Single Basepoint Subdivision Schemes for Manifold-valued Data: Time-Symmetry Without Space-Symmetry

This paper establishes smoothness results for a class of nonlinear subdivision schemes, known as the single basepoint manifold-valued subdivision schemes, which shows up in the construction of wavelet-like transform for manifold-valued data. This class includes the (single basepoint) Log–Exp subdivision scheme as a special case. In these schemes, the exponential map is replaced by a so-called retraction map f from the tangent bundle of a manifold to the manifold. It is known that any choice of retraction map yields a C2 scheme, provided the underlying linear scheme is C2 (this is called “C2 equivalence”). But when the underlying linear scheme is C3, Navayazdani and Yu have shown that to guarantee C3 equivalence, a certain tensor Pf associated to f must vanish. They also show that Pf vanishes when the underlying manifold is a symmetric space and f is the exponential map. Their analysis is based on certain “Ck proximity conditions” which are known to be sufficient for Ck equivalence.In the present paper, a geometric interpretation of the tensor Pf is given. Associated to the retraction map f is a torsion-free affine connection, which in turn defines an exponential map. The condition Pf=0 is shown to be equivalent to the condition that f agrees with the exponential map of the connection up to the third order. In particular, when f is the exponential map of a connection, one recovers the original connection and Pf vanishes. It then follows that the condition Pf=0 is satisfied by a wider class of manifolds than was previously known. Under the additional assumption that the subdivision rule satisfies a time-symmetry, it is shown that the vanishing of Pf implies that the C4 proximity conditions hold, thus guaranteeing C4 equivalence. Finally, the analysis in the paper shows that for k≥5, the Ck proximity conditions imply vanishing curvature. This suggests that vanishing curvature of the connection associated to f is likely to be a necessary condition for Ck equivalence for k≥5.

[1]  I. Daubechies,et al.  Two-scale difference equations II. local regularity, infinite products of matrices and fractals , 1992 .

[2]  Peter Schröder,et al.  Multiscale Representations for Manifold-Valued Data , 2005, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[3]  C. Micchelli,et al.  Stationary Subdivision , 1991 .

[4]  Y. Meyer Wavelets and Operators , 1993 .

[5]  David L. Donoho,et al.  Interpolating Wavelet Transforms , 1992 .

[6]  Ingrid Daubechies,et al.  Ten Lectures on Wavelets , 1992 .

[7]  L. Auslander,et al.  HOLONOMY OF FLAT AFFINELY CONNECTED MANIFOLDS , 1955 .

[8]  L. Schumaker,et al.  Recent advances in wavelet analysis , 1995 .

[9]  Richard Courant,et al.  Wiley Classics Library , 2011 .

[10]  J. Dieudonne,et al.  Invariant theory, old and new , 1971 .

[11]  Walter Gautschi,et al.  Approximation and Computation , 2011 .

[12]  Philipp Grohs,et al.  Smoothness equivalence properties of univariate subdivision schemes and their projection analogues , 2009, Numerische Mathematik.

[13]  Gang Xie,et al.  Smoothness Equivalence Properties of General Manifold-Valued Data Subdivision Schemes , 2008, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[14]  Thierry BLUzAbstract SIMPLE REGULARITY CRITERIA FOR SUBDIVISION SCHEMES , 1997 .

[15]  T. Yu,et al.  Smoothness Analysis of Nonlinear Subdivision Schemes of Homogeneous and Affine Invariant Type , 2005 .

[16]  Valeri V.Dolotin On Invariant Theory , 1995, alg-geom/9512011.

[17]  Gang Xie,et al.  Invariance property of proximity conditions in nonlinear subdivision , 2012, J. Approx. Theory.

[18]  Xinghua Gao,et al.  Symmetric Spaces , 2014 .

[19]  Esfandiar Nava Yazdani,et al.  On Donoho's Log-Exp Subdivision Scheme: Choice of Retraction and Time-Symmetry , 2011, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[20]  Nira Dyn,et al.  Convergence and C1 analysis of subdivision schemes on manifolds by proximity , 2005, Comput. Aided Geom. Des..

[21]  K. Nomizu Invariant Affine Connections on Homogeneous Spaces , 1954 .

[22]  Levent Tunçel,et al.  Optimization algorithms on matrix manifolds , 2009, Math. Comput..

[23]  J. S. Wang Statistical Theory of Superlattices with Long-Range Interaction. I. General Theory , 1938 .

[24]  Philipp Grohs,et al.  A General Proximity Analysis of Nonlinear Subdivision Schemes , 2010, SIAM J. Math. Anal..

[25]  J. Craggs Applied Mathematical Sciences , 1973 .

[26]  K. Nomizu,et al.  Foundations of Differential Geometry , 1963 .

[27]  Ron Goldman,et al.  Nonlinear subdivision through nonlinear averaging , 2008, Comput. Aided Geom. Des..

[28]  R. Adler,et al.  Newton's method on Riemannian manifolds and a geometric model for the human spine , 2002 .

[29]  T. Yu,et al.  Smoothness equivalence properties of interpolatory Lie group subdivision schemes , 2010 .

[30]  Johannes Wallner Smoothness Analysis of Subdivision Schemes by Proximity , 2006 .

[31]  D. Donoho Smooth Wavelet Decompositions with Blocky Coefficient Kernels , 1993 .

[32]  Philipp Grohs,et al.  Smoothness of interpolatory multivariate subdivision in Lie groups , 2009 .

[33]  R. Abraham,et al.  Manifolds, Tensor Analysis, and Applications , 1983 .

[34]  Thomas Pok-Yin Yu,et al.  How Data Dependent is a Nonlinear Subdivision Scheme? A Case Study Based on Convexity Preserving Subdivision , 2006, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[35]  T. Yu,et al.  On a Linearization Principle for Nonlinear p-mean Subdivision Schemes , 2003 .

[36]  Gang Xie,et al.  Smoothness Equivalence Properties of Manifold-Valued Data Subdivision Schemes Based on the Projection Approach , 2007, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..