\section{Conclusion}

In this work, we consider the automated data manipulation for open-domain dialogue systems.
To induce the model learning from effective instances, we propose a learnable data manipulation model to augment effective training samples and reduce the weights of inefficient samples.
The resulting data manipulation model is fully end-to-end and can be trained jointly with the dialogue generation model.
Experiments conducted on two public conversation datasets show that our proposed framework is able to boost the performance of existing dialogue systems.

Our learning-to-manipulate framework for neural dialogue generation is not limited to the elaborately designed manipulation skills in this paper.
Future work will investigate other data manipulation techniques (e.g., data synthesis), which can be further integrated to improve the performance.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments and suggestions.
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China-Joint Fund for Basic Research of General Technology under Grant U1836111 and U1736106.
Hongshen Chen and Xiaofang Zhao are the corresponding authors.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}

\input{Materials/data_stats.tex}

\subsection{Experiment Setup}
\paragraph{Data}
We conduct experiments on two English conversation datasets:
(1) \textit{DailyDialog}~\citep{DBLP:conf/ijcnlp/LiSSLCN17}, a collection of real-world dialogues widely used in open-domain dialogue generation.
This is a multi-turn dataset, and we treat each turn as a training pair in this work.
The overlapping pairs are removed from the data set.
(2) \textit{OpenSubtitles}~\citep{DBLP:conf/lrec/LisonT16}, a group of human-human conversations converted from movie transcripts.
{80,000 instances are sampled from the original corpus and }the data proportion for train/valid/test set is set to 8/1/1, respectively.
The dataset statistics are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:datasets}.

\paragraph{Experimental Models}
To ascertain the effectiveness and applicability of our method,
we implement the proposed data manipulation framework on following representative models:
(\rom{1}) \textbf{SEQ2SEQ}: a RNN-based sequence-to-sequence model with attention mechanisms~\citep{Bahdanau2014NeuralMT};
(\rom{2}) \textbf{CVAE}:  a latent variable model using conditional variational auto-encoder, trained with KL-annealing and a BoW loss as in ~\citet{DBLP:conf/acl/ZhaoZE17};
(\rom{3}) \textbf{Transformer}:  an encoder-decoder architecture relying solely on the attention mechanisms~\citep{DBLP:conf/nips/VaswaniSPUJGKP17}.

\paragraph{Comparison Models}
We also compare our approach with previous data augmentation or instance weighting methods:
(\rom{1}) \textbf{CVAE-GAN}~\cite{Li2019InsufficientDC}:  a model that combines CVAE and GAN for augmenting the training data to generate more diversified expressions.
(\rom{2}) \textbf{Calibration}~\cite{DBLP:conf/ijcai/ShangFPFZY18}: a calibration network measures the quality of data samples and enables weighted training for dialogue generation.
(\rom{3}) \textbf{Clustering}~\citep{csaky-etal-2019-improving}: it clusters high-entropy samples as noises and filters them out.

\input{Materials/big_table.tex}
\input{Materials/compare_baselines.tex}

\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}
We adopt several widely used metrics~\citep{DBLP:conf/emnlp/LiuLSNCP16,DBLP:conf/naacl/LiGBGD16,DBLP:journals/corr/SerbanSLCPCB16,DBLP:conf/iclr/GuCHK19} to measure the performance of dialogue generation models, including BLEU, embedding-based metrics, entropy-based metrics and distinct metrics.
In particular, BLEU measures how much a generated response contains n-gram overlaps with the reference.
We compute BLEU scores for n$<$4 using smoothing techniques\footnote{\url{https://www.nltk.org/_modules/nltk/translate/bleu_score.html}}.
Embedding-based metric computes the cosine similarity of bag-of-words embeddings between the hypothesis and the reference.
We employ the following three embedding metrics to assess the response quality:
({1}) Embedding Average (\textbf{Avg}): cosine similarity between two utterances, in which the sentence embedding is computed by taking the average word embedding weighted by the smooth inverse frequency $\textit{sent\_emb}(e)=\frac{1}{|e|}\sum_{\nu\in{}e}\frac{0.001}{0.001 + p(\nu)}emb(\nu)$ of words as in \citet{DBLP:conf/iclr/AroraLM17}.
where $emb(\nu)$ and $p(\nu)$ are the embedding and the probability\footnote{ Probability is computed based on the maximum likelihood estimation on the training data.} of word $\nu$ respectively.
({2}) Embedding Greedy (\textbf{Gre}): greedily matching words in two utterances based on the cosine similarities between their embeddings, and averaging the obtained scores,
({3}) Embedding Extrema (\textbf{Ext}): cosine similarity between the largest extreme values among the word embeddings in the two utterances.
We use Glove vectors as the word embeddings.
Regarding entropy-based metrics, we compute the n-gram entropy $\textbf{Ent-n}=-\frac{1}{|r|}\sum_{\nu\in{}r}{\log_2{p(\nu)}}$ of responses to measure their non-genericness, where the probabilities $p(\nu)$ of n-grams (n=1,2,3) are calculated based on the maximum likelihood estimation on the training data~\citep{DBLP:journals/corr/SerbanSLCPCB16}.
\textbf{Distinct} computes the diversity of the generated responses. Dist-n is defined as the ratio of unique n-grams (n=1,2,3) over all n-grams in the generated responses.
Following~\citet{DBLP:conf/iclr/GuCHK19}, we also report \textbf{Intra}-\{1,2,3\} metrics which are computed as the average of distinct values within each sampled response.

\subsection{Implementation \& Reproducibility}
For word-level dialogue augmentation, we employ the pre-trained BERT-base language model with the uncased version of tokenizer.
We follow the hyper-parameters and settings suggested in ~\citet{DBLP:conf/naacl/DevlinCLT19}.
The replacement probability is set to 15\%.
For back-translation in sentence-level dialogue augmentation, we use the Transformer model~\citep{DBLP:conf/nips/VaswaniSPUJGKP17} trained on En-De and En-Ru WMT'19 news translation tasks~\citep{ng2019facebook}.
German and Russian sentences were tokenized with the Moses tokenizer~\citep{DBLP:conf/acl/KoehnHBCFBCSMZDBCH07}.
The same hyper-parameters are used for the translation tasks, i.e., word representations of size 1024, dropout with 0.8 keep probability, feed-forward layers with dimension 4096, 6 blocks in the encoder and decoder with 16 attention heads.
Models are optimized with Adam~\citep{DBLP:journals/corr/KingmaB14} optimizer using initial learning rate 7e-4.
Regarding dialogue models implementation, we adopt a 2-layer bidirectional LSTM as the encoder and a unidirectional one as the decoder for both the SEQ2SEQ and CVAE.
The hidden size is set to 256, and the latent size used in CVAE is set to 64.
The transformer model for dialogue generation is configured with 512 hidden size, 8 attention heads and 6 blocks in both the encoder and decoder.
The hyper-parameters in the baseline models are set following the original papers~\citep{Li2019InsufficientDC,DBLP:conf/ijcai/ShangFPFZY18,csaky-etal-2019-improving}.

\subsection{Evaluation Results}
To investigate the effectiveness and general applicability of the proposed framework, we instantiate our data manipulation framework on several state-of-the-art models for dialogue generation.
The automatic evaluation results of our proposed learning framework and the corresponding vanilla models are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:main_res}.
Compared with the vanilla training procedure, the proposed data manipulation framework brings solid improvements for all the three architectures regarding almost all the evaluation metrics.
Such improvements are consistent across both two conversation datasets, affirming the superiority and general applicability of our proposed framework.

We further compare our model with existing related methods.
Not surprisingly, as shown in Table~\ref{tbl:compare_res}, our data manipulation framework outperforms the baseline methods on most of metrics.
In particular, the improvement on Distinct metrics of our model is much greater, which implies that data manipulation effectively induce the neural dialogue model generating more diverse responses.

\input{Materials/human_eval.tex}
\input{Materials/word_vs_sent.tex}
\input{Materials/ablation.tex}

\subsection{Human Evaluation}

We use the DailyDialog as the evaluation corpus since it is more similar to our daily conversations and easier for annotators to make the judgement.
Three graduate students are recruited to conduct manual evaluations.
100 test messages are randomly sampled.
We present the input messages and the corresponding responses generated by our model and the comparison model to the annotators.
The annotators are then required to compare the quality of these two responses ($\text{response}_1, \text{response}_2$), taking the following criteria into consideration: coherence, language consistency, fluency and informativeness, and evaluate among ``win'' ($\text{response}_1$ is better), ``loss'' ($\text{response}_2$ is better) and ``tie'' (they are equally good or bad).
Note that cases with different evaluation results are labeled as ``tie''.
Table~\ref{tbl:human_eval} summarizes human evaluation results.
The kappa scores indicate that the annotators came to a fair agreement in the judgement.
Compared with the baseline methods, our data manipulation approach brings about more informative and coherent replies.

\input{Materials/valid_curves.tex}

\subsection{Model Analysis}

\paragraph{Learning Efficiency}
 Figure~\ref{fig:valid_line_plot} presents validation results along iterations when training the SEQ2SEQ model on DailyDialog.
 We observe that when training SEQ2SEQ using our framework, the initial learning speed is a bit slower than the standard vanilla training.
 However, our framework surpasses the vanilla training on the final stage.
 One reason is that, at the early stage, the data manipulation model takes some time to improve its manipulation skills.
 This may slow down the neural dialogue model learning.
 Once the manipulation skills are effective enough, the neural dialogue model may benefit from learning more effective samples instead of those inefficient instances, and achieves better performance.

\input{Materials/gating_plot.tex}

\paragraph{Examples with Different Augmentation Frequencies}
 The data manipulation model selectively chooses samples to conduct data augmentation.
 To further glean the insights regarding which samples are favored by the augmentation model, we list examples with different augmentation frequencies in Figure~\ref{fig:gating_plot}.
 We notice that samples frequently augmented by the manipulation model are more reliable than those seldom augmented ones.
 Therefore, the dialogue model is able to learn from those effective instances and their synonymous variants.

\paragraph{Word-level \textit{vs.} Sentence-level Augmentation}
 In our framework, we implement two kinds of augmentation mechanisms.
 Word-level augmentation enriches the given samples by substituting words, while sentence-level augmentation paraphrases the original samples through back-translation.
 We evaluate their performances and report results in Table~\ref{tbl:ablation_aug}.
 Both augmentation mechanisms improve the performance over the vanilla SEQ2SEQ baseline,
 while sentence-level augmentation performs slightly better than word-level augmentation on most evaluation metrics.
 One possible reason is that sentence-level augmentation captures more paraphrasing phenomenon.

\paragraph{Ablation Study}
 Table~\ref{tbl:ablation_model} presents the results of model variants, by ablating specific parts of the data manipulation model.
 Among different variants, without data augmentation, the performance degrades rapidly.
 Meanwhile, without weighting or {instance filter} also decreases the performance.
 This implies that the neural dialogue generation model not only benefits from more training samples but also reaps greater advantages from those effective rather than inefficient instances.

\input{Materials/diff_training_sizes.tex}

\paragraph{Impact of Training Data Scale}

We explore the impact of training data scale on the data manipulation framework by comparing a model trained on half amount of the training data in DailyDialog.
As presented in Table~\ref{tbl:diff-training-sizes}, with only 50\% amount of training data, our model achieves a greater performance boost, which affirms the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed approach.
\section{Introduction}

Open-domain dialogue generation, due to its potential applications, is becoming ubiquitous in the community of natural language processing.
Current end-to-end neural dialogue generation models~\citep{DBLP:conf/naacl/LiGBGD16,DBLP:journals/corr/SerbanSLCPCB16,DBLP:conf/acl/ZhaoZE17} are primarily built following the data-driven paradigm, that is, these models mimic the human conversations by training on the large-scale query-response pairs.
As such, a reliable training corpus that exhibits high-quality conversations is the crux of building a robust and well-behaved dialogue model.

\input{Materials/intro_method.tex}

Unfortunately, owing to the subjectivity and open-ended nature of human conversations, the quality of the collected human-generated dialogues varies greatly~\citep{DBLP:conf/ijcai/ShangFPFZY18}, which hampers the effectiveness of data-driven dialogue models:
1) Effective conversation samples are quite insufficient.
To glean some insights on the data quality of dialogue corpus, we choose the query-relatedness to take a glimpse of the data quality.
In dialogue corpus, some conversations are quite coherent, where the queries and responses are well-correlated, while others are not.
Query-relatedness measures the semantic similarities between the query and its corresponding response in the embedding space and ranges from 0 to 1.
When reviewing DailyDialog~\citep{DBLP:conf/ijcnlp/LiSSLCN17}, we find that only 12\% conversation samples are of relatively high query-relatedness scores ($>0.6$).
Without adequate reliable training samples, the neural dialogue model is prone to converge to a sub-optimal {point}.
2) Meanwhile, noisy and even meaningless conversation samples frequently appear.
As \citet{DBLP:conf/naacl/LiGBGD16} reported, ``I don't know'' appears in over 113K sentences in the training corpus OpenSubtitles~\citep{DBLP:conf/lrec/LisonT16}.
Such kind of noisy conversation data prevails in neural dialogue model training, and vitally impedes the model learning.

Therefore, effective dialogue learning requires not only more reliable learning samples, but also fewer noisy samples.
In this work,  as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:motivation_balance}, we propose a novel learnable data manipulation framework to  proactively reshape the data distribution towards reliable samples by augmenting and highlighting effective learning samples as well as reducing the weights of inefficient samples simultaneously.
Specifically, to generate more effective data samples, the data manipulation model selectively augments the training samples in terms of both word level and sentence level, using masked language models such as BERT~\citep{DBLP:conf/naacl/DevlinCLT19} and back-translation~\citep{sennrich-etal-2016-improving} technique.
To reduce the weights of inefficient samples from the original training samples and the augmented samples, the data manipulation model assigns an importance weight to each sample to adapt the sample effect on dialogue model training.
It gives out higher importance weights to critical learning samples and lower weights to those inefficient samples.
Furthermore, different from most previous data augmentation or data weighting studies~\citep{Li2019InsufficientDC,DBLP:conf/ijcai/ShangFPFZY18,csaky-etal-2019-improving}, which are unaware of the target model states during augmentation or weighting, our data manipulation framework not only manipulates training samples to optimize the dialogue generation model, but also learns to increase its manipulation skills through gradient descent with validation samples.

We apply the proposed data manipulation framework on several state-of-the-art generation models with two real-life open-domain conversation datasets and compare with the recent data manipulation approaches in terms of 13 automatic evaluation metrics and human judgment.
{Experiment results show that our data manipulation framework outperforms the baseline models over most of the metrics on both datasets.}

\section{Data Manipulation for Neural Dialogue Generation}
 The proposed data manipulation framework tackles the problem of un-even quality data by inducing the model learning from more effective dialogue samples and reducing effects of those inefficient samples simultaneously.
 In particular, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:model_arch}, it manipulates and reshapes the data distribution for neural dialogue model learning in mainly three stages:
 First, each batch of training samples are selectively augmented to generate more variant samples;
 and then, all the samples, including the original samples and the augmented samples, are assigned with instance weights indicating their importance regarding current learning status;
 finally, the weighted samples are fed into the neural dialogue model to induce the model learning from more effective training instances.

 Note that, although we describe the framework in three components for ease of understanding, in fact, the whole framework can be trained in an end-to-end manner.
 As a result, the data manipulation network is capable of not only manipulating training samples to optimize the dialogue generation model, but also learning to increase its manipulation skills through gradient descent with validation samples.

 We first introduce the augmentation and weighting strategies for data manipulation in \S\ref{augmentation} and \S\ref{weighting}, and then describe how the neural dialogue generation model learns from the manipulated samples in \S\ref{sec:gen_with_manipulation}.
 Parameters estimation for the data manipulation model is elaborated in \S\ref{manipulation_learning}.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{Fig/Model_Arch_Overall.pdf}
  \caption{
    Overview of the proposed automated data manipulation framework for neural dialogue generation.
    At training step $t$, the data manipulation model augments and weights the training samples for the dialogue model learning.
  }
  \label{fig:model_arch}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}[!t]
  \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{Fig/Model_Arch_DataManipulation.pdf}
    \caption{
      Illustration of the data manipulation model.
      During training, it takes the original batch samples as input, and generates the augmented data samples as well as the importance weights for dialogue model training.
    }
    \label{fig:data_manipulation_net}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Dialogue Augmentation}
\label{augmentation}
 To induce the neural dialogue generation model to learn from more effective samples, we develop a gated data augmentation mechanism for the manipulation framework to selectively augment the learning samples.

 Specifically, as shown in  Figure~\ref{fig:data_manipulation_net},
 given a training sample, the manipulation framework first specifies whether to augment it or not through {an instance filter, which can be implemented using a $sigmoid$ gating function.}
 Then, two levels of data augmentation are introduced, word-level contextual augmentation and sentence-level data augmentation, to augment the chosen sample accordingly.

\subsubsection{Word-level Contextual Augmentation}
 As the name suggests, word-level augmentation enriches the training samples by substituting the words in the original sample (Figure~\ref{fig:data_manipulation_net} (a)).
 Here, we employ a masked language model, BERT~\citep{DBLP:conf/naacl/DevlinCLT19}, to implement word-level augmentation.
 Given an original sentence\iffalse $\hat{x}$\fi, the language model first randomly masks out a few words.
 BERT then takes in the masked sentence and predicts the corresponding masked positions with new words.

 A fixed pre-trained BERT may not generalize well for our data manipulation framework, because BERT is unaware of the dialogue learning status.
 To mitigate such defects, we further fine-tune BERT through backpropagation \iffalse to minimize the validation loss\fi {(more details in \S~\ref{manipulation_learning}).}
 In particular, BERT is adapted to be differentiable by utilizing a gumbel-softmax approximation~\citep{DBLP:conf/iclr/JangGP17} when predicting substitution words.

\subsubsection{Sentence-level Data Augmentation}
Word-level data augmentation is quite straightforward.
However, such kind of rewriting is limited to only a few words.
In human dialogues, there exist various synonymous conversations with different sentence structures.
To further diversify the expressions in conversion, we introduce the sentence-level data augmentation through back-translation as in \citet{DBLP:conf/emnlp/EdunovOAG18,DBLP:conf/iclr/YuDLZ00L18}, which trains two translation models: one translation model from the source language to target language and another backward translation model from the target to the source, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:data_manipulation_net} (b).
By transforming the expression styles across different languages, the augmented training samples are expected to convey similar information while with different expressions.

Similar to the fine-tuning strategy in word-level data augmentation, we also fine-tune the sentence-level data augmentation components to encourage the model to generate more effective samples for dialogue training.
The gradients are back-propagated into the translation-based augmentation model, where a differentiable gumbel-softmax is utilized when predicting sentences using the translation model.

\subsection{Data Weighting}
\label{weighting}
Given the original training samples and the augmented samples, to deal with the problem of noisy instances, data manipulation model assigns an importance weight to each training sample regarding the learning status.
In particular, the sample importance weights are approximated through a softmax function over the scores of these instances.
A multilayer perceptron is employed to compute example scores, taking distributional representations of these instances as input.
Each sample is converted into its corresponding  distributional representation through a transformer-based encoder.

\subsection{Dialogue Generation with Data Manipulation}
\label{sec:gen_with_manipulation}
Conventionally, neural dialogue generation model is optimized with a vanilla negative log-likelihood loss using the training data $\mathcal{D}$ with size $N$: $\mathcal{L}_{vanilla}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}{-\log{p({\bm{y}_j}|{\bm{x}_j})}}$,
where each sample is treated equally.
In our framework, we assign each sample with an importance weight {and augment the original training set $\mathcal{D}=\{(\bm{x}_j, \bm{y}_j)\}_{j=1}^{N}$ to $\mathcal{D}'=\{(\bm{x}_j, \bm{y}_j)\}_{j=1}^{N'}$} regarding the learning status.
To perform the weighted optimization {with augmented training set $\mathcal{D}'$}, we utilize a weighted negative log-likelihood loss function:
\begin{equation}
  \begin{split}
    \mathcal{L}_{dm} = \sum_{j=1}^{N'}{-w_j\log{p({\bm{y}_j}|{\bm{x}_j})}},
  \end{split}
  \label{eq:loss_dm}
\end{equation}
where $w_j$ is the instance weight produced by the data manipulation network.

\subsection{Parameter Estimation for Data Manipulation}
\label{manipulation_learning}
 The data manipulation network not only manipulates training samples to optimize the dialogue learning process, but also learns to increase its manipulation skills through gradient descent with validation samples.
 We formulate such joint learning process following a novel policy learning paradigm~\citep{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1910-12795,DBLP:conf/iclr/TanHYSX19},
 where the manipulation framework is formulated as a learnable data-dependent reward function $R_\phi(\bm{d}=\{\bm{x}, \bm{y}\}|\mathcal{D})$, the dialogue model $p_\theta(\bm{y}|\bm{x})$ is treated as a policy, the input $\bm{x}$ as the ``state'', and the output $\bm{y}$ as the ``action''.
 The reward function $R_\phi(\bm{d}|\mathcal{D})$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
  \small
  \begin{split}
  R_\phi(\bm{d}|\mathcal{D}) = \left\{
    \begin{array}{ll}
    w_i & \text{if}\ \  \bm{d} \text{ is an augmented sample}\\
    & \text{of}\ \bm{d}_i^* \ \text{or}\ \bm{d}=\bm{d}_i^*,\  \bm{d}_i^* \in \mathcal{D} \\
    -\infty & \text{otherwise},
    \end{array}
    \right.
  \end{split}
  \label{eq:r-data_mani}
\end{equation}
 where ${\phi}$ denotes the parameter of data manipulation network and $w_i\in \mathbb{R}$ is the importance weight associated with the $i$th data sample.
 In such formulation, a sample $\bm{d}$ receives a real-valued reward when $\bm{d}$ is an augmented sample, or $\bm{d}$ matches an instance in the original training set.

 As depicted in  Algorithm~\ref{algo:optimization}, the parameter $\bm{\theta}$ of the neural dialogue model and parameter $\bm{\phi}$ of the data manipulation network are alternatively optimized.
 {Jointly optimizing the dialogue model and the manipulation network can be regarded as reward learning,}
 where the policy $p_\theta(\bm{y}|\bm{x})$ receives relatively higher rewards for effective samples and lower rewards for those inefficient samples.
 More concretely, to optimize the neural dialogue model, at each iteration, mini-batch instances are sampled from the training set, and are then enriched through augmentation and weighting.
 The parameter ${\theta}$ of the neural dialogue model is then updated with a weighted negative log-likelihood loss function in Eq.(\ref{eq:loss_dm}):
 \begin{equation}
 {\theta^{'}}={\theta}-\alpha \nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{L}_{dm}({\theta}, {\phi}),
 \label{eq:op_theta}
 \end{equation}
 where $\nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{L}_{dm}({\theta}, {\phi})$ is the gradient of ${\theta}$ with respect to the loss $\mathcal{L}_{dm}$, and $\alpha$ is the step size.
 The parameter ${\phi}$ of the data manipulation network is learned by taking a meta gradient descent step on validation samples~\citep{DBLP:conf/icml/RenZYU18}.
 Equation (\ref{eq:op_theta}) shows that ${\theta^{'}}$ depends on ${\phi}$. Therefore, the manipulation model (i.e. the reward function $R_\phi(\bm{d}|\mathcal{D})$) can be optimized by directly backpropagating the gradient through ${\theta^{'}}$ to ${\phi}$.

\input{Materials/algo.tex}
\section{Related Work}

Existing approaches to improving neural dialogue generation models mainly target on building more powerful learning systems, using extra information such as conversation topics~\citep{DBLP:conf/aaai/XingWWLHZM17}, persona profile~\citep{DBLP:conf/ijcai/SongZCWL19}, user emotions~\citep{DBLP:conf/aaai/ZhouHZZL18}, or out-sourcing knowledge~\citep{DBLP:conf/acl/LiuFCRYL18}.
Another popular framework for dialogue generation is variational autoencoder~\citep{DBLP:journals/corr/KingmaW13,DBLP:conf/acl/ZhaoZE17,DBLP:conf/acl/ShenSLLNZAL17}, in which a latent variable is introduced to benefit the dialogue model with more diverse response generation.
Contrasted with previous researches, we investigate to improve the dialogue model from a different angle, i.e., adapting the training examples using data manipulation techniques.

Data augmentation is an effective way to improve the performance of neural models.
To name a few,
\citet{DBLP:conf/interspeech/KurataXZ16} propose to generate more utterances by introducing noise to the decoding process.
\citet{DBLP:conf/naacl/Kobayashi18,DBLP:conf/iccS/WuLZHH19} demonstrate that contextual augmentation using label-conditional language models helps to improve the neural networks classifier on text classification tasks.
\citet{sennrich-etal-2016-improving} boost neural machine translation models using back-translation.
\citet{DBLP:conf/iclr/XieWLLNJN17,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1904-09545} design manually-specified strategies for data augmentation.
\citet{DBLP:conf/coling/HouLCL18} utilize a sequence-to-sequence model to produce diverse utterances for language understanding.
\citet{Li2019InsufficientDC,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1909-12868} propose to generate sentences for dialogue augmentation.
Compared with previous augmentation approaches for dialogue generation, augmented sentences in our framework are selectively generated using the pretrained models and the augmentation process is additionally fine-tuned jointly with the training of dialogue generation.

Regarding data weighting, past methods~\citep{jiang-zhai-2007-instance,DBLP:conf/ecml/RebbapragadaB07,DBLP:conf/emnlp/WangULCS17,DBLP:conf/icml/RenZYU18,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1910-12795} have been proposed to manage the problem of training set biases or label noises.
\citet{lison-bibauw-2017-dialogues} propose to enhance the retrieval-based dialog system with a weighting model.
\citet{DBLP:conf/ijcai/ShangFPFZY18} likewise design a matching network to calibrate the dialogue model training through instance weighting.
\citet{cai-etal-2020-curricula} investigate curriculum learning to adapt the instance effect on dialogue model training according to the sample complexity.
Whereas our proposed framework learns to reweight not only the original training examples but also the augmented examples.
Another difference is that, we directly derive data weights based on their gradient directions on a validation set, instead of separately training a external weighting model.
~\citet{csaky-etal-2019-improving} claim that high-entropy utterances in the training set lead to those boring generated responses and thus propose to ameliorate such issue by simply removing training instances with high entropy.
Although data filtering is a straightforward approach to alleviate the problem of noisy data, the informative training samples remain untouched and insufficient.
Whereas our method holds the promise of generating more valid training data and alleviating the negative noises in the meantime.

Note that either data augmentation or instance reweighting can be considered band-aid solution: simply augmenting all training data risks introducing more noisy conversations as such low-quality examples prevail in human-generated dialogues, whilst adapting the sample effect merely by instance reweighting is also suboptimal since effective training samples remain insufficient. The proposed learning-to-manipulate framework organically integrates these two schemes, which collectively fulfill the entire goal.


\section{Introduction}\label{in}
	Ising model with interactions between pairs of nearest neighbours is one of the most studied systems in statistical mechanics. Some exact solutions ( with an analitical formulae for the partition function or free energy of the system) were obtained mainly for planar models, among these the exact Onsager's solution \cite{Onsager} of two-dimensional Ising model without an external magnetic field stands out clearly.
	Publications \cite{Wu1982}-\cite{Aguilar_Braun}  are devoted to the theme of disorder solutions \cite{Stephenson},  obtained on a subset in the space of parameters of a physical system. Good reviews on this theme can be found in Wu F.Y.  \cite{Wu1982} , Baxter R.J.  \cite{baxter2016}.
	The transfer matrix apparatus is widely used in statistical physics \cite{Onsager}, \cite{Forrester_Baxter},  \cite{Minlos_Khrapov} - \cite{Khrapov3}, \cite{Khrapov4}- \cite{Khrapov5}. 	This article is a logical continuation of the author’s works  \cite{Khrapov3}, \cite{Khrapov4} and \cite{Khrapov5}, which outlines a general methodology for finding such disordered solutions for generalized Ising and Potts models, and explicitly some of these solutions for planar and three-dimensional generalized Ising model are obtained. 	 It is also shown  \cite{Khrapov3} how using the Levenberg -Marquardt method \cite{Levenberg} it is possible to obtain a numerical solution of the resulting systems of nonlinear equations.

	In this article, we consider planar generalised Ising models in the external magnetic field with general form of multi-spin interaction with nearest neighbors, next nearest neighbors, all kinds of triple interactions and the quadruple interaction. Toroidal boundary conditions are with a shift by one (similar to helical ones), and a cyclic closure of the set of all points (in natural ordering) \cite{Khrapov3}. For these models, elementary transfer matrices  \cite{Khrapov3} with non-negative elements were constructed, systems of equations were written and solved to find their largest eigenvalues (and the form of eigenvectors with positive components corresponding to these largest eigenvalues by the Perron-Frobenius theorem \cite{Perron}).
	 Thus, on the set of disorder solutions the largest eigenvalue of the transfer matrix is constant for every size of considering planar lattice, and, in particular, in the thermodynamic limit. The natural logarithm of the largest eigenvalue, taken with the opposite sign, is the division of the free energy and the product of Boltzmann's constant and temperature. The exact solutions of the system of equations, depending on seven parameters, were obtained in an explicit form. The system of equations and the value of free energy per lattice site in the thermodynamic limit remain the same for plane models with Hamiltonians in which the values of two (out of four) neighboring maximal spins in the natural ordering are replaced by the values of the spins at any other two lattice points neighboring in the natural ordering (\ref{v:rem1}), this is significantly expands the set of models having disordered exact solutions.
	 The periodicity of the eigenvectors’ components, which disappears when we go beyond the framework of 	the obtained set of disordered solutions, is a cause for searching 	phase transitions in the neighborhood of this set.

	Let us consider two-dimensional lattice (more detailed description of this lattice can be found in \cite{Khrapov3}, notations in this study are similar with notations in  \cite{Khrapov3}). Let us assume

	\begin{equation}\label{v:a}
\mathcal {L}_2=\{t=(t_1,t_2),t_i=0,1,...,L_i, i=1,2\}.
	\end{equation}
	Then let us make the following identification

	\begin{equation}\label{v:b}
	(L_1,t_2)\equiv (0,t_2+1), (L_1,L_2-1)\equiv (0,L_2) \equiv (0,0).
	\end{equation}

	Due to the process of  identifying points, the total number of lattice sites $\mathcal {L}_2 $    is equal to
	$L=L_1  L_2$   . Thus, special boundary toroidal cyclic helical (with a shift) conditions are set on $\mathcal {L}_2$. We renumber all points $ \mathcal {L}_2 : $
	\begin{equation}\label{v:c}
	\tau^0=(0,0) ,
	\tau^1=(1,0) , \tau^2=(2,0) ,...,\tau^{L_1}=(L_1,0)\equiv (0,1)
	,\tau^{L}=(0,0)\equiv \tau^0 .
	\end{equation}

	This numeration determines the nature cyclic detour at every point (in the positive direction) and local (cyclic) ordering.
	Let us consider that there is a particle in each site $t=(t_1,t_2)$. The state of particle is defined by spin $\sigma_t  $  , which at every site of lattice $t=(t_1,t_2)$ can take two values: $\sigma_t \in X=\{+1,-1\} $  .
	Every spin interacts with the eight nearest spins.  The Hamiltonian of generalized two-dimensional Ising model has the form

	\begin{equation}\label{v:d}
	\begin{gathered}
	\mathcal {H} (\sigma )= -\sum_{m=1}^{L_2} \sum_{n=1}^{L_1}(J_1\sigma_n^m\sigma_{n+1}^m+J_2\sigma_n^m\sigma_{n}^{m+1} + J_3\sigma_{n+1}^m\sigma_{n}^{m+1}+J_4\sigma_n^m\sigma_{n+1}^{m+1}+\\
	+J_5\sigma_n^m\sigma_{n}^{m+1}\sigma_{n+1}^{m+1}+ J_6\sigma_n^m\sigma_{n+1}^{m}\sigma_{n}^{m+1}+
	J_7\sigma_n^m\sigma_{n+1}^{m}\sigma_{n+1}^{m+1}+ \\
	+J_8\sigma_n^{m+1}\sigma_{n+1}^{m}\sigma_{n+1}^{m+1}+
	J_9\sigma_n^m\sigma_{n+1}^{m}\sigma_{n}^{m+1}\sigma_{n+1}^{m+1}+
	\hat h \sigma_n^m ,
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	where $ J_i $, $ i=1,...,9 $ are corresponding coefficients of multi-spin interaction. We rewrite the Hamiltonian (\ref{v:d}) in the form
		\begin{equation}\label{v:d2}
	\begin{gathered}
	\mathcal {H} (\sigma )= -\sum_{i=0}^{L-1} (J_1\sigma_{	\tau^i}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+1}}+J_2\sigma_{	\tau^i}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1}} + J_3\sigma_{	\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1}}+J_4\sigma_{	\tau^{i}}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+\\
	+J_5\sigma_{	\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+ J_6\sigma_{\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}+
	J_7\sigma_{\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+ \\
	+J_8\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+
	J_9\sigma_{\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}
\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+1}}	+
	\hat h \sigma_{\tau^{i}} .
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	 Partition function of model with the Hamiltonian (\ref{v:d2})  can be written in the following form

	\begin{equation}\label{v:e7}
	\begin{split}
	Z_{{L}}=Z_{{L_1}{L_2}}=\sum_{\sigma}\exp ( -\mathcal {H}(\sigma )/{(k_B T)}),
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	where summation perfomed over all spins.

	Let us introduce $ K_i={J_i}/{(k_B T)} $, $ i=1,...,9 $ , where $ T $ is temperature, $k_B $ is Boltzmann's constant, 	$ h'=\hat h /{(k_B T)}  $ is the parameter that determines the interaction with a external field with a coefficient $\hat  h $ . Then partition function (\ref{v:d2}) can be represented in the form

		\begin{equation}\label{v:e2}
	\begin{gathered}
	Z_{{L}}=Z_{{L_1}{L_2}}=\sum_{\sigma}\exp ( \sum_{i=0}^{L-1} (K_1\sigma_{	\tau^i}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+1}}+K_2\sigma_{	\tau^i}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1}} + K_3\sigma_{	\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1}}+\\ +K_4\sigma_{	\tau^{i}}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+
	K_5\sigma_{	\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}\sigma_{	\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+ K_6\sigma_{\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}+ \\
	+K_7\sigma_{\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+
	K_8\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+1}}+\\
	+K_9\sigma_{\tau^{i}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+1}}\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}}
	\sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+1}}	+ h' \sigma_{\tau^{i}}).
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	For using model we write the elementary transfer matrix $ \Theta=\Theta_{p,q} $ of size $ 2^{L_1+1}  \times 2^{L_1+1}$ in the same way, as in \cite{Khrapov3}, \cite{Khrapov5}.  Nonzero elements of the transfer matrix    $ \Theta=\Theta_{p,q} $ are specified by all sorts of pairs of sets of spins
	 $ \{(\sigma_{\tau^0},\sigma_{\tau^{1}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}),$
	$(\sigma_{\tau^1},\sigma_{\tau^{2}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}})  \} $:

	\begin{equation}\label{v:e3}
	\begin{gathered}
	\Theta_{ \{
	(\sigma_{\tau^0},\sigma_{\tau^{1}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}),
	(\sigma_{\tau^1},\sigma_{\tau^{2}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}})  \}}=
\exp (K_1\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^1}+K_2\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}} +\\ +K_3\sigma_{\tau^1}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}+K_4\sigma_{\tau^1}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+
K_5\sigma_{\tau^1}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+ K_6\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}+\\
+K_7\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+
K_8\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+
K_9\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+\\
+h' \sigma_{\tau^0})=\Theta_{p,q} ,
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	 wherein
		\begin{equation}\label{v:e32}
	\begin{split}
	p= \sum_{k=0}^{L_1}{((1-\sigma_{\tau^k})/2)2^k}, p=0,1,\ldots,2^{L_1+1}-1,
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

		\begin{equation}\label{v:e4}
	\begin{split}
	q= \sum_{k=0}^{L_1}{((1-\sigma_{\tau^{1+k}})/2)2^k}, q=0,1,\ldots,2^{L_1+1}-1.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	Then

		\begin{equation}\label{v:e6}
	\begin{gathered}
		Z_L=Z_{{L_1}{L_2}}=\sum_{ \{\sigma_{\tau^0},\sigma_{\tau^{1}},\ldots,\sigma_{\tau^{L-1}}  \}}
	\Theta_{\{ (\sigma_{\tau^0},\sigma_{\tau^{1}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}),
			(\sigma_{\tau^1},\sigma_{\tau^{2}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}})  \} }\\
\Theta_{\{ (\sigma_{\tau^1},\sigma_{\tau^{2}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}),
			(\sigma_{\tau^2},\sigma_{\tau^{3}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+2}})  \} }\ldots \\
	\Theta_{\{ (\sigma_{\tau^{L-1}},\sigma_{\tau^{0}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1-1}}),
		(\sigma_{\tau^0},\sigma_{\tau^{1}},...,\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}})  \} }
	=
	Tr({	\Theta}^L).
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

		Now the free energy at one site of lattice $ f $ in the thermodynamic limit can be written in the following form (for example, \cite{baxter2016}) :
	\begin{equation}\label{v:e}
	\begin{split}
	f(T,	 h')=-kT \lim\limits_{L\to {\infty}} {\ln(\lambda_{\max}(L,T,	h'))} ,
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}
	where $\lambda_{\max}$ is the largest transfer matrix eigenvalue  $ \Theta=\Theta_{p,q}. $

	By the Perron–Frobenius theorem \cite{Perron} the only one largest eigenvalue $\lambda_{\max}$ of transfer matrix $ \Theta=\Theta_{p,q} $ will correspond to a matrix with possitive elements (all matrix elements $ \Theta^{L_1+2} $ will strictly be greater than zero, the structure filled with nonzero elements becomes clear already for $ \Theta^{2} $ . Actually, at first the Perron–Frobenius theorem is used for matrix $ \Theta^{L_1+2} $).
	Let us assume

	\begin{equation}\label{v:f}
	\begin{gathered}
	G(\sigma_{\tau^0},\sigma_{\tau^1},\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}},\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}},
	K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h')=\\
	\exp (K_1\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^1}+K_2\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}} + K_3\sigma_{\tau^1}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}+
	K_4\sigma_{\tau^1}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+\\
	+K_5\sigma_{\tau^1}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+ K_6\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}+
	K_7\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+ \\
	+K_8\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+
	K_9\sigma_{\tau^0}\sigma_{\tau^{1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1}}\sigma_{\tau^{L_1+1}}+
	h' \sigma_{\tau^0}).
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	Let us define the values $ a_{ij} $  ,$ j=0,1,...,7 $  , $ i=0,1 $:

	\begin{equation}\label{v:g}
	\begin{split}
	a_{i0}=G(+1,+1,+1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h'),\\
	a_{i1}=G(-1,+1,+1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h'),\\
	a_{i2}=G(+1,-1,+1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h'),\\
	a_{i3}=G(-1,-1,+1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h'),\\
	a_{i4}=G(+1,+1,-1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h'),\\
	a_{i5}=G(-1,+1,-1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h'),\\
	a_{i6}=G(+1,-1,-1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h'),\\
	a_{i7}=G(-1,-1,-1,1-2i,K_1,K_2,...,K_9,h').\\
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}
 Then nonzero elements of matrix $ \Theta $ can be written in the form:
 	\begin{equation}\label{v:g}
 \begin{gathered}
 \Theta_{2r+l+4k+s2^{L_1},r+2k+s2^{L_1-1}+i2^{L_1}}=a_{i,2r+l+4s}, \\
 r=0,1,  l=0,1,s=0,1,i=0,1, k=0,1,\ldots,2^{L_1-2}-1.
 \end{gathered}
 \end{equation}

	\section{Finding the largest eigenvalue and eigenvector of the transfer matrix  }\label{max_val}

	The eigenvector of the transfer matrix $ \Theta=\Theta_{p,q} $, corresponding to
	the largest eigenvalue $ F $, we represent in the following form: \\

	\begin{enumerate}
		\item Putting $ L_1=2 $, we have \\
		\begin{equation}\label{v:aa}
		\overrightarrow{x_2}=(1,b_2,c,cb_2;cb_3,cb_4,c^2b_3,c^2b_4)^T
		 .
		\end{equation}
		\item 	Let us assume 	$\overrightarrow{x}_{n+1}=(\overrightarrow{x}_{n}^1,
		\overrightarrow{x}_{n}^2)^T $  . Hence
		\begin{equation}\label{v:bb}
		\overrightarrow{x}_{n+2}=(\overrightarrow{x}_{n+1}^1,
		\overrightarrow{x}_{n+1}^2)^T ,
		\end{equation}
		where \\
		\begin{equation}\label{v:cc}
		\overrightarrow{x}_{n+1}^1=(\overrightarrow{x}_{n}^1,c
		\overrightarrow{x}_{n}^1)^T   ,   \overrightarrow{x}_{n+1}^2=(\overrightarrow{x}_{n}^2,c
		\overrightarrow{x}_{n}^2)^T
		.
		\end{equation}
	\end{enumerate}
	Then by the Perron–Frobenius theorem \cite{Perron} this eigenvector with all positive elements will correspond to the single maximal eigenvalue $F$ of the transter matrix $ \Theta=\Theta_{p,q} $. Let us denote
	\begin{equation}\label{v:dd}
	\begin{split}
	R_i=\exp(K_i), i=1,...,9, H=\exp(h')
	\end{split}
	.
	\end{equation}
	From the form of the elementary transfer matrix  $ \Theta $ (fig.1) and the form of the eigenvector (9) (1.1-1.2), we have at

	\begin{equation}\label{v:ee}
	R_i>0, i=1,2,\ldots,9, H>0,F>0,b_2>0,b_3>0,b_4>0,c>0
	.
	\end{equation}

	the following system of equations
	\begin{equation}\label{v:ff}
	\begin{split}
	\left\{
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	F &= & a_{00}+c b_3 a_{10}, \\
	b_2 F &= & a_{01}+cb_3a_{11}, \\
	cF &= & b_2 a_{02}+cb_4 a_{12}, \\
	c b_2 F &= & b_2 a_{03}+c b_4 a_{13}, \\
	c b_3 F &= & c a_{04}+c^2 b_3 a_{14}, \\
	c b_4 F &= & c a_{05}+c^2 b_3 a_{15}, \\
	c^2 b_3 F &= & c b_2 a_{06}+c^2 b_4 a_{16}, \\
	c^2 b_4 F &= & c b_2 a_{07}+c^2 b_4 a_{17}. \\
	\end{array}
	\right.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	These eight equations (\ref{v:ff}) will repeat, perhaps, they will just be multiplied by $ c^k $  for some $ k=0,1,2,\ldots  $  .
	Then , using the form of the Hamiltonian (\ref{v:d}), after dividing by $ c^k>0 $ and changing variable (\ref{v:dd}), we have

	\begin{equation}\label{v:gg}
	\begin{split}
	\left\{
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	F &= & (b_3 c H R_1 R_2 R_3 R_6)/(R_4 R_5 R_7 R_8 R_9) +
	H R_1 R_2 R_3 R_4 R_5 R_6 R_7 R_8 R_9, \; \; \; \; \;\; \;\; \;\; (1)  \\
	b_2 F &= & (R_3 R_8)/(H R_1 R_2 R_4 R_5 R_6 R_7 R_9) +
	(b_3 c R_3 R_4 R_5 R_7 R_9)/(H R_1 R_2 R_6 R_8), \; \; \; (2) \\
	cF &= & (b_2 H R_2 R_4 R_5)/(R_1 R_3 R_6 R_7 R_8 R_9) +
	(b_4 c H R_2 R_7 R_8 R_9)/(R_1 R_3 R_4 R_5 R_6),    (3) \\
	c b_2 F &= & (b_4 c R_1 R_4 R_5 R_6 R_8)/(H R_2 R_3 R_7 R_9) + (b_2 R_1 R_6 R_7 R_9)/(H R_2 R_3 R_4 R_5 R_8),     (4) \\
	b_3 F &= & (H R_1 R_4 R_7)/(R_2 R_3 R_5 R_6 R_8 R_9) + (
	b3 c H R_1 R_5 R_8 R_9)/(R_2 R_3 R_4 R_6 R_7),  \; \; \; (5) \\
	b_4 F &= & (b3 c R_2 R_4 R_6 R_7 R_8)/(H R_1 R_3 R_5 R_9) + (
	R_2 R_5 R_6 R_9)/(H R_1 R_3 R_4 R_7 R_8),     \; \; \; (6) \\
	c b_3 F &= & (b4 c H R_3 R_5 R_6 R_7)/(R_1 R_2 R_4 R_8 R_9) + (
	b2 H R_3 R_4 R_6 R_8 R_9)/(R_1 R_2 R_5 R_7),     (7) \\
	c b_4 F &= & (b2 R_1 R_2 R_3 R_5 R_7 R_8)/(H R_4 R_6 R_9) + (
	b4 c R_1 R_2 R_3 R_4 R_9)/(H R_5 R_6 R_7 R_8).     (8)
	\end{array}
	\right.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

		\begin{remark}\label{v:rem1}
		The system of equations will remain the same (\ref{v:ff})-(\ref{v:gg}) , if in the formula of the Hamiltonian (\ref{v:d2}) we change $ \sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1}} $ and $ \sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+1}}  $ to $ \sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+m}} $ and $ \sigma_{\tau^{i+L_1+m+1}}  $ respectively with random integer value $ m>0 $. The  transfer matrix size will only change. This result helps to extend the class of models which disorder solutions are found for.
	\end{remark}
	The solution of the system (\ref{v:gg}) is in the section \ref{solution_gg}. Below we write the resulting formulas of solution of the system (\ref{v:gg}), dependeing on seven parameters$ K_1, K_3, K_4,$
	$K_5, K_6, K_7, K_8 $, or, respectively,  $ R_1, R_3, R_4, R_5, R_6, R_7, R_8 $ in order of calculation.

	Let us introduce $ u_i=R_i^2,s_i=R_i^4,  i=1,\ldots,9. $ , $ h=H^2 $ and  $ x_1, x_2 $ are the roots of the following quadratic equation
	\begin{equation}\label{v:hh}
	A x^2 + B x+ C=0,
	\end{equation}
	where

	\begin{equation}\label{v:ii}
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	A =s_1 s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8 - s_3 s_4 s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8 -
	s_1^2 s_3 s_4 s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8 +
	s_1 (s_3^2) (s_4^2) s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8,
	\end{array}
	\end{equation}

	\begin{equation} \label{v:jj}
	\begin{gathered}
	B=-s_1 s_3 s_4^2 s_5 s_7 + s_1^2 s_3 s_4 s_6 s_7 + s_3 s_4 s_5^2 s_6 s_7 -
	s_1 s_3 s_5 s_6^2 s_7 +\\
	+s_1 s_3 s_4 s_5 s_8 - s_1 s_3^2 s_4 s_6 s_8 -
	s_1 s_4 s_5^2 s_6 s_8 + s_1 s_3 s_4 s_5 s_6^2 s_8 +\\
	+s_1 s_3 s_4 s_5 s_7^2 s_8 -
	s_1 s_4 s_6 s_7^2 s_8 - s_1 s_3^2 s_4 s_5^2 s_6 s_7^2 s_8 +
	s_1 s_3 s_4 s_5 s_6^2 s_7^2 s_8 -\\- s_1 s_3 s_5 s_7 s_8^2 +
	s_3 s_4 s_6 s_7 s_8^2 +
	s_1^2 s_3 s_4 s_5^2 s_6 s_7 s_8^2 - s_1 s_3 s_4^2 s_5 s_6^2 s_7 s_8^2,
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	\begin{multline} \label{v:kk}
	C=s_1 s_3^2 s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8 - s_3 s_4 s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8 -
	s_1^2 s_3 s_4 s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8 +
	s_1 s_4^2 s_5 s_6 s_7 s_8.
	\end{multline}

	Hence $ s_9=x_1 $ or $ s_9=x_2 $  ($ s_9>0 $).

	\begin{equation} \label{v:ll}
	\begin{gathered}
	h = (u_5 u_6 (u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 - u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 + \\
	+u_1^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2)
	(u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 - u_1^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 - \\
	-u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_7^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 + \\
	+u_1^2 u_4^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^2
	-u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 -\\
	-u_1^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4))/
	(u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_7 u_8 (u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 - \\
	-u_1^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 -
	u_5^2 u_8^2 + u_3^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2)\\
	(u_3^2 u_5^2 - u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 + u_1^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_7^2 u_9^2 - \\
	-u_3^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4)),
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	\begin{equation} \label{v:mm}
	\begin{gathered}
	c^2 = (u_6 u_8 (u_3^2 u_5^2 - u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 + u_1^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 -
	+u_1^2 u_3^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 -\\
	-u_3^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 u_9^2) (-u_4^4 u_5^2 u_7^2 +
	u_3^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 + u_4^2 u_5^2 u_8^2 -\\- u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 +
	u_4^2 u_7^4 u_9^2 - u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_9^2 -
	u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +\\
	+u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2))/
	(h u_3^2 u_5 u_7 (-u_3^2 u_6^2 +
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 - u_4^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 + \\
	+u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 + u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 u_9^2) (u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 -
	-u_1^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 -\\- u_5^2 u_8^2 + u_1^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 -
	u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 + u_1^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_8^4 u_9^2 -\\- u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^4 u_9^2)).
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	Then

	\begin{equation} \label{v:pp2}
	u_2 = c g_2  ,
	\end{equation}
	where

	\begin{equation} \label{v:nn}
	\begin{gathered}
	g_2 = -(( u_3 u_5^2 u_9^2 (u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 - u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 + \\
	+u_1^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2) (u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 -
	u_1^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 - u_5^2 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 -\\- u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2
	+u_1^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 + u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^4 u_9^2))/
	(u_4 u_6 u_7 u_8^2 (u_3^2 u_5^2 -\\- u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 +
	+u_1^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 -
	u_3^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 u_9^2)\\
	(-u_3^2 u_5^2 +
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 -u_1^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 +
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_7^2 u_9^2 + u_3^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 +\\+
	u_1^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4))),
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	\begin{equation} \label{v:rr}
	\begin{gathered}
	b_2 = (c R_1^2 R_3^2 R_7^2 R_8^2 (R_3^4 R_6^4 -
	R_1^4 R_4^4 R_6^4 + R_4^4 R_7^4 R_9^4 -\\-
	R_3^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_6^4 R_7^4 R_9^4 - R_8^4 R_9^4 +
	R_1^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_6^4 R_8^4 R_9^4))/\\
	(R_6^2 R_9^2 (-R_3^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_7^4 + R_1^4 R_3^4 R_6^4 R_7^4 +
	R_1^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_8^4 -
	R_1^4 R_3^4 R_4^4 R_6^4 R_8^4 -\\-
	R_1^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4 +
	R_3^4 R_4^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4)),
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	\begin{equation} \label{v:tt}
	\begin{gathered}
	b_3 = (R_4^2 R_7^2 (R_3^4 R_5^4 R_8^2 -
	R_1^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_8^2 + R_1^4 R_7^4 R_8^2 R_9^4 -\\-
	R_1^4 R_3^4 R_5^4 R_6^4 R_7^4 R_8^2 R_9^4 -
	R_3^4 R_8^6 R_9^4 +
	R_1^4 R_3^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_6^4 R_8^6 R_9^4))/\\
	(c R_5^2 R_9^2 (-R_3^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_7^4 + R_1^4 R_3^4 R_6^4 R_7^4 +
	R_1^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_8^4 - \\
	-R_1^4 R_3^4 R_4^4 R_6^4 R_8^4 -
	R_1^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4 +
	R_3^4 R_4^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4)),
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	\begin{equation} \label{v:uu}
	\begin{gathered}
	b_4 = -((R_4^2 (-R_1^2 R_3^2 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_7^4 +
	R_1^6 R_3^2 R_6^4 R_7^4 + R_1^2 R_3^2 R_5^4 R_8^4 -
	R_1^2 R_3^6 R_6^4 R_8^4 - \\
	-R_1^6 R_3^2 R_5^4 R_6^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4 +
	R_1^2 R_3^6 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_6^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4))/ \\
	(R_5^2 R_6^2 (R_3^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_7^4 -
	R_1^4 R_3^4 R_6^4 R_7^4 - R_1^4 R_4^4 R_5^4 R_8^4 + \\
	+R_1^4 R_3^4 R_4^4 R_6^4 R_8^4 +
	R_1^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4 -
	R_3^4 R_4^4 R_7^4 R_8^4 R_9^4))),
	\end{gathered}
	\end{equation}

	\begin{multline} \label{v:vv}
	F = (b3 c H R_1 R_2 R_3 R_6)/(R_4 R_5 R_7 R_8 R_9) +
	H R_1 R_2 R_3 R_4 R_5 R_6 R_7 R_8 R_9.
	\end{multline}

	Free energy

		\begin{equation}\label{v:e8}
	\begin{split}
	-f/(kT)=  \ln(F).
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	All formulas are considered on the set of values of variables for which the denominators of the expressions do not vanish.

	Example. Let us assume

	\begin{equation}\label{v:xx}
	\begin{split}
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	R_1 &= &  1.09331330715597974506367350323500512418,\\
	R_3 &= & 1.79629536359563563762214416192501514895,\\
	R_4 &= & 1.99999999999999995356553575708364740289,\\
	R_5 &= & 0.5,1\\
	R_6 &= & 0.9246508996595731,\\
	R_7 &= & 8.01,\\
	R_8 &= & 1.8967896441086978.
	\end{array}
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	Using (\ref{v:hh})-(\ref{v:vv}), we find other parameters of disorder solution (in this example we take the following solution $ x=(-B+\sqrt{B^2-4 A C})/(2 A) $ of  (\ref{v:hh}))

	\begin{equation}\label{v:yy}
	\begin{split}
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	R_9 &= & 0.925496448962883,\\
	H &= & 0.6752085982927946,\\
	c &= & 0.7545930106949338,\\
	R_2 &= &  0.501744073244163, \\
	b_2 &= & 3.331776110427455,\\
	b_3 &= & 1.792177024209216,\\
	b_4 &= & 3.4301635142941924,\\
	F &= & 8.881632268366628,\\
	-f/(kT) &= & 2.183985354117605.
	\end{array}
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}
	  To simplify the process of check let us write all values of variables in the partition function
	  (\ref{v:e2})

	  	\begin{equation}\label{v:yy2}
	  \begin{split}
	  \begin{array}{rcl}
	 K_1&= &          0.0892128169345629551, \\
	 K_2&= &         -0.6896651035445359179, \\
	 K_3&= &          0.5857264127035543000, \\
	 K_4&= &          0.6931471805599452862, \\
	 K_5&= &         -0.6733445532637656328, \\
	 K_6&= &         -0.0783390184786288968, \\
	 K_7&= &          2.0806907610802678477, \\
	 K_8&= &          0.6401627960898240710, \\
	 K_9&= &         -0.0774249838609992330, \\
	 h' &=  &        -0.3927336013430913764.
	  \end{array}
	  \end{split}
	  \end{equation}

	We write the nonzero values of matrix coefficients $ \Theta=\Theta_{p,q} $ in the matrix form $ a $

	$$  a=
	\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
	a_{00} & a_{10}  \\
	a_{01} & a_{11}  \\
	a_{02} & a_{12} \\
	a_{03} & a_{13}  \\
	a_{04} & a_{14}  \\
	a_{05} & a_{15}  \\
	a_{06} & a_{16} \\
	a_{07} & a_{17}  \\
	\end{array}\right)  =
	\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
	8.823624 & 0.042894  \\
	1.315670 & 20.908524  \\
	0.013533 & 2.571854 \\
	6.365205 & 0.433547 \\
	15.850509 & 0.049505  \\
	0.005435 & 22.523530  \\
	1.757065 & 2.378731 \\
	6.607026 & 0.377026  \\
	\end{array}\right)
	.
	$$
	Below there are the eigenvector elements found by numerical power method:

	\begin{equation}\label{v:zz}
	\begin{split}
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	0   &       1.0000000000000000000  \\
	1   &       3.3317761104274707940  \\
	2   &       0.7545930106949368943  \\
	3   &      2.5141349661289202899  \\
	4   &       0.7545930106949367833  \\
	5   &       2.5141349661289216222  \\
	6   &       0.5694106117896466923  \\
	7   &       1.8971486733846267825  \\
	8   &       0.7545930106949366722  \\
	9   &       2.5141349661289211781  \\
	10  &        0.5694106117896465813  \\
	11  &        1.8971486733846278927  \\
	12  &        0.5694106117896465813  \\
	13  &       1.8971486733846274486  \\
	14  &        0.4296732678719935583  \\
	15  &        1.4315751291852043536  \\
	16  &        1.3523642563963256258  \\
	17  &        2.5883774134271795297  \\
	18  &        1.0204846157903186832  \\
	19  &        1.9531715052127802679  \\
	20  &        1.0204846157903184611  \\
	21  &        1.9531715052127798238  \\
	22  &        0.7700505585970789380  \\
	23  &        1.4738495665220672226  \\
	24  &        1.0204846157903184611  \\
	25  &        1.9531715052127811560  \\
	26  &        0.7700505585970787159  \\
	27  &        1.4738495665220667785  \\
	28  &        0.7700505585970792710  \\
	29  &        1.4738495665220661124  \\
	30  &        0.5810747693990848672  \\
	31  &        1.1121565817133087783  \\
	\end{array}
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	\section{ Solving a system of equations for finding the maximum eigenvalue of a transfer matrix}\label{solution_gg}

	The solution scheme for the system of equations (\ref{v:gg}) is following:
	Variable $ F $ from (\ref{v:gg}(1)) we substite in other equations (\ref{v:gg}(2))-(\ref{v:gg}(8)) of the system (\ref{v:gg}). After multiplying denominator and simplifying, we get the system, equivalent to (\ref{v:gg}):

	\begin{equation}\label{v:aaa}
	\begin{split}
	\left\{
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	Left(1)&= & Right(1),  \; \;\; (1)\\
	c Right(1) &= & Right(3),  \; \;\; (2)\\
	c Right(2) &= & Right(4),   \; \;\; (3)\\
	c Right(5) &= & Right(7),   \; \;\; (4)\\
	c Right(6) &= & Right(8),   \; \;\; (5)\\
	b_2 Right(1) &= & Right(2),   \; \;\; (6)\\
	b_3 Right(1) &= & Right(5),     \; \;\; (7)\\
	b_4 Right(1) &= & Right(6),    \; \; \;  (8)\\
	\end{array}
	\right.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	where $ Left(i) $, $ Right(i) $, $ i=1,\dots,9 $ are the left and the right parts of the equation $ i $ of the system (\ref{v:gg}).

	After multiplying by positive denominator, simplifying and exception the equation $ (1) $ of the system (\ref{v:aaa}) (in the equation $ (1) $ lets us to get the variable $ F $, not used in the other equations$ (2)-(8) $), we get the following system of equations

	\begin{equation}\label{v:bbb}
	\begin{split}
	\left\{
	\begin{array}{rcl}
	-b_2 u_4 u_5 + c b_3 c u_1 u_3 u_6 - b_4 c u_7 u_8 u_9 +
	c u_1 u_3 u_4 u_5 u_6 u_7 u_8 u_9 &= & 0,   \; \;\; (2)\\
	-c u_3 u_8 + b_4 c u_1 u_4 u_5 u_6 u_8 -
	c b_3 c u_3 u_4 u_5 u_7 u_9 +
	b_2 u_1 u_6 u_7 u_9 &= & 0,        \; \;\; (3)\\
	c u_1 u_4 u_7 - b_4 c u_3 u_5 u_6 u_7 +
	c b_3 c u_1 u_5 u_8 u_9 -
	b_2 u_3 u_4 u_6 u_8 u_9 &= & 0,       \; \;\; (4)\\
	b_2 u_1 u_3 u_5 u_7 u_8 - c b_3 c u_4 u_6 u_7 u_8 +
	b_4 c u_1 u_3 u_4 u_9 -
	c u_5 u_6 u_9 &= & 0,   \; \;\; (5)\\
	b_2 b_3 c h u_1 u_2 u_6 - u_8 - b_3 c u_4 u_5 u_7 u_9 +
	b_2 h u_1 u_2 u_4 u_5 u_6 u_7 u_8 u_9 &= & 0,     \; \;\; (6)\\
	b_3^2 c u_2 u_3 u_6 - u_4 u_7 - b_3 c u_5 u_8 u_9 +
	b_3 u_2 u_3 u_4 u_5 u_6 u_7 u_8 u_9 &= & 0,       \; \;\; (7)\\
	b_3 b_4 c h u_1 u_3 - b_3 c u_4 u_7 u_8 - u_5 u_9 +
	b_4 h u_1 u_3 u_4 u_5 u_7 u_8 u_9 &= & 0.    \;\; \;\; (8)
	\end{array}
	\right.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	We solve the linear with respect to $ b_2, b_3, b_4 $ subsystem of equations (2,3,4) of the system (\ref{v:bbb}).  We get

	\begin{equation}\label{v:ccc}
	\begin{split}
	\left\{
	\begin{array}{lll}
	b_2~ =  -((
	c u_7 u_8 (-u_1 u_3^3 u_6^2 + u_1^3 u_3 u_4^2 u_6^2 -
	u_1 u_3 u_4^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 + \\
	+u_1 u_3 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	-u_1^3 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 u_9^2))/(
	u_6 u_9 (-u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 + \\
	+u_1^2 u_3^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 + u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_8^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 -
	u_1^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2))), \\
	b_3~ =  (-u_3^2 u_4 u_5^2 u_7 u_8 +
	u_1^2 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_7 u_8 - u_1^2 u_4 u_7^3 u_8 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8 u_9^2 +\\
	+u_3^2 u_4 u_7 u_8^3 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7 u_8^3 u_9^2)/(
	c u_5 u_9 (u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 - \\-u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 + u_1^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2)),\\
	b_4~ =   (-u_1 u_3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_7^2 +
	u_1^3 u_3 u_4 u_6^2 u_7^2 + u_1 u_3 u_4 u_5^2 u_8^2 -
	u_1 u_3^3 u_4 u_6^2 u_8^2 - \\
	-u_1^3 u_3 u_4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2)/(
	u_5 u_6 (-u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 + \\
	+u_1^2 u_3^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 + u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_8^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 - u_1^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2)).
	\end{array}
	\right.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	Substituting $ b_2, b_3, b_4 $ from (\ref{v:ccc}) in the equations (5-8) of the system(\ref{v:bbb}). We remove variables $ b_2, b_3, b_4 $, and after simplifying we have the following system. We write each of four remaining equations separately due to their size.

	1. Equation (\ref{v:bbb})(5):

	\begin{multline} \label{v:ddd}
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 -
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 -
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 - \\
	-u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 +
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_5^2 u_6^4 u_7^2 u_9^2 + \\
	+u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 + \\
	+u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 +\\+
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^4 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	-u_1^2 u_3^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 +\\+
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^4 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	+u_1^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4 - \\-
	u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^4 = 0.
	\end{multline}

	2. Equation (\ref{v:bbb})(6):

	\begin{multline} \label{v:eee}
c h u_2 u_3^5 u_4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8 -
2 c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8 +
c h u_1^4 u_2 u_3 u_4^5 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8 - \\-
u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_7^4 u_9^2 + u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_9^2 +
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_9^2 -\\- u_1^2 u_3^4 u_5 u_6^4 u_7^4 u_9^2 +
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_7^4 u_8 u_9^2 -
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4^5 u_5^2 u_7^4 u_8 u_9^2 +\\+
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8 u_9^2 -
c h u_1^4 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8 u_9^2 -
2 c h u_2 u_3^5 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8 u_9^2 + \\+
2 c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8 u_9^2 +
u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 + u_1^2 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 - \\-
2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 - \\-
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
2 u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5 u_6^4 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 - \\-
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^3 u_9^2 +
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^3 u_9^2 - \\-
c h u_2 u_3^5 u_4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^3 u_9^2 +
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^3 u_9^2 + \\+
2 c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^3 u_9^2 -
2 c h u_1^4 u_2 u_3 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^3 u_9^2 - \\-
u_1^2 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_8^4 u_9^2 + 2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5 u_6^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 + u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_7^6 u_9^4 - \\-
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_9^4 - u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_9^4 +
u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^4 u_7^6 u_9^4 + \\+
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_7^6 u_8 u_9^4 -
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_7^6 u_8 u_9^4 - \\-
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_8 u_9^4 +
c h u_2 u_3^5 u_4^5 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_8 u_9^4 -
u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 -\\- 2 u_1^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 + \\+
2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_5 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 +\\+
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
2 u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^4 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 - \\-
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 -
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 + \\+
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 +
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 - \\-
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 +
2 c h u_1^4 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 + \\+
2 c h u_2 u_3^5 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 -
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^5 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 - \\-
2 c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^5 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^3 u_9^4 +
2 u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 - u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 - \\-
2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 - \\-
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_6^4 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 + \\+
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4 u_7^2 u_8^5 u_9^4 -
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_7^2 u_8^5 u_9^4 - \\-
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^5 u_9^4 +
c h u_1^4 u_2 u_3 u_4^5 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^5 u_9^4 + \\+
u_1^2 u_4^2 u_5 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^6 - u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^6 -
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^6 + \\+
u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^6 -
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_7^6 u_8^3 u_9^6 + \\+
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4^5 u_5^2 u_7^6 u_8^3 u_9^6 +
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_8^3 u_9^6 -\\ -
c h u_2 u_3^5 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^6 u_8^3 u_9^6 -
u_1^2 u_5 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 + u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 + \\+
u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 -
u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 + \\+
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3 u_4 u_5^2 u_7^4 u_8^5 u_9^6 -
c h u_2 u_3^3 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_7^4 u_8^5 u_9^6 - \\-
c h u_1^4 u_2 u_3 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^5 u_9^6 +
c h u_1^2 u_2 u_3^3 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^5 u_9^6 = 0.
	\end{multline}

	3. Equation (\ref{v:bbb})(7):

	\begin{multline} \label{v:fff}
	-u_2 u_3^4 u_4 u_5^4 u_6 u_7 u_8^2 +
	2 u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6 u_7 u_8^2 -
	u_1^4 u_2 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6 u_7 u_8^2 + \\+
	c u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_7^4 u_9^2 -
	2 c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_9^2 +
	c u_1^4 u_3^3 u_5^2 u_6^4 u_7^4 u_9^2 - \\-
	c u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^6 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 + \\+
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	2 c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	2 c u_1^4 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^4 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 - \\-
	2 u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4 u_5^2 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	2 u_1^4 u_2 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_2 u_3^4 u_4^3 u_5^6 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^2 u_9^2 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^5 u_5^6 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^2 u_9^2 + \\+
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^6 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_8^4 u_9^2 + \\+
	c u_1^4 u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4 u_5^2 u_6 u_7 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	2 u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6 u_7 u_8^4 u_9^2 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^6 u_6 u_7 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	u_1^4 u_2 u_4^5 u_5^6 u_6 u_7 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7 u_8^4 u_9^2 + \\+
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
	2 c u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 - \\-
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	2 c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
	c u_1^4 u_3^3 u_5^4 u_6^4 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 - \\-
	u_1^4 u_2 u_4 u_6 u_7^5 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6 u_7^5 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4 u_5^2 u_6^3 u_7^5 u_8^2 u_9^4 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4^3 u_5^6 u_6^3 u_7^5 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_5^4 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	2 c u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 + \\+
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 -
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 - \\-
	2 c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 -
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 -
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 + \\+
	2 c u_1^4 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^4 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	2 u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4 u_5^4 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 - \\-
	2 u_1^4 u_2 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 -
	2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4 u_5^2 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 -
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^6 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 + \\+
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4^5 u_5^6 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^4 u_9^4 -
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_8^6 u_9^4 +
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_8^6 u_9^4 + \\+
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_8^6 u_9^4 -
	c u_1^4 u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^4 u_8^6 u_9^4 -
	u_2 u_3^4 u_4 u_6 u_7 u_8^6 u_9^4 + \\+
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6 u_7 u_8^6 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6^3 u_7 u_8^6 u_9^4 -
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^5 u_5^6 u_6^3 u_7 u_8^6 u_9^4 - \\-
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 +
	c u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 +
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 - \\-
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 +
	u_1^4 u_2 u_4 u_5^2 u_6 u_7^5 u_8^4 u_9^6 -
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6 u_7^5 u_8^4 u_9^6 - \\-
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7^5 u_8^4 u_9^6 +
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7^5 u_8^4 u_9^6 +
	c u_1^2 u_3 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^6 - \\-
	c u_3^3 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^6 -
	c u_1^4 u_3 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^6 +
	c u_1^2 u_3^3 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^6 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^2 u_4 u_5^2 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^6 u_9^6 +
	u_2 u_3^4 u_4^3 u_5^2 u_6 u_7^3 u_8^6 u_9^6 + \\+
	u_1^4 u_2 u_3^2 u_4^3 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^6 u_9^6 -
	u_1^2 u_2 u_3^4 u_4^5 u_5^4 u_6^3 u_7^3 u_8^6 u_9^6 = 0.
	\end{multline}

	4. Equation (\ref{v:bbb})(8):

	\begin{multline} \label{v:ggg}
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_7^3 u_8 -
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^4 u_7^3 u_8 -
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8 +
	h u_1^6 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8 - \\-
	u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^2 -
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^2 - \\-
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_7 u_8^3 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_7 u_8^3 +
	h u_1^2 u_3^6 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7 u_8^3 -
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7 u_8^3 + \\+
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^2 u_8^4 -
	u_1^4 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^2 u_8^4 -
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^4 +
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^4 + \\+
	u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^7 u_6 u_7^4 u_9^2 -
	2 u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_9^2 +
	u_1^4 u_3^4 u_5^3 u_6^5 u_7^4 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_7^5 u_8 u_9^2 - \\-
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^6 u_7^5 u_8 u_9^2 -
	h u_1^6 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8 u_9^2 - \\-
	2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^7 u_6 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	2 u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	2 u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 - \\-
	2 u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^5 u_7^2 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^2 +
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5 u_6^3 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^2 + \\+
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^5 u_7^6 u_8^2 u_9^2 -
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 - \\-
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^6 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 + \\+
	2 h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 -
	2 h u_1^6 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 - \\-
	2 h u_1^2 u_3^6 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^3 u_9^2 +
	u_1^4 u_4^4 u_5^7 u_6 u_8^4 u_9^2 - \\
	2 u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^5 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 + \\+
	2 u_1^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 -
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	2 u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^5 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_7 u_8^5 u_9^2 - \\
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_7 u_8^5 u_9^2 -
	h u_1^2 u_3^6 u_4^2 u_6^2 u_7 u_8^5 u_9^2 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7 u_8^5 u_9^2 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^2 +
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^2 +
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^6 u_5^5 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^2 - \\-
	u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_6^5 u_7^2 u_8^6 u_9^2 +
	2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
	2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 - \\-
	2 u_1^4 u_3^2 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 +
	2 u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^2 u_9^4 -
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_7^5 u_8^3 u_9^4 + \\+
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^4 u_7^5 u_8^3 u_9^4 +
	2 h u_1^6 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8^3 u_9^4 -
	2 h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8^3 u_9^4 - \\-
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8^3 u_9^4 +
	h u_1^2 u_3^6 u_4^6 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8^3 u_9^4 -
	2 u_1^4 u_4^2 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 + \\+
	2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^5 u_6 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	2 u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 -
	2 u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^2 u_8^4 u_9^4 - \\-
	u_1^4 u_4^2 u_5 u_6 u_7^6 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5 u_6 u_7^6 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^6 u_8^4 u_9^4 - \\-
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^6 u_8^4 u_9^4 +
	h u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_7^3 u_8^5 u_9^4 -
	h u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_7^3 u_8^5 u_9^4 - \\-
	2 h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^2 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^5 u_9^4 +
	2 h u_1^2 u_3^6 u_4^4 u_5^2 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^5 u_9^4 +
	h u_1^6 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^5 u_9^4 - \\-
	h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^6 u_6^2 u_7^3 u_8^5 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^6 u_9^4 -
	u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^6 u_9^4 - \\-
	u_1^4 u_3^2 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^6 u_9^4 +
	u_1^2 u_3^4 u_4^6 u_5^3 u_6^3 u_7^4 u_8^6 u_9^4 +
	u_1^4 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 - \\-
	2 u_1^2 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 +
	u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^3 u_6 u_7^4 u_8^4 u_9^6 -
	h u_1^6 u_3^2 u_4^2 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8^5 u_9^6 + \\+
	2 h u_1^4 u_3^4 u_4^4 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8^5 u_9^6 -
	h u_1^2 u_3^6 u_4^6 u_5^4 u_6^2 u_7^5 u_8^5 u_9^6 = 0.
	\end{multline}

	Using (\ref{v:ggg}), we express $ h $ and obtain (\ref{v:ll}).

	Using (\ref{v:fff}), we get (\ref{v:pp2}) and (\ref{v:nn}).
	Substituting $ u_2 $ from (\ref{v:pp2})-(\ref{v:nn})  in  (\ref{v:eee}), we have
	$ c^2 $ in (\ref{v:mm}).