varphi E-\varphi(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}E)=\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\varphi E,
	\end{equation}
	since $E$ is parallel along $\gamma$. Therefore $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\varphi E=-\eta(E)\dot\gamma$ and to prove the our claim, we just have to prove that $\eta(E)(t)=0$ for every $t\in [0,l]$. From this will also follow that $E$ is normal to $\xi$ along $\gamma$. So we define the function $$f:[0,l]\to\mathbb{R}\quad\text{s.t.}\quad f(t):=\eta(E)(t)=g_{\gamma(t)}(E(t),\xi_{\gamma(t)})$$ and we prove that $f$ is identically zero. To this aim, we note that
	\begin{eqnarray}
	f'=g(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}E,\xi)+g(E,\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\xi)=-g(E,\varphi\dot\gamma)=g(\varphi E,\dot\gamma);\\
	f''=g(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\varphi E,\dot\gamma)+g(\varphi E,\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma)=-\eta(E)g(\dot\gamma,\dot\gamma)=-\|\dot\gamma\|^2f,
	\end{eqnarray}
	where $c:=\|\dot\gamma\|^2\in\mathbb{R}$ is constant. Moreover, $f(0)=g_x(e,\xi_x)=0$ by Remark \ref{HN_normal_to_xi} and $f'(0)=g_x(\varphi e, \dot\gamma(0))=0$ because of $e,\varphi e\in H_xN\subset T_xN$ and $\dot\gamma(0)\in T_xN^\perp$.\\
	In conclusion, we proved that $f$ is a solution of the following Cauchy problem $$\left\{\begin{array}{c}
	f''+cf=0\\varphi(0)=0\\varphi'(0)=0
	\end{array}\right.$$ so that $f=0$.
\end{proof}
\medskip

\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{main_theorem}.}
	We prove the theorem discussing simultaneously the two cases (a) and (b) .\\
	Assume by contradiction that $N\cap P\neq\emptyset$. Thanks to the topological assumptions on the submanifolds, there exist two points $x\in N$ and $y\in P$ such that $l:=d(x,y)=d(N,P)>0$. Moreover, by the completeness of $M$, there exists a length minimizing geodesic $\gamma:[0,l]\to M$, parametrized by arc length, joining $x$ and $y$ and intersecting orthogonally $N$ and $P$.
	Set $\nu:=\dot\gamma(0)\in T_xN^\perp$ and $\nu':=\dot\gamma(l)\in T_yP^\perp$.\\
	In the case (a), since $\dim M>\dim P$, the index $q:=i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)$ is strictly positive by (\ref{hp(a)}) and then there exists a linear subspace $V\subset H_xN$ of dimension $q$ on which $\mathfrak{L}_\nu$ is negative definite. Moreover, set $W:=\left<\xi_y\right>^\perp\cap T_yP$ and note that $s:=\dim W=\dim P-1$, since $P$ is tangent to $\xi$.\\
	Similarly, in the case (b), since $q,s>0$, where $q,s$ are as in \eqref{q,s}, there are two linear subspaces $V\subset H_xN$ and $W\subset H_yP$ of dimensions $q$ and $s$ respectively such that $\mathfrak{L}_\nu$ is negative definite on $V$ and $\mathfrak{L}_{\nu'}$ is positive semi-definite on $W$.\\
	Now, in both cases, let us denote by $V'\subset T_yM$ the image of $V$ under the parallel transport along $\gamma$: since $\dot\gamma(0)$ is normal to $N$ and $V\subset H_yN\subset\left<\xi_x\right>^\perp$, using Lemma \ref{Lemma:Etilde=fE}, we see that $V'\subset\left<\dot\gamma(l),\xi_y\right>^\perp$. Moreover, both in (a) and (b), we also have $W\subset\left<\dot\gamma(l),\xi_y\right>^\perp$. Therefore $$V'+W\subset\left<\dot\gamma(l),\xi_y\right>^\perp$$ and $$\dim(V'+W)\le\dim M-2.$$
	Now, by using either (\ref{hp(a)}) for the case (a) or (\ref{hp(b)}) for the case (b), we have:
		$$\dim(V'+W)\ge q+s-\dim M+2\ge 1.$$

	Hence we can consider a non zero vector $e'\in V'\cap W$, which is the imagine of a vector $e\in V$ under parallel translation. In other words there exists a vector field $E\in\mathfrak{X}(\gamma)$ which is parallel along $\gamma$ and such that $E(0)=e$, $E(l)=e'$. From Lemma \ref{Lemma:Etilde=fE} it follows that $\varphi E$ is parallel along $\gamma$ and $\varphi E(l)=\varphi e'\in T_yP$ by the invariance of $P$ in the case (a) and by the $\varphi$-invariance of $H_yP\subset T_yP$ in the case (b).\\
	Computing the index form $I$ of $\gamma$ (see for instance \cite{Sakai}) on the vector fields $E$ and $\varphi E$, we have:

	$$I_0^l(E,E)=-\int_{0}^{l}R(E,\dot\gamma,E,\dot\gamma)dt+g(\alpha(E,E),\dot\gamma)|_0^l;$$
	$$I_0^l(\varphi E,\varphi E)=-\int_{0}^{l} R(\varphi E,\dot\gamma,\varphi E,\dot\gamma)dt+ g(\alpha(\varphi E,\varphi E),\dot\gamma)|_0^l.$$
	Finally, by adding this last two expressions and by using Proposition \ref{scalar-Levi-form/second-fund.form}, we get:
	\begin{eqnarray}\label{I+I}
	&&I_0^l(E,E)+I_0^l(\varphi E,\varphi E)=\nonumber\\ &=&-\int_0^l[R(E,\dot\gamma,E,\dot\gamma)+R(\varphi E,\dot\gamma,\varphi E,\dot\gamma)]dt +\mathfrak{L}_\nu(e,e),
	\end{eqnarray}
	in the case (a) by the identity (\ref{invariant subm./sec.f.f.}), and
	\begin{eqnarray}\label{I+I1}
	&&I_0^l(E,E)+I_0^l(\varphi E,\varphi E)=\nonumber\\ &=&-\int_0^l[R(E,\dot\gamma,E,\dot\gamma)+R(\varphi E,\dot\gamma,\varphi E,\dot\gamma)]dt+ \nonumber\\&& +\mathfrak{L}_\nu(e,e)-\mathfrak{L}_{\nu'}(e',e'),
	\end{eqnarray}
    in the case (b). Moreover, in view of Proposition \ref{Prop:curvature} and $e\in V$, we conclude that the expression (\ref{I+I}) is strictly negative. Similarly the expression \eqref{I+I1} is also strictly negative since $e'\in W$. In both cases this contradicts the length minimizing property of $\gamma$.
	\qed
\medskip

\begin{remark}
	In the same setting of Theorem \ref{main_theorem} (b), if $N$ is a compact generic submanifold whose characteristic Levi forms have all positive index, then $N$ intersects every closed, totally geodesic and generic hypersurface $P$. \\
	Indeed, since characteristic Levi forms are Hermitian and symmetric, $i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)>0$ is equivalent to $i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)\ge 2$ and hence $q\ge2$. Moreover, since $P$ is totally geodesic, the scalar Levi forms $\mathfrak{L}_{\nu'}$, $\nu'\in TP^\perp$, are all identically zero and hence $$s=\dim H_yP=\dim P-2=\dim M-3.$$ Therefore $q+s\ge\dim M-1$ and the claim is proved by applying the theorem.
\end{remark}

\medskip
Finally we present the proofs of the Corollary \ref{cor.1} and Corollary \ref{cor.2}.\\

\textbf{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor.1}.} Consider the fibration $\pi:M\to M/\xi$ and, by contradiction, assume that $M$ admits
a compact generic submanifold $N$,  whose characteristic Levi forms have all positive index. Then $\pi(N)$ is a compact set.
Since $M/\xi$ is biholomorphic to $S\times\mathbb{C}$, one can always find a Levi flat real hypersurface $P$ in it, such that $\pi(N)\cap P=\emptyset$ (to see this, it suffices to consider $S\times E$, where $E\subset\mathbb{C}$ is a real straight line disjoint from $p(\pi(N))$, where $p:S\times\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ is the natural projection).\\
Then $N\cap\pi^{-1}(P)=\emptyset$, but this is in contrast with b) of Theorem \ref{main_theorem}, because $\pi^{-1}(P)$ is a generic hypersurface of $M$ whose characteristic Levi forms all vanish by \eqref{L=L'}.\qed

\medskip
\begin{remark}
This last corollary can be applied to the Sasakian space form $M(-3)=\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$. In fact it is a complete, connected Sasakian manifold which has constant $\varphi$-bisectional curvature equal to zero, fibering onto the complex Euclidean space $\mathbb{C}^n$.
\end{remark}

\medskip
	\textbf{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor.2}.} Recall that, as a manifold, $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)$ is the
	unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}\subset\mathbb{R}^{2n+2}=\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$, where we adopt the following notation:
	$$(z_1,\dots,z_{n+1})=(x_1,\dots,x_{n+1},x_{n+2},\dots,x_{2n+2}),\quad z_k=x_k+ix_{n+1+k}.$$
	Moreover, the Sasakian structure on $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)$ is obtained by applying a $\mathcal{D}$-homothetic deformation to the canonical Sasakian structure of $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}$ and this deformed structure is invariant under the action of the unitary group $U(n+1)$. As a consequence, unitary transformations on $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)$ map open hemispheres in open hemispheres and generic submanifolds into generic ones, preserving the index of all characteristic Levi forms. Therefore, given a generic submanifold $N\subset\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)$ as in the statement, without loss of generality it suffices to prove that $N$ cannot be contained in the open  hemisphere $$S:=\{x\in\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)|\ x_{2n+2}>0\}.$$
	Let $\pi:\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)\to\mathbb{C}$P$_n$ be the canonical projection and let us consider the hyperplane $\sigma:z_{n+1}=0$ of $\mathbb{C}$P$_n$: since $\sigma$ is a holomorphic submanifold, $\pi^{-1}(\sigma)$ is an invariant submanifold of $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)$.
	Furthermore, since the characteristic Levi forms are Hermitian and symmetric we have that $i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)>0$ is equivalent to $$i(\mathfrak{L}_\nu)\ge2=\dim M-\dim\pi^{-1}(\sigma).$$
	Finally, since $c>-3$, $\mathbb{S}^{2n+1}(c)$ has nonnegative $\varphi$-bisectional curvature and by applying Theorem \ref{main_theorem} (a), we have that $N\cap \pi^{-1}(\sigma)\neq\emptyset$.  This means that there exists a point $P\in N$ with coordinates $P(z_1,\dots,z_n,0)$; in particular $P\notin S$.
	\qed