\section{Motivation}\label{s:motivation}
The stable splitting of the spectra $\mathit{bu}\wedge{X}$ started with E. Ossa's computation of $\mathit{bu}\wedge\Sigma^{-2}B\mathbb{Z}/2\wedge{B\mathbb{Z}/2}$(see \cite{Os89}), followed by Bruner and Greenlees giving more results on $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BG}$ in \cite{BuGr91}, $BG$ the classifying space of some finite group $G$. For infinite Lie groups, Tsung Hsuan Wu proved that $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n+1)}$ also has a stable splitting \cite{Wu18}. In this paper I show that the stable splitting of $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}$ is in fact equivalent to a wedge sum of spectra related to the splitting of $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n-1)}$.

\section{Introduction}\label{s:introduction}
In this paper our cohomology has $\mathbb{Z}/2$ coefficients, so $\tilde{H}^\ast(X)$ would always stand for $\tilde{H}^\ast(X,\mathbb{Z}/2)$. $A$ will denote the mod 2 Steenrod Algebra, $\mathit{bu}$ is the spectrum of the complex connective $K$-theory, with $H^\ast(\mathit{bu})\cong{A//A(Q_{0},Q_{1})}\cong{A\otimes_{E}{\mathbb{Z}/2}}$, $E=\mathbb{Z}/2\langle{Q_{0},Q_{1}}\rangle$ the exterior algebra over the Milnor primitives $Q_{0}$ and $Q_{1}$. $H\mathbb{Z}/2$ is the $\mathbb{Z}/2$ Eilenberg-MacLane spectrum. If $Y$ is a spectrum, then $\Sigma^{m}Y$ is the suspended spectrum increased by $m$ degrees. The tensor product $\otimes$ will stand for $\otimes_{\mathit{Z}/2}$,  so all the spectra and its homotopy equivalences in this paper are 2-localised. It is a standard fact that $H^\ast(BSO(n))= \mathbb{Z}/2[\widehat{\omega_2},\widehat{\omega_3},\cdots,\widehat{\omega_{n}}]$, $\widehat{\omega_i}\in{H^{i}(BSO(n))}$ is the $i$-th Stiefel-Whitney class. We first give our result on the splitting:

\begin{theorem}\label{T:ppppp}
For every $n\geq2$, we have a stable splitting
\[
  \mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}\simeq[{\bigvee_{\alpha}}\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2]\vee[{\bigvee_{\beta}}\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}]\vee[\mathit{bu}\wedge{MSO_{2n}}],
\]
where $MSO_{2n}$ is the Thom space constructed from $BSO(2n)$. $\alpha$ are the degress of the free generators of the free $E$-submodule $M_{2n-1}$ of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$, while $\beta$ are the degrees of trivial generators of the $E$-submodule $D_{2n-1}$, with $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\cong{M_{2n-1}}\oplus{D_{2n-1}}$ as $E$-modules.
\end{theorem}

Before showing the construction of the splitting we first give some previous related results as background.

\begin{theorem}[Theorem 1.2 of  \cite{WiYa12}]\label{T:second}
For $\forall{n}\geq1$, there is a stable splitting
\[
   \mathit{bu}\wedge{BO(n)}\simeq[{\bigvee_{\alpha}}\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2]\vee[{\bigvee_{\beta}}\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}]\vee[{\bigvee_{\gamma}}\Sigma^{\gamma}\mathit{bu}\wedge{\mathbb{R}P^{\infty}}],
\]
where $\alpha=deg{d_{j}}$, $d_{j}$ are the free $E$-generators of $M$. $\beta$ and their degrees corresponds to trivial generators of $D_{1}^{\ast}$. $\gamma$ and their degrees corresponds to the monomials ${\omega_2}^{2m_{1}}{\omega_4}^{2m_{2}}\cdots{\omega_{2l}}^{2m_{l}},2l<n$.
\end{theorem}

One must find the $E$-module structure of ${H}^\ast(BO(n))$ before it can show the stable splitting. Theorem 2 has its roots in Wilson's earlier paper\cite{Wi84}, when he was trying to determine the complex cobordism of $BO(n)$, which gave ${H}^\ast(BO(n))$ as a sum of $E_{j}$-modules with generators, $E_{j}=\mathbb{Z}/2\langle{Q_{0},Q_{1},\cdots,Q_{j-1}}\rangle$ is the exterior algebra of $Q_{i},0\leq{i}\leq{j}\leq{n}$. After that they went on to build a stable map by analyzing each monomial $E$-generator to see if there is a topological map that realises them. The next 2 theorems are attributed to  \cite{Wu18}:\newline

\begin{theorem}[Theorem A of  \cite{Wu18}]\label{T:ds}
For each $n\geq1$, $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n+1))$ is isomorphic to $D_{2n+1}\oplus{M_{2n+1}}$ as an $E$-module, where $D_{2n+1}$ is a trivial $E$-module with generators $d_{J}=\widehat{\omega_2}^{2m_{1}}\widehat{\omega_4}^{2m_{2}}\cdots,\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{2m_{n}}$,  $\sum_{i=1}^{n}m_{i}>0$, $m_{i}\geq0$, and $M_{2n+1}$ is a free $E$-module with a basis of $E$-generators $T_{2n+1}=\langle{t_{i}\vert{j\in\Lambda_{2n+1}}}\rangle$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}[Theorem B of  \cite{Wu18}]\label{T:dss}
For each $n\geq1$, there is a stable splitting
\[
   \mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n+1)}\simeq[{\bigvee_{\alpha}}\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2]\vee[{\bigvee_{\beta}}\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}],
\]
where $\alpha=deg{t_{j}}$ are the degrees of the generators of $M_{2n+1}$, and $\beta$ are the degrees of the trivial generators of $D_{2n+1}$.
\end{theorem}

Some definitions here. In terms of $E$-modules, we mean a $\mathbb{Z}/2$-module $M$ equipped with the module homomorphism $\varphi:E\otimes{M}\rightarrow{M}$, defined by $E$-actions on the elements of $M$,  that is $\varphi(e\otimes{m})=e(m),e\in{E}$. A $E$-module is free if it has a basis of free $E$-generators. A trivial $E$-module has a generating set of elements such that every $E$-action excluding the identity acting on it results in zero. Now to show the splitting of  $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n+1)}$, first one uses the Adams spectral sequence \cite{Adams74} to calculate the $E_{2}^{1,\ast}$ term of $\tilde{\mathit{bu}}_{\ast}(BO(n))$, which is the group $Ext_{E}^{1,\ast}(\tilde{H}^{\ast}(BO(n)),\mathbb{Z}/2)\cong{Ext_{E_{\ast}}^{1,\ast}(\mathbb{Z}/2,\tilde{H}_{\ast}(BO(n)))}$, where $E_{\ast}=\mathbb{Z}/2\langle{\xi_{1},\xi_{2}}\rangle$ is the exterior algebra over the Milnor generators $\xi_{1}$ and $\xi_{2}$ of the dual Steenrod algebra $A_{\ast}=\mathbb{Z}/2[\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\cdots]$. The $E$-module structure of $\tilde{H}^{\ast}(BO(n))$ has already been determined in  \cite{WiYa12}, so one can calculate the Ext groups from the bar and cobar resolutions. In \cite{Wu18} one uses the epimorphism
\[
  Ext_{E_{\ast}}^{1,\ast}(\mathbb{Z}/2,\tilde{H}_{\ast}(BO(2n)))\rightarrow{Ext_{E_{\ast}}^{1,\ast}(\mathbb{Z}/2,\tilde{H}_{\ast}(BSO(2n+1)))},
\]
to track the generators in
\[
  Ext_{E_{\ast}}^{1,\ast}(\mathbb{Z}/2,\tilde{H}_{\ast}(BSO(2n+1)))\cong{Ext_{E}^{1,\ast}(\tilde{H}^{\ast}(BSO(2n+1)),\mathbb{Z}/2)}.
\]
With the knowledge of $Ext_{E}^{1,\ast}(\tilde{H}^{\ast}(BSO(2n+1)),\mathbb{Z}/2)$, the $E$-module structure of\newline$\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n+1))$ can be determined, and with it the topological splitting of $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n+1)}$. Unfortunately this fails for the even case because the homomorphism of the Ext groups
\[
  Ext_{E_{\ast}}^{1,\ast}(\mathbb{Z}/2,\tilde{H}_{\ast}(BO(2n-1)))\rightarrow{Ext_{E_{\ast}}^{1,\ast}(\mathbb{Z}/2,\tilde{H}_{\ast}(BSO(2n)))}
\]
 is not surjective because there is no stable Becker-Gottlieb transfer of the kind $BSO(2n)\rightarrow{BO(2n-1)}$ (see \cite{BeGo75}).

Luckily the splitting of $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}$ is actually related to $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n-1)}$ through its $E$-module structure, in simple words $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$ is an $E$-submodule of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$. With this special property  we can draw out the general $E$-module structure of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ and find a suitable splitting.

\section{$E$-module structure of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$}\label{s:module}

Before we prove our results some basic machinery must be mentioned. The Milnor primitives $Q_{i}$ are related to the Steenrod Squares \cite{St62} as $Q_{0}=Sq^{1},Q_{1}=Sq^{3}+Sq^{2}Sq^{1}$, so to compute $Q_{i}(\widehat\omega_{k})$ one must use the Wu formula:

\begin{proposition}[Wu formula \cite{Wu48}]
For the Stiefel-Whitney classes  $\omega_m$,
\[
  Sq^{k}(\omega_m)=\sum_{t=0}^{k}{m-k+t-1 \choose t}\omega_{k-t}\omega_{m+t},m\geq{k}.
\]
\end{proposition}

Take note that $Q_{i}$ has the property $Q_{i}(xy)=Q_{i}(x)y+xQ_{i}(y)$, which is helpful in our calculations.  For $H^{\ast}(BSO(n))$, if $2m\leq{n}$, then $Q_{0}(\widehat\omega_{2m})=\widehat\omega_{2m+1}$, and $Q_{1}(\widehat\omega_{2m})=\widehat\omega_3\widehat\omega_{2m}+\widehat\omega_{2m+3}$. While for $2m+1\leq{n}$, $Q_{0}(\widehat\omega_{2m+1})=0$,  $Q_{1}(\widehat\omega_{2m+1})=\widehat\omega_3\widehat\omega_{2m+1}$. We now find the $E$-Module structure of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$. Since this is a polynomial ring and the Stiefel Whitney classes are algebraically independent, it can also be viewed as $\mathbb{Z}/2[\widehat{\omega_2},\widehat{\omega_3},\cdots,\widehat{\omega_{2n-1}}][\widehat{\omega_{2n}}]$. Then ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ and ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$ are related as polynomial rings
\[
   {H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\cong\bigoplus_{k\geq0}{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}.
\]
The generators of the $E$-modules $D_{2n-1}$ and $M_{2n-1}$ is described in \cite{Wu18}, but the monomial generators in  $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$ might not behave the same way when applied to the $E$-action in $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$, owing to the fact that it has an extra variable $\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$. Luckily Proposition 1 tells us that all the $E$-actions of $\widehat{\omega_{i}},2\leq{i}\leq{2n-1}$ in $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$ remain the same as in $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$, so it's an $E$-submodule of $\tilde{H}^{\ast}(BSO(2n))$. We only need to worry about $\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$. $Q_{0}(\widehat{\omega_{2n}})=0$, $Q_{1}(\widehat{\omega_{2n}})=\widehat{\omega_{3}}\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$, and no $\widehat{\omega_{i}}$ can map to $\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$ through the $E$-actions, so this actually says that every  ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$ is in fact an $E$-submodule of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$:

\begin{lemma}
For every  $k\geq1, {H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$ is an $E$-submodule of\newline $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$, and $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$ is an $E$-submodule of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $x\in\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$, $Q_{i}(x)$ does not contain any factor of $\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$ in $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$, plus the $E$-actions of $\widehat{\omega_{i}}$ remains the same when they belong to $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1)),\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ respectively. As for $x\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}\in{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$, $Q_{i}(x\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k})=(Q_{i}(x)+ik\widehat{\omega_{3}}x)\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}\in{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$, also closed under $E$-actions.
\end{proof}
So one can see that  $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ is actually an infinite direct sum of $E$-submodules ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$ and $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$. Naturally one would go on and analyze each submodule to decompose them into a sum of $E$-generators, but that is not needed. The main reason is even if we did, then we might not be able to find a suitable spectra representing them. Now $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\cong{D_{2n-1}}\oplus{M_{2n-1}}$, and the quotient $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))/\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\cong\bigoplus_{k\geq1}{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}={H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$ actually corresponds to the cohomology of the Thom space $MSO_{2n}$ of $BSO(2n)$, which by the Thom isomorphism theorem, $\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})\cong{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\mu_{2n}$, $\mu_{2n}$ the unique Thom class of degree $2n$. One can see this by looking at the sphere bundle map $BSO(2n-1)\rightarrow{BSO(2n)}\rightarrow{MSO_{2n}}$, where $MSO_{2n}$ is the mapping cone \cite{Sw75}. Taking the cohomology we have a short exact sequence
\[
  0\rightarrow\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})\rightarrow\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\rightarrow\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\rightarrow0
\]
Which sends $\mu_{2n}$ to $\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$. Combined with the facts above, this can be seen as a split exact sequence. All we need to verify is that the $E$-module structure of $\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})$ is the same as $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))/\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$.
\begin{lemma}
As $E$-modules, $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\cong{\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\oplus{\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We need to show the $E$-actions of elements in $\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})$ is the same as the corresponding elements in $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$. Remember that $\widehat{\omega_{i}}=\Phi^{-1}(Sq^{i}(\mu_{2n}))$. Where $\Phi:{H}^{m}(BSO(2n))\cong{H}^{m+2n}(MSO_{2n})$ is the Thom isomorphism by $\Phi(x)=p^{\ast}(x)\mu_{2n}$ with $p:\gamma^{n}\rightarrow{BSO(2n)}$, so one can see $Sq^{i}(\mu_{2n})$ as $\widehat{\omega_{i}}\mu_{2n}$. For any $z\mu_{2n}\in\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n}),z\in{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$, we have $Q_{i}(z\mu_{2n})=Q_{i}(z)\mu_{2n}+zQ_{i}(\mu_{2n})=(Q_{i}(z)+iz\widehat{\omega_{3}})\mu_{2n}$, which behaves exactly the same as any $x\widehat{\omega_{2n}}\in{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$, plus the fact that $\mu_{2n}$ is freely generated over ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ and cannot be generated from ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ by the $E$-actions, so $\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})\cong{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$ as $E$-modules.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
From Lemma 1, each $E$-submodule ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$ can be decomposed as sums of $E$-monomial generators. If $k$ is even, then it consists of free generators $t_{i}\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$ and trivial generators $d_{J}\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$, $t_{i}\in{M_{2n-1}},d_{J}\in{D_{2n-1}}$. But for $k$ odd, besides the free $E$-generators it contains, it has a set of $E$-generators of the form $t_{j}\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k},d_{J}\widehat{\omega_{2n}}^{k}$ which are subject to the relation $Q_{0}Q_{1}=0$. The free and trivial generators have spectra to identify with, but the relational generators does not correspond to any known spectra. This is why we do not decompose the submodules furthur.
\end{remark}

Hence every $E$-generator of ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$ can correspond to a generator of $\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})$, and vice versa. With the $E$-module structure of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ settled, the stable splitting can be constructed.

\section{Splitting of the spectra}\label{s:topological}
We now can find the stable splitting of $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}$. The $E$-module structure tells us certain information about what the splitting of the spectra looks like. But first we have to use Liulevicius's theorem \cite{Liu68} to get from the original cohomology ring to the $E$-module algebra:
\begin{proposition}[Proposition1.7 of \cite{Liu68}]
$A$ is a Hopf algebra, and $B$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $A$, while $M$ and $N$ are left $A$-module and left $B$-modules respectively. We have the isomorphism
\[
   {}_D\![M\otimes(A\otimes_{E}N)]\cong{}_L\![A\otimes_{B}{}_D\!(M\otimes{N})]
\]
 as left $A$-modules.
\end{proposition}
So one can easily see that the Steenrod algebra $A$ is a Hopf algebra, and $E$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $A$, the cohomology rings are the left $A$-modules. Now $M,N$ are left $A$-modules with $A$-actions $\mu_{M},\mu_{N}$, $M\otimes{N}$ is also a left $A$-module with $A$-action defined by the following map:
\[
   A\otimes{M}\otimes{N}\rightarrow{A}\otimes{A}\otimes{M}\otimes{N}\rightarrow{A}\otimes{M}\otimes{A}\otimes{N}\rightarrow{M}\otimes{N},
\]
the first is the diagonal map tensored with the identity maps, the second map is the twist map $a\otimes{m}\rightarrow{m}\otimes{a}$ tensored with identities. The notation described above ${}_D\!(M\otimes{N})$ is $M\otimes{N}$ with this twist action. While ${}_L\!(M\otimes{N})$ means the extended $A$-action over $M$ ($A$ only acts on $M$). Also if $A$ is a left $A$-module and a right $B$-module at the same time, then $A\otimes_{B}N$ is a left $A$-module with the extended action over $A$, $N$ a left $B$-module.
\begin{remark}
According to the proposition, if we set $N=\mathbb{Z}/2$ and $B=E$, the isomorphism becomes $\theta:{}_L\![A\otimes_{E}M]\cong{}_D\![(A\otimes_{E}{\mathbb{Z}/2})\otimes{M})]$, and is given by $\theta(a\otimes{m})=\sum{a'\otimes1\otimes{a''m}}$, with inverse $\theta^{-1}(a\otimes1\otimes{m})=\sum{a'\otimes\chi(a'')m}$, where $\psi(a)=\sum{a'\otimes{a''}}$, $\chi$ is the conjugation map. The reader can check the details in \cite{Liu68}.
\end{remark}
Now ${H}^\ast(\mathit{bu}\wedge{X})\cong{{H}^\ast(\mathit{bu})}\otimes{\tilde{H}^\ast(X)}\cong{(A\otimes_{E}{\mathbb{Z}/2})\otimes{\tilde{H}^\ast(X)}}\overset{ \theta^{-1}}\cong{A\otimes_{E}\tilde{H}^\ast(X)}$ for any space $X$, so we replace it with $BSO(2n)$. Using Lemma 2 and Proposition 2 we get
\[
   {H}^\ast(\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)})\cong\newline{A\otimes_{E}\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))}\cong
\]
\[
   {A\otimes_{E}(\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\oplus{\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})})}\cong
\]
\[
   (A\otimes_{E}D_{2n-1})\oplus(A\otimes_{E}M_{2n-1})\oplus(A\otimes_{E}\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})).
\]
This is where we get to verify our construction of the maps. To prove $\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}$ is equivalent to the wedge sum of spectra described in the theorem, we construct a mapping $\Psi:\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}\rightarrow[{\bigvee_{\alpha}}\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2]\vee[{\bigvee_{\beta}}\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}]\vee[\mathit{bu}\wedge{MSO_{2n}}]$ such that it induces a mod 2 cohomology isomorphism, hence a homotopy equivalence. This map should be a wedge sum of maps that represent the monomial generators of the $E$-module structure of $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$. Due to the results of Section 3, we can see that there are 3 types of monomial generators which needs a suitable topological realisation, that is the representing spectra whose cohomology exactly are the $E$-modules generated by them. We show the construction of the maps along with the proof of the homotopy equivalence of $\Psi$.\newline
\textit{Proof} \textit{of} \textit{Theorem} \textit{1}. For the module $D_{2n-1}\subset\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))\subset\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$, we take the map $\phi\circ{h_{2n}}=\psi_{\beta}:BSO(2n)\rightarrow{\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}}$ that takes $1\in\tilde{H}^\ast(\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu})$ to each trivial generator $d_{J}$. This map leads to
\[
   \Psi_{\beta}:\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}\xrightarrow{1\wedge{h_{2n}}}\mathit{bu}\wedge{BO(2n)}\xrightarrow{1\wedge{\phi}}\mathit{bu}\wedge\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}\rightarrow\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}.
\]
The first map $1\wedge{h_{2n}}$ is the smash product of $h_{2n}$ and the identity map of $\mathit{bu}$, $h_{2n}$ is the 2-fold map, the details is described in \cite{MiSt74}. The second map $1\wedge{\phi}$ is the smash product of the identity of $\mathit{bu}$ with $\phi:BO(2n)\rightarrow\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}$, which takes 1 to a trivial generator, is described in \cite{WiYa12}. The last map is just the multiplication of the ring spectrum $\mathit{bu}$. To check the mapping of generators in cohomology, $1\in\tilde{H}^\ast(\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu})$ to $1\otimes\Sigma^{\beta}1$ then to $1\otimes{d}$, where $d$ is the $E$-trivial generator in $\tilde{H}^\ast(BO(2n))$, and finally through the 2-fold map it sends to $1\otimes{d_{J}}$, where $d_{J}$ is the trivial generator in $\tilde{H}^\ast(BSO(2n-1))$, so $\beta$ is the degree of $d_{J}$. Now from the $A$-module summand related to $d_{J}$ in ${H}^\ast(\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)})$ is just $A\otimes_{E}\Sigma^{\beta}\mathbb{Z}/2\cong\tilde{H}^\ast(\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu})$. This cyclic isomorphism map from generator to generator, hence all the trivial generators in $D_{2n-1}$ are represented by the maps.\newline For the free module $M_{2n-1}$, the free $E$-generators $t_{j}$ corresponds to the map $\psi_{\alpha}:BSO(2n)\rightarrow\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2$, whereas in the splitting it becomes:
\[
   \Psi_{\alpha}:\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}\xrightarrow{1\wedge\psi_{\alpha}}\mathit{bu}\wedge\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2\xrightarrow{\nu}\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2.
\]
The first map is just the smash product map $1\wedge\psi_{\alpha}$, the second map $\nu:\mathit{bu}\wedge{H\mathbb{Z}/2}\rightarrow{H\mathbb{Z}/2}$ is the module spectrum mapping of $H\mathbb{Z}/2$. Inspecting the cohomology mappings we find that the generator of the free $A$-module goes from $1\otimes1$ to $1\otimes{t_{i}}\in{H}^\ast(\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n-1)})\subset{H}^\ast(\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)})$. So we can see the entire map is just actually $A\rightarrow{A\otimes_{E}E}\cong{A}$ which takes free generator to free generator. The isomorphism of the free part is done. Now for the map $\Omega:\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)}\rightarrow\mathit{bu}\wedge{MSO_{2n}}$, it is just the smash product of the cofiber map $C_{Bi}:BSO(2n)\rightarrow{MSO_{2n}}$ with the spectrum $\mathit{bu}$. In the cohomology of this map, the generators are mapped $1\otimes{z\mu_{2n}}\rightarrow1\otimes{z\widehat{\omega_{2n}}}\cong{z\widehat{\omega_{2n}}}$, where $z\mu_{2n}$ is an $E$-generator in $\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})$ which maps to a generator $z\widehat{\omega_{2n}}\in{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$. So this is a cohomology map from ${H}^\ast(\mathit{bu})\otimes{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n})$ to ${H}^\ast(\mathit{bu})\otimes{H}^\ast(BSO(2n))$ such that the isomorphic image is  ${H}^\ast(\mathit{bu})$ tensored with the $E$-submodule ${H}^\ast(BSO(2n))\widehat{\omega_{2n}}$. So by taking the wedge sum of all the maps constructed above, we have $\Psi=[\bigvee_{\alpha}\Psi_{\alpha}]\vee[\bigvee_{\beta}\Psi_{\beta}]\vee\Omega$, the resulting map induces a cohomology isomorphism which maps $E$-generators to $E$-generators. This gives us
\[
   H^{\ast}([{\bigvee_{\alpha}}\Sigma^{\alpha}H\mathbb{Z}/2]\vee[{\bigvee_{\beta}}\Sigma^{\beta}\mathit{bu}]\vee[\mathit{bu}\wedge{MSO_{2n}}])\xrightarrow{H^{\ast}(\Psi)}
\]
\[
   H^{\ast}(\mathit{bu}\wedge{BSO(2n)})\cong(A\otimes_{E}D_{2n-1})\oplus(A\otimes_{E}M_{2n-1})\oplus(A\otimes_{E}\tilde{H}^\ast(MSO_{2n}))
\]
\newline So $\Psi$ is a homotopy equivalence. This completes the proof.


\section{Introduction}
\label{ch:newintro}

One of the most classical problems arising in statistical sequential analysis is the \emph{sequential hypothesis testing} (see \cite{Weld}). As described in \cite{Weld}, a sequential test of a hypothesis means any statistical test that gives a specific rule, at any stage of the experiment for making one of the three decisions: (1) to accept the null hypothesis $H_0$, (2) to reject $H_0$, (3) to continue the experiment by making additional observation. Consequently, the test is carried out \emph{sequentially}. An objective for the analysis of such test is to minimize the number of observations required to make a decision subject to a given tolerance level described as Type I and Type II errors. There are a couple of primary approaches to this problem, e.g.,  the \emph{Bayesian} and the \emph{min-max}. For the first approach, each hypothesis is assigned with an a priori probability. For the second approach, no such assumption is made and the optimal solution is known to be given by the sequential probability ratio test (see \cite{Chow}). The sequential probability ratio test is revisited and improved in various works. For a sequential decision problem, it is assumed that the amount of available information is increasing with time. But it is often difficult to handle all the data as represented by a $\sigma$-algebra as the actual amount may be very large. In \cite{Irle} a reduction method is proposed that takes into account the underlying statistical structure.

An approach of improving the sequential hypothesis testing in the Bayesian case is presented in \cite{Golubev}. The sequential testing of more than two hypotheses has many important applications. In \cite{Baum} a sequential test (termed as MSPRT), which is a generalization of the sequential probability ratio test, is studied. It is shown that, under Bayesian assumptions, the MSPRT approximates optimal tests that are more intricate when error probabilities are small and expected stopping times are large.  In \cite{Dayanik}, a sequential hypothesis test is conducted when there are finitely many simple hypotheses about the unknown arrival rate and mark distribution of a compound Poisson process, where exactly one is correct. This problem is formulated in a Bayesian framework when the objective is to determine the correct hypothesis with minimal error probability. A solution of this problem is presented in that paper. In the paper \cite{Brodsky}, an improved min-max approach to both sequential testing of many composite hypotheses and multi-decision change-point detection for composite alternatives is proposed. New performance measures for methods of hypothesis testing and change-point detection are introduced, and theoretical lower bounds for these performance measures are proved that do not depend on methods of sequential testing and detection. Minimax tests are proposed for which these lower bounds are attained asympototically as decision thresholds tend to infinity.

In the paper \cite{O} the problem of testing four hypotheses on two streams of observations is examined. Each of the hypotheses is represented by a physical state of presence or absence of a signal obstructed by noise. The objective is to minimize sampling time subject to error probabilities for distinguishing sequentially a standard versus a drifted two-dimensional Brownian motion. This work is based on some key results from \cite{Shiryayev}. A sequential decision rule consisting of a stopping rule that declares the optimal time to stop sampling and a decision variable that declares a decision of the state of our system is formulated in \cite{O}. The rule proposed is the maximum of two sequential probability ratio tests, each with distinct thresholds, and the decision variable is determined from the exit location of the two sequential probability ratio statistics. Thresholds of the proposed rule are computed in terms of the error probabilities. The paper \cite{O} shows a unique way in the construction of a test using a purely two-dimensional structure. This allows detection of a signal in each coordinate rather than merely the detection of a signal somewhere in the system, subject to error probabilities for every possible case. This method can be implemented in a \emph{decentralized} setup and still enjoy the same asymptotic optimality properties as in the other works in the existing literature. This is conducted in three sequential steps: (1) each of the individual sequential probability ratio tests is devised by each of the sensors separately, (2) two sensors communicate a binary bit of information to a central fusion center consisting of the alarm by the sequential probability ratio test and its exit side, and (3) the central fusion center makes a decision after receiving a communication from both sensors. Note that, in this case, the central fusion center does not need to have access to the full two-dimensional stream of sequential observations. In effect, this makes the system faster as  an optimal outcome can be derived with a limited level of communication.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{ch:generalization}, we generalize the result in \cite{O} to a certain class of underlying L\'evy processes, and then create a new decision rule for the size of the jumps in the underlying processes. In Section \ref{ch:bigsmalljumps}, we present the infinitesimal generator for the hypothesis testing of \emph{big} versus \emph{small} fluctuations. This is conducted by considering two L\'evy processes, where one has more \emph{jump intensity} than the other. The viscosity solution and its bounds are analyzed in that section. Finally, a brief conclusion is provided in Section \ref{conclusion}. This section directs to some future research directions based on the present work.

\section{Drift Test Generalization}
\label{ch:generalization}

For various financial time series data, \emph{jumps} play an important role. Jumps in a stochastic model are typically captured by a L\'evy process. Consequently, in this section, we generalize the analysis presented in \cite{O}. We present the analysis for the case when the signals are driven not only by a Brownian motion, but by a generalized L\'evy process. Consequently, the analysis presented is applicable for sequential decision making on the state of a two-sensor system with uncorrelated noise. Each sensor receives or does not receive a signal obstructed by said noise. This gives rise to four possibilities, viz. $\langle$noise, noise$\rangle$ (denoted by 00),  $\langle$signal, noise$\rangle$ (denoted by 10),  $\langle$noise, signal$\rangle$ (denoted by 01), and  $\langle$signal, signal$\rangle$ (denoted by 11).

The paper \cite{O} seeks to devise a two-sensor hypothesis test based upon a two-dimensional Wiener process $z=(z_1,z_2)$ where
$$dz_t^{(k)}=\sigma_k dW_t^{(k)}+\mu_k dt,\quad k=1,2,$$
where $W_t^{(k)}$ are Brownian motions with correlation $\rho$. The hypotheses
\begin{align}\label{genhyp}
\nonumber & \! \!\! \!\! \!\! \! \!\! \!\! \!\! H_{00}: \mu_1=0, \quad \mu_2=0, & H_{10}: \mu_1=m_1\neq 0, \quad \mu_2=0,  \\
 &\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \! H_{01}: \mu_1=0,\quad \mu_2=m_2\neq 0, & H_{11}: \mu_1=m_1\neq 0, \quad \mu_2=m_2 \neq 0.    \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!  \! \! \! \! \! \!
\end{align}
are tested, with decision rule based on the location of the first exit time of the log-likelihood process from a rectangle $R:=(l_1,r_1)\times (l_2,r_2)$, with $l_1<0<l_2$ and $r_1<0<r_2$, when $\rho=0$. Using the infinitesimal generator of the log-likelihood process, the problem is analyzed for the probability of a correct decision in each of the worlds $\{00,01,10,11\}$ as a function of the position of the process in the rectangle. Next, a system of equations in $l_1,l_2,r_1,$ and $r_2$ is constructed by applying rules based on the probabilities of a Type I error. By using the symmetry of the solutions of the equation based on the infinitesimal generator, the bounds of the rectangle are obtained, completing the task of developing a well-defined decision rule. Finally, the optimality of that rule based on minimizing the time required to observe the underlying Wiener process is proved. The following theorem summarizes the main results of \cite{O}:

\begin{theorem}
\label{Oth}
The decision rule \eqref{optdec} when applied to hypotheses \eqref{genhyp} has optimality of order $3$, and choosing three of the four values for Type I errors $\alpha_{ij,0}$ induces the value of the fourth by
$$(1-\alpha_{00,0})(1-\alpha_{11,0})=(1-\alpha_{01,0})(1-\alpha_{10,0}).$$
Then, setting the value of $l_1$ will determine the other three, fully defining the decision rule through the system
$$\ln \left( \frac{\alpha_{10,0}-\alpha_{00,0}}{1-\alpha_{00,0}}\right) < l_1 <\ln\left(\frac{\alpha_{10,0}}{1-\alpha_{00,0}}\right),$$
$$r_1=-\ln\left( 1-\frac{1-e^{l_1}}{(1-\alpha_{10,0})/(1-\alpha_{00,0})}\right),$$
$$e^{r_1}=\frac{(1-\alpha_{10,0})/(1-\alpha_{00,0})}{\frac{e^{r_2}}{(1-\alpha_{01,0})+(1-\alpha_{00,0}e^{r_2})}-1},$$
$$r_2=-\ln\left( 1-\frac{1-e^{l_2}}{(1-\alpha_{01,0})/(1-\alpha_{00,0})}\right).$$
\end{theorem}

While Theorem \ref{Oth} provides an optimal decision rule, often we experience processes with jump terms as well. In this paper, we seek to generalize the result in \cite{O} to a certain class of underlying L\'evy processes, and then create a new decision rule for the size of the jumps in the underlying processes. We state a rule to test the hypotheses.

Consider $z=(z_1,z_2)$ a two-dimensional L\'evy process defined by L\'evy triplet $(\mu, \Sigma, \nu^*)$, where $\mu=[\mu_1,\mu_2]$ is the two-dimensional drift, $\Sigma=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \sigma_1^2 & \rho \\ \rho & \sigma_2^2 \end{array} \right]$ is a symmetric non-negative definite matrix representing the diffusion, and $\nu^*$ is a two-dimensional L\'evy measure defined by a product of two identical one-dimensional L\'evy measures $\nu$. Under this setting, we wish to test the hypotheses \eqref{genhyp}. Note that these hypotheses strictly address the drift terms of the L\'evy process. The primary difference is that we include a L\'evy measure, despite its not changing based on the hypotheses.

The L\'evy process generates a filtration, which will be denoted $\mathcal{F}_t$, along with marginal filtrations $\mathcal{F}^{(1)}_t$ and $\mathcal{F}^{(2)}_t$. Further, the hypotheses and diffusion correlation $\rho$ induce probability measures $P_{ij,\rho}$ and marginal probability measures $P_i^{(k)}$. We seek to create optimal decision rules $(\tau, \delta_\tau)$, where $\tau$ is a stopping rule with respect to $\mathcal{F}_t$ and $\delta_\tau$ is a random variable taking values in the index set $\{00,01,10,11\}$. Optimality will be based on minimizing the observation time required for given error probabilities $\alpha_{ij,\rho}:=P_{ij,\rho}(\delta_\tau\neq ij)$.

Let
\begin{equation}\label{logratio}
u^{(i,k)}_t = \log \frac{dP_{i}^{(k)}}{dP_{1-i}^{(k)}}.
\end{equation}
We define a rectangle $R:=[l_1,r_1] \times [l_2,r_2] \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and denote
\begin{align} \label{onedec}
\nonumber \tau_k&=\inf \{ t\geq 0: u^{(i,k)}_t \notin [l_k,r_k] \},\\
\nonumber \delta_{\tau_k}^{(i,k)} & = 1-i, \hbox{ if } u^{(i,k)}_{\tau_k}\leq l_k, \\
\delta_{\tau_k}^{(i,k)} & = i, \hbox{ if } u^{(i,k)}_{\tau_k}\geq r_k.
\end{align}
The decision rule for the two-dimensional test is defined as
\begin{align}\label{optdec}
\nonumber \tau&=\tau_1 \vee \tau_2 \\
\delta_{\tau}^{(i,j)} & =\delta_{\tau_1}^{(i,1)} \delta_{\tau_2}^{(j,2)}.
\end{align}

The following theorem concerns the infinitesimal generator of the processes $u^{(i,k)}_t$:
\begin{theorem}
\label{genlogratio}
Assuming the Brownian motions of the two one-dimensional processes $z_1$ and $z_2$ are uncorrelated and with $u^{(i,k)}_t$ defined as in \eqref{logratio}, we have two-dimensional infinitesimal generators, for the processes $u^{i,j}_t=(u_t^{(i,1)},u_t^{(j,2)})$,
$$\mathcal{L}_{ij,0}=\frac{m_1^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\left(\partial_{x_1x_1} +(-1)^{i+1}\partial_{x_1}\right)+\frac{m_2^2}{2\sigma_2^2}\left(\partial_{x_2x_2} +(-1)^{j+1}\partial_{x_2}\right).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $z_k$ is a L\'evy process with characteristics $(0, \sigma_k^2, \nu)$ under $P_0^{(k)}$ and characteristics $(m_k, \sigma_k^2, \nu)$ under $P_1^{(k)}$, we can apply a generalized Girasanov's Theorem (see \cite{Jens} Theorem 1.20). Using $\beta=(-1)^{i+1}m_k/\sigma_k$, we obtain
$$\frac{dP^{(k)}_i}{dP^{(k)}_{1-i}}=\mathcal{E}\left((-1)^{i+1}\frac{m_k}{\sigma_k} W.\right)_t,$$
where $W$ is a standard Brownian motion. Further, by \cite{Tank} (Proposition 8), we obtain characteristics $((-1)^i\frac{m_k^2}{2\sigma_k^2},\frac{m_k^2}{\sigma_k^2},0)$ for  $u^{(i,k)}_t$. Then the process $\left(  u^{(i,1)}_t, u^{(j,2)}_t\right)$ is well-known to have generator
$$\mathcal{L}_{ij,0}=(-1)^{i+1}\frac{m_1^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\partial_{x_1} +(-1)^{j+1}\frac{m_2^2}{2\sigma_2^2}\partial_{x_2}+ \frac{m_1^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\partial_{x_1x_1}+ \frac{m_2^2}{2\sigma_2^2}\partial_{x_2x_2},$$
as claimed.
\end{proof}
These infinitesimal generators are then used to determine the bounds of the rectangle by applying them to the likelihood functions $\psi_{ij}:R\to [0,1]$  which represents the probability of being in world $ij$ at any position inside the rectangle. When in the correct world, the likelihood function does not change with respect to that world's generator: i.e., $\mathcal{L}_{ij,0}\psi_{ij}=0$.

Next we present a theorem of optimality. The proof of this theorem follows directly from the method in \cite{O}.

\begin{theorem}
The decision rule for \eqref{genhyp} defined in \eqref{optdec} has asymptotic optimality of order-3; that is,
\begin{eqnarray} E_{ij,0}(\tau_1 \vee \tau_2) - E_{ij}(\tau_1)=o(1),\label{o3}
\end{eqnarray} as the error probabilities $\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the proof of a related result in \cite{O}. The key tool in this proof is the exponential killing trick, i.e., for any nonnegative random variable $Y$ with no point mass at zero,
$$E(e^{-\lambda Y})=E(F_Y(X_\lambda)),$$
where $F_Y$ is the cumulative distribution function for $Y$ and $X_\lambda$ is an exponential random variable with parameter $\lambda$. We use this on $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ from \eqref{optdec}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
E_{ij,0}(e^{-\lambda \tau_1}) &=&E_{ij,0}(F_{\tau_1}(X_\lambda)), \\
E_{ij,0}\left(e^{-\lambda (\tau_1\vee \tau_2)}\right)&=&E_{ij,0}(F_{\tau_1}(X_\lambda)F_{\tau_2}(X_\lambda)),
\end{eqnarray*}
as $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are independent when $\rho=0$. Applying Laplace transforms, simplifying, and applying exponential killing in \eqref{o3}, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
 E_{ij,0}(\tau_1 \vee \tau_2) - E_{ij}(\tau_1) =\lim_{\lambda\to 0}\frac{E_{ij,0}(F_{\tau_1}(X_\lambda)(1-F_{\tau_2}(X_\lambda)))}{\lambda}.
\end{eqnarray}
Because our log-likelihood processes are Brownian motions with drift and so their exit times are finite, this difference on the left is finite. Define
$$0<A_k:=e^{l_k}<1<B_k:=e^{r_k}<\infty,$$ and
$$C_1:=\frac{1-\alpha_{10,0}}{1-\alpha_{00,0}}\to 1 \hbox{ as $\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0$},$$
$$C_2:=\frac{1-\alpha_{11,0}}{1-\alpha_{10,0}}\to 1 \hbox{ as $\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0$}.$$
Due to this and \ref{Oth}, $l_k=-r_k$ as $\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0.$

Further, also by \ref{Oth}, $$\frac{C_1+B_1}{B_1} \cdot \frac{C_2+B_2}{B_2}=\frac{1}{1-\alpha_{00,0}}\to 1 \hbox{ as $\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0$.}$$
Because $B_k>1$, we see that $r_k\to \infty$ as $\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0$, and so, $l_k\to -\infty$. Hence, $F_{\tau_k}\to 0$ as well. Finally, applying the dominated convergence theorem,
$$\lim_{\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0}\lim_{\lambda\to 0}\frac{E_{ij,0}(F_{\tau_1}(X_\lambda)(1-F_{\tau_2}(X_\lambda)))}{\lambda}=\lim_{\lambda\to 0} \lim_{\alpha_{ij,0}\to 0}\frac{E_{ij,0}(F_{\tau_1}(X_\lambda)(1-F_{\tau_2}(X_\lambda)))}{\lambda}=0,$$
which yields the desired asymptotic optimality limit.
\end{proof}

\section{Hypothesis Tests on the L\'evy Measure}
\label{ch:bigsmalljumps}

In this section we expand the idea presented in the last section. Before presenting the analysis, we briefly introduce a possible application of this work. A commonly used stochastic model for the derivative market analysis is the Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (BN-S) model (see see \cite{BN1, BN-S1, BN-S2, BJS, Hab1, Hab2, Issaka, SWW}). The BN-S model is also implemented in the commodity market (see \cite{SWW, recent}). Though this model is very efficient and simple to use, it suffers from the absence of a long range dependence and many other issues.  Mathematically, for the BN-S model, the stock or commodity price $S= (S_t)_{t \geq 0}$ on some filtered probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, (\mathcal{F}_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}, \mathbb{P})$ is modeled by

\begin{equation}
\label{1}
S_t= S_0 \exp (X_t),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{2}
dX_t = (\mu + \beta \sigma_t ^2 )\,dt + \sigma_t\, dW_t + \rho \,dZ_{\lambda t},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{3}
d\sigma_t ^2 = -\lambda \sigma_t^2 \,dt + dZ_{\lambda t}, \quad \sigma_0^2 >0,
\end{equation}
where the parameters $\mu, \beta, \rho, \lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ with $\lambda >0$ and $\rho \leq 0$ and $r$ is the risk-free interest rate where a stock or commodity is traded up to a fixed horizon date $T$.  In this model, $W_t$ is a Brownian motion, and the process $Z_{t}$ is a subordinator. Also $W_t$ and $Z_t$ are assumed to be independent, and $(\mathcal{F}_t)$ is assumed to be the usual augmentation of the filtration generated by the pair $(W_t, Z_t)$.

In a recent work \cite{recent}, it is shown that for various derivative and commodity price dynamics, the jump is \emph{not} completely stochastic. On the contrary, there is a \emph{deterministic} element in crude oil price that can be implemented in the existing models for an extended period of time. It may be shown that the dynamics of $X_t$ in \eqref{2} can be more accurately written when we use a convex combination of two independent subordinators, $Z$ and $Z^{(b)}$ as:

\begin{equation}
\label{2new}
dX_t = (\mu + \beta \sigma_t ^2 )\,dt + \sigma_t\, dW_t + \rho\left( \theta \,dZ_{\lambda t}+ (1-\theta) dZ^{(b)}_{\lambda t}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\theta \in [0,1]$ is a \emph{deterministic} parameter. The process $Z^{(b)}$ in \eqref{2new} is a subordinator that has greater intensity than the subordinator $Z$. In this case \eqref{3} will be given by
\begin{equation}
\label{4new}
d\sigma_t ^2 = -\lambda \sigma_t^2 \,dt + \theta' dZ_{\lambda t} + (1-\theta')dZ^{(b)}_{\lambda t} , \quad \sigma_0^2 >0,
\end{equation}
where, as before, $\theta' \in [0,1]$ is \emph{deterministic}.

We observe that even for commonly implemented stochastic models, it is important to detect when a ``smaller" fluctuation ($Z$) turns into a ``larger" fluctuation ($Z^{(b)}$). Consequently, it is important to determine a sequential testing for the analysis of the jump size distribution. The advantages of the dynamics given by the refined BN-S model, given by \eqref{1}, \eqref{2new}, and \eqref{4new}, over existing models are significant. This minor change in the model incorporates \emph{long range dependence} without actually changing the model.

With this in mind, we consider $z=(z_1,z_2)$ a two-dimensional L\'evy process defined by L\'evy triplet $(\mu, \Sigma, \nu^*)$, where $\mu=[\mu_1,\mu_2]$ is the two-dimensional drift, $\Sigma=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \sigma_1^2 & \rho \\ \rho & \sigma_2^2 \end{array} \right]$ is a symmetric non-negative definite matrix representing the diffusion, and $\nu^*$ is a two-dimensional L\'evy measure defined by a product of two one-dimensional L\'evy measures $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ with densities $\nu_k(dx)=(1+\alpha_kx)\nu(dx)$ for some L\'evy measure $\nu$ defined on $\mathbb{R}^+$.

We wish to test the hypotheses
\begin{align}\label{jumphyp}
\nonumber & \! \!\! \!\! \!\! \! \!\! \!\! \!\! H_{00}: \alpha_1=0, \quad \alpha_2=0, & H_{10}: \alpha_1=a_1> 0, \quad a_2=0,  \\
 &\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \!\! \! H_{01}: a_1=0,\quad \alpha_1=a_2> 0, &   H_{11}: \alpha_1=a_1> 0, \quad \alpha_1=a_2> 0. \! \!  \!    \! \!  \! \!\! \!  \! \!\! \!  \! \!
\end{align}
These now address the size of the jumps in the L\'evy process.

Similar to last section, the L\'evy process generates a filtration, which will be denoted $\mathcal{F}_t$, along with marginal filtrations $\mathcal{F}^{(1)}_t$ and $\mathcal{F}^{(2)}_t$. Further, the hypotheses and diffusion correlation $\rho$ induce probability measures $P_{ij,\rho}$ and marginal probability measures $P_i^{(k)}$. We seek to create optimal decision rules $(\tau, \delta_\tau)$, where $\tau$ is a stopping rule with respect to $\mathcal{F}_t$ and $\delta_\tau$ is a random variable taking values in the index set $\{00,01,10,11\}$.

Let $u^{(i,k)}_t$ be defined as in \eqref{logratio}
and still consider a rectangle $[l_1,r_1] \times [l_2,r_2] \subset \mathbb{R}^2$. The decision rules for the non-correlated one-dimensional cases are as in \eqref{onedec}, with the combined decision rule in \eqref{optdec}.

It is known that if $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a L\'evy process then there exists a unique c\'adl\'ag process $(Z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ such that
$$dZ_t= Z_{t-}\, dX_t, \quad Z_0=1.$$
$Z$ is called the stochastic exponential or Dol\'eans-Dade exponential of $X$ and is denoted by $Z= \mathcal{E}(X)$. We can now derive the infinitesimal generators:

\begin{theorem}\label{jumpgen}
With the process $u^{(i,k)}_t$ defined as in \eqref{logratio}, we have two-dimensional infinitesimal generators, for the process $u^{i,j}_t=(u_t^{(i,1)},u_t^{(j,2)})$, defined by
$$\mathcal{L}_{ij,\rho}\xi(x)= (-1)^{i+1}\gamma_1 \xi_{x_1}(x) + (-1)^{j+1}\gamma_2 \xi_{x_2}(x) +\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2 \xi_{x_1x_1}(x) +\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2 \xi_{x_2x_2}(x)+\rho \beta_1 \beta_2 \xi_{x_1x_2}(x)$$
$$\quad \quad \quad+(-1)^{i+j}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} \left(\xi(x+y)-\xi(x)-\frac{y_1 \xi_{x_1}(x)+y_2 \xi_{x_2}(x)}{1+\|y\|}\right)K_1(dy_1)K_2(dy_2),$$
for any suitable $\xi$, where
\begin{align}
\nonumber x&=(x_1,x_2), \quad y=(y_1,y_2)\\
\beta_k&= -a_k\int_{x_k>0} (1\wedge x_k) \sigma_k^{-1}  x_k\nu(dx_k)\label{beta}\\
m_k&=a_k\int_{x_k>1} x_k\nu(dx_k)\label{m}\\
\gamma_k&=m_k-\frac{\beta_k^2}{2}+\int_0^1 (\log(1+x_k)^2-x_k)a_k\nu(dx_k).\label{gamma}\\
K_k&=a_k\log(1+x_k)\nu_k\label{K}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $z_k$ is a L\'evy process with characteristics $(\mu_k, \sigma_k^2, \nu_k)$ under $P_0^{(k)}$ and characteristics $(\mu_k, \sigma_k^2, (1+a_kx_k)\nu_k)$ under $P_1^{(k)}$, we apply the generalized Girasanov's Theorem. Using $\beta_k$ as in \eqref{beta}, we obtain
$$\frac{dP^{(k)}_i}{dP^{(k)}_{1-i}}=\mathcal{E}\left((-1)^{i+1}N^{(k)}.\right)_t,$$
where
$$N^{(k)}_t=\beta_k W_t +\int_0^t\int_{x_k>0} a_kx_k (J_k-\nu_k)(ds,dx_k),$$
$a_kJ_k$ is the jump measure for $N$, $W$ is a standard Brownian motion, and $\mathcal{E}$ is the Dol\'eans-Dade exponential. This gives that $N_t^{(k)}$ is a L\'evy process with characteristics $$(  (-1)^{i}m_k, \beta_k^2,(-1)^{i+1} a_k\nu_k).$$ Then, by \cite{Tank} (Proposition 8), we obtain characteristics $$((-1)^{i}\gamma_k,\beta_k^2,(-1)^{i+1}K_k)$$ for $u^{(i,k)}_t$. Finally, by \cite{Tank, AS}, the process $\left( u^{(i,1)}_t, u^{(j,2)}_t \right)$ has the stated generator.
\end{proof}
Assign $\xi_{ij,\rho}$ to be the probability of a correct decision in world $ij$. Then we have the partial integro-differential equation $\mathcal{L}_{ij,\rho}\xi_{ij,\rho}=0$ with boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\xi_{00,\rho}(l_1,l_2)=1, \quad \quad \quad & \xi_{01,\rho}(l_1,r_2)=1, \nonumber \\
\xi_{00,\rho}(r_1,y)=0,  \quad \quad \quad & \xi_{01,\rho}(x,l_2)=0, \nonumber \\
\xi_{00,\rho}(x,r_2)=0,  \quad \quad \quad & \xi_{01,\rho}(r_1,y)=0, \nonumber  \\
\xi_{10,\rho}(r_1,l_2)=1, \quad \quad \quad & \xi_{11,\rho}(r_1,r_2)=1, \nonumber  \\
\xi_{10,\rho}(l_1,y)=0,  \quad \quad \quad& \xi_{11,\rho}(l_1,y)=0,  \nonumber \\
\xi_{10,\rho}(x,r_2)=0, \quad \quad \quad & \xi_{11,\rho}(x,l_2)=0, \label{bcs}
\end{align}
for $x \in [l_1,r_1]$ and $y \in [l_2,r_2]$. Further, we have $ \xi_{ij,\rho}>0$ inside $R=(l_1,r_1) \times (l_2,r_2)$.

Before proceeding to prove the existence of a solution to such a boundary value problem, we state the following definitions and a theorem from
\cite{EU} that will be used.
\begin{definition}
An upper semicontinuous function $l: \mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$ is a \emph{subsolution} of $$F(0,\xi,D\xi,D\xi^2,\mathcal{I}[\xi](x))=0$$ subject to boundary conditions \eqref{bcs} if for any test function $\phi\in C^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$, at each maximum point $x_0 \in \bar{R}$ of $l-\phi$ in $B_\delta(x_0)$, we have
$$E(l,\phi,x_0):=F(x_0,l(x_0),D\phi(x_0),D^2\phi(x_0), I_\delta^1[\phi](x_0)+I_\delta^2[l](x_0))\leq 0 \hbox{   if $x_0\in R$}$$
or
$$\min(E(l,\phi,x_0);u(x_0)-g(x_0))\leq 0 \hbox{  if $x_0\in \partial R$},$$
where
\begin{align*}
I_\delta^1[\phi](x_0)=\int_{|z|<\delta} \left( \phi(x_0+z)-\phi(x_0)-(D\phi(x_0) \cdot z)\textbf{1} _B (z)\right) d\mu_{x_0}(z), \\
I_\delta^2[u](x_0)=\int_{|z|\geq\delta} \left( u(x_0+z)-u(x_0)-(D\phi(x_0) \cdot z)\textbf{1}_B (z)\right) d\mu_{x_0}(z) .
\end{align*}

Similarly, a lower semicontinuous function $u: \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}$ is a \emph{supersolution} of the same boundary value problem if for any test function $\phi\in C^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$, at each minimum point $x_0 \in \bar{R}$ of $u-\phi$ in $B_\delta(x_0)$, we have
$$E(u,\phi,x_0)\geq 0\hbox{   if $x_0\in R$}$$
or
$$\max(E(l,\phi,x_0);u(x_0)-g(x_0))\leq 0 \hbox{  if $x_0\in \partial R$}.$$
Finally, a \emph{viscosity solution} is a function whose upper and lower semicontinuous envelopes are respectively a \emph{sub-solution} and a \emph{super-solution}.
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}\label{EUtheorem}
If $F:\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{S}^2 \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$, where $\mathbb{S}^n$ is the space of $n\times n$ symmetric matrices, and
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(A1)] $F(x,u,p,X,i_1)\leq F(x,u,p,Y,i_2)$ if $X\geq Y$ and $i_1\geq i_2$,
\item[(A2)] there exists $\gamma>0$ such that for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^2,$ $u,v\in \mathbb{R}$, $p\in \mathbb{R}^2$, $X\in \mathbb{S}^2$, and $i\in \mathbb{R}$,
$$F(x,u,p,X,i)-F(x,v,p,X,i)\geq \gamma (u-v) \hbox{   if $u \geq v$},$$
for some $\epsilon>0$ and $r(\beta)\to 0$ as $\beta \to 0$, we have
$$F(y,v,\epsilon^{-1}(x-y),Y,i)-F(x,v,\epsilon^{-1}(x-y),X,i)\leq \omega_R (\epsilon^{-1}|x-y|^2+|x-y|+r(\beta)),$$
\item[(A3)] $F$ is uniformly continuous with respect to all arguments,\\
\item[(A4)] $\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}} |F(x,0,0,0,0)|<\infty$,\\
\item[(A5)] $K=K_1 \times K_2$ is a L\'evy-It\^o measure,
\item[(A6)] the inequalities in \eqref{limsupinf} are strict,
\item[(A7)] for any $R>0$, there exists a modulus of continuity $\omega_R$ such that, for any $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^2$, $|v|\leq R$, $i\in \mathbb{R}$, and for any $X,Y\in \S^2$ satisfying
$$\left[\begin{array}{cc} X & 0 \\ 0 & Y\end{array}\right] \leq \frac{1}{\epsilon}\left[\begin{array}{cc} I & -I \\ -I & I \end{array}\right]+r(\beta)\left[\begin{array}{cc} I & 0 \\ 0 & I \end{array}\right],$$
\end{enumerate}
then there is a unique solution to $F(0,\xi,D \xi, D^2 \xi,\mathcal{I}[\xi](x))=0$ between any pair of super-solution and sub-solutions, defined below, where
$$\mathcal{I}[\xi](x):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} \left(\xi(x+y)-\frac{y_1 \xi_{x_1}(x)+y_2 \xi_{x_2}(x)}{1+\|y\|}\right)K_1(dy_1)K_2(dy_2).$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{lemma}
In particular, our function $$F(x,u,p,X,i):=Mu+\langle \gamma_1 ,\gamma_2\rangle \cdot p -\Tr \left( \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \beta_1/2 & 0 \\ 0 & \beta_2/2 \end{array}\right]X \right)- i$$ satisfies (A1)-(A4)  and our measure $K$ satisfies (A5) in \eqref{EUtheorem}, where
$$M=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+}K_1(dy_1)K_2(dy_2).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, consider (A1):
$$F(x,u,p,X,i_1)- F(x,u,p,Y,i_2) =  \Tr \left( \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \beta_1/2 & 0 \\ 0 & \beta_2/2 \end{array}\right](Y-X) \right)+i_2- i_1 \geq0$$
if $i_2\leq i_1$ and $Y\leq X$.

Next, $F(x,u,p,X,i)- F(x,v,p,X,i)=M(u-v)$, so choosing $\gamma=M >0$, we have property (A2).

Property (A3) is satisfied because $F$ is linear in each argument, and (A4) is satisfied because $F$ does not depend on its first argument explicitly. Last, $K$ is a L\'evy-It\^o measure by the assumptions of the underlying L\'evy processes.

\end{proof}

Note that the $F$ above corresponds to case $ij=00$. The other three cases can be similarly satisfied through manipulation of the signs in $F$. Before proceeding, we present a few formal definitions:
\begin{definition}
We write that a function $f(x)=O(g(x))$  if we have some $M,\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}$ satisfying $|f(x)|\leq Mg(x)$ for all $x>\epsilon$. Similarly, we write that a function $f(x)=o(g(x))$ if we have some $M,\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}$ satisfying $|f(x)|< Mg(x)$ for all $x>\epsilon$.

The norm $\| f \|_\infty$ is defined as the essential supremum of the absolute value of $f$ over $\Omega$. It is the smallest number so that $\{ x : |f(x)|\geq \|f\|_\infty\}$ has measure zero.
\end{definition}

We now state the additional limit assumptions on $F$ from \cite{EU}:
\begin{align} \liminf_{y\to x, y\in \bar{\Omega}, \eta \downarrow 0, d(y)\eta^{-1} \to 0} \left[ \sup_{0<\delta \in [d(y),r)} \inf_{s\in [-R,R]} F(y,s,p_\eta(y),M_\eta(y),I_{\eta,\delta,r}(y))\right]&<0, \nonumber \\
\limsup_{y\to x, y\in \bar{\Omega}, \eta \downarrow 0, d(y)\eta^{-1} \to 0} \left[ \inf_{0<\delta \in [d(y),r)} \sup_{s\in [-R,R]} F(y,s,-p_\eta(y),-M_\eta(y),-I_{\eta,\delta,r}(y))\right]&<0, \label{limsupinf}\end{align}
where
\begin{equation*}
p_\eta(y) =O(\epsilon^{-1})+\frac{k_1+o(1)}{\eta} Dd(y),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
M_\eta(y)= O(\epsilon^{-1})+\frac{k_1+o(1)}{\eta} D^2d(y)-\frac{k_2+o(1)}{\eta^2} Dd(y) \otimes Dd(y),
\end{equation*}
\begin{align*}
I_{\eta,\delta,r}(y)&=-\nu I_{\delta,r}^{\hbox{ext},1}(y)+2\|u\|_\infty I_{\beta(\nu),r}^{\hbox{int},1}(y)\\
&-\frac{k_1+o(1)}{\eta} \left(I^{\hbox{tr}}(y)+I_{\beta(\eta),r}^{\hbox{int},2}(y)+I_{\delta,r}^{\hbox{ext},2}(y)-\|D^2d\|_\infty I^4_{\delta,\beta(\eta),r}(y)\right)\\
&+O(\epsilon^{-1})\left( 1+ o(1)I_{\beta(\eta),r}^{\hbox{int},3}(y)+o(1)I_{\delta,r}^{\hbox{ext},3}(y) \right),
\end{align*}
with $O(\epsilon^{-1})$ not depending on $k_1$ nor $k_2$, and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{A}_{\delta,\beta,r}(x) :=\{z\in B_r: -\delta\leq d(x+z)-d(x)\leq \beta\},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{ext}}_{\delta,r}(x):=\{z\in B_r:  d(x+z)-d(x)< -\delta\},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{int}}_{\beta,r}(x):=\{z\in B_r:  d(x+z)-d(x)>\beta\},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{\hbox{ext},1}_{\delta,r}(x) := \int_{\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{ext}}_{\delta,r}(x)} d\mu_x(z),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{\hbox{ext},2}_{\delta,r}(x) := \int_{\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{ext}}_{\delta,r}(x)} Dd(x)\cdot zd\mu_x(z),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{\hbox{ext},3}_{\delta,r}(x) := \int_{\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{ext}}_{\delta,r}(x)}|z| d\mu_x(z),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{\hbox{int},1}_{\beta,r}(x) := \int_{\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{ext}}_{\beta,r}(x)} d\mu_x(z),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{\hbox{int},2}_{\beta,r}(x) := \int_{\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{ext}}_{\beta,r}(x)} Dd(x)\cdot zd\mu_x(z),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{\hbox{int},3}_{\beta,r}(x) := \int_{\mathcal{A}^{\hbox{ext}}_{\beta,r}(x)}|z| d\mu_x(z),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{4}_{\delta,\beta,r}(x) := \frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathcal{A}_{\delta,\beta,r}(x)}|z|^2 d\mu_x(z),
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
I^{\hbox{tr}}(x) := \int_{r<|z|<1} Dd(x)\cdot zd\mu_x(z).
\end{equation*}

\begin{theorem}\label{solution}
The partial integro-differential equation $\mathcal{L}_{ij,0}\xi_{ij,0}=0$ subject to boundary conditions \eqref{bcs} and  $0< \xi_{ij,\rho}$ has a viscosity solution between sub-solution and super-solution
\begin{align*}
L_{ij}(x,y)&= E_{ij}\frac{\sinh \left(A_{(1,2-i)} \sqrt{B_{ij(1)}^2+L}\right) \sinh \left(A_{(2,2-j)} \sqrt{B_{ij(2)}^2+L}\right)}{\sinh\left(\frac{r_1-l_1}{\beta_1} \sqrt{B_{ij(1)}^2+L} \right)\sinh\left(\frac{r_2-l_2}{\beta_2} \sqrt{B_{ij(2)}^2+L}\right)},\nonumber \\
U_{ij}(x,y)&= E_{ij}\frac{\sinh \left(A_{(1,2-i)} \sqrt{B_{ij(1)}^2-L}\right) \sinh \left(A_{(2,2-j)} \sqrt{B_{ij(2)}^2-L}\right)}{\sinh\left(\frac{r_1-l_1}{\beta_1} \sqrt{B_{ij(1)}^2-L} \right)\sinh\left(\frac{r_2-l_2}{\beta_2} \sqrt{B_{ij(2)}^2-L}\right)},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
A&=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{x-l_1}{\beta_1} & \frac{r_1-x}{\beta_1} \\ \frac{y-l_2}{\beta_2} & \frac{r_2-y}{\beta_2} \end{array} \right],\\
B_{ij}&=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{\gamma_1+(-1)^jC}{\beta_1} & \frac{\gamma_2+(-1)^iC}{\beta_2}  \end{array} \right], \nonumber\\
C&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} \frac{y_i}{1+\|y\|}K_1(dy_1)K_2(dy_2),\nonumber\\
E_{ij}&=\exp\left(A_{(1,i+1)} B_{ij(1)}+A_{(2,j+1)} B_{ij(2)}\right),\nonumber
\end{align*}
and $L$ is a positive constant, provided (A6) and (A7) are satisfied.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We define
\begin{align*}
H(x)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} \xi(x+y) K_1(dy_1)K_2(dy_2),\\
\xi(x)&=f(x_1)g(x_2). \nonumber
\end{align*}
Consequently,
\begin{align}
0=\mathcal{L}_{ij,0}\xi(x)=& (-1)^{i+1}\gamma_1 \xi_{x_1}(x) + (-1)^{j+1}\gamma_2 \xi_{x_2}(x) +\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2 \xi_{x_1x_1}(x) +\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2 \xi_{x_2x_2}(x)\nonumber\\
&+(-1)^{i+j}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} \left(\xi(x+y)-\xi(x)-\frac{y_1 \xi_{x_1}(x)+y_2 \xi_{x_2}(x)}{1+\|y\|}\right)K_1(dy_1)K_2(dy_2)\nonumber
\end{align}
can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
0=& (-1)^{i+1}\gamma_1 f'(x_1)g(x_2) + (-1)^{j+1}\gamma_2 f(x_1)g'(x_2) +\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2 f''(x_1)g(x_2) +\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2 f(x_1)g''(x_2)\nonumber\\
&+(-1)^{i+j}H(x)+(-1)^{i+j+1}Mf(x_1)g(x_2)\nonumber \\
&+(-1)^{i+j+1}Cf'(x_1)g(x_2)+(-1)^{i+j+1}Cf(x_1)g'(x_2).\nonumber
\end{align}

When $ij\in \{00,11\}$, the sign on $H$ is positive; therefore, we have sub-solution equations, through separation of variables,
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2 \frac{f''(x_1)}{f(x_2)}+\left((-1)^{i+j+1}C+(-1)^{i+1}\gamma_1 \right)\frac{f'(x_1)}{f(x_1)} =-\lambda_{1,ij}+(-1)^{i+j}M, \\
&\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2 \frac{g''(x_2)}{g(x_2)}+\left((-1)^{i+j+1}C+(-1)^{j+1}\gamma_2\right)\frac{g'(x_2)}{g(x_2)}=\lambda_{1,ij}.\nonumber
\end{align*}
Alternatively, when $ij\in \{01,10\}$, we have these as super-solution equations.

On the other hand, since $\xi >0$ inside $R$, there exists some $K>0$ so that
$$\xi(x+y)-\xi(x)\leq K\xi(x) \iff H(x)-\int \xi(x) K_1(dy_1)K_2(dy_2)\leq KMf(x_1)g(x_2).$$
Using this, in cases $ij\in\{00,11\}$, we have super-solution equations
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2} \beta_1^2 \frac{f''(x_1)}{f(x_2)}+\left((-1)^{i+j+1}C+(-1)^{i+1}\gamma_1 \right)\frac{f'(x_1)}{f(x_1)}  =-\lambda_{2,ij}+(-1)^{i+j+1}KM, \\
&\frac{1}{2} \beta_2^2 \frac{g''(x_2)}{g(x_2)}+\left((-1)^{i+j+1}C+(-1)^{j+1}\gamma_2\right)\frac{g'(x_2)}{g(x_2)}=\lambda_{2,ij}.\nonumber
\end{align*}
When $ij\in \{01,10\}$, we have these as sub-solution equations instead.

Now, choosing $L=\max\{KM,M\}$ and $\lambda_{k,ij}$ to yield $\pm L/2$ on the right-hand sides, the boundary-value problem gives the super-solution and sub-solutions claimed. Due to the monotonicity of $\sinh$ and $\exp$, we see that the super-solution and sub-solutions are ordered so that $ U_{ij}\geq L_{ij}\geq0$. Finally, by \cite{EU}, we have existence of a viscosity solution to  $\mathcal{L}_{ij,\rho}\xi_{ij,\rho}=0$ with boundary conditions \eqref{bcs}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Note that due to the structure of $U_{ij}$ and $L_{i,j}$, as $L/B_{ij}^2 \to 0$, the super-solution and sub-solutions tend toward each other. While this cannot occur precisely, it grants a particularly interesting condition that can reduce the size of the rectangle used in the decision rule.
\end{remark}

In the following figures (Figures 1, 2, and 3), we plot a super-solution and a sub-solution for a special case. Figure 1 depicts the monotonic nature of $U_{00}$ and $L_{00}$, and shows the boundary conditions are met. Note that the sides of the rectangle, and therefore the bounds of the domain of $x$ here, would be chosen in such a way as to have $1-\alpha_{00}$ between the graphs along the line $x=0$ in Figure 2. Finally, Figure 3 fully shows the super-solution and sub-solution of a viscosity solution.

\begin{figure}[!htb]
   \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
     \centering
     \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{left.png}
     \caption{The $y=l_2=-1$ cross-section, with boundary conditions met.}\label{Fig:Data1}
   \end{minipage}\hfill
   \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
     \centering
     \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{middle.png}
     \caption{The $y=0$ cross-section, showing the region that determines the actual bounds of $R$.}\label{Fig:Data2}
   \end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
     \centering
     \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{surf.png}
     \caption{The functions $U_{00}$ and $L_{00}$, which fully envelope the viscosity solution $\xi$.}\label{Fig:Data1}
 \end{figure}

The super-solution and sub-solutions depend on the hypothesis parameters $a_k$. With regards to conducting the hypothesis test, one option is to bound $a_k<\mathcal{A}$. After doing so,
$U_{ij}$ and $L_{ij}$ create two sets of inequalities  $$\{ U_{ij}(0,0)\geq 1-\alpha_{ij} : ij\in \{00,01,10,11\}\},$$
$$\{ L_{ij}(0,0)\leq 1-\alpha_{ij} : ij\in \{00,01,10,11\}\}.$$
These can potentially be solved for upper and lower estimates for the sides of the rectangle $(l_1,r_1)\times (l_2,r_2)$. While no longer optimal, these estimates can be used to conduct hypothesis tests with Type I error probability at most $\alpha_{ij}$.

\section{One-dimensional Application}

In this section, we implement the analysis presented in the last section for oil from Bakken region. The Bakken is the United States oil producing region that has emerged in recent years and expanded in part due to fracking technology.  Data are collected on oil prices and volumes representative of oil produced in that region. We obtain the average daily production data for each month from the Energy Information Agency.  Also, we obtain the nearby daily Bakken freight-on-board (FOB) prices from Thomson Reuters Eikon.

At first we consider the Bakken oil data for the period  June 2, 2009 through March 4, 2014 (see Figure 4).
From the data, we obtain that the statistics are as follows: drift $\mu=0.0238$, volatility $\sigma=11.419$, and the test statistic $a=19.00$.  Choosing $\alpha_0=0.9$ and $l=-0.03$, we can determine $r=\max\{0.3769,0.2569\}=0.3769$. Using the methods from the previous sections, we convert to the log-likelihood ratio process, and then we simulate it in Python. The process exits the interval on the right side 6 out of the 30 times run, indicating that the jumps have statistically low impact on the overall structure of the process.

Next we consider the Bakken oil data for the period May 24, 2011 through May 30, 2019 (see Figure 5). Conducting similar analyses for a shifted set of dates, we see that the statistics are drift $\mu=-0.0278$, volatility $\sigma=23.053$, and test statistic $a=30.43$. Choosing  $\alpha_0=0.9$, we then choose $l=-0.1$, and we find $r=\max\{0.1144,0.1017\}=0.1144$. Simulating the log-likelihood process now reveals the process exits on the right side 12 out of the 30 times run, indicating that while the jumps still have low impact on the overall structure, they have more of an impact than in the previous example, as is expected.

\begin{figure}[h!]
      \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{oilprice.png}
     \caption{Bakken oil close prices for June 2, 2009-March 4, 2014.}\label{Fig:oil}
 \end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
      \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{oilpricebigger.png}
     \caption{Bakken oil close prices for May 24, 2011-May 30, 2019.}\label{Fig:oil}
 \end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}

In this paper we have studied a sequential decision making problem in connection to the L\'evy processes. Sequential decision making describes a situation where the decision maker makes successive observations of a process before a final decision is made. The procedure to decide when to stop taking observations and when to continue is called the \emph{stopping rule}.  This problem can be implemented for financial derivative or commodity markets. A single stochastic model may not appropriately represent derivative or commodity market dynamics. However, the procedure presented in this paper can be incorporated to determine the fluctuations in the \emph{jump term} of the L\'evy processes. Consequently, the \emph{jump term} can be replaced or modified. Thus with a minor adjustment, the original model becomes more effective.  This modification also enables \emph{long range dependence} in the new model without significantly changing the model.

The objective in a typical sequential decision making is to find a stopping rule that optimizes the decision in terms of some loss function. For the present paper, the case $\rho=0$ is considered. The situation becomes much more involved when $\rho \neq 0$. This will be considered in a sequel of the present paper. Further, it is worth investigating whether some method exists to determine the exact bounds of the rectangle used in a decision rule based on a super-solution or sub-solution, after one bound is chosen specifically. Even more generally, additional hypothesis tests could be developed. One of such could be a test on the L\'evy measures while keeping a constant diffusion coefficient for each underlying L\'evy process. Another could be a test on the diffusion terms with no drift terms in either process.  Last, it is worth exploring the one-dimensional test more, which could yield a solution useful for finding final boundary conditions for the two-dimensional test, giving uniqueness of the likelihood function. \\

\textbf{Acknowledgment}: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and for suggesting points to improve the quality of the paper.


\section{Introduction}
\label{Sec:Introduction}

Statistical physics is the study of many-body problems.
Complex networks, in which many nodes interact via links, have been the subject of research by many statistical physicists \cite{2010NewmanNetworks}.
Understanding the robustness of complex networks is a longstanding problem \cite{2010CohenComplex}.
Observing how complex networks respond to intentional attacks is one common way to approach this problem.
The giant component of the network under intentional attack gets smaller and finally disappears at the critical point.
This can map to an optimal percolation problem that destroys the giant component of a network by deactivating a minimal set of nodes.
The minimal set of deactivated nodes is considered to be important nodes for maintaining the function of the network.
These important nodes are also called influencers \cite{2015MoroneInfluence}.

Unfortunately, finding the minimal set of nodes that can destroy the giant component in a network is in general an NP-hard problem.
Thus, various heuristic methods were developed for this problem.
In the early research stages, the nodes with high degree or high betweenness centrality were considered influencers \cite{2000AlbertError, 2000CallawayNetwork, 2001CohenBreakdown, 2002HolmeAttack}.
Since then, a number of strategies have been proposed to find near-optimal influencers more effectively \cite{2015MoroneInfluence, 2010KitsakIdentification, 2016BraunsteinNetwork, 2016ClusellaImmunization, 2016LuH, 2016MugishaIdentifying, 2016ZdeborovaFast, 2019RenGeneralized}.
These strategies are summarized in Ref.~\cite{2016LuVital}.
In general, each strategy assigns a certain centrality value to nodes in its own way, and the node with highest centrality value is deactivated one by one.
Centrality value of nodes can either be kept fixed as the initial value during the percolation process
or be updated in every step ``adaptively'' as the nodes are deactivated.

There is, however, no integrated perspective of various optimal percolation strategies yet.
An important step towards integrated understanding from the perspective of statistical physics is to characterize the percolation phase transition properties of each strategy.
It is well known that continuous mean-field phase transition occurs in the random percolation process on random networks \cite{2010NewmanNetworks,2010CohenComplex}.
On the other hand, several papers reported that the near-optimal percolation processes induce discontinuous collapse of the giant component at the transition point \cite{2016BraunsteinNetwork, 2016ClusellaImmunization, 2016MoroneCollective, 2016MugishaIdentifying, 2016ZdeborovaFast, 2017PeiEfficient, 2019RenGeneralized}.
Yet our understanding of how the universality of the percolation processes changes between these two extremes and what factors cause discontinuity is still limited.
Our primary aim in the current study is to contribute to make progress in this direction.

The percolation process we chose to study in this work about the critical behaviors of phase transition is the collective-influence (CI) percolation \cite{2015MoroneInfluence}.
CI percolation includes also the high-degree adaptive (HDA) percolation as a special case.
Principal reason why we chose CI percolation is that it is a near-optimal percolation process with abrupt yet continuous disintegration of the giant component at the critical point.
It is also known that CI percolation is able to attain near-optimal percolation results by straightforward and fast algorithm of time complexity $\mathcal{O}(N\log{N})$ \cite{2015MoroneInfluence, 2016MoroneCollective}.
 For this reason, it has been actively studied \cite{2017MoroneModel, 2018FerraroFinding} and refined \cite{2016MoroneCollective, 2017PeiEfficient}.
Detailed model description will be given in Sec. \ref{Sec:Model}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig01.ps}
\vspace*{-0.8cm}
\caption{
Plots of the order parameter, the probability $P_{\infty}$ that a randomly-chosen node belongs to the giant component, as a function of the deactivated-node fraction $q$ on ER networks with mean degree $z=7/2$ for various percolation processes defined in Sec. \ref{Sec:Model}.
Points are the results of Monte Carlo simulations with system size $N=10^{8}$ and averaged over more than 100 samples.
Solid line is for the numerical solution of HDA from Sec.~\ref{Sec:Method}, while the dashed line is for analytic solution of random percolation using the generating function method \cite{2000CallawayNetwork, 2001NewmanRandom}.
}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\label{Fig:OrderParameter}
\end{figure}

As shown in the Fig. \ref{Fig:OrderParameter}, in the case of CI percolation, the order parameter seems to disappear rapidly in the vicinity of the critical point.
This raises the question if it might possess the order-parameter critical exponent $\beta$ different from that of random percolation.
To answer this question, we performed finite-size scaling analysis using extensive Monte Carlo simulations.
Despite the apparently abrupt change at critical point, we obtained standard mean-field critical exponents in both the HDA and CI percolations.
Moreover, to gain more insight of what is happening near the transition point, we examined the behavior of top-centrality nodes, discovering extensive degeneracy.

\section{Models}
\label{Sec:Model}
To select the influencers, we used the degree-centrality for HDA percolation and the CI-centrality for CI percolation \cite{2015MoroneInfluence}.
When a node is deactivated, the links attached to the node are also considered deactivated and in effect the degree of the deactivated node becomes zero.
Consequently, as the percolation process proceeds by successively deactivating nodes, a node's degree undergoes change.
In the following, we denote node $i$'s degree, $k_{i}$, as the number of node $i$'s active neighbors in the remaining network.

In HDA percolation, one deactivates the node with highest degree and updates its neighbors' degree in every step.
If there are more than one node with the same top-centrality (meaning largest degree), one of them is randomly deactivated.

For CI percolation, we follow the definition of CI-centrality in Ref.~\cite{2015MoroneInfluence}, given as follows:
\begin{equation}
\textrm{CI}_{\ell}(i)=(k_{i}-1) \sum \limits_{j \in \partial B (i, \ell)}^{} (k_{j}-1)~.
\end{equation}
Here $\textrm{CI}_{\ell}(i)$ is the CI-centrality value of node $i$ with distance parameter $\ell$, and $\partial B(i,\ell)$ is the set of nodes which are at distance $\ell$ (disallowing backtracking) from the node $i$.
The CI-centrality value of node $i$ incorporates not only its own degree but also the degrees of nodes which are at distance $\ell$ away from it.
Therefore, CI percolation does not simply deactivate high-degree nodes themselves, but tends rather to deactivate ``bridges'' between high-degree nodes \cite{2015MoroneInfluence}.
In CI percolation, one deactivates the node with top-centrality (meaning largest CI-centrality) and updates the CI-centrality values within the distance $(\ell+1)$ from the deactivated node each step.
Similarly to HDA percolation, if there are multiple nodes with same top-centrality, then a randomly-chosen node among them is deactivated.
Note that by considering the distance-$0$ neighbor to be the node itself, we have  $\textrm{CI}_{0}(i)=(k_i-1)^2$. Thus HDA percolation can be treated as the special case of CI percolation with $\ell=0$ \cite{2015MoroneInfluence}.

\section{Monte Carlo simulation methods and numerical solutions}
\label{Sec:Method}
We applied HDA percolation and CI percolation with $\ell=1, 2$ on Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi (ER) networks \cite{1960ErdosOn}.
The control parameter is the fraction of deactivated nodes $q$ ($0\le q\le1$).
Primary quantity of interest is the probability $P_{\infty}$ that a randomly-chosen node among all nodes (regardless of remaining active or being deactivated) belongs to the giant component, which serves as the order parameter in the percolation process.
Numerically we calculate it by the largest connected component fraction averaged over Monte Carlo configurations.
We also examine the average size $\chi$ of the component that a randomly-chosen node belongs to, which plays the role of susceptibility, defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\chi(q)=\frac{\sum\limits_{\scriptsize{s,~\textrm{finite}}}^{}s^{2}n(s,q)}{\sum\limits_{\scriptsize{s,~\textrm{finite}}}^{}sn(s,q)}~,
\end{equation}
where $s$ is the component size, $n(s,q)$ is the number of components with size $s$ at deactivated-node fraction $q$, and the summation runs over only finite sizes.
Numerically we calculate Eq.~(2) using the connected component configurations obtained by Monte Carlo simulations by omitting the largest connected component.
We have performed Monte Carlo simulations on ER networks with different mean degrees to find consistent results and in the following will present the results specifically for the mean degree $z=7/2$.

We also formulate the numerical solution for HDA percolation. For a random network, various quantities can be calculated by generating function method with degree distribution $p_{k}$  \cite{2000CallawayNetwork, 2001NewmanRandom}.
Fortunately, we can calculate degree distribution $p_{k}$ as a function of the deactivated-node fraction $q$ for HDA percolation using iteration method.
To apply the iteration method, we need the initial condition and the recurrence relations.
To begin with, the degree distribution of ER network of mean degree $z$ is well known to be the Poisson distribution $p_k={z^{k}e^{-z}}/{k!}$ \cite{1960ErdosOn}.

To obtain the recurrence relations for the degree distribution as the nodes are deactivated, let the degree distribution $p_{k}(q)$ be the probability that the randomly chosen node has degree $k$ at the deactivated-node fraction $q$ in HDA percolation.
The degree distribution after additionally deactivating $dq$ fraction of nodes, $p_{k}(q+dq)$, can be obtained as follows.
First, as $q$ increases by $dq$, $p_{0}$ increases by $dq$ and $p_{K}$ decreases by $dq$ where $K=k_{\scriptsize{\textrm{max}}}(q)$, the maximum degree in the network at the deactivated-node fraction $q$.
At the same time, when a node with degree $K$ is deactivated, the degree of the nodes linked to that deactivated node decreases by 1.
The probability that a node with degree $k$ is connected to a link from the deactivated node is $kp_{k}/{\sum_{k'=0}^{\infty}{k'p_{k'}}}$.
Combining the two effects, we obtain the complete set of recurrence relations as follows.
\begin{align}
\nonumber
p_{0}(q+dq)&= p_{0}(q)+K\frac{p_{1}}{\sum_{k'=1}^{\infty}{k'p_{k'}}}dq+dq~,\\
\nonumber
p_{1}(q+dq) &= p_{1}(q)+K\frac{2p_{2} - p_{1}}{\sum_{k'=1}^{\infty}{k'p_{k'}}}dq~,\\
&~~\vdots \\
\nonumber
p_{k}(q+dq)&= p_{k}(q)+K\frac{(k+1)p_{k+1} - kp_{k}}{\sum_{k'=1}^{\infty}{k'p_{k'}}}dq~,\\
\nonumber
&~~\vdots \\
\nonumber
p_{K}(q+dq) &= p_{K}(q)+K\frac{- Kp_{K}}{\sum_{k'=1}^{\infty}{k'p_{k'}}}dq-dq~.
\end{align}
The right hand side of each line contains a gain term due to the nodes with degree $(k+1)$ linked to the deactivated node and the loss term due to the nodes with degree $k$ linked to the deactivated node, except for the $k=0$ ($k=K$) equation that contains two gain (loss) terms.
Theoretically, the maximum degree $K$ is not limited; however, when numerically solving Eq.~(3) we can practically introduce a finite maximum degree $K$ without sacrificing precision.
In our numerical calculation we set the cutoff probability to be $10^{-10}$, meaning that the degree $k$ with $p_k(q) <10^{-10}$ is considered nonexistent in the network.
In this way, the initial value of $K$ was obtained to be $K=21$ for the ER network with mean-degree $z=7/2$.
As Eq.~(3) is iterated, the maximum degree decreases when $p_K$ drops below the cutoff.

Once the $p_k(q)$ is obtained by solving the recurrence relations Eq.~(3), one can apply the standard generating function technique \cite{2000CallawayNetwork, 2001NewmanRandom} to calculate $P_{\infty}(q)$ and $\chi(q)$ as a function of the deactivated-node fraction $q$.
The underlying assumption behind this procedure is that after the HDA percolation, the remaining network can be characterized solely by $p_{k}(q)$ like random networks.
The agreement of the numerical solution with the Monte Carlo simulations, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:OrderParameter}, validates this assumption.

\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig02.ps}
\vspace*{-0.7cm}
\caption{
{\bf Finite-size scaling analysis results of HDA (a--c) and CI percolations (d--f for CI$_1$ and g--i for CI$_2$).}
Leftmost column (a,d,g) represents the relation of Eq. (\ref{Eq:FSSnu}), middle (b,e,h) and right (c,f,i) columns show the relation of Eqs. (\ref{Eq:FSSbeta}, \ref{Eq:FSSgamma}), respectively.
Points represent the Monte Carlo simulation results and
the solid black line is the fitting line at the critical point $q_c$. The gray dotted lines in (e,f,h,i) are the mere guidelines connecting the numerical simulation points (smaller-size points) obtained slightly away from the critical point $q_c$ by the amount $\Delta=0.000\,03$.
We use the standard error for the error bars, which are smaller than the point size. Every fitted value has 95\% confidence interval.
Each numerical simulation point was obtained by averaging over $3 \times 10^{3}$ to $6 \times 10^{6}$ samples, depending on the system size and the distance parameter $\ell$.
(Insets) Plots of finite-size-scaled data collapse curves from Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:DCbeta}, \ref{Eq:DCgamma}), using the obtained critical exponents. Simulation results with system sizes $N/10^6=1\rm~(circle),4\rm~(square),16\rm~(diamond),$ and $64\rm~(pentagon)$ are used for the inset plots.
}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\label{Fig:FSS}
\end{figure*}

\section{Critical behaviors}
\label{Sec:Critical}
As one deactivates nodes (hence increasing $q$), the giant component size decreases and becomes zero at the critical point $q_c$.
Typical of continuous phase transitions, the average component size $\chi$ and the correlation length $\xi$ diverge at the critical point in the thermodynamic limit.
In the vicinity of critical point, the order parameter, the average component size and the correlation length are known to exhibit power laws with the critical exponent $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\nu$, respectively:
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\infty}(q) &\propto (q_{c}-q)^{\beta} &~~~~~ \textrm{with}~q\rightarrow q_{c}^{-}~,\\
\chi(q) &\propto |q_{c}-q|^{-\gamma} &~~~~~ \textrm{with}~q\rightarrow q_{c}~,\\
\xi(q) &\propto |q_{c}-q|^{-\nu} &~~~~~ \textrm{with}~q\rightarrow q_{c}~.
\end{eqnarray}

We use finite-size scaling ansatz and Monte Carlo simulations to obtain these critical exponents.
According to the finite-size scaling theory, percolation quantities like $P_{\infty}$ and $\chi$ have the scaling form  near the critical point with the size of the system $N$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq:DCbeta}
P_{\infty}(N, q) = N^{-\beta/\bar{\nu}} \widetilde{P}[(q-q_{c})N^{1/\bar{\nu}}]~,\\
\label{Eq:DCgamma}
\chi(N, q) = N^{\gamma/\bar{\nu}} \widetilde{\chi}[(q-q_{c})N^{1/\bar{\nu}}]~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{P}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}$, respectively, is the scaling function. These equations imply the following power-law scalings,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq:FSSnu}
q_{c}-q_{c}(N) &\propto N^{-1/\bar\nu}~,\\
\label{Eq:FSSbeta}
P_{\infty}(N,q_c) &\propto N^{-\beta / \bar\nu} ~,\\
\label{Eq:FSSgamma}
\chi(N,q_c) &\propto N^{\gamma / \bar\nu}~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar\nu=d\nu$ with $d$ being effective dimension~\cite{2007HongFinite}, which is $d=6$ for ER network with random percolations.
In Eq.~(\ref{Eq:FSSnu}), $q_{c}(N)$ is the value of $q$ at which $\chi(q)$ displays maximum value in the networks of finite size $N$.

To apply the finite-size scaling theory, we first need to know the critical point $q_c$.
Using numerical solution from Sec.~\ref{Sec:Method}, the critical point of HDA percolation on ER network with mean degree $z=7/2$ is obtained to be $q_{c}=0.235\,550$.
For CI percolations, we estimated $q_{c}$ that best fits Eqs. (\ref{Eq:FSSbeta}, \ref{Eq:FSSgamma}) using Monte Carlo simulation results.
We note that using Eq.~(\ref{Eq:FSSnu}) for estimating $q_c$ was not as reliable due to relatively large errors in locating $q_c(N)$ from Monte Carlo simulations.
For the ER networks with the same mean degree $z=7/2$, we obtained the critical point of $\textrm{CI}_{1}$ percolation to be $q_{c}=0.211\,61(1)$, and for $\textrm{CI}_{2}$ percolation $q_{c}=0.206\,01(1)$.

\begin{table}[b]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline\hline
Model & $q_{c}$ & $\beta$ &$\gamma$ & $\bar\nu$ \\
\hline
HDA percolation & 0.235 550\phantom{()} & 0.99(4) & 1.00(4) & 2.99(11) \\
$\textrm{CI}_{1}$ percolation & 0.211 61(1) & 1.02(4) & 1.03(4) & 3.06(13) \\
$\textrm{CI}_{2}$ percolation & 0.206 01(1) & 1.03(5) & 1.03(4) & 3.07(13) \\
Random percolation & 0.714 285\phantom{()} & 1\phantom{.02(6)} & 1\phantom{.02(6)} & 3\phantom{.03(17)} \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\caption{The critical point and the critical exponents of various percolation processes on Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi networks with mean degree $z=7/2$.}
\label{Tab:CPCE}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Fig.~\ref{Fig:FSS} displays, for the HDA, CI$_1$, and CI$_2$ percolations, the finite-size scaling results of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:FSSnu}--\ref{Eq:FSSgamma}) in the main panels, together with corresponding finite-size-scaled data collapse curves of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:DCbeta}--\ref{Eq:DCgamma}) in the insets.
This analysis provides estimates of the exponents $\bar{\nu}$, $\beta/\bar{\nu}$, and $\gamma/\bar{\nu}$, from which we extract values of the critical exponents $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\bar{\nu}$.
The obtained values of the critical point and the critical exponents are summarized in Table~\ref{Tab:CPCE}.
The critical exponents we obtained are consistent with those of random percolation within margin of error.
Our results show that, despite the apparently more rapid change near the transition point, both HDA and CI percolations still belong to the same universality as random percolation in random networks.

\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig03.ps}
\vspace*{-0.7cm}
\caption{
{\bf Properties of the top-centrality value during the HDA (a) and the CI (b, c) percolations.}
(Upper panels, left tics) Plots of the top-centrality value, $k_{\rm top}$ or ${\rm CI}_{\ell,\rm top}$, as a function of the deactivated-node fraction $q$.
(Lower panels, right tics)
Plots of the fraction $f$ of the nodes (with respect to $N$) that have the top-centrality value as a function of the deactivated-node fraction $q$.
Both plots contain data from simulations averaged over $10^{3}$ to $10^{6}$ samples.
Vertical guideline indicates the location of the critical deactivated-node fraction $q_c$ at which the giant component disappears.
Black solid lines in (a) are obtained from the numerical solutions of HDA from Sec.~\ref{Sec:Method}.
}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\label{Fig:Degeneracy}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig04.ps}
\vspace*{-0.7cm}
\caption{
{\bf (a)} Plot of the order parameter $P_{\infty}$ of HDA percolation on ER networks with mean degree $z=7/2$ as a function of the deactivated-node fraction $q$.
Points are results of Monte Carlo simulations with networks of size $N=10^{8}$, averaged over more than 100 samples.
Black solid lines are numerical solutions from Sec.~\ref{Sec:Method}.
{\bf (b--d)} The close-up curve near the cusp point, (b) for $q_{\rm cu1}=0.211\,925$, (c) for $q_{\rm cu2}=0.140\,014$, and (d) for $q_{\rm cu3}=0.084\,917$.
Dashed lines in (b--d) are the tangential line at each side of the cusp point, illustrating its non-analyticity.
{\bf (e)} Behavior of the average component size $\chi$ (upper) and the fluctuation of the order parameter $\chi_f$ (lower) near the cusp point at $q_{\rm cu1}=0.211\,925$ as a function of the deactivated-node fraction $q$.
Data are from Monte Carlo simulations with various system size $N=1,4,16,64 \times 10^{5}$, averaged over $3 \times 10^{4}$ to $1 \times 10^{6}$ samples.
Here, the fluctuation of the order parameter $\chi_f(q)$ is defined by $\chi_f(q)=N(\langle P_{\infty}(q)^2\rangle - \langle P_{\infty}(q)\rangle^2)$, where $\langle \cdots\rangle$ denotes the ensemble average.
}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\label{Fig:Cusp}
\end{figure}

\section{Degeneracy of top-centrality value}

Despite the apparently more abrupt collapse, the results of our analysis strongly suggest that HDA and CI percolations belong to the same universality as random percolation.
To gain more insight, we examine how the top-centrality value (degree-centrality for HDA percolation and CI-centrality value for CI percolation) behaves near the percolation critical point (Fig.~\ref{Fig:Degeneracy}).
First we observe that as the percolation process proceeds and approaches to the critical point, the top-centrality value becomes highly degenerate, which is realized as the succession of long plateaus in the upper panels of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Degeneracy}.
For HDA, the lines for different system size $N$ converge to the stairs-like curve predicted by the numerical solution as the system size increases. Same limiting behavior is observed for the CI$_{1,2}$ percolations, suggesting that they would develop the stairs-like behavior asymptotically as well.
Next, we show the fraction of top-centrality nodes in the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Degeneracy}.
It also tends to the limiting saw-like curve as the system size increases, implying that the number of top-centrality nodes near the critical point $q_{c}$ is extensive, that is, proportional to the system size $N$.
In other words, if the system size goes to infinity, the number of nodes with the top-centrality value would also go to infinity, confirming a massive degeneracy of top-centrality value.

According to the rules of HDA and CI percolation, when there are many nodes with the same top-centrality value, one of the nodes is randomly selected and deactivated.
The presence of extensive degeneracy of top-centrality nodes near the critical point implies that one of the extensively-many top-centrality nodes is chosen randomly and deactivated.
This induces that the selectiveness is weakened and the node-deactivation process would become more random-like.

The presence of extensive degeneracy in top-centrality value manifests itself in the behavior of order parameter as well.
In HDA percolation, the cusp points in the order parameter curve are observed at the points where $k_{\rm top}$ change its value (see for example the cusps at $q_{\rm cu1}=0.211\,925$, $q_{\rm cu2}=0.140\,014$, and $q_{\rm cu3}=0.084\,917$ in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Cusp}).
The discrete change of $k_{\rm top}$ value across the cusp point induces discontinuous change of the rate of decrease of the order parameter across that point, establishing the cusp [see Fig.~\ref{Fig:Cusp}(b--d)].
This phenomenon is also verified by the Monte Carlo simulation near $q_{\rm cu1}$.
The susceptibility-like quantities, the average component size $\chi$ and the fluctuation of the order parameter $\chi_f$, also exhibit non-analytic behavior such as cusp ($\chi$) or discontinuity ($\chi_f$) at the cusp point, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Cusp}(e). Here $\chi_f$ is defined by $\chi_f(q)=N(\langle P_{\infty}(q)^2\rangle - \langle P_{\infty}(q)\rangle^2)$ where $\langle \cdots\rangle$ denotes the ensemble average.
They do not, however, diverge there. These cusp points, therefore, are not likely critical points.
The existence (or absence) of similar cusps in the CI percolations is not clearly discernible due to limited resolution of our Monte Carlo simulations.

\section{Discussion}
In this paper, we have studied the critical behaviors of HDA and CI percolation transitions on random networks using Monte Carlo simulations and numerical solutions.
We found that the critical behavior of the two attack-based processes is in the same universality class as the random percolation, despite their more abrupt, near-optimal disruption of network connectivity than random percolation.
We uncovered the massive degeneracy of maximum centrality value near the critical point, which might contribute to render the transition of mean-field type.
Recently, a study reported \cite{2020AlmeiraScaling} non-standard-mean-field critical exponent for HDA percolation, specifically $\bar\nu=2.59(7)$, which contradicts with our mean-field-consistent result $\bar\nu=2.99(11)$ in this work.
Our analysis uses much larger network size (up to ${\cal O}(10^8)$ compared to $6.4\times10^4$ in Ref.~\cite{2020AlmeiraScaling}) and is supported also by the numerical solutions.
It is noteworthy that Ref.~\cite{2020AlmeiraScaling} also reported high-betweenness adaptive percolation to exhibit different critical exponents from those of random percolation.
It has also been reported that HDA percolation has the same exponents as random percolation on two-dimensional proximity graphs \cite{2006NorrenbrockFragmentation}.
This also indirectly supports that HDA percolation belongs to the same universality class as random percolation.

In a broader perspective, our work initiates the studies of attack-type and optimal percolation processes for deeper understanding from the viewpoint of critical behaviors at the percolation transition point.
Understanding the nature of critical behaviors will help for example devise detection and protection strategy upon the attacks on the network, as different criticality entails different `early warnings' \cite{2009EarlyScheffer}.
Another interesting standing question is the condition for the non-mean-field criticality in the optimal percolation processes.
The HDA and CI percolation processes implement local heuristics for selecting nodes to be deactivated.
There exist approaches based on global optimization methods \cite{2016BraunsteinNetwork, 2016ClusellaImmunization, 2016MoroneCollective, 2016MugishaIdentifying, 2016ZdeborovaFast, 2017PeiEfficient, 2019RenGeneralized}. that reportedly produce discontinuous disappearance of the giant component in the attacked network.
Identifying minimal condition for the non-standard-mean-field criticality as well as the discontinuity in the network attack process remains a theoretically intriguing problem, to be explored in future works.
Finally, the phase transition property of the CI percolation with higher-order network effects such as on modular networks is also an interesting problem for future study.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.\ 2017R1A2B2003121 and No.\ 2020R1A2C2003669).

\section*{Author contributions}
J-HK, S-JK and K-IG conceived the project; J-HK, S-JK performed the simulations; all authors interpreted the results and contributed to the writing of the manuscript.