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

When principal components possess a certain sparsity structure, standard principal component analysis (PCA) is not preferred due to poor interpretability and the inconsistency of solutions under high-dimensional settings \cite{paul2007asymptotics, nadler2008finite, johnstone2009consistency}.
To solve these issues, {\it sparse PCA} has been proposed, which enforces sparsity in the PCA solution so that dimension reduction and variable selection can be simultaneously performed.
Theoretical and algorithmic research on sparse PCA has been actively conducted over the past few years \cite{zou2006sparse, amini2008high, journee2010generalized, berk2019certifiably,
richtarik2021alternating}.

In this paper, we focus on the case that the data to which sparse PCA is applied, are not completely observed, but partially missing.
Missing data frequently occurs in a wide range of machine learning problems, and sparse PCA is no exception.
This has led to several works that offer reliable solutions to sparse PCA on missing data \cite{lounici2013sparse, kundu2015approximating, park2019sparse, lee2022support}.
However, these methods make a restrictive assumption that the entries are observed uniformly at random,
and analyze only the effect of the observation rate on the solvability of the problem.

In real world applications, data missing patterns are usually not at random.
Furthermore, when the study focuses on the case of uniformly random missing, one fails to recognize other important observation-pattern-specific factors (e.g., some topological properties of the realized observation pattern) that may affect the solvability of the problem or the performance of an algorithm.
Accordingly, the analysis under a deterministic missing scheme without any assumptions on its pattern is in demand.
With this motivation, there have been several works in other matrix-related problems which handle a deterministic and general sampling scheme \cite{lee2013matrix, heiman2014deterministic, bhojanapalli2014universal},
while sparse PCA has not received such attention.

Examining a general sampling scheme is particularly important for sparse PCA
because structural properties of the observed entries, not just observation rate,
do affect the solvability of the problem.
Imagine that the leading eigenvector $\pmb{u}$ of a symmetric matrix is sparse and denote its support by $J$.
The goal of our sparse PCA problem is to exactly recover the support $J$ from an incomplete data matrix.
Note that non-zero values in $\pmb{u}$ only affect the entries in the $J\times J$ sub-matrix.
Therefore, to recover the support, we need to observe a sufficient number of entries in the $J\times J$ sub-matrix.
In fact, if we do not observe any entry in a specific row of the $J\times J$ sub-matrix, we can never identify the corresponding index as an element of the support, and thus exact recovery fails.
This implies that we need to observe the entries in the $J\times J$ sub-matrix abundantly and evenly;
in other words, if we think of a graph having the observed entries as its edge set (we call this an observation graph), its $J\times J$ sub-graph needs to be well-connected and have similar node degrees.

With this intuition,
we aim to explore a sparse PCA algorithm for incomplete data under a general non-random sampling scheme,
which would be successful when observed entries have good structural properties.
The algorithm we consider is a semidefinite relaxation of the $l_1$ regularized PCA (we call this the SDP algorithm).
This algorithm has been analyzed on complete data and has been shown to have theoretically good properties \cite{d2004direct, lei2015sparsistency}.
It has also been shown to work well for incomplete data, when the observation rate is sufficiently large under the uniform random sampling scheme \cite{lee2022support}.

Our main contribution is as follows:
we provide theoretical justification (i.e., \cref{thm:sufficient_conditions}) that we can exactly recover the true support $J$ with high probability by obtaining a unique solution of the SDP algorithm with incomplete and noisy observation, under proper conditions.
The conditions involve the spectral gap between the largest and second-largest eigenvalues of the true matrix, the magnitude of noise, and especially, structural properties of the observation graph.
We mathematically articulate the structural graph properties by using two interpretable concepts: algebraic connectivity and irregularity
(see \cref{def:algebraic_connectivity} and \cref{def:irregularity}).
Through these graph properties, we demonstrate that the algorithm works well if the $J\times J$ sub-graph is well-connected and has similar node degrees.
We note that the graph properties apply to any type of undirected graph,
that is, our theorem is applicable to any general deterministic sampling scheme.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work on sparse PCA with incomplete data under the general non-random sampling assumption.

We empirically validate our theorem with synthetic and real data analysis in \cref{sec:experiments}.
In particular, our simulation results show that the performance of the SDP algorithm is solely determined by the properties we derive in our theorem,
which is a strong justification of our theory.
In real data analysis, we show that the SDP algorithm outperforms several other sparse PCA approaches, and only the SDP algorithm benefits from the good structure of the observation graph.

As by-products of our analysis, we provide two theorems to handle the non-random sampling scheme:
the tail bound for random matrices with independent sub-Gaussian values in a subset of entries, and the bound of the difference between complete and incomplete matrices under non-random missingness (see \cref{subsec:by_products}).
These theorems can be applied to other matrix-related problems, when matrix entries are missing with a non-random sampling scheme.

\textbf{Paper Organization.}
In \cref{sec:problem_definition}, we introduce the support recovery problem in sparse PCA with incomplete and noisy observation.
We discuss several applications of the problem here.
In \cref{sec:methods}, we present the SDP algorithm, and define several graph properties used in the theorem.
We present our main theorem in \cref{sec:main_results}, along with by-products of our analysis and the method to choose a tuning parameter in the SDP algorithm.
In \cref{sec:experiments}, we illustrate results from our empirical study.

\textbf{Notation.}
Matrices are bold capital (e.g., $\pmb{A}$), vectors are bold lowercase (e.g., $\pmb{a}$), and scalars or entries are not bold.
$A_{i,j}$ and $a_i$ represent the $(i,j)$-th and $i$-th entries of $\pmb{A}$ and $\pmb{a}$, respectively.
For any index sets $I$ and $J$, $\pmb{A}_{I,J}$ and $\pmb{a}_I$ denote
the $|I|\times|J|$-dimensional sub-matrix of $\pmb{A}$ consisting of rows in $I$ and columns in $J$, and
the $|I|$-dimensional sub-vector of $\pmb{a}$ consisting of the entries in $J$,
respectively.
For any positive integer $n$, we denote $[n]:=\{1,\dots,n\}$.

$\|\pmb{a}\|_1$ and $\|\pmb{a}\|_2$ represent the $l_1$ and $l_2$ norms of $\pmb{a}$.
$\|\pmb{A}\|_2$ and $\|\pmb{A}\|_*$ indicate the spectral and nuclear norms of $\pmb{A}$.
We let $\|\pmb{A}\|_{1,1} = \sum_{i}\sum_{j}|A_{i,j}|$ and $\|\pmb{A}\|_{\max} = \max_{i,j}|A_{i,j}|$.
$\lambda_i(\pmb{A})$ represents the $i$-th largest eigenvalue of $\pmb{A}$.
The trace of $\pmb{A}$ is denoted by $tr(\pmb{A})$, and the matrix inner product of $\pmb{A}$ and $\pmb{B}$ is denoted by $\langle \pmb{A}, \pmb{B} \rangle$.
$\pmb{A}\circ\pmb{B}$ represents the Hadamard product of $\pmb{A}$ and $\pmb{B}$.

$f(x) = O(g(x))$ means that there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $f(x)\leq C g(x)$ asymptotically.
$f(x) = \Omega(g(x))$ is equivalent to $g(x) = O(f(x))$.
$f(x) = \tilde{O}(g(x))$ is shorthand for $f(x) = O(g(x)\log^k x)$ for some $k$.

\section{Problem Definition}
\label{sec:problem_definition}

\textbf{Sparse Principal Component.}
Let $\pmb{M}^*\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ be an unknown symmetric matrix
and
$\pmb{M}^* = \sum_{k\in [d]}\lambda_k(\pmb{M}^*) \pmb{u}_k \pmb{u}_k^\top$
be the spectral decomposition of $\pmb{M}^*$,
where $\lambda_1(\pmb{M}^*) > \lambda_2(\pmb{M}^*) \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_d(\pmb{M}^*)$ are its eigenvalues and $\pmb{u}_1,\dots,\pmb{u}_d \in \mathbb{R}^d$ are the corresponding eigenvectors.
For identifiability of the leading eigenvector, we consider that $\lambda_1(\pmb{M}^*)$ is strictly greater than $\lambda_2(\pmb{M}^*)$.
We assume that the leading eigenvector $\pmb{u}_1$ of $\pmb{M}^*$ is sparse, i.e., for some index set $J\in [d]$,
$$
\begin{cases}
u_{1,i} \neq 0 & \text{if } i\in J, \\
u_{1,i} = 0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
$$
With a notation $supp(\pmb{a}):=\{i\in[d] : a_{i}\neq 0\}$ for any vector $\pmb{a}\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we can write $J = supp(\pmb{u}_1)$.
Also, we denote the size of $J$ by $s$. That is, $s = |J|$.

\textbf{Incomplete and Noisy Observation.}
Suppose that we have only noisy observations of the entries of $\pmb{M}^*$ over a fixed sampling set $\Omega \subseteq [d]\times[d]$.
Specifically, we observe a symmetric matrix $\pmb{M}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ such that
$$
M_{i,j}
=
\begin{cases}
M^*_{i,j} + N_{i,j}  & \text{if } (i,j)\in \Omega, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
$$
for $i,j \in [d]$, where $N_{i,j}$ is the noise at location $(i,j)$.
We assume that $N_{i,j}$'s are symmetric about zero and follow a sub-Gaussian distribution independently, i.e.,
$\mathbb{E}e^{\theta N_{i,j}}\leq e^{\frac{\sigma^2 \theta^2}{2}}$ for any $\theta \geq 0$ and some $\sigma \geq 0$.

\textbf{Goal.}
In this paper, we aim to exactly recover the true support $J$ of the leading eigenvector $\pmb{u}_1$ of $\pmb{M}^*$ only from the incomplete and noisy observation $\pmb{M}$.

\textbf{Applications.}
Here, we point out several motivating applications of the problem.
\begin{itemize}
\item
\textit{Single-cell RNA sequence (scRNA-seq) data analysis.}
In scRNA-seq data, the cells are divided into several distinct types which can be characterized with only a small number of genes among tens of thousands of genes \cite{park2019sparse}.
Sparse PCA can be effectively utilized here to reduce the dimension (from numerous cells to a few cell types) and to select a small number of genes that affect the reduced data.
However, scRNA-seq data usually have many missing values due to technical and sampling issues, and a sparse PCA method designed for incomplete data needs to be applied.
\item
\textit{Covariance analysis in vertical federated setting.}
In vertical federated setting,
one aims to utilize local data sets with different features about the same set of subjects to train machine learning models \cite{yang2019federated}.
Consider the case that we want to analyze the covariance matrix of the whole data.
Due to communication restriction or privacy protection requirement, only the sample covariance matrix of a few number of features can be provided to the analyst.
In this case, the analyst can only have an incomplete (noise-injected) sample covariance matrix.
Our analysis is applied to the case that sparse PCA is conducted in such setting.
\item
\textit{Anomaly detection in network.}
Sparse PCA is useful for anomaly detection in network data sets \cite{singh2011anomalous}.
Consider an edge-weighted network data, where the weight for each edge can represent various types of information, e.g., similarity of two nodes, traffic volume between connected locations, or social distance between individuals or groups.
By applying sparse PCA to the weight matrix of the network, we can find an anomalous collection of individuals or nodes.
However, since unconnected nodes cause missingness, analysis for incomplete data must be considered.
\end{itemize}

\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}

In this section, we introduce the algorithm used to solve the sparse PCA problem,
and define several graph properties which will be utilized in our main theorem.

\textbf{SDP Algorithm.}
For the support recovery of the leading eigenvector, an intuitive approach is imposing a regularization term on the PCA quadratic loss.
When using the $l_1$ regularizer, the optimization problem can be written as:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\pmb{x}} = \underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1}{\arg\max}~ \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{M}\pmb{x} - \rho \|\pmb{x}\|_1^2.
\end{equation*}
Here, the true support $J$ is estimated with $supp(\hat{\pmb{x}})$.
However, the objective is non-convex and difficult to solve.
Therefore, we suggest the following semidefinite relaxation as an alternative:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sdp_problem}
\hat{\pmb{X}} = \underset{\pmb{X}\succeq 0 \text{ and } tr(\pmb{X}) = 1}{\arg\max}~
\langle \pmb{M}, \pmb{X} \rangle - \rho \|\pmb{X}\|_{1,1},
\end{equation}
where we estimate $J$ by $\hat{J} = supp(diag(\hat{\pmb{X}}))$.
We call this the SDP algorithm.
Efficient scalable SDP solvers exist \cite{yurtsever2021scalable}, so the SDP algorithm is computationally friendly.
This approach has been shown to have good theoretical properties and work well in practice for both of complete and randomly missing data \cite{d2004direct, lei2015sparsistency, lee2022support},
so we focus on the SDP algorithm in this paper.

\begin{remark}
We note that in the implementation of the SDP algorithm, we use the matrix $\pmb{M}$ where zero is imputed in the missing entries, without applying any matrix completion or imputation methods.
This is because matrix completion can introduce unwanted bias under inappropriate conditions.
It is well-known that most of the matrix completion methods can be successful only under the low-rank assumption.
In this paper, however, we allow the true matrix $\pmb{M}^*$ to be not necessarily low-rank.
In \cref{subsec:real_data_analysis}, we provide experimental evidence  showing that the SDP algorithm with zero-imputed $\pmb{M}$ performs well when the observation has a good structural property,
while the result yielded from matrix completion does not achieve good performance overall.
\end{remark}

\textbf{Graph Properties.}
Before presenting our main theorem in the next section,
we define several graph terminologies and properties which are involved in the theorem.

We first introduce the observation graph $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$,
which is an undirected graph associated with the fixed sampling set $\Omega$,
that is, $\mathcal{V} = [d]$ and $(i,j)\in \mathcal{E}$ if and only if $(i,j)\in \Omega$.
Note that $\mathcal{G}$ is allowed to contain loops.
We denote the adjacency matrix corresponding to $\mathcal{G}$ by $\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}$.
With this notation, we can write $\pmb{M} =\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}\circ(\pmb{M}^* + \pmb{N})$ where $\pmb{N}$ is the noise matrix whose $(i,j)$-th entry is $N_{i,j}$.

Below are several convenient notations about graphs.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{G}_{J,J}$, $\mathcal{G}_{J,J^c}$, $\mathcal{G}_{J^c,J^c}$:
For the observation graph $\mathcal{G}$,
we denote by $\mathcal{G}_{J,J}$, $\mathcal{G}_{J,J^c}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{J^c,J^c}$ the sub-graphs of $\mathcal{G}$ which consist of only the edges inside $J\times J$, $J\times J^c$, and $J^c\times J^c$, respectively.
$\mathcal{G}_{J,J}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{J^c,J^c}$ are undirected graphs with vertex sets $J$ and $J^c$, respectively.
$\mathcal{G}_{J,J^c}$ is a bipartite graph with independent vertex sets $J$ and $J^c$.
\item $\overline{\mathcal{G}}$:
For any graph $\mathcal{G}$, $\overline{\mathcal{G}}$ denotes a graph which has the same vertex set as $\mathcal{G}$, but whose edge set is the complement of that of $\mathcal{G}$.
That is, the edge sets of $\mathcal{G}$ and $\overline{\mathcal{G}}$ are disjoint and their union forms a complete graph.
\item $\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G})$, $\Delta_{\min}(\mathcal{G})$:
For any graph $\mathcal{G}$, $\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G})$ and $\Delta_{\min}(\mathcal{G})$ denote the maximum and minimum node degrees of $\mathcal{G}$, respectively.
\end{itemize}

Now, we define two important structural graph properties, {\it algebraic connectivity} and {\it irregularity}.
Both properties are crucial to explain the effect of the structure of the observation graph on the solvability of our support recovery problem.

Algebraic connectivity, the well-known concept to measure the graph connectivity, is defined as follows:
\begin{definition}[Algebraic Connectivity]
\label{def:algebraic_connectivity}
The algebraic connectivity of a graph $\mathcal{G}$, denoted by $\phi(\mathcal{G})$, is the second-smallest eigenvalue of the Laplacian matrix of $\mathcal{G}$.
The magnitude of $\phi(\mathcal{G})$ reflects how well connected the overall graph is.
\end{definition}

Next, we define the concept of irregularity, which is an uncommon graphical quantity that proves crucial in presenting our results.

\begin{definition}[Irregularity]
\label{def:irregularity}
For any undirected graph $\mathcal{G}$ such that $\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) \geq \phi(\mathcal{G})$ and $\Delta_{\max}(\overline{\mathcal{G}}) \geq \phi(\overline{\mathcal{G}})$,
the irregularity of $\mathcal{G}$ is defined as
$$
\psi(\mathcal{G}) := \max\big\{\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \phi(\mathcal{G}), \Delta_{\max}(\overline{\mathcal{G}}) - \phi(\overline{\mathcal{G}}) \big\}.$$
The magnitude of $\psi(\mathcal{G})$ reflects how different the node degrees of $\mathcal{G}$ are.
\end{definition}

To better interpret the above concept, we derive some lower and upper bound results below.
Let $\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}$ be the adjacency matrix of $\mathcal{G}$.
Then we can derive the following inequality\footnotemark:
\begin{align*}
\max_{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
\leq
\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \phi(\mathcal{G})
\leq
\max_{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
+ \Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \Delta_{\min}(\mathcal{G})
\end{align*}
where $\pmb{1} = (1, 1, \dots, 1)^\top$.

\begin{itemize}
\item $\max_{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}$: Among different $\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}$'s having the same largest and second-largest eigenvalues, we can see that the one corresponding to a regular graph (a graph is regular when each node has the same degree) has the smallest magnitude of $\underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}}{\max} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}$.
This is because a regular graph has a normalized vector of $\pmb{1}$ as its leading eigenvector.
\item $\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \Delta_{\min}(\mathcal{G})$: This quantity decreases as nodes of $\mathcal{G}$ have similar degrees.
\end{itemize}
Since $\overline{\mathcal{G}}$ is regular when $\mathcal{G}$ is regular,
and $\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \Delta_{\min}(\mathcal{G})
= \Delta_{\max}(\overline{\mathcal{G}}) - \Delta_{\min}(\overline{\mathcal{G}})$,
the same argument holds for $\Delta_{\max}(\overline{\mathcal{G}}) - \phi(\overline{\mathcal{G}})$.
Therefore, we can say that as $\mathcal{G}$ is closer to a regular graph, the value of $\psi(\mathcal{G})$ decreases.
This is the reason why we name this concept the ``irregularity".

\footnotetext{
The inequality is derived as follows:
let $\pmb{D}_\mathcal{G}$ be a diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the node degrees of $\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}$. Then,
$
\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \phi(\mathcal{G})
=
\underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1}{\max} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{D}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
- \underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}}{\min} \pmb{x}^\top (\pmb{D}_\mathcal{G}-\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}) \pmb{x}
\geq
\underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}}{\max} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
$.
Also,
$
\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \phi(\mathcal{G})
\leq
\underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1}{\max} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{D}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
+\underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}}{\max} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
-\underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}}{\min} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{D}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
\leq
\underset{\|\pmb{x}\|_2 = 1, \pmb{x}\perp \pmb{1}}{\max} \pmb{x}^\top \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G} \pmb{x}
+ \Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) - \Delta_{\min}(\mathcal{G}).
$
}

\begin{remark}
Note that $\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}) \geq \phi(\mathcal{G})$ and $\Delta_{\max}(\overline{\mathcal{G}}) \geq \phi(\overline{\mathcal{G}})$, i.e., $\psi(\mathcal{G})\geq 0$ holds in most cases except for some extreme types of graphs, e.g., complete graph without loops.
\end{remark}

\section{Main Results}
\label{sec:main_results}

Now, we introduce our main theorem, which shows the sufficient condition for the SDP algorithm to exactly recover the true support $J$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:sufficient_conditions}
Under the problem definition in \cref{sec:problem_definition},
assume that the following condition holds: with some constant $c>0$,
\begin{align}
&
\|\pmb{M}^*_{J,J}\|_2 \cdot \psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})
+ \sigma \sqrt{\Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})\log s}
+ s \| \pmb{M}^*_{J^c,J} \|_{2}
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\| \pmb{M}^*_{J^c,J^c}\|_2
\nonumber \\&
+ \sigma s\sqrt{ \max\big\{ \Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}_{J,J^c}), \Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}_{J^c,J^c}) \big\} \log d}
\leq \frac{c\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J}) \bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*) \cdot \min_{i \in J}|u_{1,i}|}{s}
\label{eq:suff_cond}
\end{align}
where $\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*) := \lambda_1(\pmb{M}^*)-\lambda_2(\pmb{M}^*)$ and $\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J}) \geq 0$.
If the tuning parameter $\rho$ is properly chosen,
the optimal solution $\hat{\pmb{X}}$ to the optimization problem (\ref{eq:sdp_problem}) is unique
and satisfies $supp(diag(\hat{\pmb{X}})) = J$
with probability at least $1-O(s^{-1})$.
\end{theorem}

In a nutshell, \cref{thm:sufficient_conditions} asserts that the SDP algorithm produces reliable solutions under certain conditions imposed on
the spectral gap $\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)$, the noise intensity parameter $\sigma$, the matrix norms,
and
the graph properties of the sub-graphs $\mathcal{G}_{J,J}$, $\mathcal{G}_{J,J^c}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{J^c,J^c}$.

To better understand the condition, we consider the setting that $\|\pmb{M}^*_{J,J}\|_2 = O(\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*))$ and
$\min_{i \in J}|u_{1,i}| = \Omega(s^{-\frac{1}{2}})$, for instance.
We note that the first inequality holds as long as
$\|\pmb{M}^*_{J,J}\|_2 = \lambda_1(\pmb{M}^*_{J,J})$ and
$\frac{\lambda_2(\pmb{M}^*)}{\lambda_1(\pmb{M}^*)}\leq c$ for some $c\in (0,1)$,
and the second inequality holds when all the non-zero entries of the sparse leading eigenvector are of the same level of magnitude.
In this case, we can rewrite \eqref{eq:suff_cond} as follows:
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}
= {O}\Big(\frac{1}{s\sqrt{s}} \Big),
\\&
\sigma
=
\tilde{O} \Big( \frac{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\sqrt{\max\{ \Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}_{J,J^c}), \Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}_{J^c,J^c}) \}}}\cdot \frac{\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)}{s^2 \sqrt{ s}} \Big),
\\&
\| \pmb{M}^*_{J^c,J} \|_{2}
=
{O} \Big( \frac{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J}) \bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)}{s^2\sqrt{s}}  \Big),
\\&
\| \pmb{M}^*_{J^c,J^c}\|_2
=
{O} \Big( \frac{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J}) \bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)}{s} \Big).
\end{align*}

The first condition about the structural graph properties of $\mathcal{G}_{J,J}$ states that
for the algorithm to be successful,
the sub-graph $\mathcal{G}_{J,J}$ is desired to have sufficiently large connectivity $\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})$ and small irregularity $\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})$.
This implies that we need to observe the entries in the $J\times J$ sub-matrix of the true matrix abundantly and evenly.
This result fits well with our first intuition discussed in the introduction.

The second through fourth conditions mean that the noise and the norms of $\pmb{M}^*_{J^c,J}$ and $\pmb{M}^*_{J^c,J^c}$ need to be well-controlled for the success of the algorithm.
This is in accordance with our common sense, since large $\sigma$ or $\pmb{M}^*$ values outside $J\times J$ matrix will mask the true information.
These conditions are alleviated when the connectivity of $\mathcal{G}_{J,J}$ is large (especially in the second condition, larger than the number of observed entries outside $J\times J$) and when the spectral gap $\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)$ is large.

It is worth mentioning that a sufficiently large spectral gap requirement is to ensure the uniqueness and identifiability of the projection matrix with respect to the principal subspace, which has been also discussed in \citet{lei2015sparsistency} and \citet{lee2022support}.

\textbf{Proof Technique.}
Detailed proof of \cref{thm:sufficient_conditions} is given in \cref{sec:proof_of_thm1}.
At a high level, we use the KKT conditions under the primal-dual witness framework,
and find the sufficient conditions which guarantee that the solution of \eqref{eq:sdp_problem} is unique and satisfies $supp(diag(\hat{\pmb{X}})) = J$ with high probability.
We apply several techniques in the derivation, including Davis Kahan sin$\Theta$ theorem and Weyl's inequality for principal subspace estimation.

One challenge in the proof is to handle a deterministic sampling scheme.
We note that traditional concentration inequalities, such as matrix Bernstein inequality, are not useful to derive tail bounds under non-random missingness.
To overcome this, we obtain and utilize two theorems: one is for the tail bound of the matrix whose subset of entries are random, and the other is for bounding the difference between complete and incomplete matrices under a deterministic sampling scheme.
These two results can be widely used in other matrix-related problems for non-random missing data as well.
We introduce these two theorems as by-products of our analysis in the next section.

\subsection{By-products}
\label{subsec:by_products}

Below is a tail bound for the matrix containing independent sub-Gaussian random values only in a fixed subset of entries.

\begin{theorem}[Tail Bound for Random Matrix with Independent Sub-Gaussian Values in a Subset of Entries]
\label{thm:by_product_tail_bound}
Consider a random matrix $\pmb{Z}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ whose subset of entries independently follow sub-Gaussian distributions which are symmetric about zero and have parameter $\sigma > 0$, while the other entries are fixed as zero.
That is, there exists an index set $S \subseteq \{(i,j)~|~ i \in [m], j \in [n]\}$ such that for $i \in [m]$ and $j \in [n]$,
$$
Z_{i,j} =
\begin{cases}
N_{i,j} & \text{if } (i,j)\in S, \\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
$$
where each $N_{i,j}$ is symmetric about zero and satisfies $\mathbb{E}e^{\theta N_{i,j}}\leq e^{\frac{\sigma^2 \theta^2}{2}}$ for any $\theta >0$.
Then for any $t \geq 0$,
$$
\mathbb{P} [\| \pmb{Z} \|_2 \geq t ]
\leq
2(m+n)\cdot \exp\Big(-\frac{t^2}{2\sigma^2 \Delta_{\max}(\mathcal{G}_S)}\Big),
$$
where $\mathcal{G}_S$ is a bipartite graph whose vertex and edge sets are $[m]\times[n]$ and $S$, respectively.
\end{theorem}

We defer the proof to \cref{sec:proof_of_tail_bound}.
In the derivation of \cref{thm:sufficient_conditions}, we use the above theorem to obtain the tail bounds of $\|(\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G})_{J,J}\circ \pmb{N}_{J,J}\|_2$, $\|(\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G})_{J,J^c}\circ \pmb{N}_{J,J^c}\|_2$ and $\|(\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G})_{J^c,J^c}\circ \pmb{N}_{J^c,J^c}\|_2$.

Next is the bound of the difference between complete and incomplete matrices under non-random missingness.
We note that this is an extended result of Theorem 4.1 in \citet{bhojanapalli2014universal}.
While the theorem of \citet{bhojanapalli2014universal} is limited to the case that the observation graph is regular,
our theorem applies to any general undirected observation graph.
For regular graphs, our bound coincides with that of \citet{bhojanapalli2014universal}, i.e., our result generalizes the result of \citet{bhojanapalli2014universal}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:by_product_diff_bound}
Consider a symmetric matrix $\pmb{Y}$ with dimension $n$.
Let $\pmb{Y} = \sum_{k\in [r]} \lambda_k(\pmb{Y}) \pmb{v}_k \pmb{v}_k^\top$ be the spectral decomposition of $\pmb{Y}$, where $r$ is rank of $\pmb{Y}$.
Define $\tau := \max_{i\in[n]} \sum_{k\in [r]} {v}^2_{k,i}$.

Also, consider an undirected graph $\mathcal{G}$ with $n$ nodes and denote its adjacency matrix by $\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}$.
Then,
$$
\|\pmb{Y} - \frac{n}{\phi(\mathcal{G})}\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}\circ \pmb{Y} \|_2 \leq \frac{n\tau\psi(\mathcal{G})}{\phi(\mathcal{G})}\cdot  \|\pmb{Y}\|_2.
$$
\end{theorem}

The proof is given in \cref{sec:proof_of_diff_bound}.
We use the above theorem to bound $\| \pmb{M}^*_{J,J} - \frac{s}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})} (\pmb{A}_\mathcal{G})_{J,J}\circ \pmb{M}^*_{J,J} \|_2$ in the proof of \cref{thm:sufficient_conditions}.

\subsection{Choice of the Tuning Parameter}
\label{subsec:choice_of_tuning_parameter}

The theoretical choice of $\rho$ \eqref{eq:theoretical_choice_of_rho} is useless in practice since it relies on unknown quantities.
Therefore, certain tuning procedure over $\rho$ is necessary for the implementation of the SDP algorithm \eqref{eq:sdp_problem}.
Our suggestion is to find $\rho$ to maximize the following AIC type criterion (see also \citet{qi2013sparse}):
$$
C_\rho = (1-a)\frac{\langle \pmb{M}, \hat{\pmb{X}}_\rho \rangle}{\langle \pmb{M}, \hat{\pmb{X}}_0 \rangle}
+ a\Big(1-\frac{|supp(diag(\hat{\pmb{X}}_\rho))|}{d}\Big).
$$
Here, $\hat{\pmb{X}}_\rho$ and $\hat{\pmb{X}}_0$ refer to the solutions of the SDP algorithm where the tuning parameters are set to be $\rho$ and $0$, respectively.
$\langle \pmb{M}, \hat{\pmb{X}}_\rho \rangle$ and $\langle \pmb{M}, \hat{\pmb{X}}_0 \rangle$ represent the explained variances of $\pmb{M}$ by the solutions.

The first term of the criterion is a measure for the quality of the estimate, and the second term penalizes for the complexity of the solution.
$a\in (0,1)$ is the weight to be chosen by practitioners.
As one needs a sparse principal component, a relatively large value of $a$ is suggested.
In the experiments, we find that $0.4\leq a \leq 0.6$ generally work well.

\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}

In this section, we present several empirical results on synthetic and real data sets which support our theoretical results.

\subsection{Simulations}
\label{subsec:simulations}

The goal of this simulation study is to demonstrate the effects of the structural properties of the observation graph, the spectral gap between the largest and second-largest eigenvalues of the true matrix, and the magnitude of the noise, on the success of the support recovery by the SDP algorithm.

In particular, we want to check whether the performance of the SDP algorithm is solely determined by the properties we derive in \cref{thm:sufficient_conditions}.
We utilize the following rescaled parameter for this:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rescaled}
Rescaled = \frac{\text{LHS of \eqref{eq:suff_cond}}}{\text{RHS of \eqref{eq:suff_cond} without constant } c}.
\end{equation}
If the performance of the algorithm versus this rescaled parameter is the same across different settings, then we can empirically justify that
the performance is solely determined by the factors in the rescaled parameter.
This kind of approach has been used in \citet{wainwright2009sharp} for sparse linear regression.

\textbf{Setting.}
We use synthetic data sets generated in the following manner.
The orthonormal eigenvectors of $\pmb{M}^*$ are randomly selected,
while the leading eigenvector $\pmb{u}_1$ is made to be sparse and have $s$ non-zero entries with the values of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}$.
$\lambda_2(\pmb{M}^*), \dots, \lambda_d(\pmb{M}^*)$ are randomly selected from a normal distribution with mean $0$ and standard deviation $1$,
and $\lambda_1(\pmb{M}^*)$ is set to $\lambda_2(\pmb{M}^*)$ plus the spectral gap.
We set the matrix dimension $d$ to be $50$ and the support size $s$ to be $10$.

We generate the observation graph $\mathcal{G}$ to have $1250$ edges out of $2500$.
The value of $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ is set to be included in one of the ranges $0$ to $2$, $2$ to $4$, ..., or $16$ to $18$.
The entry-wise noise is randomly selected from a normal distribution with mean $0$ and standard deviation $\sigma$.

In each setting, we run the algorithm \eqref{eq:sdp_problem} and examine if the solution exactly recovers the true support $J$.
The tuning parameter $\rho \in \{0.025, 0.5, \dots, 1\}$ is selected by the method in \cref{subsec:choice_of_tuning_parameter} with $a=0.5$.
We repeat each experiment $100$ times with different random seeds, and calculate the rate of exact recovery in each setting.

\begin{figure}[t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figures/simulation1.png}}
\caption{(a) Rate of exact recovery of support $J$ versus the graph parameter $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ for four different spectral gaps $\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)$,
(b) Same simulation results with exact recovery rate plotted versus the rescaled parameter in \eqref{eq:rescaled}.}
\label{fig:simulation1}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}

\textbf{Results.}
\cref{fig:simulation1} shows the experimental results where we fix the noise parameter $\sigma$ as $0$ (noiseless) and try different spectral gaps $\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*) \in \{1, 2, 5, 10\}$ to check the effect of the spectral gap.
From (a) in \cref{fig:simulation1}, we can observe that the exact recovery rate increases as the spectral gap increases and the value of $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ decreases, which is consistent with our theoretical findings.

\begin{figure}[t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figures/simulation2.png}}
\caption{(a) Rate of exact recovery of support $J$ versus the graph parameter $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ for four different noise parameters $\sigma$,
(b) Same simulation results with exact recovery rate plotted versus the rescaled parameter in \eqref{eq:rescaled}.}
\label{fig:simulation2}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}

\cref{fig:simulation2} shows the experimental results where we fix the spectral gap $\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)$ as $20$ and try different noise parameters $\sigma \in \{0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7\}$ to check the effect of the magnitude of noise.
From (a) in \cref{fig:simulation2}, we can observe that the exact recovery rate increases as the standard deviation of the noise decreases and the value of $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ decreases, which also supports our theorem.

In \cref{fig:simulation1} (b) and \cref{fig:simulation2} (b),
we can see that the curves of the exact recovery rate versus the rescaled parameter share almost the same pattern under different settings of $\bar{\lambda}(\pmb{M}^*)$ and $\sigma$.
This provides empirical justification of our theorem in the sense that the performance of the SDP algorithm is solely determined by the properties we derive in \cref{thm:sufficient_conditions}.

\subsection{Real Data Analysis}
\label{subsec:real_data_analysis}

The primary goal of this experimental study is to check if our SDP algorithm performs well compared to other sparse PCA algorithms on incomplete data.
We will also conduct a study to validate the selection criterion of the tuning parameter $\rho$ in \cref{subsec:choice_of_tuning_parameter}.

\textbf{Pitprops Data.}
The pitprops data, which stores 180 observations of 13 variables, has been a standard benchmark to evaluate algorithms for sparse PCA (see, e.g.,
\citet{zou2006sparse, shen2008sparse, journee2010generalized, qi2013sparse}).
We aim to compute a leading principal component of this data.
It has been revealed that on the complete data, a sparse solution with $6$ nonzero entries (with respect to the variables `topdiam', `length', `ringbut', `bowmax', `bowdist', `whorls') has a comparable explained variance with that of the dense solution from original PCA.
We focus on recovering these $6$ nonzero entries with incomplete data, by generating observation graphs synthetically.

\textbf{Setting.}
We impose missingness and noise on the complete $13\times 13$ covariance matrix in the following manner.
We generate the observation graph $\mathcal{G}$ to have $100$ edges out of $169$.
The value of $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ is set to be included in one of the ranges $0$ to $0.2$, $0.2$ to $0.4$, ..., or $2$ to $2.2$.
The entry-wise noise is randomly selected from a normal distribution with mean $0$ and standard deviation $\sigma=0.1$.

We compare our SDP algorithm with three different methods.
Firstly, we consider two popular sparse PCA algorithms: the diagonal thresholding sparse PCA (DTSPCA) by \citet{johnstone2009consistency} and
the iterative thresholding sparse PCA (ITSPCA) by \citet{ma2013sparse},
which are efficient in computation and have theoretically good properties on complete data.
When implementing these methods on incomplete data, we treat missing cells as zero.
Secondly, we consider the combination of matrix completion and the SDP algorithm.
We first estimate the missing entries of the incomplete matrix $\pmb{M}$ by using the following matrix completion method based on the nuclear norm minimization:
$$
\tilde{\pmb{M}} = \underset{\pmb{Y}= \pmb{Y}^\top,~ \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}\circ \pmb{Y} = \pmb{A}_\mathcal{G}\circ \pmb{M}}{\arg\min} \| \pmb{Y}\|_*.
$$
Then we implemented the SDP algorithm with the completed matrix $\tilde{\pmb{M}}$.

We run each algorithm $100$ times with different random seeds in each setting, and calculate the rate of exact recovery of $J$.
In the SDP algorithm, the tuning parameter $\rho \in \{0.025, 0.5, \dots, 1\}$ is selected by the method in \cref{subsec:choice_of_tuning_parameter} with $a=0.4$.
For the DTSPCA and ITSPCA algorithms, there is no well-known method to choose tuning parameters, so we try multiple values of tuning parameters and choose one with the largest exact recovery rate.

\begin{figure}[t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figures/tuning.png}}
\caption{Rate of exact recovery of support $J$ versus the graph parameter $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ for SDP algorithm with different values of the tuning parameter $\rho$.
The thick blue line indicates the result of the case that $\rho$ is selected by the criterion $C_\rho$ in \cref{subsec:choice_of_tuning_parameter}.}
\label{fig:tuning}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}

\textbf{Results.}
In \cref{fig:tuning}, we can see that our method of selecting $\rho$ works well.
Here, we compare the result from our tuning method with those in the settings where the tuning parameter $\rho$ is fixed as a value among $\{0.05, 0.1, \dots, 1\}$ through all the repetitions.
We can see that the exact recovery rate from our tuning method is larger than most of the results where $\rho$ is fixed as one value.

\begin{figure}[t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{figures/comparison.png}}
\caption{Rate of exact recovery of support $J$ versus the graph parameter $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ for four different sparse PCA algorithms.}
\label{fig:comparison}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}

\cref{fig:comparison} shows that our SDP method outperforms the other sparse PCA methods when the observation graph has a good structural property.
First, we observe that DTSPCA and ITSPCA algorithms do not work well at all (the exact recovery rates are always less than 0.2), even when the graph parameter $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ is small enough.
Unlike our SDP method, those two algorithms can not benefit from good structure of the observation graph.

In addition, the SDP method with matrix completion has the exact recovery rate of around $0.4$ overall,
while our algorithm with zero-imputation produces the exact recovery rates greater than $0.6$ when the value of $\frac{\psi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}{\phi(\mathcal{G}_{J,J})}$ is small enough.
About the failure of the matrix completion approach, we conjecture the following rationale:
while the matrix completion algorithm can be successful under the low-rank assumption, the pitprops data is not low-rank,
which yields an unsuccessful matrix completion result.
Accordingly, the imputed cells introduce more noise into the inference and the result of sparse PCA becomes even worse than that of simply using zero for the missing entries.
We note that unlike matrix completion, our algorithm does not require the low-rank assumption to be successful.
Therefore, our algorithm has good performance under a general condition on the true matrix.

\section{Concluding Remarks}
\label{sec:concluding_remarks}

This paper examines the support recovery problem in sparse PCA with incomplete and noisy data, under a general and deterministic sampling scheme.
The problem formulation spans various applications including gene expression data analysis, vertical federated learning, and anomaly detection in networks.
We suggest a practical algorithm based on a semidefinite relaxation of the $\ell_1$-regularized PCA problem,
and provide sufficient conditions where the algorithm can exactly recover the true support with high probability.
The conditions involve the spectral gap, the noise parameter, the matrix norms, and the structural properties of the observation graph.
We show that the algorithm works well if we observe the entries in the $J\times J$ sub-matrix abundantly and evenly.
We empirically justify our theorem with synthetic and real data analysis,
and show that our algorithm outperforms several other sparse PCA approaches especially when the observation graph has a good structural property.

Our work primarily focuses on the theoretical understanding of the problem and the algorithm,
but we briefly discuss a practical use of our results here.
Our results present that as we observe the entries well in the $J\times J$ sub-matrix, we can recover the support $J$.
Unfortunately, we do not know the true support $J$ in practice, so it is impossible to check if the observation structure satisfies the sufficient condition.
One possible alternative is to check if any sub-graphs of the observation graph have good algebraic connectivity and irregularity.
If there is a sub-graph with connectivity or irregularity that is extremely low or high, then we could conservatively suspect that the result from the algorithm can not be fully trusted.
Here, we will need prior knowledge about the size of the support.


\section{Introduction}

Conformal field theories in various dimensions continue to attract
considerable attention in connection with the development of the
AdS/CFT-correspondence. In particular, nonrelativistic conformal
field theory has recently been successfully applied within the
context of condensed matter physics \cite{NS2010}. An important
peculiarity of the nonrelativistic version of the
AdS/CFT-correspondence is that some of systems can be realized in
the laboratory \cite{OHGGT2002}.

Nonrelativistic conformal groups include dilatation transformation,
under which temporal and spatial coordinates scale differently:
$t'=\lambda t$, $x'_i=\lambda^\ell x_i$. The quantity
$z=\frac{1}{\ell}$ is known as the dynamic critical exponent and it
is an important object in condensed matter physics. As is known, the
Galilei algebra admits a finite-dimensional conformal extension for
an arbitrary (half)integer value of the parameter $\ell$, provided
constant accelerations are introduced \cite{Henkel,NOR}. The cases
$\ell=1/2$ and $\ell=1$ are referred to as the Schr\"{o}dinger
algebra and the conformal Galilei algebra, respectively. The latter
follows from the relativistic conformal algebra in the
nonrelativistic limit (see e.g. \cite{LSZ}).

Many physically interesting classical or quantum mechanics models
exhibit the $\ell=1/2$ conformal Galilei symmetry. A textbook
example is the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for a free massive particle
\cite{Nied1972,Hag1972}. Dynamical realizations with $\ell>1/2$ have
been the focus of extensive resent studies (see e.g.
\cite{LSZ1,FIL,DH1,GK,AGM,GM3,GM1,AGKM,AGGM,GM4,CG,M,KLS}). A
characteristic feature of such systems is the appearance of higher
derivative terms in the equations of motion, the order of which
correlates with the value of the parameter $\ell$.

Higher derivative theories are widely used in theoretical physics,
starting with radiation phenomena in classical electrodynamics
\cite{Gal02} and ending with ultraviolet regularization
\cite{Thir50} in quantum field theory. In addition, theories with
higher derivatives appear in string theory and M-theory
\cite{FradTh86}, as well as in field theories connected to
non-commutative geometry \cite{DN01}.

As was recently demonstrated in \cite{Gal22a,Gal22b}, a higher
derivative analog of Euler's perfect fluid equations enjoys the
$\ell$-conformal Galilei symmetry, provided a specific equation of
state is chosen\footnote{For a review of conformal symmetries of
nonrelativistic fluid mechanics see \cite{HZ} and and references
therein.}. The goal of this work is to construct Hamiltonian
formulation, which generalizes the $\ell=1/2$ analysis in
\cite{Mor98,JNPP}. A consistent Hamiltonian formulation allows one
to strictly define the total energy of a system under consideration.
It is also needed for constructing a quantum theory. The model
presented in this work provides an example of a consistent higher
derivative Hamiltonian field theory.

The work is organized as follows. In Sect. \ref{S1}, we review the
structure of the $\ell$-conformal Galilei group and the associated
Lie algebra and its action in nonrelativistic space-time. In Sect.
\ref{S2}, we discuss the perfect fluid equations with the
$\ell$-conformal Galileo symmetry along the lines in \cite{Gal22a}.
The corresponding Hamiltonian formulation is constructed in Sect.
\ref{S3} for the case of a half-integer $\ell$ . In Sect. \ref{S4},
conserved charges associated with the $\ell$-conformal Galilei
symmetry are found and their algebra under the Poisson bracket is
verified. In concluding Sect. \ref{S5}, we summarize the results and
discuss possible further developments.

\section{The $\ell$-conformal Galilei group and its algebra}\label{S1}

Consider a nonrelativistic space-time parameterized by temporal
variable $t$ and Cartesian coordinates $x_i$, $i=1,...,d$. The
$\ell$-conformal Galilei group contains a subgroup of
$SL(2,R)$-transformations
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SL2}
t'=\frac{\alpha t+\beta}{\gamma t+\delta}, \quad
x'_i=\left(\frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}\right)^{\ell}x_i,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha\delta-\beta\gamma=1$ and $\ell$ is an arbitrary
(half)integer parameter. These transformations describe
temporal translations, dilatations, and special conformal
transformations. The generators of the corresponding infinitesimal
transformations read
\begin{eqnarray}
H=\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\quad D=t\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\ell x_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\quad
K=t^2\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+2\ell tx_i\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_i},
\end{eqnarray}
which satisfy the commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sl2}
{[H,D]}=H, \qquad {[H,K]}=2D,\qquad {[D,K]}=K.
\end{eqnarray}

The $\ell$-conformal Galilei group  also contains a chain of
transformations with vector parameters $a_i^{(n)}$ (no sum over $n$)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Acc}
t'=t, \quad x'_i=x_i+a^{(n)}_it^n
\end{eqnarray}
where $n=0,1,...,2\ell$. For $n=0$ and $n=~1$ these transformations
correspond to spatial translations and Galilei boosts. For $n>1$ the
so-called constant accelerations show up. In infinitesimal form,
these transformations look similar, and their generators
\begin{eqnarray}
C^{(n)}_i=t^n\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}
\end{eqnarray}
obey the non-vanishing commutators
\begin{eqnarray}\label{acc}
{[H,C^{(n)}_i]}=nC^{(n-1)}_i,\quad {[D,C^{(n)}_i]}=(n-l)C^{(n)}_i
\quad {[K,C^{(n)}_i]}=(n-2l)C^{(n+1)}_i.
\end{eqnarray}
The $\ell$-conformal Galilei group also involves  $SO(d)$ rotations which in what follows will be
disregarded.

Worth mentioning is that for a half-integer $\ell$ the algebra
admits a central extension \cite{GM11}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CE}
[C^{(k)}_i,C^{(m)}_j]=(-1)^{k}k!m!\delta_{(k+m)(2\ell)}\delta_{ij} M,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$ is the central charge usually attributed to a nonrelativistic mass.

\section{Equation of fluid dynamics with the $\ell$-conformal Galilei symmetry} \label{S2}

In hydrodynamics, a fluid is characterized by a density distribution
function $\rho(t,x)$ and the velocity vector field
$\upsilon_i(t,x)$, which both enter the continuity equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ConEq}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+ \frac{\partial
(\rho\upsilon_i)}{\partial x_i}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
In the case of a perfect fluid,
the dynamics is described by the Euler equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EulEq}
{\cal D}\upsilon_i=-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal D}=\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\upsilon_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$ is the material
derivative and $p(t,x)$ is the pressure. The latter is assumed to be
related to $\rho(t,x)$ via an equation of state. For a specific
equation of state, the continuity and Euler equations possess the
$\ell=\frac12$ conformal Galilei symmetry \cite{JNPP}. In order to
verify this, one needs to know transformation laws of $\rho(t,x)$
and $\upsilon_i(t,x)$ under the $\ell$-conformal Galilei group.

The transformation law of the density follows from the invariance of the mass
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{V'}dx'\rho'(t',x')=\int_{V}dx\rho(t,x),
\end{eqnarray}
where a volume element $dx=dx_1dx_2...dx_d$ transforms as
$dx'=|\frac{\partial x'_i}{\partial x_j}|dx$. It gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SL2rho}
\rho(t,x)=\left(\frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}\right)^{\ell
d}\rho'(t',x')
\end{eqnarray}
for the $SL(2,R)$-transformations (\ref{SL2}) and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Accrho}
\rho(t,x)=\rho'(t',x')
\end{eqnarray}
for the accelerations (\ref{Acc}).

In order to derive the transformation law of the velocity vector field
$\upsilon_i(t,x)$ it suffices to consider a particle orbit parameterized by $x_i(t)$ and take into account the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dx_i(t)}{dt}=\upsilon_i(t,x(t)).
\end{eqnarray}
Differentiating (\ref{SL2}) and (\ref{Acc}) with respect to the
temporal variable, one finds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SL2ups}
\upsilon_i(t,x)=x'_i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{\partial
t'}{\partial t}\right)^{-\ell}+\left(\frac{\partial t'}{\partial
t}\right)^{1-\ell}\upsilon'_i(t',x')
\end{eqnarray}
for the $SL(2,R)$-transformations and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Accups}
\upsilon_i(t,x)=\upsilon'_i(t',x')-na^{(n)}_it^{n-1}
\end{eqnarray}
for the accelerations.

One can show by direct calculations that the continuity and Euler
equations hold invariant under the transformations (\ref{SL2rho}),
(\ref{Accrho}) and (\ref{SL2ups}), (\ref{Accups}) for $\ell=1/2$,
provided the pressure $p(t,x)$ obeys the equation of state
\begin{eqnarray}
p=\nu \rho^{1+\frac{2}{ d}}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\nu$ is a real constant \cite{JNPP}.

In a recent work \cite{Gal22a}, the perfect fluid equations were
generalized to the case of an arbitrary value of $\ell$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{FlEql}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+ \frac{\partial
(\rho\upsilon_i)}{\partial x_i}=0,\quad {\cal
D}^{2\ell}\upsilon_i=-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial
x_i},\quad p=\nu \rho^{1+\frac{1}{\ell d}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The energy-momentum tensor and conserved charges corresponding to
the $\ell$-conformal Galilei symmetry were constructed as well. In
particular, for a half-integer $\ell$
\begin{eqnarray}
\ell=n+1/2,\quad n=0,1,...
\end{eqnarray}
the conserved energy ${ H}=\int dxT^{00}$, which links to temporal translations, has the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ham}
{ H}&=&\int dx \left[\frac12\rho\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k{\cal
D}^{k}\upsilon_i{\cal D}^{2n-k}\upsilon_i+V(\rho)\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $V(\rho)$ is a potential function, which via the Legendre
transformations gives the pressure
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\rho)=\rho V'(\rho)-V(\rho).
\end{eqnarray}
Given the equation of state $p=\nu \rho^{1+\frac{1}{\ell d}}$
\cite{Gal22a}, the potential reads
\begin{eqnarray}
V=\ell dp,
\end{eqnarray}
which also results in the identity
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Vcond}
\int dx(\ell x_i\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i}+V)=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Our goal in the next section is to construct Hamiltonian formulation
for the $\ell$-conformal perfect fluid described by (\ref{FlEql}).

\section{Hamiltonian formulation} \label{S3}

As was demonstrated in \cite{JNPP}, for $\ell=\frac12$ the Hamilton
\begin{eqnarray}\label{HamPF}
H=\int dx\left[\frac12\rho\upsilon_i\upsilon_i+V(\rho)\right],\quad
V(\rho)=\frac12 d p
\end{eqnarray}
coincides with the conserved energy, provided the non-canonical
Poisson brackets for $\rho$ and $\upsilon_i$ are chosen
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PBPF}
\{\rho(x),\rho(y)\}&=&0,\nonumber
\\
\{\rho(x),\upsilon_i(y)\}&=&- \frac{\partial}{\partial
x_i}\delta(x-y),\nonumber
\\
\{\upsilon_i(x),\upsilon_j(y)\}&=&\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\frac{\partial\upsilon_j}{\partial
x_i} -\frac{\partial\upsilon_i}{\partial x_j}\right)\delta(x-y).
\end{eqnarray}
The Hamiltonian generates the continuity equation and the Euler
equation in the usual way
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot\rho=\{\rho,H\}=-\frac{\partial (\rho\upsilon_i)}{\partial
x_i},\qquad
\dot\upsilon_i=\{\upsilon_i,H\}=-\upsilon_j\frac{\partial\upsilon_i}{\partial
x_j}-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i}
\end{eqnarray}
where the dot denotes the total time derivative.

In order to construct a similar Hamiltonian formulation for Eqs. (\ref{FlEql}),
we rewrite the equations
in the equivalent first order form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{HamFlEql}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+ \frac{\partial
(\rho\upsilon^{(0)}_i)}{\partial x_i}=0,\quad {\cal
D}\upsilon^{(k)}_i=\upsilon^{(k+1)}_i ,\quad {\cal
D}\upsilon^{(2n)}_i=-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\upsilon^{(k)}_i$,
$k=0,1,...,2n$, are auxiliary fields with $\upsilon^{(0)}_i=\upsilon_i$.

Like in the $\ell=1/2$ case, it seems natural to choose the total energy (\ref{Ham}) to be the Hamilton
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&\int dx
\left[\frac12\rho\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k\upsilon^{(k)}_i\upsilon^{(2n-k)}_i+V(p)\right].
\end{eqnarray}
It remains to find Poisson brackets between $\rho$
and $\upsilon^{(k)}_i$ which represent (\ref{HamFlEql}) in the Hamiltonian form
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot\rho&=&\{\rho,H\}=-\frac{\partial
(\rho\upsilon^{(0)}_i)}{\partial x_i}\\
\dot\upsilon^{(k)}_i&=&\{\upsilon^{(k)}_i,H\}=-\upsilon^{(0)}_j\frac{\partial\upsilon^{(k)}_i}{\partial
x_j}+\upsilon^{(k+1)}_i
\\
\dot\upsilon^{(2n)}_i&=&\{\upsilon^{(2n)}_i,H\}=-\upsilon^{(0)}_j\frac{\partial\upsilon^{(2n)}_i}{\partial
x_j}-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i}.
\end{eqnarray}
By direct inspection one finds the following brackets
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PBPFl}
&&\{\rho(x),\upsilon^{(k)}_i(y)\}=-\delta_{(k)(2n)}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_i}\delta(x-y)
\\
\{\upsilon^{(k)}_i(x),\upsilon^{(m)}_j(y)\}&=&\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\delta_{(k)(2n)}\frac{\partial
\upsilon^{(m)}_j}{\partial x_i}- \delta_{(m)(2n)}\frac{\partial
\upsilon^{(k)}_i}{\partial
x_j}+(-1)^{k+1}\delta_{(k+m)(2n-1)}\delta_{ij}\right)\delta(x-y)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta_{(k)(m)}$ is the Kronecker symbol. Note that there are
non-zero Poisson brackets between $\rho$ and $\upsilon^{(k)}_i$ for
$k=2n$, while the Poisson brackets between $\upsilon^{(k)}_i $ and
$\upsilon^{(m)}_i$ are non-zero for $k=2n$ and/or $m=2n$ or
$k+m=2n-1$. In order to verify the Jacobi identities, it suffices to
use the properties of delta-function
\begin{eqnarray}
&\delta(x-y)=\delta(y-x),\quad f(x)\delta(x-y)=f(y)\delta(x-y)\nonumber\\
& \dfrac{\partial}{\partial
x_i}\delta(x-y)=-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial y_i}\delta(x-y),
\end{eqnarray}
as well as their consequences
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_i}\delta(x-y)=\frac{\partial
f(y)}{\partial y_i}\delta(x-y),\quad \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
x_i\partial y_j}\delta(x-y)&=&\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_j\partial
y_i}\delta(x-y).
\end{eqnarray}
For $\ell=1/2$ the Hamiltonian formulation above correctly
reproduces that in \cite{JNPP}.

\section{The algebra of conserved charges}\label{S4}

Within the Hamiltonian framework, conserved charges obey a symmetry
algebra chosen under the Poisson bracket. In this section, we verify
this for the model at hand.

Switching to the first order formalism introduced above, one can rewrite conserved charges associated with the $SL(2,R)$-transformations \cite{Gal22a} in the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&\int dx
\left[\frac12\rho\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k\upsilon^{(k)}_i\upsilon^{(2n-k)}_i+V(p)\right],
\\
D&=&tH-\frac12\int
dx\rho\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^{k}(k+1)\upsilon_i^{(k)}\upsilon_i^{(2n-k-1)},\nonumber
\\
K&=&t^2H-2tD-\frac12\int
dx\rho\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k\left[(n+1)(2n+1)-k(k+1)\right]\upsilon^{(k-1)}_i\upsilon^{(2n-k-1)}_i,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\upsilon^{(-1)}_i=x_i$. In order to verify that they are conserved, it suffices to use the relation
(\ref{Vcond}), the equations of motion
(\ref{HamFlEql}), and the following identities
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k\upsilon^{(k)}_i\upsilon^{(2n-k)}_i&=&{\cal
D}\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k(k+1)\upsilon^{(k)}_i\upsilon^{(2n-k-1)}_i+\frac{1}{\rho}(1+2n)x_i\frac{\partial
p}{\partial x_i},
\\
\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k(k+1)\upsilon^{(k)}_i\upsilon^{(2n-k-1)}_i&=&\frac12{\cal
D}\sum_{k=0}^{2n}(-1)^k[(n+1)(2n+1)-k(k+1)]\upsilon^{(k-1)}_i\upsilon^{(2n-k-1)}_i,
\\
\int dx\rho {\cal D}A&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int dx\rho A,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $A(t,x)$ is an arbitrary function. Computing the Poisson brackets, one reproduces the $sl(2,R)$ structure relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\{H,D\}=H, \qquad \{H,K\}=2D,\qquad \{D,K\}=K.
\end{eqnarray}

In order to establish the algebra of the acceleration generators
$C^{(k)}_i$, $k=0,1,...,2n+1$, for $\ell=n+\frac12$, it proves helpful to take into account the following identities
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Use}
\{\int dx \rho \upsilon^{(2n-k)}_i,H\}&=&\int dx \rho
\upsilon^{(2n-k+1)}_i,\quad k=1,...,2n+1
\end{eqnarray}
and $\{\int dx \rho \upsilon^{(2n)}_i,H\}=0$, which holds for $k=0$.
At this stage, let us introduce the quantities
\begin{eqnarray}
C_i^{(k)}&=&\sum_{s=0}^k\alpha(s)(-1)^st^{(k-s)}\int dx \rho
\upsilon^{(2n-s)}_i
\end{eqnarray}
with arbitrary coefficients $\alpha(s)$, and require that they are
conserved over time.
Using Eq. (\ref{Use}), one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{C}_i^{(k)}&=&\sum_{s=0}^{k-1}(-1)^s[\alpha(s)(k-s)-\alpha(s+1)]t^{(k-s-1)}\int
dx \rho \upsilon^{(2n-s)}_i,
\end{eqnarray}
which gives rise to the recurrence relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha(s)(k-s)=\alpha(s+1) \quad \Rightarrow \alpha(s)=\frac{k!}{(k-s)!}\alpha(0),
\end{eqnarray}
$\alpha(0)$ being arbitrary normalization constant. Choosing $\alpha(0)=1$, one finally gets
\begin{eqnarray}
\{H,C^{(k)}_i\}=kC^{(k-1)}_i,\quad \{D,C^{(k)}_i\}=(k-l)C^{(k)}_i
\quad \{K,C^{(k)}_i\}=(k-2l)C^{(k+1)}_i,
\end{eqnarray}
as well as
\begin{eqnarray}
\{C_i^{(k)},C_j^{(m)}\}&=&(-1)^{k}k!m!\delta_{(k+m)(2n+1)}\delta_{ij}M,\quad
M=\int dx\rho,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$ plays the role of the central charge \cite{GM11}.

\section{Conclusion}\label{S5}

To summarize, in this work the Hamiltonian formulation for the
perfect fluid equations with the $\ell$-conformal Galilei symmetry
was constructed. For an arbitrary half-integer value of the
parameter $\ell$, the Hamilton function was given and non-canonical
Poisson brackets were found, in terms of which the equations of
motion originally introduced in \cite{Gal22a} took the conventional
Hamiltonian form. Conserved charges associated with the
$\ell$-conformal Galilei group were constructed and their algebra
under the Poisson bracket was established. It was demonstrated that
within the Hamiltonian framework the algebra involved a central
charge $M$, which reflected the conservation of the mass. For
$\ell=1/2$, our results correctly reproduced the analysis in
\cite{JNPP}.

As a possible further development, it would be interesting to understand the
origin of the non-canonical Poisson bracket between the fundamental
fields. For $\ell=1/2$ and
three-dimensional space the canonical Poisson brackets can be
obtained by invoking to the Clebsch parametrization of the velocity vector
field \cite{JNPP}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\upsilon_i=\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x_i}+\alpha
\frac{\partial \beta}{\partial x_i}
\end{eqnarray*}
with three scalar functions $\theta$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$. In this
parametrization the canonical variables will be $(\rho,\theta)$ and
$(\rho\alpha,\beta)$ with nontrivial Poisson brackets
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{\rho(x),\theta(y)\}=\delta(x-y),\quad
\{\alpha(x),\beta(y)\}=\frac{1}{\rho}\delta(x-y).
\end{eqnarray*}
Whether a similar parametrization is possible in any dimension
and for an arbitrary half-integer $\ell$ deserves a separate study.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author thanks A. Galajinsky for suggesting the problem, useful
discussions, and reading the manuscript.


\section{Introduction}
The correspondence between monogenic functions and holomorphic functions
of severable variables is essential for the study of the spectral theory of systems
of linear operators $\bA = (A_1,\dots,A_n)$ acting in a Banach space $X$. Functions $f(\bs A)$
of the $n$-tuple $\bA$ are formed by the analogue
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:1}
f(\bA) = \int_{\pd\Om} G_\om(\bA)\bs n(\om)f(\om)\,d\mu(\om)
\end{equation}
of the Riesz-Dunford functional calculus
$$\varphi(T) = \frac1{2\pi i}\int_C (\lambda I-T)^{-1}\varphi(\lambda) \, d\lambda$$
for a single operator $T$. The simple contour $C$ surrounds the spectrum $\s(T)$
of $T$ and is contained in the domain $U$ of the holomorphic function $\varphi:U\to\C$.
In formula (1), $\Omega$ is an open subset $\R^{n+1}$ whose boundary $\pd\Om$
is an oriented $n$-manifold with surface measure $\mu$ and outward unit normal
$\bs n(\om)$ at $\om\in \pd\Om$. The Cauchy kernel
$\om\mapsto G_\om(\bs A)$ is the analogue of the resolvent $\lambda \mapsto (\lambda I-T)^{-1}$
of the operator $T$ and in the case $n=1$ where $\R^2$ is identified with $\C$, we have
$$G_\lambda(T) = \frac1{2\pi i}(\lambda I-T)^{-1}.$$
In higher dimensions, various methods are used to define the Cauchy kernel $G_\om(\bs A)$ depending
on the properties of the $n$-tuple $\bA$ of operators and the complement $\g(\bA)\subset \R^{n+1}$
of the domain of $\om \mapsto G_\om(\bs A)$ is the \textit{monogenic spectrum} of $\bA$.
The function $f$ is left monogenic in a neighbourhood of $\overline \Om$ in the sense that
it satisfies a higher dimensional analogue of the Cauchy-Riemann equations.

For bounded linear operators $A_1,\dots,A_n$ acting on $X$ that do not necessarily commute with each other, a polynomial $p:\R^n\to \C$
has a unique left monogenic extension $\tilde p$ to $\R^{n+1}$ and $\tilde p(A):X\to X$
is the linear operator formed by taking corresponding linear combinations of \textit{symmetric} operator products. For example, if $p(x_1,x_2) = x_1x_2$,
then $\tilde p(A_1,A_2) =\frac12(A_1A_2+A_2A_1)$.
More generally if $\varphi:U \to \C$ is a holomorphic function of $n$ complex variables with a sufficiently large domain $U\subset \C^n$, then we may define the operator $\varphi(\bA)$ to be the operator
$f_\varphi(\bA)$ given by formula (\ref{eqn:1})
for the monogenic extension $f_\varphi$ of $\varphi$ restricted to $U\cap\R^n$, when this is a nonempty
open subset of $\R^n$.

In order for the operator theory to make sense beyond polynomial functions, we require a clear understanding of the correspondence between
a holomorphic function $\varphi$ and its monogenic counterpart $f_\varphi$.The setup established in this note
is summarised by the following diagram with respect to the open unit ball
$B_1(0) = \{x\in\R^{n+1} : |x| < 1\ \}$ in $\R^{n+1}$, $n=1,2,\dots$, and the
\textit{Lie ball}
$$L_k=\{\z\in\C^{k} : |\z|^2 + \sqrt{|\z|^4-|\z_1^2+\dots+\z_k^2|^2} < 1\ \} $$
in $\C^k$, $k=1,2,\dots$ (the Lie ball is an example of a Cartan domain and hermitian symmetric
space\footnote{\text{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitian\_symmetric\_space}}):
\begin{equation}\label{diag}
\begin{tikzcd}
&(L_{n+1},\tilde f_\varphi)\ar[d, "v"]\\
(L_n,\varphi)\ar[r, "u"]\ar[ru, "w"]&(B_1(0),f_\varphi)
\end{tikzcd}
\text{ or }
\begin{tikzcd}
&\cC\cR(L_{n+1})\ar[d, "v"]\\
\cH(L_n)\ar[r, "u"]\ar[ru, "w"]&\cM(B_1(0)).
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
The map $v$ is just the restriction mapping $v:\tilde f_\varphi\mapsto f_\varphi$,  $f_\varphi=\tilde f_\varphi\restriction B_1(0)$ that sends left complex regular functions on $L_{n+1}$ (the function space $\cC\cR(L_{n+1})$) to left monogenic functions defined on $B_1(0)$
(the function space $\cM(B_1(0))$). The Cauchy integral formula shows that $v$ is a bijection. We seek to
construct the map $w$ that sends a holomorphic function $\varphi:L_n\to \C$ to
its complex regular extension  $\tilde f_\varphi\in \cC\cR(L_{n+1})$.

In the case that the monogenic spectrum
$\g(\bA)$ of the $n$-tuple $\bA$ is contained in $B_1(0)$, the operator $\varphi(\bA)$ is defined by
$\varphi(\bA)e_0 = f_\varphi(\bA)$ for each $\varphi \in \cH(L_n)$. Even if
$$\|\bA\|=\left(\|A_1\|^2+\dots+\|A_n\|^2\right)^\frac12 < 1,$$
we can only conclude that $\g(\bA)\subseteq B_{1+\sqrt2}(0)$ \cite[Equation (4.9)]{J}.

Under the spectral reality condition $\s\big(\langle \bA,\xi\big)\subset \R$, $\xi\in \R^n$ (or briefly, $\bA$ is a \textit{hyperbolic}
$n$-tuple of operators), the Cauchy kernel $G_\om(\bs A)$ is defined via a plane wave formula,
$\g(\bA) \subset \R^n \equiv \{0\}\times \R^n$ and the corresponding function space diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
&(\{0\}\times\g(\bA),\tilde f_\varphi)\ar[d, "v"]\\
(\g(\bA),\varphi)\ar[r, "u"]\ar[ru, "w"]&(\{0\}\times\g(\bA),f_\varphi)
\end{tikzcd}
\text{ or }
\begin{tikzcd}
&\cC\cR(\{0\}\times\g(\bA))\ar[d, "v"]\\
\cH(\g(\bA))\ar[r, "u"]\ar[ru, "w"]&\cM(\{0\}\times\g(\bA))
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is simply obtained from the Cauchy-Kowaleski extension of $\varphi$  \cite[Sections 3.5, 4.2]{J}---
strong spectral properties of the $n$-tuple $\bA$ serve to simplify the associated function theory.

The functional calculus $f\mapsto f(\bs A)$ for the $n$-tuple $\bA$ was introduced to motivate
the function space problems considered here and we will not mention them below. Further details
are in \cite{J} and may also appear in a future monograph of the author.

We start in Section 2 with a brief review of Clifford analysis and complex regular functions.
The Cauchy-Hua representation for functions holomorphic in $L_n$ in terms of
their distributional boundary values is included. In section 3 we ...

\section{Clifford Analysis}
A
Clifford algebra\index{Clifford!algebra|(} $\cA$ with $n$ generators
is formed by taking the smallest real or complex algebra $\cA$ with an identity
element $e_0$ such that $\R\oplus\R^n$ is embedded in $\cA$ via the
identification of $(x_0,\bs x)\in\R\oplus\R^n $ with $x_0 e_0+\bs x\in \cA$
and the identity
$$\bs x^2 = -|\bs x|^2e_0 = -(x_1^2+x_2^2+\cdots+x_n^2)e_0$$
holds for all $\bs x\in\R^n$. Then we arrive at the following
definition.

Let $\F$ be either the field $\R$ of real numbers or the
field $\C$ of complex numbers. The {\it Clifford algebra\index{Clifford!algebra}}
$\Fn$\glossary{$\Fn$} over $\F$ is a
$2^n$-dimensional algebra with unit defined as follows. Given the standard basis vectors
$e_0, e_1,\dots,e_n$ of the vector space $\F^{n+1}$, the basis vectors $e_S$ of
$\Fn$ are indexed by all finite subsets $S$ of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. The basis vectors are
determined by the following rules for multiplication on $\Fn$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
e_0 = 1,\qquad&&\cr
e_j^2 = -1,\qquad&&{\rm for}\quad 1 \leq j \leq n\cr
e_je_k =
-e_ke_j = e_{\{j,k\}},\qquad&&{\rm for}\quad 1 \leq j < k  \leq n\cr
e_{j_1}e_{j_2}\cdots e_{j_s} = e_S,\qquad&&
{\rm if}\quad 1 \leq j_1 < j_2 < \dots<
j_s
\leq n\\
&&\qquad\qquad{\rm and}\quad S=\{j_1,\dots,j_s\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\glossary{$e_S$}
Here the identifications $e_0 =
e_\emptyset$ and $e_j = e_{\{j\}}$ for $1 \leq j \leq n$ have been made.

Suppose that $m \leq n$ are positive integers. The vector space $\R^m$ is identified with a
subspace of $\Fn$ by virtue of the embedding $(x_1,\dots,x_m)\longmapsto \sum_{j=1}^mx_je_j$. On
writing the coordinates of $x\in\R^{n+1}$ as $x = (x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n)$, the space $\R^{n+1}$ is
identified with a linear subspace of $\Fn$ with the embedding $(x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n)\longmapsto
\sum_{j=0}^nx_je_j$.

The product of two elements $u = \sum_S u_S e_S$  and $v = \sum_S v_S  e_S,
v_S
\in \F$ with coefficients $u_S \in \F$ and $v_S \in \F$ is $uv = \sum_{S,R}u_S v_R e_S e_R$. According
to the rules for multiplication,
$e_Se_R$ is $\pm1$ times a basis vector of $\Fn$. The {\it scalar part} of $u = \sum_S u_S e_S,
u_S
\in \F$ is the term $u_\emptyset$, also denoted as $u_0$.

The Clifford algebras $\R_{(0)},\R_{(1)}$ and $\R_{(2)}$ are the real,
\glossary{$\R_{(0)}$}\glossary{$\R_{(1)}$}\glossary{$\R_{(2)}$}
complex numbers and the
quaternions\index{quaternions}, respectively. In the case of $\R_{(1)}$, the vector $e_1$ is identified with
$i$ and for $\R_{(2)}$, the basis vectors $e_1, e_2, e_1e_2$ are
identified with $i,j,k$ respectively.

The conjugate $\overline{{e_S}}$ of a basis element $e_S$ is defined so that $e_S\overline {e_S}
=
\overline {e_S}e_S = 1$. Denote the complex conjugate of a number $c \in \F$ by
$\overline c$. Then the operation of {\it conjugation\index{Clifford!conjugation}}
$u\longmapsto\overline{u}$\glossary{$\overline{u}$} defined by
$\overline u = \sum_S \overline{u_S}\,\overline{e_S}$ for every $u = \sum_S u_S e_S, u_S \in
\F$ is an involution of the Clifford algebra $\Fn$ and $\overline{vu}=\overline{u}\,
\overline{v}$ for all elements $u$ and $v$ of $\Fn$. Because $e_j^2=-1$, the conjugate
$\overline{e_j}$ of $e_j$ is $-e_j$.
An inner product is defined on $\Fn$ by
the formula $(u,v) = [u\overline{v}]_0 = \sum u_S\overline{v_S}$ for every $u = \sum_S u_S e_S$
and $v =
\sum_S v_S e_S$ belonging to $\Fn$. The corresponding norm is written as $|\cdot|$.

The induced norm on $\F^{n+1}\subset \Fn$ is the usual Euclidean norm
$$|x|=|(x_0,\dots,x_n))| = \sqrt{|x_0|^2+ \dots+ |x_n|^2},$$
so that $|x|^2= [x\overline x]_0$.
For $\z\in \C^{n+1}$ with $\z =\z_0e_0+\bs\z$, $\bs\z =\z_1e_1+\dots+\z_ne_n$,
we write $\overline{\z}^\C = \z_0e_0-\bs\z$ and $|\z|_\C$ for the square root of
$[\z\overline{\z}^\C]_0 =\z_0^2+\dots+\z_n^2$ with positive real part
if $\z\overline{\z}^\C\in\C\setminus(-\infty,0]$ and $|0|_\C=0$.
For $\bs\z$, $\bs\chi\in \C^n$, $\langle\bs\z,\bs\chi\rangle = [\bs\z\overline{\bs\chi}^\C]_0
= \z_1\chi_1+\dots+ \z_n\chi_n$ defines a bilinear form on $\C^n$.

Because $x = (x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\R^{n+1}$ is identified
with the element $\sum_{j=0}^n x_je_j$ of $\R_{(n)}$, the conjugate $\overline x$
of $x$ in $\R_{(n)}$ is $x_0e_0 -x_1e_1-\cdots -x_ne_n$. A useful feature of Clifford algebras
is that a nonzero vector $x\in \R^{n+1}$ has an inverse $x^{-1}$ in the algebra
$\R_{(n)}$ (the {\it Kelvin inverse\index{Kelvin inverse}}) given by
$$
x^{-1} = \frac{\overline{x}}{|x|^2} = \frac{x_0e_0-x_1e_1-\cdots -x_ne_n}
{x_0^2+x_1^2+\cdots +x_n^2}.
$$
The vector $x = (x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\R^{n+1}$ will often be written as  $x = x_0e_0 +\bs x$ with
$\bs x= (x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\R^n$.

The operator of
differentiation of a scalar function in the
$j$th coordinate in $\F^{n+1}$ is denoted by $\pd_j$
for $j=0,1,\dots,n$.

A continuously differentiable function $f:U \to \Cn$ with $f =
\sum_Sf_Se_S$ defined in an
open subset $U$ of $\F^{n+1}$, the functions $Df$ and $fD$ are defined by
\begin{align*}
Df &= \sum_S\left((\pd_0
f_S)e_S+\sum_{j=1}^n(\pd_j f_S)e_je_S\right)\\
fD &= \sum_S\left((\pd_0
f_S)e_S+\sum_{j=1}^n(\pd_j f_S)e_Se_j\right).
\end{align*}
Then $f$ is said to be
{\it left monogenic\index{function!left monogenic|(}} in
$U$ if
$Df(x) = 0$ for all $x\in U$ and {\it right monogenic\index{function!right monogenic}} in $U$ if
$fD(x) = 0$ for all $x\in U$ in the case $\F=\R$ and {\it two-sided monogenic} for both left and right monogenic functions. In the complex case $\F=\C$, we use the
term \textit{complex regular} instead of monogenic. The collection of all such $\Cn$-valued functions is written as $\cM(U)$
in the left monogenic case $\F=\R$ and $\cC\cR(U)$ in the left complex regular case $\F=\C$. They form
 Fr\'echet spaces with the compact-open topology and pointwise vector operations.

The operator conjugate to $D$ is defined by
$$\overline D =e_0\pd_0 - \sum_{j=1}^ne_j\pd_j$$
so that the Laplace operator $\Delta =\pd_0^2+\dots+\pd_{n}^2$ in $\R^{n+1}$ has factoriisations
$$\Delta = D\overline D=\overline D D$$
so that if $u$ is a harmonic function then $\overline D u$ is a left monogenic and
$u\overline D$ is right monogenic function.
\subsection{Cauchy integral formula}
Let $\sigma_n$ denote the volume
${2\pi^{\frac{n+1}{2}}/\Gamma\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)}$ of the unit
$n$-sphere $S^n=\{x\in \R^{n+1}: |x|=1 \}$ in $\R^{n+1}$. If $\G_{n+1}$ is the fundamental solution
of the Laplace operator in $\R^{n+1}$ satisfying $\Delta \G_{n+1}=\delta_0$, then
\begin{align*}
E(x) &= (\overline D\G_{n+1})(x)\\
&= \frac{1}{\sigma_n}\, \frac{\overline x}{|x|^{n+1}}
\end{align*}
defined for all $x\ne 0$ belonging to $\R^{n+1}$ is the fundamental solution of
the operator $D$, that is, $DE = \delta_0e_0$ in the sense of Schwartz distributions.

Let $G_\om(x) = E(\om-x)$ for all $\omega\neq x$ belonging to $\R^{n+1}$. For operator theory,
the time honoured strategy is to replace the vector $x$ by the $n$-tuple $\bA$ in a sensible way
to obtain the Cauchy kernel $G_\om(\bA)$, depending on the joint spectral properties of $\bA$.
In the case $n=1$, the equality $G_\om(x)=\frac1{2\pi}(\om-x)^{-1}$ holds.

Suppose that $f:U\to\Cn$ is a left monogenic function defined on an open subset $U$ of $\R^{n+1}$.
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open set with $\overline \Omega \subset U$ and a boundary $\pd\Omega$
which is an orientable $n$-dimensional manifold with hypersurface measure $\mu$ and outward unit normal
$\bs n(\om)$ at $\om \in \pd\Omega$. Then
$$f(x)=\int_{\pd \Omega}G_\omega(x)\bs n(\omega)f(\omega)\,d\mu(\omega)$$
for every $x\in\Omega$ and the integral is zero otherwise.

If we define
$$G_\omega(\z) = \frac{1}{\sigma_n}\, \frac{\overline{\om-\z}^\C}{|\om-\z|_\C^{n+1}}$$
and
$\tilde f(\z)=\int_{\pd \Omega}G_\omega(\z)\bs n(\omega)f(\omega)\,d\mu(\omega)$
for every $\z\in\C^{n+1}$ with
\begin{align}
&\g_\C(\z)=\{x\in \R^{n+1}: |x-\z|_\C^2=0\} \subset \Omega\quad\text{  ($n$ odd) or }\label{odd}\\\
&\g_\C(\z)= \{x\in \R^{n+1}: |x-\z|_\C^2\in (-\infty,0]\} \subset \Omega\quad\text{  ($n$  even)},\label{even}
 \end{align}
 then
 \begin{align*}
D\tilde f&= D\int_{\pd \Omega}G_\omega\bs n(\omega)f(\omega)\,d\mu(\omega)\\
 &= \int_{\pd \Omega}DG_\omega\bs n(\omega)f(\omega)\,d\mu(\omega)
 =0,
 \end{align*}
 so $\tilde f$ is a left complex regular function on the open set $\kappa(\Omega)$ of $\z\in\C^{n+1}$ where
 either conditions (\ref{odd}) or (\ref{even}) hold. In the integrals above, the function
 $\omega\mapsto G_\omega$, $\omega\in \pd\Omega$ has values in $C^\infty(\kappa(\Omega))$
 and $\cC\cR(\kappa(\Omega))$,
 facilitating the application of the differentiation operator $D$ under the integral sign and giving the zero function.

 Because $\kappa(\Omega)\cap \R^{n+1} = \Omega$ if $n$ is either odd or even, $\tilde f\restriction \Omega = f$
 ensuring that the map $f\mapsto \tilde f$ is a bijection from $\cM(\Omega)$ onto $\cC\cR(\kappa(\Omega))$.

\section{The Lie Ball}
Let $v:\cC\cR(L_{n+1})\to \cM(B_1(0))$ be the mapping restricting a left complex regular function on
the Lie ball to a left monogenic function on the Euclidean ball $B_1(0)$ in $\R^{n+1}$.
We first see that the Cauchy integral formula provides a bijection $v^{-1}:f\mapsto \tilde f$ from $\cM(B_1(0))$ onto $\cC\cR(L_{n+1})$.

\begin{xmp} \label{prp:Lieball}Let $n=1,2,\dots$ and  $B_1(0) = \{x\in\R^{n+1} : |x| < 1\}$. Then
$\kappa( B_1(0) ) = L_{n+1}$ where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Lie}
L_{n+1} = \{\z\in\C^{n+1} : |\z|^2 + \sqrt{|\z|^4-||\z|_\C^2|^2} < 1\ \}
\end{equation}
is the {\it Lie ball}\/ in $\C^{n+1}$.

Let $\z\in \C^{n+1}$ and suppose that
$\z=\xi+i\eta$ with $\xi,\eta\in\R^{n+1}$. If $\eta = 0$, then
$\g_\C(\z) = \{\xi\}$ so that $B_1(0) \subset \kappa( B_1(0) ) $. Moreover,
$$L_{n+1}\cap(\{0\}\times\C^{n}) = \{0\}\times L_{n},\quad n=1,2,\dots\,.$$

To establish the identity $\kappa( B_1(0) ) = L_{n+1}$, suppose that $\eta\neq 0$.
According to conditions (\ref{odd}) and (\ref{even}),
the set
$\g_\C(\z)$ is an $(n-1)$-dimensional ball or sphere  with radius $|\eta|$ in $\R^{n+1}$, lying
in the hyperplane with normal
$\eta$ and passing through $\xi\in\R^{n+1}$.

Let $0 \le \angle({\xi,\eta})\le \pi$ be the angle
between $\xi$ and $\eta$ in $\R^{n+1}$, that is $\langle\xi,\eta\rangle =
|\xi|.|\eta|\cos(\angle({\xi,\eta}))$. The projection of $\xi$ onto $\{\eta\}^\perp$ has length
$|\xi|\sin(\angle({\xi,\eta}))$ and the projection of $\xi$ onto $\eta$ has length
$|\xi|\cos(\angle({\xi,\eta}))$.

The projection of $\g_\C(\z)$ onto $\{\eta\}^\perp$
is a ball or sphere whose maximum distance from the origin is
$|\xi|\sin(\angle({\xi,\eta})) + |\eta|$ in the direction of the projection
of $\xi$ onto $\{\eta\}^\perp$. Because $\{\eta\}^\perp$ is distant
$|\xi||\cos(\angle({\xi,\eta}))|$ from the hyperplane in $\R^{n+1}$ in which $\g_\C(\z)$
lies, the maximum distance  from the origin of points belonging to $\g_\C(\z)$ is
$$\sqrt{|\xi|^2\cos^2(\angle({\xi,\eta})) + (|\xi|\sin(\angle({\xi,\eta})) + |\eta|)^2},$$ so
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \{\z\in\C^{n+1}: \g_\C(\z) \subset B_1(0) \}\\
&&\quad = \{\z\in\C^{n+1}:\z=\xi+i\eta,\ \eta\neq0,\ |\xi|^2+|\eta|^2 +
2|\xi| |\eta|\sin(\angle({\xi,\eta})) < 1 \}\cup B_1(0)\cr
&&\quad = \{\z\in\C^{n+1}:\z=\xi+i\eta, \ |\xi|^2+|\eta|^2 + 2(|\xi|^2
|\eta|^2-\langle\xi,\eta\rangle^2)^\frac12 < 1
\} \cr
&&\quad =\{\z\in\C^{n+1} : |\z|^2 + \sqrt{|\z|^4-||\z|_\C^2|^2} < 1\ \}
\end{eqnarray*}
is a connected open set and the equality (\ref{eqn:Lie}) follows.
Consequently, any left monogenic function $f:B_1(0)\longrightarrow\C_{(n)} $
has a unique complex left monogenic extension
$\tilde f:L_{n+1}\longrightarrow\C_{(n)} $ to the Lie ball $L_{n+1}$ in $\C^{n+1}$
\cite[Proposition 7]{Ry1}.
\end{xmp}

 \begin{rem} As noted above,
 $$|\z|^2 + \sqrt{|\z|^4-||\z|_\C^2|^2} = |\xi|^2+|\eta|^2 + 2(|\xi|^2
|\eta|^2-\langle\xi,\eta\rangle^2)^\frac12,\quad\text{for } \z=\xi+i\eta,\ \xi,\eta\in\R^n,$$
and so $\|\z\|_{L_n} = \left(|\z|^2 + \sqrt{|\z|^4-||\z|_\C^2|^2}\right)^\frac12$ is a norm on $\C^n$
satisfying $$|\xi+i\eta| \le \|\xi+i\eta\|_{L_n} \le |\xi|+|\eta|,\quad \xi,\eta\in\R^n.$$
It turns out that $(\C^n,\|\cdot\|_{L_n})$ is the projective tensor product $\R^n\hat\otimes_\pi\C$
with respect to the corresponding Euclidean norms on $\R^n$ and $\C$ \cite[Equation (1.7)]{Mori1}, \cite[Theorem 3.17)]{Mori2}.
 \end{rem}

\section{Holomorphic functions on the Lie ball}
For a continuous function $f$ on the closed unit disk $D_1=\{z\in\C:|z|\le1\ \}$
that is holomorphic inside $D_1$, the Cauchy integral formula
$$f(z) =\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{S^1}\frac1{\s - z}f(\s)\,d\s,\quad z\in\C,\ |z| < 1,$$
represents $f$ in terms of an integral of its boundary values over the unit circle
$$S^1=\{z\in\C:|z|=1\}.$$
More generally, there is a bijective correspondence between holomorphic functions $f$
defined on the open unit disk $\{z\in\C:|z| <1\}$ and \textit{hyperfunctions} $T(e^{i\theta})$
on $S^1$ whose Fourier coefficients satisfy $c_m = 0$ for $m < 0$. The \textit{Cauchy-Hua integral formula}
$$f(z) =\left(T(e^{i\theta}),(1-e^{-i\theta}z)^{-1}\right),\quad z\in\C,\ |z| < 1,$$
represents the holomorphic function in terms of its boundary values $T(e^{i\theta})$.

Following M.Morimoto \cite{Mori1,Mori2}, we see how both the correspondence  and the
Cauchy-Hua integral formula extend from the open unit disk in $\C$
to the Lie ball $L_n$ in $\C^n$. We use the Cauchy-Hua integral formula
for $\cH(L_n)$ to contruct the map $u:\cH(L_n)\to\cM(B_1(0))$ in the diagram
(\ref{diag}) above.

The Hilbert space $L^2(S^{n-1})$ with respect to the invariant Borel probability measure $\mu_{n-1}$
on $S^{n-1}$ has an orthogonal decomposition $L^2(S^{n-1}) =\oplus_{k=0}^\infty \cH^k(S^{n-1})$
into spaces $\cH^k(S^{n-1})$ spherical harmonics of degree $k=0,1,\dots$\,. Spherical harmonics on $S^n$
are systematically treat in \cite[Chapter 2]{Mori2}.

The orthogonal projection
$T_k:L^2(S^{n-1})\to \cH^k(S^{n-1})$ is given by
$$(T_kf)(\om) = N(k,n)\int_{S^{n-1}} P_{k,n}(\langle \tau,\om\rangle)f(\tau)\,d\mu_{n-1}(\tau)$$
for $N(k,n) = \dim\cH^k(S^{n-1}) = \frac{(2k+n-2)(k+n-3)!}{k!(n-2)!}$. The Legendre polynomials
are defined by the generating formula
$$(1-2tr+r^2)^{-\frac{n-2}2} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{n-2}{2k+n-2}N(k,n)P_{k,n}(t)r^k$$
for $n =3,4,\dots$ and $P_{k,2}(t) = \cos(k\cos^{-1}t)$, $k=0,1,\dots$  \cite[Equations (1.22), (1.23)]{Mori1}.
Note that in the monograph \cite{Mori2}, the $n$-sphere $S^n$ in $\R^{n+1}$ is considered and the corresponding notation is $N(k,n-1)$ and $P_{k,n-1}$ for the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$
in $\R^n$---we have opted for typographical convenience in the present context.

Let $\Sigma^n =\{e^{i\theta}\omega:\theta\in\R,\ \omega\in S^{n-1}\}$ be the \textit{Lie sphere}.
The Hilbert space $L^2(\Sigma^n)$ defined with respect to the probability measure $\pi^{-1}d\theta d\mu_{n-1}(\omega)$ has an orthogonal decomposition
$L^2(\Sigma^n) =\oplus_{(m,k)\in\Lambda}^\infty \cH^{m,k}(\Sigma^n)$,
$\Lambda =\{m\equiv k \mod2,\ k=0,1,\dots \}$ with
$$\cH^{m,k}(\Sigma^n) = \{e^{im\theta}S_k: S_k\in \cH^k(S^{n-1})\ \},\quad\text{for }(m,k)\in\Lambda .$$

The orthogonal projection $T_{m,k}:L^2(\Sigma^n) \to \cH^{m,k}(\Sigma^n)$ is given by
$$(T_{m,k}f)(e^{i\theta}\omega) = \pi^{-1}N(k,n)\int_0^\pi \int_{S^{n-1}}
e^{im(\theta-\phi)}P_{k,n}(\langle \tau,\om\rangle)f(e^{im\phi}\tau)\,d\phi d\mu_{n-1}(\tau).$$
For $f\in L^2(\Sigma^n)$, the function $S_{m,k}f\in \cH^k(S^{n-1})$ is defined by
$(S_{m,k}f)(\om) = (T_{m,k}f)(\om)$ for $\om\in S^{n-1}$. Then $S_{m,k}f$ is the restriction to
$S^{n-1}$ of the complex polynomial
$$(S_{m,k}f)(z) = \pi^{-1}N(k,n)\int_0^\pi \int_{S^{n-1}}
e^{-im\phi}P_{k,n}(\langle \tau,z\rangle)f(e^{im\phi}\tau)\,d\phi d\mu_{n-1}(\tau),\quad z\in\C^n.$$
The unique harmonic homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ equal to $S_{m,k}f$ on $S^{n-1}$ is
$$(\tilde S_{m,k}f)(z)  = |z|_\C^k(S_{m,k}f)(z/|z|_\C),\quad  z\in\C^n.$$
The unique \textit{monogenic} homogeneous polynomial $U_{m,k}f$ of degree $k$ equal to $S_{m,k}f$ on $S^{n-1}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{monopoly}
\z\mapsto\pi^{-1}N(k,n)\int_0^\pi \int_{S^{n-1}}
e^{-im\phi}P_{k,n}(\langle \tau,\bs \z\rangle -\z_0\tau)f(e^{im\phi}\tau)\,d\phi d\mu_{n-1}(\tau),\quad \z\in\C^{n+1}.
\end{equation}

Let $\Lambda_+ =\{(m,k)\in\Lambda: k\le m\}$. It turns out that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:holo}
f(z) =\sum_{(m,k)\in\Lambda_+} |z|_\C^{m-k}(\tilde S_{m,k}f)(z),\quad z\in L_n,
\end{equation}
for every holomorphic function $f:L_n\to \C$ \cite[Equation (3.34)]{Mori1}. The sum converges uniformly
on every compact subset of the Lie ball $L_n$ in $\C^n$.

The space of real analytic functions on the analytic manifold $\Sigma^n$ is denoted by $\cA(\Sigma^n)$.
It has the inductive limit topology defined by holomorphic functions on open sets containing $\Sigma^n$
in $\C^n$. Elements of $\cA'(\Sigma^n)$ are called \textit{hyperfunctions} and the holomorphic function given by
(\ref{eqn:holo}) has a trace $T_f(e^{i\theta}\om) \in \cA'(\Sigma^n)$ given by
$$T_f(e^{i\theta}\om) = \sum_{(m,k)\in\Lambda_+}e^{im\theta}(S_{m,k}f)(\om) $$
with respect to the bilinear form \cite[Equation (5.18)]{Mori1}, see \cite[Theorem 5.2]{Mori1} and \cite[Theorem 5.7]{Mori2} in the case of $L_{n+1}$. Furthermore, the \textit{Cauchy-Hua} formula
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:CauchyH}
f(z) =\left\langle|\om - e^{-i\theta}z|_\C^{-n},T_f(e^{i\theta}\om)\right\rangle,\quad z\in L_n,
\end{equation}
holds with respect to the bilinear pairing $\left\langle \cA(\Sigma^n),\cA'(\Sigma^n)\right\rangle$.

With the $\C^{n+1}$-valued $n$-form
$$\bs \om(d\z)=\sum_{j=0}^ne_j d\z_0\wedge\dots\wedge\widehat{d\z_j}\wedge\dots\wedge d\z_n,$$
the Cauchy integral formula for a left complex regular function $f:U\to \Cn$  is
$$f(z) = \int_{\partial M}G_\z(z)\bs \om(d\z)f(\z),\quad  z\in M .$$

The closure $\overline M$ of the real $(n+1)$ manifold $M$ is contained in the open subset $U$
of $\C^{n+1}$ and its boundary $\partial M$ is an orientable $n$-manifold.

\begin{lem} There exists a unique $\C^{n+1}$-valued function
$$(e^{i\theta}\om,z)\mapsto\widetilde{ |\om - e^{-i\theta}z|_\C^{-n}},\quad \om\in S^{n-1},\ \theta\in\R,z\in L_{n+1}$$
analytic on $\Sigma_n$ and complex regular on $L_{n+1}$ such that
$$\widetilde{|\om - e^{-i\theta}z|_\C^{-n}} = |\om - e^{-i\theta}z|_\C^{-n}e_0,\quad\text{for all } z\in L_n.$$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof} Let $\tau = e^{i\theta}\om$ for some $\om\in S^{n-1}$ and $\theta\in\R$ and let
$$\Phi_{\tau}(z) = {\rm s}\int_{\Sigma^n} G_\z(z)\bs\om(d\z)|\om - e^{-i\theta}\z|_\C^{-n}$$
be the symbolic integral \cite[Equation (5.18)]{Mori1} for  $z\in L_{n+1}$. Then $\Phi_{\tau}$ is complex regular in $L_{n+1}$ simply
by differentiating on the integral sign. Expanding the function
$$\z\mapsto |\om - e^{-i\theta}\z|_\C^{-n},\quad \z\in L_n,$$
into homogeneous harmonic polynomials, formula (\ref{monopoly}) together with the symbolic integral \cite[Equation (5.18)]{Mori1} gives the corresponding expansion in
homogeneous monogenic polynomials. The function $\z\mapsto P_{k,n}(\langle \tau,\bs \z\rangle -\z_0\tau)$ is a homogeneous polynomial
in $\z=(\z_0,\z_1,\dots,\z_n)\in\C^{n+1}$ and by \cite[Lemma 3.24, Theorem 2.29]{Mori2}
$$|P_{k,n}(\langle \tau,\bs \z\rangle -\z_0\tau)| \le \|\z\|^k_{L_{n+1}}\sup_{\om\in S^n}|P_{k,n}(\langle \tau,\bs \om\rangle -\om_0\tau)|\le 2\|\z\|^k_{L_{n+1}}$$

It follows from the fact that $\Sigma^n$ is Cauchy homologous to a sphere $z + \e S^n$ in $\C^{n+1}\setminus\{z\}$
if $n$ is odd or in $\C^{n+1}\setminus\{\z:|\z-z|_\C^2\in(-\infty,0]\}$ for $n$ even,
that $\Phi_{\tau}$ is the corresponding expansion into homogeneous \textit{monogenic} polynomials whose converges normally on compact subsets of $L_{n+1}$,
so $\Phi_\tau(z) = \widetilde{|\om - e^{-i\theta}z|_\C^{-n}}$, $z\in L_{n+1}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm} The map $w:\cH(L_{n})\to \cC\cR(L_{n+1})$ in the diagram (\ref{diag}) is given by
$$\big(w(f)\big)(\z)=
\left\langle \widetilde{|\om - e^{-i\theta}\z|_\C^{-n}},T_f(e^{i\theta}\om)\right\rangle,\quad \z\in L_{n+1},$$
for each holomorphic function $f:L_n\to\C$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof} The function $\z\mapsto\widetilde{|\om - e^{-i\theta}\z|_\C^{-n}}$ is two-sided monogenic in the module $\cA(\Sigma_n)\otimes\Cn$,
so applying the continuous linear functional $T_f(e^{i\theta}\om)\in \cA'(\Sigma_n)$ ensures that $w(f)\in \cC\cR(L_{n+1})$.
The Cauchy-Hua formula gives $w(f) = f$ on $L_n$.
\end{proof}

\section{Application to Operator Theory}
Let $\bs A =(A_1,\dots,A_n)$ be an $n$-tuple of bounded linear operators acting on a Banach space $X$. For $\om\in \R^{n+1}$
and $|\om| >(1+\sqrt 2)\|\bs A\|_{\cL_{(n)}(X_{(n)})}$ let
$$G_\om(\bs A) = \frac1{\s_n}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \langle \bs A,\nabla\rangle^k\overline D_\om \frac{1}{|\om|^{n-1}}.$$
If, for some $0 < \delta < 1$, the function $\om \mapsto G_\om(\bs A)$ is the restriction to $B_{1-\delta}(0)^c$ of a monogenic function,
also denoted by $\om\mapsto G_\om(\bs A)$,
then $\bs A =(A_1,\dots,A_n)$ has a unique holomorphic symmetric functional calculus on $L_n$. Moreover,
there exists $M_\d(n) > 0$ such that
$$\|p(\bs A)\|_{\cL(X)}\le M_\d(n) \|p\|_{L^\infty(S^{n-1})}$$
for every homogeneous polynomial $p$.

A given holomorphic function $\varphi\in \cH(L_n)$ has a monogenic counterpart $f_\varphi = u\varphi$ defined in $B_1(0) \subset\R^{n+1}$, according to diagram (\ref{diag}).
The continuous linear operator $\varphi(\bs A)\in \cL(X)$ is defined by
$$\varphi(\bs A)e_0 = f_\varphi(\bs A) = \int_{rS^{n}}G_\om(\bs A)\bs n(\om)f_\varphi(\om)\,d\mu(\om)$$
for any $1-\d < r < 1$.

\bibliographystyle{plain}