Generalized sampling and the stable and accurate reconstruction of piecewise analytic functions from their Fourier coefficients Ben Adcock Department of Mathematics Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Canada Anders C. Hansen DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences University of Cambridge Wilberforce Rd, Cambridge CB3 0WA United Kingdom November 21, 2011 Abstract Suppose that the first m Fourier coefficients of a piecewise analytic function are given. Direct expansion in a Fourier series suffers from the Gibbs phenomenon and lacks uniform convergence. Nonetheless, in this paper we show that, under very broad conditions, it is always possible to recover an n-term expansion in a different system of functions using only these coefficients. Such an expansion can be made arbitrarily close to the best possible n-term expansion in the given system. Thus, if a piecewise polynomial basis is employed, for example, exponential convergence can be restored. The resulting method is linear, numerically stable and can be implemented efficiently in only O (nm) operations. A key issue is how the parameter m must scale in comparison to n to ensure recovery. We derive analytical estimates for this scaling for large classes of polynomial and piecewise polynomial bases. In particular, we show that in many important cases, including the case of piecewise Chebyshev polynomials, this scaling is quadratic: m = O n2 . Therefore, with a system of polynomials that the user is essentially free to choose, one can restore exponential accuracy in n and root exponential accuracy in m. This generalizes a result proved recently for piecewise Legendre polynomials. The method developed in this paper is part of new numerical framework for sampling and reconstruction in abstract Hilbert spaces, known as generalized sampling. This paper extends previous work by the authors by introducing a substantially more flexible framework which allows for sampling and reconstruction with respect to different inner products. In the final part of this paper we illustrate the application of generalized sampling to a related family of problems. 1 Introduction The Fourier expansion of an analytic and periodic function f converges exponentially fast in the truncation parameter m. For this reason – as well as the fact that the expansion can be computed rapidly via the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) – such approximations are extremely widely used in all areas of computational mathematics, with one important instance being the spectral solution of partial differential equations (PDEs) [15, 19]. However, rapid convergence is lost when the function is no longer analytic. Indeed, when f is only piecewise analytic, one encounters the familiar Gibbs phenomenon. This not only destroys local accuracy – characteristic O (1) oscillations are witnessed near each jump in the function – it also inhibits global approximation: the truncated expansion converges only very slowly in the L2 norm, and not at all when the error is measured in the uniform norm. Notably, this issue arises when computing spectral approximations to PDEs that develop shocks – hyperbolic conservation laws, for example [31, 41]. This naturally leads to the following question: given the first m Fourier coefficients of a piecewise analytic function f , how can one recover high orders of approximation? The problem is not new, and there have been many different approaches developed for its solution (see, for example, [2, 11, 12, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 52] and references therein). Of this large collection, perhaps the most successful and commonly used is the method of spectral reprojection [30, 33, 34, 35]. Introduced by D. Gottlieb et al [35], in this approach the Fourier coefficients of f are used to approximate the first n = O (m) coefficients in a new 1 basis of piecewise polynomials (the reconstruction basis). Provided this basis is chosen appropriately, one obtains exponential accuracy in m. To date, spectral reprojection has been successfully used in a range of applications, including image reconstruction [9, 10], and the postprocessing of spectral discretizations of hyperbolic PDEs [28, 31, 41]. Whilst spectral reprojection has been widely successful, there are a number of drawbacks. In particular, spectral reprojection achieves rapid convergence by employing a particular choice of reconstruction basis. Herein lies a problem. Only very few bases (known as Gibbs complementary bases [30, 34]) have this property, with the two most commonly used being ultraspherical (Gegenbauer) and Freud polynomials. In both cases, however, the parameter α defining the polynomials must scale linearly with n. This is not only computationally inconvenient – changing n requires recomputation of the whole reprojection basis – in addition, a rather careful selection of parameters must be employed to ensure such convergence and avoid potentially a Runge-type phenomenon [16]. Because of the stringent requirements placed on the reconstruction basis, spectral reprojection consequently affords little flexibility to the user. At the very least, Gegenbauer and Freud polynomials are no where near as easy to use and manipulate as Chebyshev polynomials, for example, with the latter being amenable to the FFT. Another issue, as shown empirically in [7], is that, even if exponential convergence occurs, the rate of this convergence in the Gibbs complementary basis may be quite slow in practice, meaning that many Fourier coefficients may be required to achieve high accuracy. With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is to consider a different approach based on an alternative idea. Unlike spectral reprojection, where the reconstruction basis must be suitably chosen to ensure rapid convergence, the method we develop in this paper allows the user to employ an arbitrary basis. In other words, we address the following problem: Problem 1.1. Given the first m Fourier coefficients of a piecewise analytic function f , where m is sufficiently large, recover an approximation fn,m to the n-term expansion Qn f in an arbitrary basis of piecewise polynomials (the reconstruction basis) orthogonal to with respect the inner product h·, ·i satisfying kf − fn,m k kf − Qn f k as n, m → ∞, where k·k is the corresponding norm corresponding. ∞ Here and elsewhere we use the notation an bn for nonnegative sequences {an }∞ n=1 and {bn }n=1 to mean that, for all sufficiently large n there exist c1 , c2 > 0 such that c1 an ≤ bn ≤ c2 an . Observe that kf − fn,m k kf − Qn f k implies that the approximation fn,m is quasi-optimal to f from the set Pn : as n → ∞, fn,m converges to f at precisely the same rate as the best approximation Qn f . As we show, by letting m vary independently of n, the restriction of having to employ a Gibbs complementary basis is avoided. This allows one to use far more convenient polynomial bases in reconstruction, such as the aforementioned Chebyshev basis. Note that the case of (piecewise) Legendre polynomial bases was developed in [7] (therein several examples demonstrating improved performance over spectral reprojection were also given). The main contribution of this paper (see §1.4 for a more detailed description) is to generalize this work to arbitrary bases of piecewise polynomials. 1.1 Reconstructions in Hilbert spaces Our solution to Problem 1.1 is based on recasting it in terms of sampling and reconstruction in abstract Hilbert spaces. To this end, let HS and HR be subspaces of a vector space V that form Hilbert spaces with ∞ respect to the bilinear forms h·, ·iS and h·, ·iR . Suppose that {ψj }∞ j=1 , {φj }j=1 are orthonormal bases for S R (H , h·, ·iS ) and (H , h·, ·iR ) respectively (the sampling and reconstruction bases), and let U ⊆ HR be a subspace (U will consist of those functions f we wish to reconstruct). For f ∈ U, let fˆj = hf, ψj iS , j = 1, 2, . . . , be the samples of f . The method we develop in this paper is designed to solve the problem: Problem 1.2. Given the first m samples fˆ1 , . . . , fˆm of f ∈ U, recover an approximation fn,m to Qn f satisfying kf − fn,m kR kf − Qn f kR , where Qn : (HR , h·, ·iR ) → Tn := span{φ1 , . . . , φn } is the orthogonal projection. It transpires that, under certain assumptions, this problem is solvable, and the resulting framework is linear, and completely numerically stable. The key is that m must scale appropriately to n. The required scaling can be derived numerically, and, in the cases we consider in this paper, analytically. 2 It is straightforward to see that this framework can be applied to Problem 1.1. In particular, consider the simple scenario where f is analytic, but nonperiodic (equivalently, f : T → R has a jump at x = −1, where T = [−1, 1) is the unit torus). Given the Fourier coefficients of f , we would like to reconstruct in the orthonormal basis of Chebyshev polynomials φj (x) = cj Tj (x) of the first kind (for example), where Tj (x) = cos(j arccos x), and c0 = √1 , π cj = q 2 π , j 6= 2 − 21 j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , 1. Given that the polynomials Tj are orthogonal with respect to the weight function w(x) = (1 − x ) , we thus let HS = L2 (−1, 1) and HR = L2w (−1, 1) (the spaces of squareintegrable functions and weight square-integrable functions with respect to the weight function w respectively), and define ψj (x) = √12 exp(ijπx) to be the standard Fourier basis. As is no doubt apparent to the reader, Problem 1.2 is actually far more general than Problem 1.1. Indeed, the abstract framework introduced to solve Problem 1.2 can be applied far more widely than the problem of reconstructing from Fourier data. We shall discuss several other important applications of this framework at the end of this paper. In particular, we illustrate how this framework can be used to solve another common problem of this type: namely, the reconstruction of a piecewise analytic function from its coefficients with respect to an orthogonal polynomial basis. Much like the Fourier case, the problem also notably occurs in spectral discretizations of hyperbolic PDEs [31, 34, 41]. 1.2 Orthogonal polynomial systems It is useful at this moment to introduce some notation. We shall be principally concerned in this paper with Jacobi polynomials, with corresponding weight function wα,β (x) = (1 − x)α (1 + x)β , α, β > −1. We write L2α,β (−1, 1) for the space of weighted square-integrable functions with respect to wα,β , and k·kα,β for the corresponding norm. Our main examples herein will be ultraspherical (or Gegenbauer) polynomials (α = β = γ), and in particular, Legendre polynomials (γ = 0) and Chebyshev polynomials of the first (γ = − 21 ) and second (γ = 12 ) kinds. Whenever α = β = γ we shall use the slightly more succinct notation L2γ (−1, 1), k·kγ and wγ . Legendre and Chebyshev polynomials are the most common in applications – in particular, spectral methods for PDEs [15, 19]. More specifically, Chebyshev polynomials are chosen for reconstruction because of their aforementioned computational flexibility, whereas Legendre polynomials are desirable because of the simplicity of the Legendre weight function w(x) ≡ 1. However, it is of both theoretical and practical interest to maintain the generality of Jacobi polynomials. Indeed, whilst Legendre and Chebyshev polynomials are most frequently used in practice, there are a number of applications which employ more general ultraspherical and Jacobi polynomial systems [15, 19, 36, 37]. If f is piecewise analytic with jumps at −1 < x1 < . . . < xl < 1 we shall seek to reconstruct in bases of piecewise polynomials. Thus, with α = {α0 , . . . , αl } and β = {β0 , . . . , βl } we define the piecewise Jacobi weight function wα,β (x) by wα,β (x) = (xr+1 − x)αr (x − xr )βr , x ∈ Ir := (xr , xr+1 ), r = 0, . . . , l. Here x0 = −1 and xl+1 = 1. The corresponding orthonormal system of piecewise polynomials can be obtained by appropriately scaling from the standard interval [−1, 1] to each subinterval of smoothness Ir (see §3.1). When considering a finite expansion in such functions, we shall write n = (n0 , . . . , nl ) ∈ Nl+1 for the vector of polynomial degrees in each subinterval Ir , and define Tn = {φ : φ|Ir ∈ Pnr , r = 0, . . . , l} . (1.1) The operator Qn : L2α,β (−1, 1) → Tn will be the orthogonal projection with respect to the weight function wα,β . As in the no-jump (analytic and nonperiodic) setting, the main examples we consider in this paper involve reconstructions in piecewise Chebyshev or Legendre polynomials, i.e. α = β = γ, where γ = {− 21 , . . . , − 12 } (first kind), γ = { 12 , . . . , 21 } (second kind) or γ = {0, . . . , 0} respectively. Remark 1.3 Many of the results we prove in this paper extend quite trivially to the modified Jacobi weight wα,β (x) = g(x)(1 − x)α (1 + x)β , 3 α, β > −1, (1.2) where g(x) is analytic and positive on [−1, 1]. Likewise, one may define the piecewise modified Jacobi weight (1.3) wα,β (x) = gr (x)(xr+1 − x)αr (x − xr )βr , x ∈ Ir := (xr , xr+1 ), where gr is analytic and positive in Ir . Although wα,β , as given by (1.3), is only unique (for given α and β) up to multiplication by a collection g0 , . . . , gl of positive, analytic functions, we shall continue to write L2α,β (−1, 1) for the corresponding space of square-integrable functions with respect to (1.3), and shall not make the dependence on the functions g0 , . . . , gl explicit. 1.3 Key results We devote the first part of this paper to the solution of Problem 1.2 and the properties of the resulting framework, including numerical stability. In the second half, we consider its application to Problem 1.1. In this regard, the key result we prove is as follows: Theorem 1.4. Let α = {α0 , . . . , αl } and β = {β0 , . . . , βl }, where αr , βr > −1, r = 0, . . . , l, be parameters corresponding to the piecewise (modified) Jacobi weight wα,β , and suppose that Qn is the orthogonal projection onto Tn , as given by (1.1), with respect to wα,β . Define αr −1 < αr < 1 βr −1 < βr < 1 α̃r = , β̃r = , 1 − r αr ≥ 1 1 − 0r βr ≥ 1 where 0 < r , 0r < 2 are arbitrary, and let U := L2α̃,β̃ (−1, 1). Suppose that the first m Fourier coefficients of f ∈ U are given. Then there exists a c > 0 independent of m, n = (n0 , . . . , nl ) and f such that, whenever m ≥ cn̄r , where n̄ = max{n0 , . . . , nl } and p−q , r = max 2, p + 1, 2 + 2 q+1 p = max{α0 , . . . , αl , β0 , . . . , βl }, q = min{α0 , . . . , αl , β0 , . . . , βl }, one may compute, in a completely numerically stable manner, a reconstruction fn,m ∈ Tn satisfying kf − Qn f kα,β ≤ kf − fn,m kα,β ≤ c0 kf − Qn f kα̃,β̃ , for some c0 > 0 depending only on c. Moreover, excluding a preprocessing step of at most O m2 cost, the number of operations required to compute fn,m is O (nm). If wα,β is a piecewise ultraspherical weight, then such preprocessing involves only O (nm) operations. This theorem guarantees solution of Problem 1.1 for a very large class of functions. In fact, if −1 < αr , βr < 1, r = 0, . . . , l, then we can recover any f ∈ U ≡ HR , where HR = L2α,β (−1, 1). In the general case, note that U, although not equal to HR , is still a very large space, and is therefore certainly sufficient for practical purposes (recall that the principal concern of this paper is piecewise analytic functions). Of course, higher smoothness of f ensures fast convergence of Qn f , and therefore fn,m . However, this theorem demonstrates that quasi-optimal, stable recovery with GS is always possible regardless of smoothness. In practice, it is important to understand the constant c of Theorem 1.4. Fortunately, c can always be computed numerically (see §2.3). Also, empirical evidence suggests that a small value of c is usually suitable. In the numerical experiments in this paper we use c = 41 , which gives perfectly acceptable results (see §4). One could also use a smaller value, with the only difference being a slightly larger, but still O (1), condition number. The proof of Theorem 1.4 relies on careful analysis of the behaviour of Fourier expansions in certain weighted spaces. Herein, a connection is made with the Helson–Szegö Theorem on positive measures [26]. Another feature of our analysis is that, in many cases, the best constants corresponding to the quasi-optimality kf − fn,m kR kf − Qn f kR are known, and can be explicitly computed. Specifically, one has the sharp bounds 1 kf − Qn f kR , kf − fn,m kR ≤ Cn,m where the constant Cn,m is bounded (provided m ≥ cn̄r ) and has a geometrical interpretation in terms of the angle between two particular finite-dimensional subspaces. 4 Note also the great flexibility guaranteed by this theorem. In many important cases, m = O n2 samples of a piecewise analytic function allow one to recover close to the best n-term approximation in a given piecewise polynomial system. This includes (piecewise) Legendre (p = q = 0) and Chebyshev polynomials (p = q = ± 21 ), both of which are commonly used in applications. In particular, Corollary 1.5. Given the first m Fourier coefficients of a piecewise analytic function f , one can compute, in 3 O(m 2 ) operations, a root-exponentially convergent piecewise polynomial approximation of f that consists of arbitrary piecwise ultraspherical polynomials with parameter −1 < γ < 1. In summary, the method we present in this paper improves on the more conventional approach of spectral reprojection by allowing reconstructions in arbitrary polynomial bases. Whatsmore, spectral reprojection incurs a relatively large cost of O m2 operations. Here we also obtain an improvement, by a factor of 1 O(m 2 ). Having said this, spectral reprojection is formally exponentially convergent, whereas this approach obtains only root-exponential convergence. However, as we shall demonstrate by numerical example (see §4.2), this rate of exponential convergence may be quite slow in practice, meaning that the approach of this paper, whilst formally less rapidly convergent, actually gives a better numerical approximation in many cases. Remark 1.6 At first sight it may appear that the scaling m = O n2 , resulting in root exponential convergence in m, is less than optimal, and therefore could be improved. As discussed in [6] (see also [50] for a closely related result), root-exponential convergence is the best that can be attained by a stable method for this problem, and thus the framework developed in this paper is optimal in this sense. 1.4 Relation to previous work The special case HS = HR = H, h·, ·iR = h·, ·iS = h·, ·i was first considered in [4, 7]. Therein an abstract framework, known as generalized sampling (GS), was developed to solve Problem 1.2 in this more simple setting. The framework introduced in this paper to address the significantly more general case HS 6= HR , h·, ·iS 6= h·, ·iR is a direct extension of this work, and, for this reason, we shall continue to refer to the resulting framework as generalized sampling. The original GS framework of [4, 7] can be applied successfully to Problem 1.1 whenever Qn f is the Legendre polynomial expansion of f (this corresponds to HR = HS = L2 (−1, 1)), leading to a stable numerical method. This particular instance of GS was also is described [42]. Unfortunately this framework is not as flexible as one may hope. Although one can also reconstruct using arbitrary bases of polynomials, the resulting method is only numerically stable when Legendre polynomials are employed. Moreover, in the 3 ultraspherical case, for example, this method also incurs an increased cost (over the value of O(m 2 ) for the 3+|γ| Legendre case) proportional to O(m 2 ), where γ is the corresponding polynomial parameter. Reconstructions in arbitrary orthogonal polynomial systems from Fourier coefficients have also been considered in [44, 45]. However, the approach introduced therein is exponentially unstable, and liable to suffer from a Runge-type phenomenon (i.e. divergence for insufficiently analytic functions). The work of [42] can be viewed as a regularization of this approach, yet only the case of Legendre polynomials was considered. Fortunately, the extended GS framework we develop in this paper, which exploits the orthogonality of both the sampling and reconstruction bases, allows for completely stable reconstructions in only 3 O(m 2 ) operations using significantly more general families of polynomials. Moreover, as we explain in due course, the extended GS framework can actually be reinterpreted as a preconditioning of the original GS framework. This preconditioner acts to stabilize the particular linear system, and thereby reduces the overall computational cost. 1.5 Outline The outline of the remainder of this paper is as follows. In §2 we introduce and analyze the extended version of the GS framework to solve Problem 1.2. §3 is devoted to (piecewise) polynomial reconstructions from Fourier samples, and in particular, the solution of Problem 1.1 and proof of Theorem 1.4. In §4 we give numerical examples and in §5 we discuss applications of this extended GS framework to several related reconstruction problems. 5 2 An extended generalized sampling framework Let HS and HR be subspaces of a vector space V that form Hilbert spaces in their own right with respect to the bilinear forms h·, ·iS and h·, ·iR respectively. Let U ⊆ HR be a subspace (not necessarily closed) and R assume that f ∈ U and that {φj }∞ j=1 ⊆ U, where {φj } is some orthonormal basis for (H , h·, ·iR ). The subspace U consists of those functions f that we wish to recover and the subspace Tn := span{φ1 , . . . , φn } S is the space in which we seek to reconstruct. If {ψj }∞ j=1 ⊆ U is an orthonormal basis of (H , h·, ·iS ), we assume that we have access to the first m samples of f fˆj = hf, ψj iS , j = 1, . . . , m, (2.1) with respect to this basis (we shall assume that V is such that these values exist and are finite). In practice, the basis {φj }∞ j=1 is chosen with some a priori knowledge about f . For the applications considered in this paper, where f is a piecewise analytic function on [−1, 1], {φj }∞ j=1 will consist of orthonormal piecewise polynomials with respect to some weight function and ψj will correspond to the complex exponential √12 eijπx (in this case we shall enumerate ψj over Z as opposed to N). Remark 2.1 Note that the assumption of orthonormality in the sampling and reconstruction vectors {ψj }∞ j=1 , is not necessary. It is reasonably straightforward to relax this condition to that of a Riesz basis [7] {φj }∞ j=1 (and also further to a frame [8]). However, since all sampling and reconstruction vectors of interest in this paper will be orthonormal, we shall accept this slight loss of generality. We seek to solve Problem 1.2: namely, compute an approximation fn,m ∈ Tn from the samples (2.1) that is close to Qn f , where Qn : (HR , h·, ·iR ) → Tn is the orthogonal projection. Note that Qn f is defined by the equations hQn f, φj iR = hf, φj iR , j = 1, . . . , n, Qn f ∈ Tn . (2.2) Had we had access to the values hf, φj iR , i.e. the coefficients of f in a particular polynomial basis, for example, we could have computed Qn f immediately. However, in general we do not have this information. Specifically, all we know is {fˆj }m j=1 . Since the sampling basis {ψj }j∈N is fixed, and cannot be altered, we are unable to form Qn f from the given data. Nonetheless, let us write Pm : HS → Sm = span{ψ1 , . . . , ψm } for orthogonal projection onto Sm ⊆ U with respect to h·, ·iS , i.e. m X Pm g = hg, ψj iS ψj , g ∈ HS . j=1 We now define fn,m ∈ Tn as the solution to hPm fn,m , Pm φiR = hPm f, Pm φiR , ∀φ ∈ Tn , fn,m ∈ Tn . (2.3) Suppose for a moment that (HS , h·, ·iS ) and (HR , h·, ·iR ) coincide. This is precisely the setting of the original GS framework of [7]. It is now quite simple to give an intuitive explanation as to how fn,m solves Problem S 1.2. Indeed, since {ψj }∞ j=1 is an orthonormal basis for (H , h·, ·iS ), we have that Pm → I in the strong S S S operator topology on (H , h·, ·iS ) [20], where I : H → H is the identity operator. Thus, for fixed n ∈ N, if m → ∞ the equations (2.3) resemble those equations (2.2) defining Qn f . Therefore, for sufficiently large m, we expect fn,m to inherit the features of Qn f (in particular, fn,m should exist uniquely), and critically its good approximation properties. In the general case (HS , h·, ·iS ) 6= (HR , h·, ·iR ), we need the additional assumption that Pm → I strongly on (U, h·, ·iR ): kg − Pm gkR → 0, m → ∞, ∀g ∈ U. (A1) Note that this assumption is not guaranteed in general, and must be verified for each particular problem. However, as we shall see in §3, it does hold in all cases of interest in this paper. We will also require one further assumption: namely, a uniform boundedness condition for {Pm }m∈N in terms of some norm ||| · ||| defined on U: kPm gkR ≤ c|||g|||, ∀g ∈ U, m ∈ N, (A2) where c > 0 is independent of m and g. 6 In some circumstances, but not all, it transpires that the following stronger version of (A2) holds: U = HR , Pm : HR , h·, ·iR → HR , h·, ·iR bounded. (A20 ) To see that this is stronger than (A2), we note that Lemma 2.2. Suppose that (A1) and (A20 ) hold. Then the family {Pm }m∈N is uniformly bounded. In other words, (A2) holds with ||| · ||| = k·kR . Proof. (A1) and (A20 ) imply that supm∈N kPm gk < ∞ for any g ∈ U = HR . The uniform boundedness principle now gives the result. Whenever (A20 ) holds instead of (A2) we may give a more precise analysis of the approximation fn,m (see §2.2). In §3 we detail the situations in which (A20 ) holds as opposed to (A2) for the Fourier reconstruction problem. 2.1 Recovery from Fourier coefficients Before analysing this framework, let us first discuss the main example of this paper. Suppose that f : [−1, 1] → R is piecewise analytic with jumps at −1 < x1 < . . . < xl < 1. Let ψj (x) = √12 exp(ijπx), j ∈ Z, and assume that the coefficients Z 1 jmk jmk ˆ fj = ,..., , (2.4) f (x)ψj (x) dx, j = − 2 2 −1 are given. In particular, Pm f is the truncated Fourier series of f (we henceforth refer to Pm as the Fourier projection operator in this case). We wish to recover f in a basis of orthonormal piecewise polynomials corresponding to the piecewise (modified) Jacobi weight wα,β given by (1.3), where α = {α0 , . . . , αl } and β = {β0 , . . . , βl }. To this end, let x0 = −1, xl+1 = 1 and write Tn = {φ : φ|Ir ∈ Pnr : r = 0, . . . , l} , n = (n0 , . . . , nl ), (2.5) where Ir = (xr , xr+1 ). We now compute fn,m ∈ Tn using (2.3). Thus, we let V = L1 (−1, 1) (the space of absolutely integrable functions), HR = L2α,β (−1, 1), k·kR = k·kα,β , and set HS = L2 (−1, 1), k·kS = k·k. There are now three key questions: (i) How do we choose the subspace U and the norm ||| · ||| so that (A1) and (A2) hold? (ii) Does such a choice of U include all functions of interest? Specifically, U should at the very least contain all piecewise analytic functions. (iii) In what circumstances does (A20 ) hold instead of (A2)? In §3 we provide answers to these questions. Remark 2.3 Throughout we assume that the discontinuity locations x1 , . . . , xl are known. Indeed, this is necessary prior knowledge for constructing an appropriate reconstruction basis of piecewise polynomials. In practice, a fully-automated algorithm must also incorporate a scheme for locating such singularities. There are numerous methods for this problem, and we shall not discuss this issue any further. We refer the reader to [29, 52]. 2.2 Analysis of the extended framework We present two types of analysis of this framework. The first, for which the corresponding error estimates (i.e. bounds for kf − fn,m kR ) are not sharp, is valid whenever (A1) and (A2) hold. The second, which assumes the stronger condition (A20 ), leads to sharp bounds. 7 2.2.1 Version I The definition (2.3) of fn,m motivates the introduction of the quantity En,m = sup {kφ − Pm φkR : φ ∈ Tn , kφkR = 1} . (2.6) This quantity measures how close the restriction Pm |Tn is to the identity operator I|Tn . Since (A1) holds and Tn is finite-dimensional, the following lemma is unsurprising: Lemma 2.4. Suppose that En,m is defined by (2.6). Then En,m ≤ 1 + cdn for all m, n ∈ N, where c is as in (A2) and dn = sup {|||φ||| : φ ∈ Tn , kφkR = 1} . (2.7) Moreover, En,m → 0 as m → ∞ for fixed n. Proof. Note that En,m ≤ 1 + sup {kPm φkR : φ ∈ Tn , kφkR = 1}. (A2) now gives the first result. For the second, observe that the set Bn := {φ ∈ Tn : kφkR = 1} is compact. Hence, since Pm → I strongly on U ⊇ Bn , this convergence is uniform on Bn . With this to hand, we are now able to prove the main result of this section: Theorem 2.5. For every n ∈ N there exists an m0 such that the approximation fn,m , defined by (2.3), exists and is unique and satisfies the estimates kfn,m kR ≤ c |||f |||, 1 − En,m (2.8) and kf − fn,m kR ≤ kf − Qn f kR + 1 cEn,m |||f − Qn f ||| + k(I − Pm )(f − Qn f )kR , (2.9) (1 − En,m )2 (1 − En,m )2 where Qn : HR → Tn is the orthogonal projection with respect to h·, ·iR and En,m is as in (2.6). Specifically, m0 is the least m such that En,m < 1. Note that (2.8) is a continuous stabilty estimate for fn,m . In particular, this implies that the coefficients of fn,m cannot grow large. Proof. Let U : Tn → Cn be the linear operator g 7→ {hPm g, Pm φj iR }nj=1 . It suffices to show that U is invertible; in other words, ker(U) = {0}. Suppose that g ∈ Tn with Ug = 0. Then, by linearity, hPm g, Pm φiR = 0, ∀φ ∈ Tn . In particular, 0 = kPm gkR ≥ (1 − En,m )kgkR . Thus, if m ≥ m0 , where m0 is the least m such that En,m < 1, then we must have that g = 0. Hence, U is nonsingular, and fn,m exists uniquely. Now consider (2.8). Setting φ = fn,m in (2.3) gives kPm fn,m k2R = hPm f, Pm fn,m iR ≤ kPm f kR kPm fn,m kR ≤ c|||f |||kPm fn,m kR . The inequality (2.8) now follows directly from the definition of En,m and (A2). For (2.9) we first write e = fn,m − Qn f ∈ Tn and notice that kPm ek2R = hPm (f − Qn f ), Pm eiR . Since e ∈ Tn and f − Qn f ⊥ Tn is the orthogonal projection, the right hand side may be written as hPm (f − Qn f ), Pm eiR −hf − Qn f, eiR = −h(I − Pm )(f − Qn f ), eiR − hPm (f − Qn f ), (I − Pm )eiR . This gives (1 − En,m )2 kek2R ≤ kPm ek2R ≤ k(I − Pm )(f − Qn f )kR kekR + kPm (f − Qn f )kR k(I − Pm )ekR . Hence, by (A2) and the definition of En,m , we obtain (1 − En,m )2 kekR ≤ k(I − Pm )(f − Qn f )kR + cEn,m |||f − Qn f |||. The full result follows from the inequality kf − fn,m kR ≤ kekR + kf − Qn f kR . 8 This theorem confirms solution of Problem 1.2 using (2.3) whenever (A1) and (A2) hold, and provided m is sufficiently large in comparison to n. The question of how large will be discussed and quantified in §2.3. Observe that kg − Pm gkR ≤ kgkR + c|||g|||, ∀g ∈ U, ∀m ∈ N, hence the term k(I − Pm )(f − Qn f )kR in right-hand side of (2.9) can be easily bounded independently of m to give the more convenient bound " # 1 c(1 + En,m ) |||f − Qn f |||. (2.10) kf − fn,m kR ≤ 1 + kf − Qn f kR + 2 (1 − En,m ) (1 − En,m )2 However, this bound obscures one interesting facet of fn,m : namely, its asymptotic optimality. That is, by increasing the number of samples m, fn,m can be made arbitrarily close to the best approximation Qn f . Indeed, Corollary 2.6. Suppose that fn,m is defined by (2.3). Then, for fixed n, fn,m → Qn f as m → ∞. Proof. Since En,m → 0 as m → ∞ (Lemma 2.4), we have kekR ≤ 1 cEn,m |||f − Qn f ||| + k(I − Pm )(f − Qn f )kR → 0, 2 (1 − En,m ) (1 − En,m )2 as m → ∞, where e = fn,m − Qn f . Thus, fn,m → Qn f as required. The analysis of this section demonstrates quasi-optimality of fn,m (as well as asymptotic optimality). However, it is clearly less than ideal to have an error estimate of the form (2.9) involving |||f − Qn f |||. In general, there is no guarantee that this term decays as n → ∞ (although this is always true in the applications of this paper). Thus, one may ask: can a better analysis give an error bound involving only kf − Qn f kR (which must tend to zero since Qn : HR → Tn is the orthogonal projection)? As it transpires, whenever (A20 ) holds instead of (A2), this is indeed the case. This is described in the next section. The resulting analysis also provides bounds for kfn,m kR and kf − fn,m kR which, unlike those given in Theorem 2.5, are sharp. 2.2.2 Version II Suppose now that (A20 ) holds instead of (A2). To derive an improved analysis, it is useful to introduce the notion of oblique projections in Hilbert spaces: Definition 2.7. Let U and V be closed subspaces of a Hilbert space H. A mapping W := WUV : H → U is an oblique projection onto U along V if W 2 = W and W(v) = 0, ∀v ∈ V. We shall also require the following: Definition 2.8. Let U and V be closed subspaces of a Hilbert space H and QV : H → V the orthogonal projection onto V. The subspace angle θ = θUV between U and V is given by cos(θUV ) = inf {kQV uk : u ∈ U, kuk = 1} . Note that, U ⊕ V = H if and only if there exists a unique oblique projection onto U along V [51]. Equivalently, the cosine of the subspace angle cos θUV⊥ 6= 0. In the particular case that V = U⊥ (i.e. cos θUV = 1), WUV = QU is the orthogonal projection onto U. We now require the following theorem: Theorem 2.9 ([6]). Suppose that U and V are closed subspaces of H satisfying U ⊕ V⊥ = H, and let W : H → U be the oblique projection onto U along V⊥ . Then we have the sharp bounds kWf k ≤ 1 kf k, cos θUV ∀f ∈ H, (2.11) and 1 kf − Qf k, ∀f ∈ H, cos θUV where Q : H → U is the orthogonal projection. In particular, if f ∈ U then Wf = f . kf − Qf k ≤ kf − Wf k ≤ 9 (2.12) 0 This aside, note that, the operator Pm is bounded on HR . Hence it has a bounded since R(A2 ) holds, ∗ R ∗ adjoint Pm : H , h·, ·i → H , h·, ·i . Write Wm := Pm ◦ Pm . We require the following lemma: Lemma 2.10. The operators Wm converge strongly to I on HR , h·, ·i . Proof. For g ∈ HR , we have ∗ ∗ kg − Wm gk2 = hg − Pm Pm g, g − Pm Pm gi ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ≤ |hPm (g − Pm g), g − Pm Pm gi| + |hg − Pm g, g − Pm Pm gi|. ∗ Since {Pm }m∈N is uniformly bounded, so is {Pm }m∈N . Moreover, the adjoint operation is strongly contin∗ uous on bounded sets. Hence Pm → I strongly on HR and we obtain, for some c > 0 independent of g and m, ∗ kg − Wm gk2 ≤ c (kg − Pm gk + kg − Pm gk) kgk → 0, m → ∞, as required. We are now ready to analyze fn,m . First, note that we may rewrite (2.3) as hfn,m , Wm φiR = hf, Wm φiR , ∀φ ∈ Tn . In other words, fn,m (whenever it exists) is precisely the oblique projection of f onto Tn along the subspace [Wm (Tn )]⊥ (here ⊥ is taken with respect to (HR , h·, ·iR )). Letting Cn,m = cos θTn ,Wm (Tn ) , (2.13) we immediately deduce the following: Theorem 2.11. Suppose that n, m ∈ N are such that Cn,m > 0, where Cn,m is given by (2.13). Then fn,m , as defined by (2.3), exists uniquely and satisfies the sharp bounds kfn,m kR ≤ and kf − fn,m kR ≤ 1 Cn,m 1 Cn,m kf kR , kf − Qn f kR . (2.14) (2.15) Naturally, to use this theorem, we need to understand the quantity Cn,m . We have Lemma 2.12. The quantity Cn,m defined by (2.13) satisfies 1 (1 − En,m ) ≤ Cn,m ≤ 1, c ∀n, m ∈ N, (2.16) where c = supm∈N kPm k and k·k is the operator norm on the space of bounded linear maps (HR , h·, ·iR ) → (HR , h·, ·iR ). Moreover, Cn,m → 1 as m → ∞ for fixed n. Proof. That Cn,m ≤ 1 follows immediately from the definition (2.13). Moreover, by the definition of subspace angles Cn,m = inf kQWm (Tn ) φkR . φ∈Tn kφkR =1 Consider the quantity kQWm (Tn ) φkR . By the standard duality pairing, hQWm (Tn ) φ, Wm φ0 iR 0 0 : φ ∈ Tn , φ 6= 0 kQWm (Tn ) φkR = sup kWm φ0 kR hφ, Wm φ0 iR 0 0 = sup : φ ∈ Tn , φ 6= 0 . kWm φ0 kR Setting φ0 = φ, we obtain kQWm (Tn ) φkR ≥ hφ, Wm φiR kPm φk2R = . kWm φkR kWm φkR 10 (2.17) ∗ Since Wm = Pm ◦ Pm we obtain kQWm (Tn ) φkR ≥ 1 1 kPm φkR ≥ (1 − En,m ) kφk, c c which gives (2.16). The proof that Cn,m → 1 as m → ∞ is analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.4, and follows directly from the fact that Wm → I (Lemma 2.10). The importance of (2.17) is that it allows Cn,m to be estimated in terms of En,m ; a somewhat easier task. Thus, estimates obtained later for the asymptotic behaviour of En,m automatically hold for Cn,m , and thus guarantee Theorem 2.11. We shall also exploit this fact in §3. Note that this lemma also implies asymptotic optimality of fn,m : since kfn,m − Qn f k2 = kf − fn,m k2 − kfn,m − Qn f k2 ≤ Kn,m kf − Qn f k2 ≤ Kn,m kf k2 , where Kn,m = C 21 − 1, we have fn,m → Qn f as m → ∞. n,m It is instructive to relate this general framework to the example of §2.1. Suppose that we sample an analytic, nonperiodic f via its Fourier coefficients (so that Pm is the standard Fourier projection operator) and wish to reconstruct in Chebyshev polynomials. We thus let V = L1 (−1, 1), HS = L2 (−1, 1) and 1 HR = L2w (−1, 1), where w(x) = (1 − x2 )− 2 is the Chebyshev weight on [−1, 1]. It transpires that both (A1) and (A20 ) hold in this case (see §3). Therefore Theorem 2.11 and Lemma 2.12 apply to this example. ∗ Note that in this setting the operators Pm and Wm are given explicitly by ∗ Pm g= 2.3 1 Pm (wg), w Wm g = 1 Pm (wPm g) , w g ∈ L2w (−1, 1). (2.18) Numerical implementation Let us now consider the computation of fn,m . Writing fn,m = easily seen that the vector α = (α1 , . . . , αn ) is defined by Pn j=1 αj φj for unknowns α1 , . . . , αn , it is U ∗ CU α = U ∗ C fˆ, where fˆ = {hf, ψ1 iS , . . . , hf, ψm iS }, and U ∈ Cm×n and C ∈ Cm×m have (j, k)th entries hφk , ψj iS and hψj , ψk iR respectively. Thus the coefficients of fn,m are defined by an n × n linear system of equations, with self-adjoint matrix A = U ∗ CU . The condition number κ(A) of the matrix A is critical from a numerical perspective. It determines both the stability of the numerical method – its susceptibility to noise and round-off errors, in particular – as well as the cost of any iterative solver (conjugate gradients, for example) for computing the pvector of unknowns α. Specifically, the number of iterations required to compute α is proportional to κ(A). Thus, if κ(A) = O (1) for all n and sufficiently large m (which turns out to be the case), then the cost of computing fn,m is determined solely by the cost of performing matrix-vector multiplications involving A. Since the (typically dense) matrices U and C are of size m × n and m × m respectively, straightforward implementation of this method, that is, without any fast transforms, requires O m2 operations. However, as we shall explain in §4, C always has a Toeplitz structure when one considers Fourier samples. Thus, matrixvector multiplications involving C require only O (m log m) operations, giving a total figure of O (mn) for this framework. We now give an estimate for κ(A): Lemma 2.13. Let En,m be given by (2.6). Then the condition number of A = U ∗ CU satisfies κ(A) ≤ 1 + En,m 1 − En,m 2 . In particular, if n is fixed then A → I as m → ∞, where I ∈ Cn×n is the identity. Proof. α = {α1 , . . . , αn } ∈ Cn be an normalized eigenvector of A with corresponding eigenvalue λ. If PLet n φ = j=1 αj φj it follows that hPm φ, Pm φj iR = λαj , 11 j = 1, . . . , n, and, in particular, kPm φk2R = λ. Hence, n o 2 λmin (A) = inf kPm φkR : φ ∈ HR , kφkR = 1 , n o 2 λmax (A) = sup kPm φkR : φ ∈ HR , kφkR = 1 . Using the definition En,m we deduce that (1 − En,m )2 ≤ λmin (A) ≤ λmax (A) ≤ (1 + En,m )2 , which gives the first result. For the second, we merely note that A → I componentwise as m → ∞ (since En,m → 0 by Lemma 2.4), and therefore in norm. This lemma confirms good conditioning of A whenever m is sufficiently large in comparison to n. In fact, the condition number of A can be made arbitrarily close to unity by increasing m sufficiently. Remark 2.14 As mentioned in §1.4, the extended GS framework introduced in this section can actually be reinterpreted as a preconditioning of the original GS framework of [7]. In the original framework, one solves U ∗ U α = U ∗ fˆ. However, unless (HR , h·, ·iR ) = (HS , h·, ·iS ) the matrix U ∗ U is not well-conditioned, leading to a higher cost in computing α. The extended framework merely replaces this with the preconditioned equations U ∗ CU α = U ∗ C fˆ, where C is as above. This judicious choice of C preconditions the original equations (by exploiting the orthogonality of both the sampling and reconstruction vectors) and therefore gives the aforementioned improvement. 2.4 Scaling of m with n: the stable sampling rate Observe that the same quantity En,m which determines the magnitude of the error committed by fn,m also occurs in the estimate for the condition number. Indeed, provided m is chosen so that 1 − En,m is bounded away from zero, we can ensure both quasi-optimality of fn,m and numerical stability. This motivates the following definition. We let Θ(n; θ) = min {m ∈ N : En,m < 1 − θ} , θ ∈ (0, 1). For a given n, choosing m ≥ Θ(n; θ) ensures that kf − fn,m kR ≤ 1 + θ−2 kf − Qn f kR + c(2 − θ)θ−2 |||f − Qn f |||, and that (2.19) (2.20) 2 κ(A) ≤ 2θ−1 − 1 . In other words, fn,m is quasi-optimal to f from Tn , and its computation is numerically stable, uniformly in n ∈ N. The quantity Θ(n; θ), originally introduced in [7] and named the stable sampling rate in [6], measures how large m (the number of samples) must be for a given n for stable, quasi-optimal reconstruction. Importantly, Θ(n; θ) is computable. Indeed, p Lemma 2.15. Let En,m be given by (2.6). Then En,m = kBk, where B ∈ Cn×n is the Hermitian matrix with (j, k)th entry hφj − Pm φj , φk − Pm φk iR . Pn Proof. For φ ∈ Tn , write φ = j=1 αj φj . Then ( Pn 2 En,m ) αj αk hφj − Pm φj , φk − Pm φk iR Pn = sup : α ∈ Cn , α 6= 0 j,k=1 αj αk hφj , φk iR ∗ α Bα n = sup : α ∈ C , α = 6 0 . α∗ α j,k=1 This is precisely kBk. Note that the matrix B can be expressed as B = I − V ∗ U − U ∗ V + A, where A = U ∗ CU and V ∈ Cm×n has (j, k)th entry hφk , ψj iR . Hence, given U , C and V , one can readily compute En,m and therefore Θ(n; θ). 12 The estimate (2.20) for kf − fn,m k holds with the stronger assumption (A20 ). In the case that this does hold, then it is preferable to replace (2.20) by the sharp bound (2.15). Using (2.16) we obtain the improved estimate c kf − fn,m kR ≤ kf − Qn f kR . (2.21) θ In fact, one could, in theory, also use (2.15) directly, by numerically computing Cn,m (recall that Cn,m is the angle between two finite-dimensional subspaces, and hence computable), thereby giving a sharp (and consequently slightly better) bound. The significance of Θ(n; θ) is that it allows one to control a priori both the stability and accuracy of the numerical method. Whilst it is convenient that Θ(n; θ) can always be computed numerically, it is also important to have analytical estimates for each particular application. Naturally, such estimates are completely dependent on both the sampling and reconstruction spaces, and thus must be obtained on a case-by-case basis. We shall devote much of the second half of this paper to the derivation of such estimates for the case of Fourier sampling and (piecewise) polynomial reconstructions. 3 Recovery from Fourier coefficients We now consider the specific application of recovering a piecewise analytic function from its Fourier coefficients using a piecewise polynomial basis. As we show, it is possible to reconstruct in a completely stable manner in an arbitrary basis of piecewise polynomials, orthogonal with respect to the (piecewise) modified Jacobi weight. Thus, the individual polynomials employed can be specified by the user, making the method extremely flexible in this sense. In §5 we consider a number of other related reconstruction problems which can be addressed with this framework. 3.1 Preliminaries Recall the setup of §2.1. Suppose that f : [−1, 1] → R is piecewise analytic with jumps at the known locations −1 < x1 < . . . < xl < 1. Set x0 = −1 and xl+1 = 1. We shall assume that the first m Fourier coefficients (2.4) of f are given. Thus, we let HS = L2 (−1, 1) with its standard inner product h·, ·i and norm k·k, and define ψj (x) = √12 exp(ijπx) (recall that in this case we enumerate {ψj } over Z as opposed to N). We shall reconstruct in the space Tn defined by (2.5), with a basis of this space consisting piecewise polynomials orthogonal with respect to the piecewise (modified) Jacobi weight (1.3) with parameters α = {α0 , . . . , αl }, β = {β0 , . . . , βl }, where αr , βr > −1, r = 0, . . . , l. We let HR = L2α,β (−1, 1) with corresponding inner product h·, ·iα,β and norm k·kα,β . We enumerate the orthonormal basis for Tn as follows. First, let cr = 21 (xr+1 − xr ) and define Λr (x) = x−xr cr − 1, so that Λ(Ir ) = [−1, 1], where Ir = [xr , xr+1 ]. For given αr , βr , let φj be the corresponding orthonormal modified Jacobi polynomial of degree j on [−1, 1]. Assume that φj ≡ 0 outside [−1, 1] and define the local (modified) Jacobi polynomial on Ir by φr,j = √1cr φj ◦ Λr . It follows that the set {φr,j : j = 0, . . . , nr − 1, r = 0, . . . , l} , (3.1) forms an orthonormal basis for Tn , and hence we may write fn,m as fn,m = l nX r −1 X αr,j φr,j , r=0 j=0 with unknowns αr,j ∈ C. We now compute fn,m via (2.3). We first wish to analyze fn,m (implementation will be discussed in §4). This means applying the analysis of §2, and for this we need to verify (A1) and (A2). Additionally, we also wish to determine when we may replace (A2) by the stronger condition (A20 ), and hence when the sharp bounds of Theorem 2.11 apply. Verifying these assumptions requires understanding the convergence of Fourier series in the weighted spaces L2α,β (−1, 1). This is the content of the next section. 13 3.2 Convergence of Fourier series in weighted norms Somewhat surprisingly, this question has been considered before. Convergence of Fourier series with respect to piecewise modified Jacobi weights are simple consequences of this more general theory, which we now recap. The reader is referred to [40, 43] or more recently [13], for further details. Suppose that w(x) is a weight function on [−1, 1] with w(x) ≥ 0 almost everywhere and such that 0 < w(x) < ∞ almost everywhere in [−1, 1]. We shall denote the space of weighted square integrable functions by L2w (−1, 1), with corresponding norm k·kw . We say that w(x) is a Helson–Szegö weight function if and only if there exists a constant c > 0 such that Z Z 1 1 1 w ≤ c, |I| I |I| I w for all subsets I ⊆ [−1, 1] that are either subintervals or complements of subintervals in [−1, 1] (here |I| denotes the length of I). There is a fundamental relationship between Helson–Szegö weight functions and Fourier series. This is summarized in the following theorem: Theorem 3.1 (see [43] or [13]). The following four statements are equivalent: (i) w is a Helson–Szegö weight function, (ii) There exist real functions u, v on [−1, 1] with kuk∞ , kvk∞ < ∞ such that w(x) = eu(x)+ṽ(x) almost everywhere, (iii) There exists a finite constant c > 0 such that, for all f ∈ L2w (−1, 1), we have f ∈ L1 (−1, 1) and kPm f kw ≤ ckf kw , ∀m ∈ N, where Pm f is the truncated Fourier expansion of f , (iv) For every f ∈ L2w (−1, 1), we have f ∈ L1 (−1, 1) and kf − Pm f kw → 0 as m → ∞. Using this theorem (specifically conditions (iii) and (iv)), we immediately obtain the following: Corollary 3.2. Let Pm be the Fourier projection operator. Then (A1) and (A20 ) hold for HR = L2w (−1, 1) if and only if the weight function w is of Helson–Szegö type. ∗ ◦ Pm , and Lemma 2.10 gives that Remark 3.3 Recall that in §2.2.2 we introduce the operator Wm = Pm R Wm → I strongly on H . This can actually be proved quite easily in the case considered in this section. If w is a Helson–Szegö weight function then, recalling the explicit form (2.18) for Wm , kg − Wm gkw ≤ kwg − Pm (wg)kw−1 + kPm (wg − wPm g)kw−1 . 1 If w is a Helson–Szegö weight function then so is w−1 (x) = w(x) (wherever defined). Also, g ∈ L2 (−1, 1) if and only if wg ∈ L2w−1 (−1, 1). Therefore Theorem 3.1 gives kg − Wm gkw ≤ kwg − Pm (wg)kw−1 + ckg − Pm gkw → 0, m → ∞, as required. We are interested in the case where (piecewise) modified Jacobi weight functions are of Helson–Szegö type. We have Lemma 3.4. Suppose that wα,β is a piecewise modified Jacobi weight function with parameters α = {α0 , . . . , αl } and β = {β0 , . . . , βl }. Then wα,β is a Helson–Szegö weight function if and only if −1 < αr , βr < 1 for all r = 0, . . . , l. Proof. Note that if w̃ is a Helson–Szegö weight function and w w̃ uniformly in x, then so is w. We now recall a result proved in [13]. Let w(t) = ϕ(eiπt ), where ϕ is finite, positive and continuous on the unit circle except at a finite set of points z1 , . . . , zl . Moreover, suppose that ϕ(z) = O (|z − zr |γr ) , 1 = O |z − zr |−γr , ϕ(z) z → zr . Then w is a Helson–Szegö weight function if and only if −1 < γr < 1, r = 1, . . . , l. Noting that 1 − t2 |1 + eiπt | now gives the full result. 14 This lemma, in combination with Theorem 3.1, gives the following: Corollary 3.5. Let Pm be the Fourier projection operator and HR = L2α,β (−1, 1). Then assumptions (A1) and (A20 ) hold if and only if −1 < αr , βr < 1 for all r = 0, . . . , l. Note that this corollary includes the cases α = β = {− 21 , . . . , − 12 , }, { 12 , . . . , 12 } corresponding to Chebyshev weights (of the first and second kinds) that form the principal interest of this paper. With this corollary in hand, the analysis of §2.2.2 immediately applies to this problem. In particular, we deduce stability, convergence, asymptotic optimality and the sharp bounds of Theorem 2.11. Let us now address the other case, where at least one αj or βj exceeds 1. As shown by Lemma 3.4, wα,β is no longer a Helson–Szegö weight function. However, one can still verify (A1) and (A2) in this case, for a suitable choice of the subspace U: Corollary 3.6. Let Pm be the Fourier projection operator and wα,β a piecewise Jacobi weight function with parameters α = {α0 , . . . , αl } and β = {β0 , . . . , βl }. For r = 0, . . . , l define αr −1 < αr < 1 βr −1 < βr < 1 α̃r = , β̃r = , 1 − r αr ≥ 1 1 − 0r βr ≥ 1 where 0 < r , 0r < 2 are arbitrary. Then (A1) and (A2) hold with U = L2α̃,β̃ (−1, 1) and ||| · ||| = k·kα̃,β̃ . Proof. By construction, wα̃,β̃ is a piecewise modified Jacobi weight function of Helson–Szegö type. Moreover, we have the continuous embedding U ,→ HR . In other words, there exists c > 0 such that kgkα,β ≤ ckgkα̃,β̃ , ∀g ∈ U. Therefore, by Theorem 3.1, kg − Pm gkα,β ≤ kg − Pm gkα̃,β̃ → 0, ∀g ∈ U, and kPm gkα,β ≤ kPm gkα̃,β̃ ≤ ckgkα̃,β̃ , ∀g ∈ U. This gives the result. As a result of this corollary, the analysis of §2.2.1 applies in this setting. Hence one verifies stability and convergence, albeit without the sharp bounds of §2.2.2. As commented, the space U of functions we can reconstruct with this approach is very large, and certainly includes all functions of interest in practice. Observe that Corollaries 3.5 and 3.6, in combination with the analysis of §2, confirm the first part of the key theorem of this paper: namely, Theorem 1.4. For the second part, we need to estimate the stable sampling rate Θ(n; θ), as defined by (2.19). This is the content of the next section. The final part of Theorem 1.4, i.e. the computational cost estimates, will be addressed in §4. 3.3 Estimates for the stable sampling rate Θ(n; θ) The key theorem we prove in this section is the following: Theorem 3.7. Let Pm be the Fourier projection operator, Tn be given by (2.5) for n = (n0 , . . . , nl ), and suppose that HR = L2α,β (−1, 1), where α = {α0 , . . . , αl }, β = {β0 , . . . , βl }. Then, for 0 < θ < 1 there exists c > 0 depending only on θ such that Θ(n; θ) ≤ cn̄r , ∀n0 , . . . , nl ∈ N, where Θ(n; θ) is given by (2.19), n̄ = max{n0 , . . . , nl }, and p−q r = max 2, p + 1, 2 + 2 , q+1 p = max{α0 , . . . , αl , β0 , . . . , βl }, q = min{α0 , . . . , αl , β0 , . . . , βl }. A proof of this theorem is given later in this section. Recall that the most important case in this paper is when α0 = . . . = αl = β0 = . . . = βl = γ. In other words, a piecewise ultraspherical weight with the same parameter values in each of the intervals I0 , . . . , Il . In this case, p = q = γ, and Theorem 3.7 gives that Θ(n; θ) ≤ cn̄max{2,γ+1} . 15 80 150 150 60 100 100 40 50 50 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 5 10 γ= − 12 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 20 0.1 5 10 γ= 15 20 1 2 γ=2 Figure 1: The functions Θ(n; θ) (top) and n−2 Θ(n; θ) (bottom) against n = 1, . . . , 20 for θ = (squares, circles and crosses respectively). 1 1 1 4 , 8 , 16 For example, whenever −1 < γ < 1, such as in the Legendre or Chebyshev cases, we obtain an O n2 scaling for Θ(n; θ). Note that this result was first proved in [42] (see also [7]) for the Legendre case. In fact, quadratic scaling of Θ(n; θ) with n is the best possible predicted by this theorem (indeed, one cannot obtain a better scaling whilst retaining stability with any method – see Remark 1.6 and [6]). One negative consequence of this result is that if one chooses α and β so that either p 6= q or p > 1, then the growth of Θ(n; θ) is more severe. Thus, more Fourier coefficients are required to reconstruct in terms of the corresponding piecewise polynomial basis. This is clearly less than ideal. Nevertheless, whenever α and β are chosen so that p = q and p ≤ 1, we retain quadratic growth. The reason for the increased scaling whenever p > 1 is that the weighted norm k·kα,β is too weak in comparison to the standard L2 norm to adequately control the error of the Fourier projection. Conversely, when p 6= q, the local convergence of the Fourier series of an arbitrary function φ at any point x ∈ (−1, 1) is determined by its global behaviour at every jump x0 , x1 , . . . , xl . Thus, convergence in the local norm over each Ir subinterval must balance this global behaviour, which leads to the higher scaling when p 6= q. In Figure 1 we plot Θ(n; θ) and n−2 Θ(n; θ) for case where l = 0 (i.e. analytic and nonperiodic functions f ) and α = β = γ (i.e. reconstructions in ultraspherical polynomials). As is evident, when γ = ± 21 , Θ(n; θ) scales quadratically with n. Conversely, this scaling is cubic when the value γ = 2 is used. Thus, these results confirm Theorem 3.7. The remainder of this section is devoted to a proof of Theorem 3.7. For this, we first require some general results about Fourier series, and in particular, Fourier series of arbitrary piecewise algebraic polynomials. For this, we require some additional notation. We shall write A . B to mean that there exists a constant c > 0 independent of all relevant parameters such that A ≤ cB. Second, if I ⊆ [−1, 1] is an interval and α, β > −1, we write k·k∞,I and k·kα,β,I for the norms corresponding to the spaces L2∞ (I) and L2wα,β (I) respectively, where wα,β is a modified Jacobi weight, appropriately scaled to I. Finally, we let [g](x) = g(x+ ) − g(x− ) be value of the jump in a function g : [−1, 1] → R at the point x ∈ [−1, 1], with the understanding that [g](−1) = [g](1) = g(−1) − g(1). Our first lemma is as follows: Lemma 3.8. Suppose that f : [−1, 1] → R is piecewise smooth with singularities at −1 < x1 < . . . < xl < 1. Then we have the asymptotic expansion l ∞ 1 X X (−1)s+1 e−iπjxr h (s) i fˆj ∼ √ f (xr ), 2 r=0 s=0 (−ijπ)s+1 16 |j| 1, (3.2) In particular, if f ∈ Tn , where Tn is as in (2.5), then l nr −1 1 X X (−1)s+1 e−iπjxr h (s) i f (xr ), fˆj = √ (−ijπ)s+1 2 r=0 s=0 ∀j ∈ Z\{0}. Proof. This follows from repeated integration by parts applied to the integral R1 −1 (3.3) f (x)e−ijπx dx. Note that the symbol ∼ in (3.2) denotes an asymptotic expansion (in the usual Poincaré sense) in the parameter j → ±∞. As is typical, the right-hand side of (3.2) does usually not converge for any fixed j. On the other hand, (3.3) holds for any finite j 6= 0 and arbitrary piecewise polynomials f . A convenient means to describe the Fourier series of an arbitrary function piecewise smooth function f is in terms of certain cardinal functions [3, 49]. For r ∈ N, let C̃r (x) be the periodic extension of 2r Br+1 (x) to the real line, where Br+1 is the (r + 1)th Bernoulli polynomial [1, chpt. 23], and define − (r+1)! Cr (x) = C̃r ( 12 x + 1). It follows that Cr is a piecewise polynomial of degree r + 1 with singularity at x = 0. Moreover, since the Bernoulli polynomials form an Appell sequence, we have that i h Cr(s) (0) = δr−s , r, s ∈ N. Define the piecewise polynomials qr,s (x) = Cs (x − xr ), r = 0, . . . , l, s ∈ N, via translation. Substituting f = qr,s in (3.3), we note that 1 (−1)s+1 e−ijπxr , qd r,s j = √ 2 (−ijπ)s+1 j ∈ Z\{0}. (3.4) Thus (3.2) can be expressed more succinctly as fˆj ∼ ∞ l X X h i (r) qd (xr ). r,s j f r=0 s=0 Note also that if φ ∈ Tn , where Tn is defined by (2.5), then φ(x) − Pm φ(x) = l nX r −1 h i X φ(s) (xr ) {qr,s (x) − Pm qr,s (x)} , (3.5) r=0 s=0 Thus, to study the convergence of the Fourier series of an arbitrary φ ∈ Tn , it suffices to consider the Fourier series of the cardinal functions qr,s . We use this approach when proving the next two results. Lemma 3.9. Suppose that φ ∈ Tn . Then, there exists c > 0 independent of n and φ such that kφ − Pm φk∞ . kφk∞ whenever m ≥ cn̄2 . Proof. By (3.5) and Markov’s inequality [14], kφ0 k . n2 kφk, ∀φ ∈ Pn−1 , (3.6) we have kφ − Pm φk∞ ≤ l nX r −1 h i X (s) (xr ) kqr,s − Pm qr,s k∞ φ r=0 s=0 l nX r −1 X 2s . nr kφk∞,Ir + n2s r−1 kφk∞,Ir−1 kqr,s − Pm qr,s k∞ , (3.7) r=0 s=0 where, for convenience we let I−1 = Il and n−1 = nl . Consider qr,s . For s = 1, 2, . . . , the function 00 qr,s ∈ C1 (T) and the derivative qr,s is of bounded variation. Hence Pm qr,s converges uniformly to qr,s , the coefficients qd r,s j are absolutely summable and we may write qr,s (x) − Pm qr,s (x) as the infinite sum X qr,s (x) − Pm qr,s (x) = qd ∀x ∈ [−1, 1]. r,s j ψj (x), |j|≥ m 2 17 Using the expression (3.4) we deduce that X kqr,s − Pm qr,s k∞ . |d qr,s j | . X j −s−1 . m−s . j≥ m 2 |j|≥ m 2 Now consider qr,0 . By translation, it suffices to consider q0,0 (x) = 14 − 12 x. This function clearly has uniformly bounded Fourier series. Hence, substituting this and the previous result into (3.7), we obtain kφ − Pm φk∞ . kφk∞ s l nX r −1 X c̃n2 r m r=0 s=0 , for some c̃ > 0. Therefore, provided m ≥ cn̄2 with c > c̃, this sum is bounded independently of n, m and the result follows. Lemma 3.10. Suppose that φ ∈ Tn and let x ∈ (xr , xr+1 ) for some r = 0, . . . , l. Then, there exists c > 0 independent of n, r, φ and x such that |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| . m−1 kφk∞ l X 1 + | sin π2 (x − xr )|−1 , r=0 whenever m ≥ cn̄2 . Proof. Suppose that we can show that |qr,s (x) − Pm qr,s (x)| . m−s−1 1 + | sin π2 (x − xr )|−1 , s ∈ N, r = 0, . . . , l, x 6= xr . (3.8) Then the result follows directly from (3.5) and Markov’s inequality (3.6): |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| . l X 1 + | sin π 2 (x − xr )| r=0 −1 r −1 nX 2s m−s−1 n2s r + nr−1 kφk∞ s=0 . m−1 kφk∞ l X 1 + | sin π2 (x − xr )|−1 r=0 r −1 nX s=0 n̄2 m s . Hence it remains to show (3.8). Without loss of generality, we consider q0,s (x). Using (3.4) and noticing that Pm q0,s (x) converges to q0,s (x) whenever −1 < x < 1, we obtain X zj 1 X (−1)j , |q0,s (x) − Pm q0,s (x)| = exp(ijπx) . s+1 2π s+1 j s+1 j j>m |j|>m where z = − exp(iπx) (replacing b m 2 c by m in the summation does not effect results and slightly simplifies the notation). Thus, it suffices to consider the sum Ss,m (z) = X zj . j s+1 j>m We now use Abel summation: X X zj 1 X X 1 zj zj zj − + = + . Ss,m (z) = js j j+1 j s (j + 1) j>m j s+1 (j + 1) j>m j s (j + 1) j>m j>m The first term is O m−s−1 uniformly in |z| = 1. Now consider the second sum. We have z −1 X zj X zj zj = z −1 1 + O j −1 = z −1 + O m−s−1 , s s+1 s+1 j(j − 1) j j j>m+1 j>m+1 j>m+1 X 18 which holds uniformly in |z| = 1. Hence zm Ss,m (z) = z −1 Ss,m (z) − s+1 + O m−s−1 . m Rearranging, this gives zm m−s−1 + O m−s−1 . 1−z Note that x 6= ±1, therefore z = 6 1. Moreover, since z = − exp(iπx), we have that Ss,m (z) = |z − 1| = 2| cos π2 x| = 2| sin π2 (x − x0 )|, (recall that x0 = −1) and consequently |Ss,m (z)| . 1 + | sin π2 (x − x0 )|−1 m−s−1 , which gives (3.8). We are now able to prove the main result of this section: Proof of Theorem 3.7. It suffices to show that, given θ ∈ (0, 1), there exists c such that En,m < 1 − θ for all m ≥ cn̄r , where En,m is given by (2.6). Let φ ∈ Tn with kφkR = 1. Note that kφ − Pm φk2α,β = l Z X r=0 |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx. Ir We consider each term of this sum separately. Write Ir = Ir+ ∪ Ir− , where Ir+ = (dr , xr+1 ), Ir− = (xr , dr ) and dr = 21 (xr + xr+1 ) is the midpoint of Ir . In a similar manner we also define, for arbitrary 0 < < cr = 1 2 (xr+1 − xr ), − Ir, = (xr + , dr ), + Ir, = (dr , xr+1 − ), + Jr, = (xr+1 − , xr+1 ), − Jr, = (xr , xr + ). We now write Z |φ(x)−Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx Ir Z Z 2 |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| wαr ,βr (x) dx + = − Ir, + Ir, Z + + Jr, |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx + |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx Z − Jr, |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx. + Consider the integral over Ir, . By construction wα,β (x) . (xr+1 − x)αr uniformly for x ∈ Ir+ . Using this and Lemma 3.10 we find that Z l Z X |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx . m−2 kφk2∞ 1 + | sin π2 (x − xs )|−1 (xr+1 − x)αr dx. + Ir, s=0 + Ir, Since | sin π2 (x − xr+1 )| & |x − xr+1 | and | sin π2 (x − xs )| & 1, s 6= r + 1, whenever −1 < |x − xr+1 | < 1 we deduce that ! Z Z 2 −2 2 αr −2 |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| wαr ,βr (x) dx . m kφk∞ 1 + (xr+1 − x) dx + Ir, + Ir, . max{1, αr −1 }m−2 kφk2∞ . − Similarly, for Ir, , we have Z |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx . max{1, βr −1 }m−2 kφk2∞ . − Ir, 19 We now require an estimate for kφk∞ . First let p ∈ Pn be a polynomial and suppose that α, β > −1. Then, it can be shown that kpk∞ . nmax{α,β}+1 kpkα,β . Pn (this follows directly from the decomposition kpk2α,β = j=0 |hp, pj iα,β |2 , where {pj } are the orthonormal 1 polynomials with respect to the weight function wα,β , and the fact that kpj k∞ ∼ j max{α,β}+ 2 [48]). Since φ ∈ Tn , and therefore φ|Ir ∈ Pnr −1 , we have n o kφk∞ = max kφk∞,Ir . max nrmax{αr ,βr }+1 kφkαr ,βr ,Ir ≤ n̄p+1 kφkα,β , r=0,...,l r=0,...,l where p = max{α0 , . . . , αl , β0 , . . . , βl }. Hence, (Z Z l X 2 |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| wαr ,βr (x) dx + − Ir, + Ir, r=0 . max{1, p−1 } n̄p+1 m 2 ) |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)|2 wαr ,βr (x) dx kφk2α,β . ± Now consider the integral over Jr, . After an application of Lemma 3.9, we obtain Z 1 Z 2 2 (1 − x)αr dx . kφk2∞ αr +1 , |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| wαr ,βr (x) dx . kφk∞ + Jr, 1− − and likewise for Jr, with the exponent αr replaced by βr . Since < 1, this gives ) ( Z Z l X 2 2 |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| wαr ,βr (x) dx . q+1 n̄2(p+1) kφk2α,β . |φ(x) − Pm φ(x)| wαr ,βr (x) dx + r=0 − Jr, + Jr, Setting = cm−1 for c < min{cr : r = 0, . . . , l} and combining terms, we obtain " # p+1 2 2(p+1) n̄ n̄ kφ − Pm φk2α,β . max{1, m1−p } + kφk2α,β . m mq+1 Hence " 2 En,m = sup φ∈Tn kφkα,β =1 kφ − Pm φk2α,β 1−p . max{1, m } n̄p+1 m 2 # n̄2(p+1) + . mq+1 (3.9) The second term can be made arbitrarily small by selecting p+1 p−q m & n̄2 q+1 = n̄2+2 q+1 . Now consider the first term. If p < 1 then this is p+1 2 2 p+1 n̄ n = , m1−p m m and therefore we require m & n̄2 . Conversely, when p ≥ 1, we have p+1 2 p+1 2 n̄ n̄ 1−p max{1, m } = , m m and we therefore stipulate that m & n̄p+1 . Hence, the first term of the right-hand side of (3.9) can be made arbitrarily small by the choice m & n̄max{2,p+1} . This completes the proof. One downside of Theorem 3.7 is it does not give an explicit upper bound for the scaling constant c. In simpler case of Legendre polynomials explicit, and fairly sharp, bounds were derived in [7]. It is, in theory, possible to repeat the proof of Theorem 3.7 to give an explicit bound. However, because the proof is rather involved, this is likely to be grossly pessimistic. On the other hand, since Θ(n; θ) can always be computed, we may always numerically estimate c. In fact, as shown in Figure 1 one can take a fairly small value c = 41 in implementations. We use this value in the next section. 20 4 4.1 Numerical implementation and examples Implementation As mentioned in §2.3, the main issue in implementation is the computation of the entries of the matrices U and C. Computation of the entries of U can be carried out using the iterative procedure of [7, Lemma 3.4]. The total cost incurred is O (mn) operations. Note that, as commented in [7], one may in practice need to use a two-phase algorithm (such as that described in [21]) to ensure stability of the computation of these entries. However, this does not increase the overall cost. For the computation of C, recall that this matrix has (j, k)th entry hψj , ψk iR . In other words, if wα,β is the corresponding weight function, then 1 hψj , ψk iR = 2 Z 1 eiπ(j−k)x wα,β (x) dx = cj−k . −1 Hence C is always a Toeplitz matrix, and to compute C we only need to determine cj for j = 0, . . . , m (note that c−j = cj ). Fortunately, since Z 1 eizx (1 − x2 )α dx = −1 √ Γ(α + 1) π (α + 12 ) Γ(α + 21 ) α+ 12 2 Jα+ 12 (z), z z ∈ R, where Γ is the Gamma function and Jν is the Bessel function of the first kind [35], we can always determine cj explicitly for the case where wα,β is a piecewise ultraspherical weight function. Unfortunately, there is no such closed form expression when wα,β is a piecewise Jacobi weight. However, in this case one could always compute cj using aGaussian quadrature based on the given weight function, with the total cost of this approach being O m2 . We shall not discuss this further. For evaluation of the quantity Θ(n; θ) it is also necessary to compute the matrix V ∈ Cm×n with (j, k)th entry hφk , ψj iR . Whenever w corresponds to a piecewise ultraspherical weight function, the entries of V are actually known explicitly. This follows from the fact that the integrals Z 1 eizx φj (x)(1 − x2 )α dx, z ∈ R, −1 have an explicit expression whenever φj is the j th normalized ultraspherical polynomial corresponding to the parameter α > −1 (see, for example, [35, eqn. (3.7)]). Note that the above arguments establish the final part of Theorem 1.4 (the first parts were addressed in the previous sections) concerning the cost of the preprocessing step in the computation of fn,m (i.e. forming the matrices U and C). 4.2 Examples In Figure 2 we consider the reconstruction of the function f (x) = ex cos 8x using Legendre polynomials and Chebyshev polynomials of the first and second kinds. As is evident, all three approaches give near identical approximation errors. In fact, regardless of the polynomial basis used, one attains roughly machine accuracy using only m = 225 Fourier samples (by means of comparison, direct expansion of this function in a Fourier series gives an error of order 10−1 for this value of m). Also, the condition number of the matrix A = U ∗ CU remains bounded in n, as predicted by the analysis in §2. In Figure 3 we consider the piecewise analytic function (2e2π(x+1) − 1 − eπ )(eπ − 1)−1 x ∈ [−1, − 21 ) f (x) = (4.1) π x ∈ [− 12 , 1] − sin( 2πx 3 + 3) This function was put forth in [53] to test algorithms for overcoming the Gibbs phenomenon. Aside from the discontinuity, its sharp peak makes it a challenging function to reconstruct accurately. However, as shown in this figure, using a polynomial of degree 16 in each subinterval of smoothness, we recover the function to around 14 digits of accuracy. As in the previous example, all three polynomial bases used (Legendre and Chebyshev) give roughly the same approximation error, and as before, lead to bounded condition numbers with κ(A) being at worst ≈ 10 for all cases. 21 20 1.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.001 0.8 15 0.6 10 10 -6 0.4 10-9 0.2 10-12 5 5 10 15 kf − fn,m k∞ 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 En,m 20 25 30 35 κ(A) Figure 2: The quantities kf − fn,m k∞ , En,m and κ(A) (left to right) against n = 1, 2, . . . , 40, for f (x) = ex cos 8x, m = d 41 n2 e and γ = − 12 , 0, 12 (squares, circles and crosses respectively). 1.0 5 10 15 0.5 -0.5 1.0 -0.5 -1.0 f (x) 25 8 10-6 -1.0 20 10 0.001 0.5 6 10-9 4 10-12 2 10-15 5 kf − fn,m k∞ 10 15 20 25 κ(A) Figure 3: The function (4.1) (left), and the quantities kf − fn,m k∞ and κ(A) against n = 1, 2, . . . , 30, with n0 = n1 , m = n20 and γ = − 21 , 0, 12 (squares, circles and crosses respectively). This function was used in [30] to test spectral reprojection. Therein it was found that more than 1024 Fourier coefficients were required to obtain close to machine precision. Conversely, with the GS approach we achieve the same value using only around 256 such coefficients – a factor of four increase (a similar experiment was reported in [7]). Moreover, it is worth recalling that (see §1), with this approach one has near-complete freedom to choose the polynomial basis for reconstruction, whereas with spectral reprojection one must use a specific, Gibbs complementary, basis. 5 Other applications As mentioned, the extended GS framework of §2 is far more general than the application considered in the previous section of recovering a function from its Fourier coefficients. In this section we briefly discuss a family of other related problem to which this framework can also be successfully applied. Let f : [−1, 1] → R br piecewise analytic, and suppose now that we have access to the first m coefficients of f with respect to a basis of orthogonal polynomials (e.g. Jacobi or ultraspherical). Since f is only piecewise analytic, direct expansion in the given basis of polynomials yields an extremely poor approximation (in fact, it suffers from a Gibbs-type phenomenon). Therefore, much as in the Fourier case, the problem is to recover f to high accuracy (other variants of this problem have also been considered, such as the reconstruction of functions from Fourier–Bessel [47] and spherical harmonic coefficients [27]). We remark that this problem occurs notably in spectral methods for hyperbolic PDEs [31, 34, 41]. Although spectral reprojection can also be used in this setting [32, 33, 34], it suffers from the same drawbacks as those in the Fourier case (see §1). Thus, we now propose to use GS instead. Let {ψj } be orthonormal polynomials with respect to the (modified) Jacobi weight function wαS ,β S , where αS , β S > −1, and let {φj } be piecewise orthonormal polynomials with respect to the piecewise (modified) Jacobi weight function wαR ,β R , where αR = {α0 , . . . , αl } and β R = {β0 , . . . , βl }. We shall consider the following two important cases: (i) αS = β S = γ S = 0, (ii) αS = β S = γ S = − 21 or αS = β S = γ S = 21 , corresponding to sampling f with Legendre and Chebyshev polynomials (of the first and second kind) respectively. 22 5.1 Legendre polynomial sampling As in the Fourier sampling case, to apply the GS framework of §2 we need to verify (A1) and (A2) for this example. Note that HS = L2 (−1, 1) in this setting, and HR = L2γ R (−1, 1). We have: Theorem 5.1. Suppose that HS = L2 (−1, 1) and Pm is the Legendre polynomial projection operator. Let αR = {α0 , . . . , αl } and β R = {β0 , . . . , βl } with α0 , . . . , αl , β0 , . . . , βl > −1 arbitrary, and define HR = L2αR ,β R (−1, 1). Let U = f : f |Ir ∈ H1 (Ir ), r = 0, . . . , l , be the space of all piecewise H1 functions, and define ||| · ||| to be the standard norm on U. Then (A1) and (A2) hold. Proof. For α > −1 it can be shown that Z 1 |g(x)|2 (1 ± x)α dx . −1 kgk2 kgk2(1+α) kgk−2α ∞ α≥0 −1 < α < 0 (see [7, Lemma 3.6]), provided g ∈ L∞ (−1, 1). Now, for Ir = (xr , xr+1 ) define Ir− = (xr , dr ), Ir+ = (dr , xr+1 ), where dr = 21 (xr + xr+1 ), so that Ir = Ir+ ∪ Ir− . Also, let J1− = {r : −1 < βr < 0}, J1+ = {r : −1 < αr < 0}, J2+ = {r : αr ≥ 0}, J2− = {r : βr ≥ 0}. Then, for g ∈ U, kgkαR ,β R . X r r kgk1+α kgk−α + 0,I + ∞,I + r r r∈J1+ X 1+βr −βr kgk0,I + − kgk ∞,I − r r∈J1− X r kgk0,Ir+ + r∈J2+ X kgk0,Ir− , r∈J2− where k·k0,I and k·k∞,I are the L2 and uniform norms on an interval I respectively. It follows that kgkαR ,β R . X −αr + kgk1+αr kgk∞ X r kgk1+βr kgk−β ∞ + kgk (5.1) r∈J1− r∈J1+ Now, for a function g ∈ U, it can be shown that its Legendre polynomial expansion, whilst exhibiting a Gibbs-type phenomenon, is uniformly bounded and satisfies kPm gk∞ . |||g||| [46]. Now, suppose we replace g by Pm g in (5.1). Then, using this bound and Bessel’s inequality kPm gk ≤ kgk ≤ |||g|||, we obtain kgkαR ,β . |||g|||, which gives (A2). Similarly, replacing g by g − Pm g and using the observations that kg − Pm gk → 0 as m → ∞ and that kg − Pm gk∞ ≤ kgk∞ + kPm gk∞ ≤ c|||g|||, we obtain (A1). This theorem shows that, provided we restrict to a space of sufficiently regular functions (which, in practice, will always be the case), we can always recover a function f in any polynomial basis from its Legendre polynomial samples. Note that the choice of U here is not unique, and the smoothness assumption could most likely be lowered with a deeper understanding of the convergence of Legendre polynomial expansions for piecewise functions. However, since we mainly consider piecewise analytic functions (which always belong to this choice of U), this consideration is of little importance. We shall omit two further considerations from this discussion. First, it is unknown at this moment under what conditions the stronger assumption (A20 ) hold for this problem. Second, we also have no estimate for the quantity Θ(n; θ). In [7] the case γ R ≡ 0 (that is, we both sample and reconstruct using (piecewise) Legendre polynomials) was considered. It was shown numerically that Θ(n; θ) = O n2 when γ R ≡ 0. Establishing this result remains an open problem, as does determining Θ(n; θ) for other values of γR . 5.2 Chebyshev polynomial sampling We now consider the case where γ S = ± 21 . In this case, unlike that of Legendre polynomial sampling, we are actually able to provide a complete answer, at least regards assumptions (A1) and (A2) (or (A20 )). This follows directly from the fact that the Chebyshev polynomial expansion of a function can be expressed as a Fourier expansion under the transformation x = cos θ: 23 Theorem 5.2. Suppose that HS = L2γ (−1, 1) and Pm is the projection operator corresponding to Chebyshev polynomials of the first (γ = − 12 ) or second (γ = 12 ) kind. Let w be an integrable weight function and set HR = L2w (−1, 1). Then (A1) and (A20 ) hold if and only if the function w(cos θ) sin θ (first kind) or w(cos θ)/ sin θ (second kind) is a Helson–Szegö weight function on [0, π]. Proof. Consider the case of first kind Chebyshev polynomials. The projection Pm f of a function f ∈ L2− 1 (−1, 1) is precisely the Fourier expansion the function F (θ) = f (cos θ) on [0, π]. Note that f ∈ 2 L2− 1 (−1, 1) if and only if F ∈ L2 (0, π). Hence, the result follows immediately from Corollary 3.2. The 2 case where γ = 1 2 is similar. Corollary 5.3. Suppose that HS = L2γ (−1, 1) and Pm is the projection operator corresponding to Chebyshev polynomials of the first (γ = − 12 ) or second (γ = 21 ) kind. Then (A1) and (A20 ) hold for the piecewise (modified) Jacobi weight function wα,β if and only if −1 < αr , βr+1 < 1, r = 0, . . . , l − 1, and −1 < αl , β0 < 0 (γ = − 21 ) or 0 < αl , β0 < 2 (γ = 12 ). Proof. Let γ = − 12 . By Theorem 5.2 it suffices to consider the weight function W (θ) = wα,β (cos θ) sin θ on [0, π]. Let θr = arccos(xr ), r = 1, . . . , l. Then W (θ) = O (θr − θ)βr+1 , θ → θr− . W (θ) = O ((θ − θr )αr ) , θ → θr+ , Also W (θ) = O θ1+αl , θ → 0+ , W (θ) = O (π − θ)1+β0 , θ → π− . Hence, as in the proof of Lemma 3.4, W is a Helson–Szegö weight function if and only if −1 < αr , βr+1 < 1, r = 0, . . . , l − 1 and −1 < αl , β0 < 0. The case of γ = 12 is similar. Due to this theorem, it is always possible to reconstruct a function in a basis of piecewise Jacobi polynomials from its Chebyshev polynomial samples. In particular, we can recover in terms of piecewise Chebyshev polynomials α0 = . . . = αl = β0 = . . . = βl = γ = ± 21 from Chebyshev polynomial samples. Note that, unlike the Legendre polynomial case (see §5.1), we have (A20 ) for this problem, as opposed to the weaker condition (A2). 6 Conclusions and challenges In this paper we have introduced a general framework for sampling and reconstruction in Hilbert spaces, and analyzed in detail the resulting numerical method for reconstructing a piecewise analytic function in a orthogonal basis of (piecewise) polynomials from its Fourier coefficients. The method can be implemented with a wide variety of different polynomial bases, including Chebyshev and Legendre polynomial bases. In all cases the numerical method is stable and exponentially convergent (in the polynomial degree n). Whenever Chebyshev or Legendre polynomials are employed, for example, the method is also root-exponentially convergent in the number of Fourier coefficients m. Finally, we have given a first insight into how the same framework can be applied to the related problem of reconstructing a piecewise analytic function from its orthogonal polynomial coefficients. Purposefully we have not described the implementation of this framework for the polynomial coefficient reconstruction problem described in §5. Nor have we presented numerical examples. The main stumbling block herein is the computation of the entries of the matrices U and C. This involves constructing particular quadratures to approximate the inner products hψj , φk iS and hψj , ψk iR , and is beyond the scope of this paper. This aside, we have also not addressed the behaviour of the quantity Θ(n; θ) for this problem. In [7] numerical results were presented suggesting quadratic growth in the case HR = HS = L2 (−1, 1) (i.e. Legendre polynomial sampling and reconstruction). This, and the corresponding extension to other orthogonal polynomial systems, remains a conjecture. This aside, it is worth repeating that the GS framework developed in this paper is far more general than the problems considered in §3–§5. Namely, it allows one to reconstruct any element f ∈ U from its samples in an arbitrary orthonormal basis, even in the case that the sampling and reconstruction vectors are 24 orthogonal with respect to different inner products. In fact, this paper forms part of a much larger project on numerical methods for sampling and reconstruction (see [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]), with a long list of potential applications. Currently we are investigating a number of such applications, including spline and wavelet-based reconstructions of images, the solution of certain inverse and ill-posed problems (see [8]), and reconstructions from other types of integral transforms. It is also worth mentioning that the key ideas for GS originated from new tools for the computational spectral problem [38, 39]. Furthermore, similar ideas, when combined with convex optimization techniques, can be used to extended the current theory of compressed sensing to formally infinite-dimensional problems. This topic is described in [5]. References [1] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover, 1974. [2] B. Adcock. Convergence acceleration of modified Fourier series in one or more dimensions. Math. Comp., 80(273):225–261, 2011. [3] B. Adcock. Gibbs phenomenon and its removal for a class of orthogonal expansions. BIT, 51(1):7–41, 2011. [4] B. Adcock and A. C. Hansen. A generalized sampling theorem for stable reconstructions in arbitrary bases. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. (to appear), 2010. [5] B. Adcock and A. C. Hansen. Generalized sampling and infinite-dimensional compressed sensing. Technical report NA2011/02, DAMTP, University of Cambridge, 2011. [6] B. Adcock and A. C. Hansen. Sharp bounds, optimality and a geometric interpretation for generalised sampling in Hilbert spaces. Technical report NA2011/10, DAMTP, University of Cambridge, 2011. [7] B. Adcock and A. C. Hansen. Stable reconstructions in Hilbert spaces and the resolution of the Gibbs phenomenon. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. (to appear), 2011. [8] B. Adcock, A. C. Hansen, E. Herrholz, and G. Teschke. Generalized sampling: extension to frames and ill-posed problems. in preparation, 2011. [9] R. Archibald, K. Chen, A. Gelb, and R. Renaut. Improving tissue segmentation of human brain MRI through preprocessing by the Gegenbauer reconstruction method. NeuroImage, 20(1):489–502, 2003. [10] R. Archibald and A. Gelb. A method to reduce the Gibbs ringing artifact in MRI scans while keeping tissue boundary integrity. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 21(4):305–319, 2002. [11] D. Batenkov and Y. Yomdin. Algebraic Fourier reconstruction of piecewise smooth functions. Math. Comp. (to appear), 2011. [12] B. Beckermann, V. Kalyagin, A. Matos, and F. Wielonsky. How well does the Hermite–Padé approximation smooth the Gibbs phenomenon? Math. Comp., 80:931–958, 2011. [13] N. Borovykh and M. N. Spijker. Bounding partial sums of Fourier series in weighted L2 -norms, with applications to matrix analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 147(2):349–368, 2002. [14] P. Borwein and T. Erdélyi. Polynomials and Polynomial Inequalities. Springer–Verlag, New York, 1995. [15] J. P. Boyd. Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods. Springer–Verlag, 1989. [16] J. P. Boyd. Trouble with Gegenbauer reconstruction for defeating Gibbs phenomenon: Runge phenomenon in the diagonal limit of Gegenbauer polynomial approximations. J. Comput. Phys., 204(1):253–264, 2005. [17] J. P. Boyd. Acceleration of algebraically-converging Fourier series when the coefficients have series in powers of 1/n. J. Comput. Phys., 228:1404–1411, 2009. [18] C. Brezinski. Extrapolation algorithms for filtering series of functions, and treating the Gibbs phenomenon. Numer. Algorithms, 36:309–329, 2004. [19] C. Canuto, M. Y. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni, and T. A. Zang. Spectral methods: Fundamentals in Single Domains. Springer, 2006. [20] O. Christensen. An Introduction to Frames and Riesz Bases. Birkhauser, 2003. [21] V. Dominguez, I. G. Graham, and V. P. Smyshlyaev. Stability and error estimates for Filon-Clenshaw-Curtis rules for highly-oscillatory integrals. IMA J. Num. Anal. (to appear), 2011. [22] T. A. Driscoll and B. Fornberg. A Padé-based algorithm for overcoming the Gibbs phenomenon. Numer. Algorithms, 26:77–92, 2001. [23] K. S. Eckhoff. Accurate and efficient reconstruction of discontinuous functions from truncated series expansions. Math. Comp., 61(204):745–763, 1993. 25 [24] K. S. Eckhoff. Accurate reconstructions of functions of finite regularity from truncated Fourier series expansions. Math. Comp., 64(210):671–690, 1995. [25] K. S. Eckhoff. On a high order numerical method for functions with singularities. Math. Comp., 67(223):1063– 1087, 1998. [26] J. B. Garnett. Bounded analytic functions. Springer, New York, 2007. [27] A. Gelb. The resolution of the Gibbs phenomenon for spherical harmonics. Math. Comp., 66(218):699–717, 1997. [28] A. Gelb and S. Gottlieb. The resolution of the Gibbs phenomenon for Fourier spectral methods. In A. Jerri, editor, Advances in The Gibbs Phenomenon. Sampling Publishing, Potsdam, New York, 2007. [29] A. Gelb and E. Tadmor. Detection of edges in spectral data. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 7(1):101, 1999. [30] A. Gelb and J. Tanner. Robust reprojection methods for the resolution of the Gibbs phenomenon. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 20:3–25, 2006. [31] D. Gottlieb and J. S. Hesthaven. Spectral methods for hyperbolic problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 128(1-2):83– 131, 2001. [32] D. Gottlieb and C.-W. Shu. On the Gibbs phenomenon IV: Recovering exponential accuracy in a subinterval from a Gegenbauer partial sum of a piecewise analytic function. Math. Comp., 64(211):1081–1095, 1995. [33] D. Gottlieb and C.-W. Shu. On the Gibbs phenomenon III: Recovering exponential accuracy in a sub- interval from a spectral partial sum of a piecewise analytic function. SIAM J. Num. Anal., 33(1):280–290, 1996. [34] D. Gottlieb and C.-W. Shu. On the Gibbs’ phenomenon and its resolution. SIAM Rev., 39(4):644–668, 1997. [35] D. Gottlieb, C.-W. Shu, A. Solomonoff, and H. Vandeven. On the Gibbs phenomenon I: Recovering exponential accuracy from the Fourier partial sum of a nonperiodic analytic function. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 43(1–2):91–98, 1992. [36] B.-Y. Guo, J. Shen, and L.-L. Wang. Optimal spectral-Galerkin methods using generalized Jacobi polynomials. J. Sci. Comput., 27(1–3):305–322, 2006. [37] B.-Y. Guo, J. Shen, and L.-L. Wang. Generalized Jacobi polynomials/functions and their applications. Appl. Numer. Math., 59:1011–1028, 2009. [38] A. C. Hansen. On the approximation of spectra of linear operators on Hilbert spaces. J. Funct. Anal., 254(8):2092– 2126, 2008. [39] A. C. Hansen. On the solvability complexity index, the n-pseudospectrum and approximations of spectra of operators. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 24(1):81–124, 2011. [40] H. Helson and Szegö. A problem in prediction theory. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 51(107–138), 1960. [41] J. S. Hesthaven, S. Gottlieb, and D. Gottlieb. Spectral Methods for Time–Dependent Problems. Cambridge University Press, 2007. [42] T. Hrycak and K. Gröchenig. Pseudospectral Fourier reconstruction with the modified inverse polynomial reconstruction method. J. Comput. Phys., 229(3):933–946, 2010. [43] R. Hunt, B. Muckenhoupt, and R. Wheeden. Weighted norm inequalities for the conjugate function and Hilbert transform. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 176(227–251), 1973. [44] J.-H. Jung and B. D. Shizgal. Towards the resolution of the Gibbs phenomena. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 161(1):41– 65, 2003. [45] J.-H. Jung and B. D. Shizgal. Generalization of the inverse polynomial reconstruction method in the resolution of the Gibbs phenomenon. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 172(1):131–151, 2004. [46] S. M. Kaber. The Gibbs phenomenon for Jacobi expansions. Commun. App. Anal., 10(2-3):133–148, 2006. [47] J. Kamm, T. Williams, J. Brock, and S. Li. Application of Gegenbauer polynomial expansions to mitigate Gibbs phenomenon in Fourier–Bessel series solutions of a dynamic sphere problem. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Biomed. Engng., 26(1276–1292), 2010. [48] A. B. Kuijlaars, K. T.-R. McLaughlin, W. Van Assche, and M. Vanlessen. The Riemann–Hilbert approach to strong asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials on [−1, 1]. Adv. Math., 188:337–398, 2004. [49] J. N. Lyness. Computational techniques based on the Lanczos representation. Math. Comp., 28(125):81–123, 1974. [50] R. Platte, L. N. Trefethen, and A. Kuijlaars. Impossibility of fast stable approximation of analytic functions from equispaced samples. SIAM Rev., 53:308–318, 2011. [51] J. Steinberg. Oblique projections in Hilbert spaces. Integr. equ. oper. theory, 38(1):81–119, 2000. [52] E. Tadmor. Filters, mollifiers and the computation of the Gibbs’ phenomenon. Acta Numer., 16:305–378, 2007. [53] E. Tadmor and J. Tanner. Adaptive mollifiers for high resolution recovery of piecewise smooth data from its spectral information. Found. Comput. Math., 2(2):155–189, 2002. 26

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement