Polarization, sign sequences and isotropic vector systems
Gergely Ambrus, Sloan Nietert

TL;DR
This paper investigates the polarization constants of the unit sphere across different p-values, identifying extremizers and optimal configurations, with specific results for p=1, p=2, and the circle case.
Contribution
It determines the order of magnitude of the polarization constants for all dimensions and p-values, and characterizes extremizers for p=2 and p=1, including the case of the circle.
Findings
Extremizers for p=2 are isotropic vector sets.
Polarization problem for p=1 reduces to maximizing signed vector sums.
Equally spaced configurations are optimal on the circle.
Abstract
We determine the order of magnitude of the th -polarization constant of the unit sphere for every and . For , we prove that extremizers are isotropic vector sets, whereas for , we show that the polarization problem is equivalent to that of maximizing the norm of signed vector sums. Finally, for , we discuss the optimality of equally spaced configurations on the unit circle.
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.
Polarization, sign sequences and isotropic vector systems
Gergely Ambrus
Gergely Ambrus
Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Reáltanoda u. 13-15
1053 Budapest
Hungary
and
Sloan Nietert
Sloan Nietert
Department of Computer Science
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-7501
U.S.A.
Abstract.
We determine the order of magnitude of the th -polarization constant of the unit sphere for every and . For , we prove that extremizers are isotropic vector sets, whereas for , we show that the polarization problem is equivalent to that of maximizing the norm of signed vector sums. Finally, for , we discuss the optimality of equally spaced configurations on the unit circle.
Key words and phrases:
Polarization problems, discrete potentials, Chebyshev constants, isotropic vectors sets, tight frames, vector sums.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
52A40(primary), and 31C20(secondary)
Research of the first author was supported by NKFIH grants PD125502 and K116451 and by the Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Research of the second author was supported by Budapest Semesters in Mathematics and the Hungarian - American Fulbright Commission.
1. Introduction
Let be a multiset of unit vectors in , and set . The -potential of at the unit vector is defined as
[TABLE]
where denotes the standard inner product. This is an analogue of the classical Riesz potential for inner products. The -polarization of is given by
[TABLE]
We are interested in finding the minimum -polarization of , for fixed and , that is,
[TABLE]
The quantity is called the th -polarization (or Chebyshev) constant of .
Related questions for have been studied extensively, see e.g. the recent article of Hardin, Petrache and Saff [18] about general polarization problems. In the planar case, has a direct connection to the classical notions of Riesz potentials and Chebyshev constants. This connection is described in Section 5. Polarization problems have been subject to very active research in the last 15 years, although their study dates back to at least 1967 [22]. The most relevant results to our present problem are discussed in [1, 20, 21, 26, 27].
Determining the exact value of is hopeless in general, except for certain cases. Therefore, our first result provides asymptotic bounds. For brevity, we introduce the quantity
[TABLE]
Clearly, . Here, and throughout the paper, we are going to use the standard asymptotic notations following Knuth [19]: given two positive-valued functions and , , we write
[TABLE]
Depending on the number of points compared to the dimension, we derive different estimates.
Theorem 1**.**
For every ,
[TABLE]
as and .
Furthermore, for ,
[TABLE]
while for ,
[TABLE]
holds, as and .
For special values of and , stronger results may be proved. In order to discuss the case , we introduce the following notion: is an isotropic set of unit vectors if
[TABLE]
where is the identity operator on . Isotropic sets of unit vectors are also called unit norm tight frames, see e.g. [8].
Theorem 2**.**
For every and ,
[TABLE]
and the extremal configurations are exactly the isotropic sets of unit vectors.
For , Theorem 1 provides the exact asymptotics: . By the following fact, this also provides an estimate to a quantity involving sign sequences:
Proposition 3**.**
For any set of unit vectors ,
[TABLE]
As a consequence of Proposition 3 and Theorem 1, we immediately obtain
Theorem 4**.**
For every and ,
[TABLE]
Finally, we discuss the -polarization constants of the unit circle.
Proposition 5**.**
For and as well as for , is minimized by vector sets which are equally distributed on the half-circle. For , the potential function of any extremal configuration is constant on , whereas for ,
[TABLE]
for even values of , and
[TABLE]
for odd .
2. General asymptotics
Proof of Theorem 1.
We start with the lower bound, which holds for every and . Let be fixed. Note that
[TABLE]
where the expectation is taken as being selected uniformly at random from the sphere. By a standard calculation, we obtain that
[TABLE]
and by the previous arguments,
[TABLE]
Next, we show that this bound is asymptotically correct when is large, or when . First, assume that , and select an independent, random uniform sample from . We will show that with positive probability, is of order .
For conciseness, let
[TABLE]
Observe that is -Lipschitz, since
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for any fixed ,
[TABLE]
where the expectation refers to the choice of the random base system . Moreover, since , Hoeffding’s inequality and (4) yields that for any fixed and ,
[TABLE]
We are going to bound the maximum of on by pinning it down at the points of a -net and then exploiting the Lipschitz property. It is well known (see e.g. [4]) that there exists a -net (with respect to the Euclidean metric) in with at most points. Let be such a -net. Choose be such that
[TABLE]
Since must be within of some and is -Lipschitz, we have that . Then, the union bound and (5) gives that for every ,
[TABLE]
Setting , the bound simplifies to
[TABLE]
Take with some constant . Then
[TABLE]
with . Taking logarithm shows that the above probability is guaranteed to be less than one if
[TABLE]
Therefore, when , we obtain that
[TABLE]
Let us turn to the estimates valid for smaller values of . The lower bound (2) still holds, so we only have to prove the upper estimates. Without changing the asymptotic bounds, we may assume that . Let consist of copies of an orthonormal basis of . Then,
[TABLE]
which implies the upper bounds for arbitrary . ∎
Remark. The following construction gives a slightly stronger estimate for a small number of points, when . Let be the infimum of all constants satisfying
[TABLE]
Let and be two orthogonal, -dimensional linear subspaces in . Take and to be -element vector sets in and , respectively, with . Let . Then
[TABLE]
Thus, . Using the fact that for , , it follows that for , we have . Moreover, for , it is easy to see that (by taking the vectors of once or twice). Likewise, for , we know that by keeping the optimal vectors from the case. Therefore, for all .
3. Isotropic vector sets:
Proof of Theorem 2..
Let . Introduce the frame operator
[TABLE]
where denotes the tensor product of the two vectors. Then for any vector ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, is attained at the eigenvector of norm 1 of belonging to the maximal eigenvalue. Since , we obtain that
[TABLE]
and equality holds if and only if , that is, if is an isotropic vector system. ∎
Isotropic vector sets also arise in different contexts: in frame theory, they are called unit norm tight frames or UNTF’s, while in the context of John’s theorem, their rescaled copies provide a decomposition of the identity. A characterization of them was first given by Benedetto and Fickus [8] (for a simplified proof, see [2]): they showed that a set of unit vectors form an isotropic set if and only if they are the minimizer of the frame potential among -element vector sets in , defined by
[TABLE]
In particular, it follows that -element isotropic sets of -dimensional unit vectors exist for every .
For and , the characterization may be simplified by utilizing the connection with complex numbers. Goyal et al. [16] showed that in , isotropic sets of unit vectors correspond to sequences satisfying and
[TABLE]
where the unit circle of is identified with the complex unit circle . For , Benedetto and Fickus [2] provide a correspondence between isotropic vector sets and sequences satisfying and
[TABLE]
Here, each point in is identified with its projection onto the unit disc of the complex plane.
4. Sign sequences:
Proof of Proposition 3.
First, we show that Indeed, let be an arbitrary sign sequence, and define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
which shows that
[TABLE]
For the reverse direction, introduce the function defined on as in (3). Applying Lagrange multipliers implies that those critical points of on where is differentiable satisfy
[TABLE]
with . By taking inner products of both sides with we obtain that .
Therefore, we only have to rule out the existence of maximizers of at non-differentiable points. Assume on the contrary that is a maximizer with , where , and for . Then for with sufficiently small absolute value,
[TABLE]
Here, , and thus, for sufficiently small but non-zero whose sign agrees with that of , we would obtain that
[TABLE]
which contradicts the maximality of . ∎
Sign sequences arise in several topics, most prominently in the context of discrepancy theory (see, for example, the famous conjecture of Komlós [25]). Note, however, a fundamental difference: in that setting, one would like to minimize the norm of , whereas here, the goal is to find the maximizers. The “dual” question of Theorem 4 was asked by Dvoretzky [12] in 1963: Determine
[TABLE]
Various related games had been studied by Spencer [24]. Bárány and Grinberg [7] proved a stronger result which implies an upper bound on the above quantity.
More related to the present question is Bang’s lemma [6], which arose in the context of the well-known plank problem. Its simplest form [5] states the following: If are unit vectors in , and the signs are chosen so as to maximize the norm , then holds for every . Note, however, that this only implies
[TABLE]
The same estimate follows by taking the average of over all possible sign sequences.
It remains an open question to determine the extremal point configurations of (1). In general, we have very little information about the extremizers, and a complete description of them can only be hoped for in a few special cases. For , the above averaging argument yields that the extremum is uniquely achieved by the vectors of an orthonormal basis, which satisfy . For , natural intuition and numerical experiments suggest that each extremal configuration is, up to sign changes, the union of the vertex set of an even dimensional regular simplex and an orthonormal basis of the orthogonal complement of its subspace. The following conjecture was stated in a slightly incorrect form in [11] and has been corrected by [23].
Conjecture 1**.**
For any , and for any configuration of unit vectors , there exists a sequence of signs so that
[TABLE]
Moreover, the above estimate is sharp if and only if, up to sign changes, is the union of the vertex set of a regular simplex centered at the origin in a subspace , and an orthonormal basis of , where is an even dimensional linear subspace of .
5. Planar case: equidistributed sets
In the plane, finding is equivalent to maximizing the sum of the th powers of the Euclidean distances from a variable unit vector to fixed unit vectors via the following transformation. Identify with the complex unit circle , and let , . Introduce and . Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, may be obtained by finding the point for which is maximal.
Accordingly, we introduce the following quantities for an -point configuration :
[TABLE]
Analogues of the above notions with negative are called the Riesz potential and polarization quantities, and have been extensively studied before, see e.g. [13] for general results in that direction.
By (6), , and thus Theorem 1 implies the lower bound
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
using the Legendre duplication formula and the natural extension of the binomial coefficient to non-integers.
The above notions have been studied by Stolarsky [26, 27], who determined for , where is an equidistributed set on :
[TABLE]
where . He also determined for and . Nikolov and Rafailov [20] determined the value for and arbitrary and also discussed the critical points of on . They showed that if is an even integer with , then is constant on . Moreover, they proved [21] that this property (holding for all even integer exponents between and ) characterizes equidistributed sets. They conjectured that the condition holding solely for is already sufficient for characterization. This was verified by Bosuwan and Ruengrot [9] (for the case , which we assumed anyway). The authors also proved that for , is attained at the configurations which satisfy
[TABLE]
for every .
On the other hand, Hardin, Kendall and Saff [17], proving a conjecture of the first named author formulated in [3], proved the polarization optimality of equidistributed sets on the unit circle for convex potentials. Recently, their result has been extended to more general settings [14].
Proof of Proposition 5.
By (6), finding the polarization constants is equivalent to maximizing the quantity .
First, we assume . Let Then is non-negative, non-increasing and strictly convex on . Moreover,
[TABLE]
where and . Therefore, is attained when is minimized. Theorem 1 of [17] implies that is achieved by equidistributed points sets; moreover, these are the only optimizers. Accordingly, the lines spanned by an optimal configuration for are evenly spaced. It is easy to check [27] that for such a configuration, the maximum of the potential function is attained at one of the base points for odd , and at the midpoint between two consecutive base points for even .
The case is discussed in [9], Theorem 2. We also give a short proof here. It was shown in [20] that for these values of , is constant on . Therefore, for any -point configuration on ,
[TABLE]
For equally distributed point sets, it was proven by Stolarsky [27] and by Nikolov and Rafailov [20] that is (not necessarily uniquely) attained at which is, depending on , either one of the base points or is the midpoint between two consecutive base points. More precisely, introduce the positive-exponent Riesz energy of defined by
[TABLE]
(note that in the previous articles related to Riesz energies, the exponent is taken to be , therefore the above quantity becomes the negative exponent Riesz energy). For brevity, let . Theorem 1.2. of [27] states that for , taking ,
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for , Theorem 2 of [20] implies that
[TABLE]
The asymptotic expansion of was given by Brauchart, Hardin and Saff [10]:
[TABLE]
This, along with (7), (8), (9), and the fact , implies that as .
Proposition 5 shows that for integer exponents with , . For these exponents, we provide the explicit value of (and, by (8) and (9), of ) by a combinatorial argument. If for some integer ,
[TABLE]
Using binomial expansion gives
[TABLE]
On the other hand, assume that is odd with . Noting that for ,
[TABLE]
it follows that
[TABLE]
Now, using that is odd, we have
[TABLE]
since and . Observing the symmetry of this sum about , we can compute
[TABLE]
For , this gives . In general, as , the Taylor expansion of the cotangent gives
[TABLE]
where the second equality follows from a series computation described in Proposition 2.3 of [15].
We conclude the paper by restating the following natural conjecture of Bosuwan and Ruengrot [9], which is also supported by our numerical experiments:
Conjecture 2**.**
For any , the vector systems achieving are equally distributed on the circle for every .
Acknowledgement. This research was done under the auspices of the Budapest Semesters in Mathematics program. The authors are grateful to I. Bárány for fruitful discussions and to A. Polyanskii for communicating the correct form of Conjecture 1 to us.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] G. Ambrus, Analytic and Probabilistic Problems in Discrete Geometry . Ph.D. Thesis, University College London, 2009.
- 2[2] G. Ambrus, A short proof for the characterisation of tight frames . Manuscript, 2014. ar Xiv:1403.7382
- 3[3] G. Ambrus, K. Ball, and T. Erdélyi, Chebyshev constants for the unit circle. Bull. London Math. Soc. 45 (2) (2013), 236–248.
- 4[4] K. M. Ball, An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry. In: Flavors of geometry (ed. S. Levy), MSRI publications 31 (1997), 1–58.
- 5[5] K. M. Ball, Convex Geometry and Functional Analysis . In: Handbook of the geometry of Banach spaces, vol. 1 (ed. W. B. Johnson and J. Lindenstrauss, Elsevier (2001), 161–194.
- 6[6] Th. Bang, A solution of the “Plank problem” . Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1951), 990–993.
- 7[7] I. Bárány and V. S. Grinberg, On some combinatorial questions in finite-dimensional spaces. Linear Alg. Appl. 41 (1981), 1–9.
- 8[8] J. J. Benedetto, M. Fickus, Finite normalized tight frames . Advances in Computational Mathematics 18 (2–4)(2003), 357–385.
