Univariate tight wavelet frames of minimal support
F. G\'omez-Cubillo, S. Villullas

TL;DR
This paper characterizes all minimal-support tight wavelet frames for L^2(R) with a fixed number of generators using spectral techniques and Hardy space operator-valued functions, fully solving cases with one and two generators.
Contribution
It provides a complete spectral characterization of minimal-support tight wavelet frames for one and two generators, advancing the understanding of wavelet frame construction.
Findings
Complete solutions for one and two generator cases
Spectral formulas characterize all minimal-support tight wavelet frames
Association with Hardy space operator-valued functions
Abstract
Wavelet frames for can be characterized by means of spectral techniques. This work uses spectral formulas to determine all the tight wavelet frames for with a fixed finite number of generators of minimal support. The method associates wavelet frames of this type with certain inner operator-valued functions in Hardy spaces. The cases with one and two generators are completely solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Analysis and Transform Methods · Image and Signal Denoising Methods · Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Univariate tight wavelet frames of minimal support
F. Gómez-Cubillo1, S. Villullas2
Abstract
Wavelet frames for can be characterized by means of spectral techniques. This work uses spectral formulas to determine all the tight wavelet frames for with a fixed finite number of generators of minimal support. The method associates wavelet frames of this type with certain inner operator-valued functions in Hardy spaces. The cases with one and two generators are completely solved.
Keywords: wavelet frames, Hardy spaces, inner functions
2010 MSC: 42C15, 30J05
1Dpto de Análisis Matemático, Instituto de Investigación en Matemáticas, Universidad de Valladolid, Facultad de Ciencias, 47011 Valladolid, Spain. [email protected].
2Dpto de Economía, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, C/Madrid 126, 28903 Getafe (Madrid), Spain. [email protected].
1 Introduction
Let and be the translation and (dyadic) dilation unitary operators on defined by
[TABLE]
Given a finite or countable subset of , the (dyadic) wavelet system of generated by is of the form
[TABLE]
is called a wavelet frame for if there exist constants such that
[TABLE]
If, in addition, , it is said that is a tight wavelet frame. The frame property (3) confers on good properties for analysis and synthesis in .
A first paper [8] of this series characterizes the wavelet frames for by means of spectral techniques and presents the usual extension principles of the theory in terms of the periodized Fourier transform. Since the introduction of the extension principles [17, 18, 3, 5], the main part of the literature devoted to the construction of wavelet frames uses them looking for the corresponding framelet filter banks and paying attention to properties like vanishing moments, symmetry, number of generators, support, etc. In the univariate case see, e.g., [18, 2, 3, 4, 5, 22, 14, 10, 11, 1, 12]. The multivariate case in is discussed in, e.g., [16, 21, 6, 15, 13].
In this work we use the spectral formulas obtained in [8] to calculate all the tight wavelet frames for with a fixed finite number (say ) of generators of minimal support. Like in [7], Hardy classes of vector-valued functions and operator-valued inner functions play a central role. We solve explicitly the cases and . To our knowledge, there are no papers in the literature studying this problem. In the context of extension principles, the tight framelet filter banks with are characterized in [12, Theorem 7]. For , Theorem 4.2 in [10] gives the tight framelet filter banks with complex symmetry and other partial results can be found in, e.g., [18, 2, 3, 5, 22]. In particular, the case with B-splines as refinable functions has been extensively studied; see, e.g., [6, Section 4.4] for details.
Section 2 below introduces the terminology and notation used in spectral methods necessary along the paper. We also recall the spectral characterization of tight wavelet frames for given in [8, Corollary 3.6].
Section 3 shows how [8, Corollary 3.6] permits us to determine all the tight wavelet frames for with a fixed number of generators of minimal support. Like in [7], Hardy classes [19, 20, 9] play a central role here. In particular, operator-valued functions called rigid Taylor operator functions by Halmos [9] and -inner functions by Rosenblum and Rovnyak [19]. See section 3.1 below for details. Roughly speaking, Halmos lemma 3.3, Rovnyak lemma 3.4 and proposition 3.5 imply the following result:
*Let be a wavelet system of the form (2), with cardinal of finite, say , and such that the support of each is included in the interval . Then, is a tight wavelet frame for if and only if is associated with an -inner -matrix function satisfying certain properties. *
This result comes from a particular choice of orthonormal bases \big{\{}L_{i}^{(n)}\big{\}} and \big{\{}K_{s,j}^{(m)}\big{\}} in the spectral method, the Haar orthonormal bases given in the appendix, and the corresponding distribution of indices in the set of equations (12) –see proposition 3.2, in particular, table 1–.
We discuss the cases and in sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. For the solution is given in corollary 3.6:
The only function such that the wavelet system of the form (2) generated by is a tight frame for , with frame bound , is proportional to the Haar wavelet:
[TABLE]
where and . It is associated with the constant -inner scalar function
[TABLE]
This result invalidates theorem 5 in [7]. See remark 3.7 for more details.
For , i.e., , the -inner -matrix functions of interest appear in proposition 3.10 and the final solution is given in propositions 3.11 and 3.12:
There are five types of families of -inner ()-matrix functions
[TABLE]
leading to tight wavelet frames of the form (2) generated by . They are as follows:
- Type 1.
Given , such that ,
[TABLE]
- Type 2.
Given an orthonormal basis of ,
[TABLE]
- Type 3.
Given an orthonormal basis of , and ,
[TABLE]
- Type 4.
Given an orthonormal basis of , and ,
[TABLE]
- Type 5.
Given , choose three unitary vectors , and in such that (71) is satisfied. Then, and are given by (77). Once the free arguments for , and have been selected, say , and , the value of is determined by (74) and the value of is given by (77). Then,
[TABLE]
In order to obtain and from the function one must proceed in the following way. Since , (), their expansions (6) read
[TABLE]
Let us write
[TABLE]
Then, for a frame bound ,
[TABLE]
where is such that and the sequence is given by (44)–(46) and (30).
Clearly, for type 1 functions , both functions and are proportional to the Haar wavelet. For types 2–5 functions , some examples of real functions and are shown in figures 1–4. As it can be seen in figures 2 and 3, type 3 functions lead to the reflected version of functions and obtained from type 4 functions with the same parameters.
Given an -inner ()-matrix function of type 2–5, also is an -inner ()-matrix function of type 2–5, for every constant unitary ()-matrix . This relationship establishes connections between -inner ()-matrix functions of types 2 and 3 on the one hand and -inner ()-matrix functions of types 4 and 5 on the other hand. See proposition 3.13 and comments that follow it. Thus, starting from a simple tight wavelet frame of type 2, one can obtain a frame of type 3 by means of a unitary matrix , to get a frame of type 4 by reflection and, finally, to reach a frame of type 5 using again a unitary matrix .
2 Preliminaries
The spectral techniques for univariate wavelet frames developed in [8] are based on suitable spectral representations of the translation and dilation operators and given in (1). These representations are built in terms of an orthonormal basis (shortly, ONB) of and ONBs of , where , are denumerable sets of indices (usually, , or ). Obviously, the families
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
are ONBs of and, for each , one has (in -sense)
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The change of representation between both expansions (6) and (7) is governed by a matrix \big{(}\alpha_{i,n}^{s,j,m}\big{)}, where
[TABLE]
In what follows, fixed ONBs and of as above, for each we shall write
[TABLE]
and we shall also use the notation
[TABLE]
Corollary 3.6 in [8] gives a useful description of tight wavelet frames for :
A wavelet system of the form (2) and such that
[TABLE]
is a tight frame for , with frame bound , if and only if
[TABLE]
Here, denotes the Dirac -function, the superindex ’u’ added to the sum symbols reflects the unconditional convergence of the series (see [8, Lemma 3.4] and comments that follow it), and the components \big{\{}\hat{\psi}_{i}^{(n)}\big{\}} of each and the ’s are related with the spectral representations of section 2 (see equations (6) and (8)).
3 Tight wavelet frames of minimal support
In this section, Corollary 3.6 in [8] is used to determine all the tight wavelet frames for of the form (2), with cardinal of finite and such that the support of each , , is included in the interval . Note that, since the cardinal of is finite, condition (9) is trivially satisfied.
Due to the structure of the ONB \big{\{}L_{i}^{(j)}\big{\}}, defined by (4), the fact that , (), implies that their expansions (6) read
[TABLE]
since for . Thus, for non-zero summands in the left hand side of (10) it must be , so that
[TABLE]
Now, being finite the cardinal of , according to [8, Lemma 3.4] and the comments that follow it, the unconditional sums in (11) may be calculated, for example, in the following way:
[TABLE]
Then, in this particular case, Corollary 3.6 in [8] can be rewritten as follows:
Proposition 3.1
Let be a wavelet system in of the form (2), where has finite cardinal and for every . Then, is a tight frame for , with frame bound , if and only if
[TABLE]
From now on, we consider the Haar orthonormal bases \big{\{}L_{i}^{(j)}\big{\}} and \big{\{}K_{s,l}^{(k)}\big{\}} and the corresponding matrix \big{(}\alpha_{i,j}^{s,l,k}\big{)} given in the appendix. This choice leads to the following result, which we write in vectorial form:
Proposition 3.2
Let \big{\{}L_{i}^{(0)}\big{\}}_{i\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}} be the Haar orthonormal basis of given in (81). Let and
[TABLE]
where , (). Let us put
[TABLE]
Then, the wavelet system of the form (2) generated by is a tight frame for , with frame bound , if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:
. 2. 2.
[TABLE] 3. 3.
For , , (),
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE] 4. 4.
For , , , , (),
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Proof.
In order to avoid additional indices along the proof, we work with generic and not with . Consider the Haar orthonormal bases \big{\{}L_{i}^{(j)}\big{\}} and \big{\{}K_{s,l}^{(k)}\big{\}} and the corresponding matrix \big{(}\alpha_{i,j}^{s,l,k}\big{)} given in the appendix. For , and in (12) one obtains
[TABLE]
The last expression can be equal to if and only if for every , which is condition 1 in the statement, and \sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\big{[}\sum_{\psi}|\hat{\psi}_{2^{r}}^{(0)}|^{2}\big{]}=B, the condition (13) for in the statement. Assuming then that for every , straightforward calculations with the ’s lead to the fact that the conditions in (12), for , are related with table 1.
To obtain the conditions in (12), for , table 1 is used as follows: Choose the values of and , and consider the corresponding files in the table. Choose the value of . In each entry of the table, the indices and are associated with , and the indices and are associated with . One must pair the columns with the same and in both files, multiply by for the indices , selected in the paired columns, sum over and, finally, sum over all the paired columns. For example, for and we arrive to the already known equation
[TABLE]
the condition (13) for in the statement. For and we get (note that in this case in every column)
[TABLE]
For and , the resultant condition \sum_{k=1-\sigma}^{\infty}\big{[}\sum_{\psi}\overline{\hat{\psi}_{2^{k-1}}^{(0)}}\,\hat{\psi}_{2^{k-1+\sigma}}^{(0)}\big{]}=0 coincides with (19) for . Both of them correspond to the condition (13) for in the statement. For , (), and ,
[TABLE]
which is the condition (14) in the statement. For , (), and (note that in this case there are different ’s in the first columns of table 1),
[TABLE]
For , (), and , the condition \sum_{k=1-\sigma}^{\infty}\big{[}\sum_{\psi}\overline{\hat{\psi}_{2^{p+k}+l}^{(0)}}\,\hat{\psi}_{2^{p+k+\sigma}+l}^{(0)}\big{]}=0 coincides with (20). Both of them correspond to condition (15) in the statement. For , , (), and ,
[TABLE]
the condition (16) in the statement. For , , (), and ,
[TABLE]
which is the condition (17) in the statement. For , , (), and ,
[TABLE]
the condition (18) in the statement. For , the conditions derived from the set of equations (12) are equivalent to the former ones for . For and , or and , the set of equations (12) leads to trivial conditions. ∎
3.1 Hardy functions
It is not easy to handle the set of conditions for the vectors in proposition 3.2. A better way to tackle this set of conditions consists in writing them in terms of Hardy functions in we next define. In such approach, inner matrix functions and results by Halmos (lemma 3.3 below) and Rovnyak (lemma 3.4) play a central role.
Recall that denotes the open unit disc of the complex plane and its boundary, the unit circle. Let be a separable Hilbert space and denote by the space of bounded operators on (in the sequel we shall only need to consider Hilbert spaces of finite dimension, , for which can be identified with the space of complex -matrices). We denote by the Hardy class of functions
[TABLE]
with values in , such that . For each function the non-tangential limit in strong sense
[TABLE]
exist for almost all . The functions and determine each other (they are connected by Poisson formula), so that we can identify with a subspace of , say , thus providing with the Hilbert space structure of and embedding it in as a subspace (the space has been defined in section 2).
From now on, the operator “multiplication by ” on shall be denoted by , that is,
[TABLE]
The operator is an isometry from into . A subspace is called a wandering subspace for if whenever and are distinct non-negative integers.
Consider the subspace of consisting of all constant functions, i.e., the functions such that there exists a vector with for a.e. . A weakly measurable111 weakly measurable means the scalar product is a Borel measurable scalar function on for each . operator-valued function
[TABLE]
is called222The name rigid Taylor operator function is introduced by Halmos [9]. The name -inner function is used by Rosenblum and Rovnyak [19] and co-workers.
a -inner function or rigid Taylor operator function if maps into and is for a.e. a partial isometry333An operator is a partial isometry when there is a (closed) subspace of such that for and for . In such case is called the initial space of . on with the same initial space.
According to Halmos [9, lemma 5], wandering subspaces for and -inner functions (or rigid Taylor operator functions) are related as follows:
Lemma 3.3** **(Halmos)
A subspace of is a wandering subspace for if and only if there exists a -inner function such that . The subspace uniquely determines to within a constant partially isometric factor on the right.
Another fundamental result in what follows is due to Rovnyak [20, lemma 5]:
Lemma 3.4** **(Rovnyak)
If has finite dimension , there is no orthonormal set in containing elements and such that is orthogonal to whenever .
In terms of Hardy functions proposition 3.2 reads as follows:
Proposition 3.5
Under the conditions of proposition 3.2, for consider the Hardy function defined by
[TABLE]
Then, the wavelet system of the form (2) generated by is a tight frame, with frame bound , if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Proof.
Condition 1 of Proposition 3.2 coincides with (22), and conditions 2–4 in Proposition 3.2, i.e., equations (13)–(18), are equivalent to condition (23) of the statement. In detail, conditions (13), (15), (16) and (18), all of them for , are in correspondence with condition (23) for ; condition (13) for corresponds to the first line of the definition of in condition (23); condition (16) for corresponds to the second line of the definition of in condition (23); condition (14) corresponds to the third line of the definition of in condition (23); finally, condition (17) corresponds to the fourth line of the definition of in condition (23). ∎
3.2 Case :
For , proposition 3.5 leads to the following:
Corollary 3.6
The only function such that the wavelet system of the form (2) generated by is a tight frame for , with frame bound , is proportional to the Haar wavelet:
[TABLE]
where and .
Proof.
Condition (23) in proposition 3.5, with and , implies that each is a scalar (-)inner function in , unless . Since , is a scalar inner function in . Condition (23) again, now with , and , assures that is orthogonal to every , (). Then, according to Rovniak’s lemma 3.4, one has for every . From condition (23) once more, with and , one gets , so that for . ∎
Remark 3.7
Corollary 3.6 implies, in particular, that the only orthonormal wavelet with is the Haar wavelet. This fact contradicts theorem 5 in [7]. The main problem in [7] is to check the completeness condition (ii) of corollary 3 there, and the sufficient condition given in item (2) of proposition 4 there, , fails to be right. According to corollary 3.6 here, the completeness condition (ii) of corollary 3 in [7] is satisfied if and only if . Thus, for the functions given in theorem 5 of [7], save the Haar wavelet, the family is an orthonormal system of , but it is not complete.
3.3 Case :
For , condition (23) in proposition 3.5 implies, among other things, that the closed subspace generated by any subfamily of the set is a wandering subspace for in . According to Halmos’s lemma 3.3, such a wandering subspace has at most dimension and is of the form , for some rigid Taylor (-inner) operator-valued function , where denotes the subspace of constant functions. Thus, is for a.e. a partial isometry with the same initial subspace. For non-zero , such initial subspace, say , can have dimension or .
Consider, in particular, the closed wandering subspace for generated by in and the corresponding rigid Taylor (-inner) operator-valued function with initial subspace . Condition (23) implies, in particular, that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Then, if , the only option is that and , so that ; in such case, conditions (22) and (23) are satisfied if and only if and for every in . That is, if , in both functions and are proportional to the Haar wavelet. Thus, the only possible non-trivial situation requires that . For , the rigid Taylor (-inner) operator-valued function can be written as a () matrix inner function
[TABLE]
whose entries are functions belonging to the scalar Hardy space and such that is unitary for a.e. . In other words, the columns of , say
[TABLE]
are elements of satisfying
[TABLE]
Since the closed subspace generated by coincides with , the functions and can be taken to be proportional to these vectors: and for certain non-null constants . Moreover, according to (24), (25) and Rovniak’s lemma 3.4,
[TABLE]
where the constants must satisfy
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Consider the Taylor-Fourier series
[TABLE]
where , (), and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In these terms,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Any other , (), can be expressed in terms of the and :
Lemma 3.8
For , , with , where , one has
[TABLE]
Proof.
For , , so that with , and , since , the vector is the -coefficient in the Taylor series of , where . Thus, being ,
[TABLE]
The same argument for leads to
[TABLE]
In the final step, if , then ; on the other hand, if , as before,
[TABLE]
∎
In general, since for ,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, equation (23) with and , , implies
[TABLE]
In particular, for with ,
[TABLE]
And, for with ,
[TABLE]
In a similar way, from equation (23), now with and , or , or , one gets
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Let us note that (27) coincides with (32) for , (28) is (34) for and , and (29) is (36) for and .
Conditions (32)–(36) are part of the conditions (23) in proposition 3.5, but they are sufficient for the family of Hardy functions to satisfy the complete set of conditions (23):
Proposition 3.9
Let
[TABLE]
be a pair of functions in satisfying (26) and . Let such that
[TABLE]
and let be a sequence verifying (32)–(36). For , define the Hardy function by
[TABLE]
Then the family satisfies the complete set of conditions (23).
Proof.
(26) for implies (23) for . (26) for and , together with (37), coincide with (23) for and . (26) for , and leads to (23) for , and . (32)–(36) are just (23) for and , or , or .
For and , , , so that with , condition (23) is
[TABLE]
which is true, due to (31) together with (32) for .
For and , , , so that , with , and , , condition (23) reads
[TABLE]
which, by (31), coincides with (33) when and coincides with (35) when .
And in a similar way for the two remaining cases: for , or , and . ∎
Proposition 3.9 says that everything can be written in terms of the -inner matrix or, equivalently, in terms of the pair of functions and of :
Proposition 3.10
Let
[TABLE]
be a pair of functions in satisfying (26), , and such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Let such that
[TABLE]
and let be a sequence of scalars, where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and the rest of ’s are given by (30). For , define the Hardy function by
[TABLE]
Then the family satisfies the complete set of conditions (23).
Proof.
Conditions (38)–(42) are just conditions (32)–(36) where the ’s are eliminated using (27)–(29), except condition (32) for , condition (34) for and condition (36) for . These three excluded conditions of proposition 3.9 are the added relations (44)–(46) in proposition 3.10 to define the sequence (which coincide with (27)–(29)). ∎
Taking into account that , (), (see (26)), from (32) and (33) one deduces that, given ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Now we are ready to obtain all the non-trivial families that satisfy the complete set of conditions (23) or, equivalently, all the -inner ()-matrix functions verifying the conditions (38)–(42). For the sake of clarity, we collect the results in propositions 3.11 and 3.12 below.
When , relations (45) and (46) imply that for every , so that, by (47) and (48), for every , for every , and, by (30), for every . In this case, is an orthonormal basis of (by (46) for , since ) and . This leads to the families of type 2 in propositions 3.11 and 3.12 below, where and . It is trivial to check that this type of families of Hardy functions satisfies conditions (22) and (23) of proposition 3.5.
In what follows, we assume that .
If ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
If ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Thus, if , by (50) and (54), the three non-null vectors should be orthogonal to each other in , which is not possible.
If ,
[TABLE]
and equating the expressions for obtained using (29) and (35) with , i.e., by (41) with ,
[TABLE]
Due to (55), , and (56) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
Now, if and , by (50), (51) and (55),
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Here, being for , by (28) and (29), for and for . Thus, by (30), only if , (), and
[TABLE]
This case leads to the families of type 3 in propositions 3.11 and 3.12 below, with , , and .
If ,
[TABLE]
and equating the expressions for obtained using (28) and (34) with , i.e., by (40) with ,
[TABLE]
Then, when and ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In this case, relations (26) for and , together with (64), lead to . If ,
[TABLE]
Since , by (33) and lemma 3.8, only if , (). From (28) and (65),
[TABLE]
This case corresponds with the families of type 4 in propositions 3.11 and 3.12 below, where , , and .
Finally, when and , equating the expressions for obtained using (28), (29) and (36) with , i.e., by (42) with ,
[TABLE]
and equating the expressions for obtained using (28), (29) and (36) with , i.e., by (42) with ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Recall that due to (61). Then, by (57) and (66), there exist three unitary vectors and two sequences and of complex numbers such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, , (because ), (since ). Also,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Taking into account that the sequences and satisfy the respective recurrence relations (62) and (68), and that both relations coincide,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The conditions (26) lead to
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and the interesting additional relations
[TABLE]
From (28), (29) and (73)–(76),
[TABLE]
In this case, the families of -inner ()-matrix functions and Hardy functions of are those of type 5 in propositions 3.11 and 3.12 below.
Let us remember that the condition in proposition 3.10 restricts the attention to -inner matrices with initial subspace of dimension two, i.e., such that is unitary for a.e. . On the other hand, as we have seen at the beginning of this section, when dimension of is one, the only feasible pair leading to a tight wavelet frame, with frame bound , must satisfy and , with or , so that one gets a trivial Haar wavelet frame. The corresponding -inner matrix is of the form
[TABLE]
Including this case as “Type 1”, we have proved the following:
Proposition 3.11
There are five types of families of -inner ()-matrix functions
[TABLE]
satisfying conditions (38)–(42). They are as follows:
- Type 1.
Given , such that ,
[TABLE]
- Type 2.
Given an orthonormal basis of ,
[TABLE]
- Type 3.
Given an orthonormal basis of , and ,
[TABLE]
- Type 4.
Given an orthonormal basis of , and ,
[TABLE]
- Type 5.
*Given , choose three unitary vectors , and in such that (71) is satisfied.*444When the coordinates of , and are real, (71) is equivalent to
where denotes the angle from to as vectors in . * Then, and are given by (77). Once the free arguments for , and have been selected, say , and , the value of is determined by (74) and the value of is given by (77). Then,*
[TABLE]
In terms of the families the result reads as follows:
Proposition 3.12
There are five types of families satisfying the complete set of conditions (23). They are as follows:
- Type 1.
Given , such that , and , with ,
[TABLE]
- Type 2.
Given an orthonormal basis of and a pair of constants , with ,
[TABLE]
- Type 3.
Given an orthonormal basis of , , constants such that , , and ,
[TABLE]
- Type 4.
Given an orthonormal basis of , , constants such that , , and ,
[TABLE]
- Type 5.
Given , choose three unitary vectors , and in such that (71) is satisfied. Then, and are given by (77). Once the free arguments for , and have been selected, say , and , the value of is determined by (74) and the value of is given by (77). Choose constants such that , , and select their free arguments and . Then,
[TABLE]
where and , (), are given by (78), and the other ’s are calculated using (30).
As commented in the Introduction, for type 1 functions , both functions and are proportional to the Haar wavelet, and type 3 functions lead to the reflected version of functions and obtained from type 4 functions with the same parameters. For types 2–5 functions , some examples of real functions and are shown in figures 1–4.
Recall that the -inner matrix function and the -wandering subspace generated by in are connected by Halmos’s lemma 3.3. There, the subspace generated by uniquely determines to within a constant partially isometric factor on the right. In particular, in the non-trivial types 2–5 of propositions 3.11 and 3.12, to within a constant unitary factor on the right.
Proposition 3.13
Let A^{+}(\omega)=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}{\mathfrak{a}}^{(0)}(\omega)&{\mathfrak{a}}^{(1)}(\omega)\end{array}\right) be an -inner ()-matrix function, unitary for a.e. , with satisfying conditions (38)–(42). Given an arbitrary constant unitary ()-matrix , consider the ()-matrix function defined by
[TABLE]
Then, is also an -inner ()-matrix function, unitary for a.e. , and such that verify conditions (38)–(42).
Proof.
Conditions (38)–(42) for are given in terms of their Fourier-Taylor coefficients:
[TABLE]
On the other hand, the constant matrix U=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}u_{11}&u_{12}\\ u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}\right) is unitary if and only if
[TABLE]
with . Using (79), direct calculations show that verify conditions (38)–(42) if and only if
[TABLE]
Finally, it is easy to see that, given A^{+}(\omega)=\big{(}a^{(0)}(\omega)\quad a^{(1)}(\omega)\big{)} in any of the types 2–5 of proposition 3.11 and an arbitrary constant unitary matrix , condition (80) is always satisfied. ∎
In other words, proposition 3.13 asserts that, given an -inner ()-matrix function in the non-trivial types 2–5 of proposition 3.11, is also an -inner ()-matrix function in the non-trivial types 2–5 of proposition 3.11, for every constant unitary ()-matrix . These transformations connect -inner matrix functions in types 2 and 3 on the one hand (those with a finite number of non-zero Fourier-Taylor coefficients) and -inner matrix functions in types 4 and 5 on the other hand (those with an infinite number of non-zero Fourier-Taylor coefficients). To be precise:
- (i)
Starting from a type 2 matrix function , where
[TABLE]
for one has:
If is a diagonal unitary matrix, i.e., and , then is also a type 2 matrix function:
[TABLE]
where . 2. 2.
If is not diagonal, that is, , then is a type 3 matrix function:
[TABLE]
where , and .
- (ii)
Starting from a type 4 matrix function , where
[TABLE]
for one has:
If is a diagonal unitary matrix, then is also a type 4 matrix function:
[TABLE]
where . 2. 2.
If is not diagonal, then is a type 5 matrix function:
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
These relationships exhaust the four family types 2–5 of proposition 3.11.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by research projects MTM2012-31439 and MTM2014-57129-C2-1-P (Secretaría General de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain).
Appendix: Haar bases
Let and be the Haar scaling function and wavelet given by
[TABLE]
where denotes the characteristic function:
[TABLE]
and consider the “Haar ONBs” of and of defined by
[TABLE]
In accordance with (4) and (5), for each ,
[TABLE]
For these bases the change of representation matrix \big{(}\alpha_{i,n}^{s,j,m}\big{)}, defined by (8), is as follows:
For , ,
[TABLE]
For , ,
[TABLE]
For , and (with and ),
[TABLE]
For and every ,
[TABLE]
For and , with (, ) and (, ),
[TABLE]
For and , with (, ),
[TABLE]
where denotes “entire part of” and555Taking into account the binary expression , with or , one has and .
[TABLE]
For , ,
[TABLE]
For , ,
[TABLE]
For , , and ,
[TABLE]
For and every ,
[TABLE]
For and , with (, ) and (, ),
[TABLE]
For and , with (, ),
[TABLE]
where is given by (83).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Christensen, O., Kim, H. O., and Kim, R. Y. On Parseval wavelet frames with two or three generators via the unitary extension principle. Canad. Math. Bull. 57 , 2 (2014), 254–263.
- 2[2] Chui, C. K., and He, W. Compactly supported tight frames associated with refinable functions. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 8 , 3 (2000), 293–319.
- 3[3] Chui, C. K., He, W., and Stöckler, J. Compactly supported tight and sibling frames with maximum vanishing moments. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 13 , 3 (2002), 224–262.
- 4[4] Chui, C. K., He, W., and Stöckler, J. Tight frames with maximum vanishing moments and minimum support. In Approximation theory, X (St. Louis, MO, 2001) , Innov. Appl. Math. Vanderbilt Univ. Press, Nashville, TN, 2002, pp. 187–206.
- 5[5] Daubechies, I., Han, B., Ron, A., and Shen, Z. Framelets: MRA-based constructions of wavelet frames. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 14 , 1 (2003), 1–46.
- 6[6] Fan, Z., Ji, H., and Shen, Z. Dual Gramian analysis: duality principle and unitary extension principle. Math. Comp. 85 , 297 (2016), 239–270.
- 7[7] Gómez-Cubillo, F., and Suchanecki, Z. Inner functions and local shape of orthonormal wavelets. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 30 , 3 (2011), 273–287.
- 8[8] Gómez-Cubillo, F., and Villullas, S. Wavelet frames: Spectral techniques and extension principles. (submitted) .
