The Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping (LDDMM) or flow of diffeomorphism is a classical framework in the field of shape spaces and is widely applied in mathematical imaging and computational anatomy. Essentially, it equips a group of diffeomorphisms with a right-invariant Riemannian metric, which allows to compute (Riemannian) distances or interpolations between different deformations. The associated Euler–Lagrange equation of shortest interpolation paths is one of the standard examples of a partial differential equation that can be approached with Lie group theory (by interpreting it as a geodesic ordinary differential equation on the Lie group of diffeomorphisms). The particular group \mathcal D^m of Sobolev diffeomorphisms is by now sufficiently understood to allow the analysis of geodesics and their numerical approximation. We prove convergence of a widely used Fourier-type space discretization of the geodesic equation. It is based on a regularity estimate, for which we also provide a new proof: Geodesics in \mathcal D^m preserve any higher order Sobolev regularity of their initial velocity.
Let m>1+\frac d2 and the metric on \mathcal D^m be induced by a Fourier multiplier \mathcal{L}. If the initial velocity v_0 has Sobolev regularity m+k for k\geq1, the numerical approximation of bandlimiting the right-hand sides in (?) converges to the true solution as the bandlimit R tends to infinity. Moreover, for k\geq2 the error tends to zero at rate R^{1-k}.
Let m>1+\frac d2 and the metric on \mathcal D^m be strong, twice differentiable, and induced by some \mathcal{L}=B^*B+\bar\mathcal{L}, where \bar\mathcal{L} is continuous from H^m to H^{1-m} and H^m\times\mathcal D^m\ni(v,\phi)\mapsto[B(v\circ\phi^{-1})]\circ\phi\in L^2 is differentiable. If the initial velocity v_0 has Sobolev regularity m+k for k\geq1, then so does the velocity v_t for all t.
Let m>\frac d2+1. The group of Sobolev diffeomorphisms (on the torus) of Sobolev regularity m is
with group product (\phi,\psi)\mapsto\phi\circ\psi. The subgroup formed by the connected component (in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{T}^d)) of the identity is denoted \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m.
Let (\!(\cdot,\cdot)\!)_{H^m} be an inner product of H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) with induced norm \vvvert\cdot\vvvert_{H^m} equivalent to the standard H^m-norm, then
is the induced right-invariant Riemannian Sobolev metric on \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m.( Note that in contrast to most standard textbooks on Riemannian geometry we do not impose any smoothness requirements on a Riemannian metric, but simply take it to be a collection of inner products – one on each tangent space to the Riemannian manifold. Depending on the choice of (\!(\cdot,\cdot)\!)_{H^m}, (4) will of course entail some regularity of the map \phi\mapsto g_\phi, but this is ignored for now. )
The Riemannian distance \mathrm{dist}_{\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m} on \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m induced by the right-invariant Riemannian Sobolev metric is given by
for the path energy
Let \phi:[0,1]\to\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m, v:[0,1]\to H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) satisfy
then the (time-dependent) vector field v is the Eulerian velocity field of the path \phi, while \phi is the flow of v.
Let 0\leq s\leq r,m with r+m>s+\frac d2, then pointwise multiplication is a continuous bilinear map H^m(\mathbb{T}^d)\times H^r(\mathbb{T}^d)\to H^s(\mathbb{T}^d).
Let m>\frac d2+1 and 0\leq s\leq m. Then H^s(\mathbb{T}^d)\times\mathcal D^m\ni(f,\phi)\mapsto f\circ\phi\in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d) is continuous. Moreover, for any m,M>0 there exists C>0 such that \det D\phi\geq m and \|\phi-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq M for \phi\in\mathcal D^m imply
Let m>\frac d2+1 and 0\leq s\leq m. Let \varepsilon>0 small enough such that \mathrm{id}+\overline{B_\varepsilon(0)}\subset\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m. There exists C>0 such that
First note that by Sobolev embedding we have \|\phi-\mathrm{id}\|_{C^1}\leq c\|\phi-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m} for some constant c>0 (which of course depends on the chosen inner product on H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)). Thus, in particular \|D\phi-\mathrm{I}\|_{C^0}\leq c\varepsilon for all \phi\in\mathrm{id}+\overline{B_{\varepsilon}(0)}, and \varepsilon can indeed be chosen small enough such that \det D\phi>0 everywhere and therefore \mathrm{id}+\overline{B_{\varepsilon}(0)}\subset\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m.
The proof is by induction in s. Without loss of generality we consider the standard norm \|f\|_{H^s}^2=\sum_{j=0}^s\int_{\mathbb{T}^d}|D^jf|^2\,\mathrm{d} x. For s=0 we have
where L is the Lipschitz constant of the smooth map A\mapsto\sqrt{1/\det A} on the closed ball of radius c\varepsilon around the identity matrix \mathrm{I}. Now let s>0. We have D(f\circ\phi)=Df\circ\phi\, D\phi. By the induction hypothesis \|Df\circ\phi\|_{H^{s-1}}\leq(1+\kappa\|\phi-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m})\|Df\|_{H^{s-1}} for some \kappa>0. Furthermore,
for some \hat K,K>0 by [InKaTo13, Lemma 2.3] or Lemma 7 (essentially since H^{m-1}(\mathbb{T}^d) is a Banach algebra). In summary,
for some C>0 (depending on c,L,K,\kappa and \varepsilon).
Let m>\frac{d}{2}+1, 0\leq s\leq m, and I=[0,1]. There exists a constant C>0 such that for all v\in L^1(I;H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)) with flow \phi:I\to\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m, \phi_0=\mathrm{id}, it holds
\|\phi_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq\exp(C\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)})-1 for all t\in I,
\|f\circ\phi_t\|_{H^s}\leq\exp(C\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)})\|f\|_{H^s} for all t\in I, f\in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d),
if s\leq m-1, then \|\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t}w\|_{H^s}\leq\exp(C\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)})\|w\|_{H^s} for all t\in I, w\in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d).
First note that
we may consider the flow \phi_t in \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m instead of \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m since (with our notation conventions from the previous section) this does not change any of the estimates.
Next consider v with (1+C\varepsilon)\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)}<\varepsilon for \varepsilon and C from Lemma 9. We show \|\phi_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq\varepsilon for all t\in I. Indeed, let T\in I be the smallest time such that either \|\phi_T-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}=\varepsilon or T=1, then for t<T we have
The last inequality remains strict even after taking the liminf as t\to T, while \liminf_{t\to T}\|\phi_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m} can be bounded below by \|\phi_T-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m} (due to the weak lower semi-continuity of the norm and the uniform convergence \phi_t\to\phi_T, which implies \phi_t-\mathrm{id}\to\phi_T-\mathrm{id} weakly in H^m due to \phi_T-\mathrm{id}\in H^m). Thus we must have T=1 and therefore \|\phi_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq\varepsilon for t\leq1.
From now on, v is an arbitrary velocity field. We split it into N time segments v^j=v|_{[t_{j-1},t_{j}]} (extended to I by zero) with 0=t_0<\ldots<t_N=1 chosen such that \int_{t_{j-1}}^{t_{j}}\|v_t\|_{H^m}\mathrm{d} t=\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)}/N<\frac\varepsilon{1+C\varepsilon}. Let us denote by \phi^j the flow of v^j, then by the above we have \|\phi^j_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq\varepsilon, and furthermore
Abbreviate V_N\!=\!(1\!+\!C\varepsilon)\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)}/N. From (?) we know \|\phi^j_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq V_N for all j. By induction in n we have \|\phi^{j+n-1}_t\circ\cdots\circ\phi^j_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq(1+CV_N)^n-1 for all j (assuming without loss of generality C\geq1): Indeed, the case n=1 is trivial, and for n>1, using Lemma 9 we have
Thus, \|\phi_t-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq(1+CV_N)^N\to_{N\to\infty}\exp(C(1+C\varepsilon)\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)}).
From \|f\circ\phi_t^N\circ\cdots\circ\phi_t^1\|_{H^s}=\|(\cdots(f\circ\phi_t^N)\circ\cdots\circ\phi_t^2)\circ\phi_t^1\|_{H^s} it follows by inductively applying Lemma 9 that \|f\circ\phi_t\|_{H^s}\leq\|f\|_{H^s}\prod_{j=1}^N(1+C\|\phi_t^j-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m})\leq\|f\|_{H^s}(1+CV_N)^N\to_{N\to\infty}\|f\|_{H^s}\exp(C(1+C\varepsilon)\|v\|_{L^1(I;H^m)}).
We will show \|\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t^j}w\|_{H^s}\leq(1+\kappa V_N)\|w\|_{H^s} for all j and some constant \kappa>0, from which the result will follow exploiting \mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t}w=\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t^N}\cdots\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t^1}w and letting N\to\infty as before. Indeed,
using Lemma 7 with constant c>0 in the last inequality and Lemma 9 in the first. The latter is allowed since (\phi_t^j)^{-1} is the flow of [0,t]\ni r\mapsto-v^j(t-r) [Tr95a] so that by (?) we also have \|(\phi_t^j)^{-1}-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m}\leq V_N<\varepsilon. Consequently, with some \tilde c>0 we have \|\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t^j}w\|_{H^s}\leq(1+CV_N)(1+\tilde cV_N)\|w\|_{H^s}, as desired.
Let m>\frac d2+1, 0\leq s<m, and \phi_n\to\phi in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m as n\to\infty. Then w_n\to w weakly in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) implies w_n\circ\phi_n\to w\circ\phi and \mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_n}w_n\to\mathrm{Ad}_\phi w both weakly in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d). As a consequence, the map (\rho,\phi)\mapsto\mathrm{Ad}_\phi^*\rho is continuous from H^{-s}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m into H^{-s}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d).
By Proposition 10(?) w_n\circ\phi_n is bounded, hence contains a weakly converging subsequence (for simplicity still indexed by n). We show that the weak limit is w\circ\phi independent of the chosen subsequence so that actually the whole sequence converges weakly. To this end let \eta be smooth or at least H^m-regular, then
due to the continuity of the composition. Next, by the transformation rule we have
since \eta\circ\phi_n^{-1}\to\eta\circ\phi^{-1} strongly in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) (by continuity of inversion in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m and composition with \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m [InKaTo13, Lemmas 2.7-2.8]), \det D\phi_n^{-1}\to\det D\phi^{-1} strongly in H^{m-1}(\mathbb{T}^d) (since \phi\mapsto\phi^{-1} is continuous on \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m, \psi\mapsto D\psi is continuous from \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m to H^{m-1}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}), and taking the pointwise determinant is continuous from H^{m-1}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}) into H^{m-1}(\mathbb{T}^d) since H^{m-1} forms a Banach algebra [InKaTo13, Lemma 2.16]), and thus \det D\phi_n^{-1}\,\eta\circ\phi_n^{-1}\to\det D\phi^{-1}\,\eta\circ\phi^{-1} strongly in H^{m-1}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) by Lemma 7.
Likewise, D\phi_nw_n converges weakly to D\phi w in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) as the product of a strongly (in H^{m-1}) and a weakly (in H^s) converging sequence so that \mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_n}w_n converges weakly to \mathrm{Ad}_\phi w by \phi_n^{-1}\to\phi^{-1} in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m and the previous.
Finally, suppose \mathrm{Ad}_\phi^*\rho were not continuous in \phi and \rho. Then there exist C>0 as well as sequences \phi_n\to\phi in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m, \rho_n\to\rho in H^{-s}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) and w_n in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) with \|w_n\|_{H^s}\leq 1 such that
However, due to the boundedness of w_n we can extract a subsequence (for simplicity again indexed by n) with w_n\to w weakly in H^s(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d). Then along this subsequence the right-hand side of the above converges to \langle\rho,\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi}w\rangle-\langle\rho,\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi}w\rangle=0, yielding a contradiction.
Let m>\frac d2+1, 0\leq l\leq m. If \mathcal{L}=\bar\mathcal{L}+B^*B with \bar\mathcal{L}:H^{m-l}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\to H^{l-m}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) bounded linear and B=\sum_{k=0}^{m}a_kD^k a differential operator of order m with coefficient tensors a_i of W^{l,\infty}-regularity, then the metric (4) is l times continuously differentiable.
The result of course applies to the standard example \mathcal{L}=1+(-\Delta)^m with the choice \bar\mathcal{L}=0 and B=(1,\Delta^{m/2}) (for even m) or (1,\nabla\Delta^{(m-1)/2}) (for odd m), but one may just as well introduce non-local operators or spatially inhomogeneous weights, e.g. by choosing \bar\mathcal{L} u(x)=\int_{\mathbb{T}^d}\frac{u(x)-u(y)}{\mathrm{dist}(x,y)^{d+2s}}\omega(x,y)\,\mathrm{d} y for some s\in(0,1)\cap(0,m-l) and a bounded weight \omega(x,y) or by choosing \bar\mathcal{L} u=-\mathrm{div}(\chi_A\nabla u) for the characteristic function \chi_A of some measurable A\subset\mathbb{T}^d (as long as l\leq m-1). In particular the latter choice may be of interest in applications, modelling an enhanced energy dissipation (which is one possible physical interpretation of the path energy) in region A, e.g. due to a low permeability porous structure. The resulting metric is not smooth, but only m-1 times continuously differentiable (as one can for instance easily verify for the concrete choice d=1,m=2,A=[0,\frac12]).
We check differentiability in the global chart \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m\subset\mathrm{id}+H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d). We have
Now (w,\phi)\mapsto w\circ\phi^{-1} is l times differentiable as a map from H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m to H^{m-l}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d). Indeed, it is linear in w so that the map and all its derivatives with respect to \phi are C^\infty-smooth in w as long as they are continuous in w. Thus it remains to check differentiability with respect to \phi.
Using the formulas
we first show inductively that \partial_\phi^l(v\circ\phi^{-1})(u_1,\ldots,u_l) is a sum of products of (potentially multiple factors) D\phi^{-1} with (potentially zero or higher order) derivatives of v and u_1,\ldots,u_l (all composed with \phi^{-1}) and (potentially multiple, first or higher order) derivatives of D\phi^{-1}. Moreover, these derivatives amount to an overall order of l in each product, at most l-1 of which can act on D\phi^{-1}. Indeed, this holds for l=1, and if it holds for l, then applying another time \partial_\phi in some direction u_{l+1} leads by the product rule again to a sum of terms, each one resulting from differentiating one factor of the previous products with respect to \phi. If this factor is D^jw\circ\phi^{-1} for w being one of v,u_1,\ldots,u_l, then
so that the total order of derivatives of v,u_1,\ldots,u_{l+1},D\phi^{-1} indeed was increased by one (from l to l+1). If the factor is D^j(D\phi^{-1}), then
which by the product rule and the same arguments as above increases the total order of derivatives of v,u_1,\ldots,u_{l+1},D\phi^{-1} again by one (and the highest occurring order of differentiating D\phi^{-1} at most by one), as desired.
In summary, for l\geq1 we have that \partial_\phi^l(v\circ\phi^{-1})(u_1,\ldots,u_l) is a sum of products with one factor in each of H^{m-n_1},\ldots,H^{m-n_k} (the differentiated v and u_j), one factor in each of H^{m-1-n_{k+1}},\ldots,H^{m-1-n_K} (the differentiated D\phi^{-1}) as well as (potentially multiple) factors in H^m (undifferentiated u_j) and H^{m-1} (the factors D\phi^{-1}), where n_1,\ldots,n_K\geq1 with n_1+\ldots+n_K=l and n_{k+1},\ldots,n_K\leq l-1. Now Lemma 7 implies that as soon as one function has Sobolev regularity larger than \frac d2, the product of two functions has the minimum Sobolev regularity of the two. So assume first m-n_1,\ldots,m-n_k,m-1-n_{k+1},\ldots,m-1-n_K>\frac d2, then the product has Sobolev regularity \min\{m-n_1,\ldots,m-n_k,m-1-n_{k+1},\ldots,m-1-n_K\}\geq m-l. Otherwise, if at least one factor has Sobolev regularity no larger than \frac d2, all factors with Sobolev regularity larger than \frac d2 can be ignored for the regularity of the product. So assume without loss of generality that m-n_1,\ldots,m-n_k,m-1-n_{k+1},\ldots,m-1-n_K\leq\frac d2 (if this only holds for a subset, then reindex and redefine k,K correspondingly). Furthermore, we may assume k=1 without loss of generality (since for fixed n_1,\ldots,n_K this represents the case of overall lowest Sobolev regularity). Then, by iteratively applying Lemma 7 (starting with the most regular function and multiplying one after another the functions in the order of decreasing Sobolev regularity) we obtain that the product has Sobolev regularity m-n_1-\ldots-n_K+(K-1)(m-1-\frac d2)-\epsilon for any \epsilon>0 (note that Lemma 7 also holds for fractional exponents). Due to m>1+\frac d2 and n_1+\ldots+n_K\leq l this implies that the product has Sobolev regularity m-l. Hence in total, \partial_\phi^l(v\circ\phi^{-1})(u_1,\ldots,u_l)\in H^{m-l}, where the dependence on \phi,v,u_1,\ldots,u_l\in H^m is continuous; consequently,
the lth derivative of v\circ\phi^{-1} in \phi is a bounded l-linear map from H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)^l into H^{m-l}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d), which depends continuously on \phi\in\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m.
Since the dual pairing is smooth (even bilinear), the map (v,w,\phi)\mapsto\langle\bar\mathcal{L}(v\circ\phi^{-1}),w\circ\phi^{-1}\rangle is l times differentiable from H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m into the reals.
Further, the map \phi\mapsto\det D\phi is smooth from H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) into C^0(\mathbb{T}^d) as the composition of a d-degree polynomial with a linear operator. Now, abbreviate \bar Dw=D(w\circ\phi^{-1})\circ\phi (we drop the dependence on \phi in the notation), then D^k(w\circ\phi^{-1})\circ\phi=\bar D^kw. Since
the map (w,\phi)\mapsto\bar Dw is infinitely smooth from H^s(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m into H^{s-1}(\mathbb{T}^d)^{d\times d} (even though \phi\mapsto\phi^{-1} is not smooth in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m, since matrix inversion and pointwise multiplication is). By iteration, (w,\phi)\mapsto\bar D^mw is smooth from H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m into L^2(\mathbb{T}^d)^{d\times\cdots\times d}. Finally, \phi\mapsto a_i\circ\phi is l-times differentiable from \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m into tensor fields of L^\infty-regularity so that (u,\phi)\mapsto B(u\circ\phi^{-1})\circ\phi is l times differentiable from H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\mathrm{id}}^m into L^2(\mathbb{T}^d)-tensors. Since pointwise product and integration are smooth as long as they are bounded, (u,v,\phi)\mapsto g_\phi(u,v) is l times differentiable.
Let m>1+\frac d2 and the Riemannian metric (4) on \mathcal D^m be induced by \mathcal{L}=B^*B+\bar\mathcal{L} with \bar\mathcal{L}:H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\to H^{1-m}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) bounded linear and B=\sum_{k=0}^{m}a_kD^k a differential operator of order m with coefficient tensors a_i of W^{0,\infty}-regularity. Then geodesics in \mathcal D^m with velocity v and momentum \rho satisfy the weak PDE
for all smooth \eta:[0,1]\times\mathbb{T}^d\to\mathbb{R}^d, where
Its strong form is (?).
Let m>\frac d2+1, 1\leq k\leq m, and the metric (4) satisfy the conditions of Lemma 12 for l=2 (thus be twice differentiable). Let \phi_t be a geodesic in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m with \phi_0=\mathrm{id}, and let v_t\in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) be its velocity and \rho_t=\mathcal{L} v_t\in H^{-m}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) its momentum. If \rho_0\in H^{-m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) or equivalently v_0\in H^{m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d), then
Moreover, t\mapsto(\rho_t,v_t) is continuous into H^{-m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times H^{m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d).
First note that by Proposition 10(?) the adjoint map with respect to any \psi\in\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m represents a bounded isomorphism
Indeed, \mathrm{Ad}_{\psi}^{-1}=\mathrm{Ad}_{\psi^{-1}} satisfies the same boundedness properties as \mathrm{Ad}_\psi due to \psi^{-1}\in\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m. Next simply define
which by the previous is well-defined. For w smooth we then obtain
which is still well-defined due to v_t\in H^{m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d). However, this is exactly the weak form of the geodesic ODE (?) which by Lemma 14 rigorously characterizes the geodesics. Since the geodesic ODE is uniquely solvable by the regularity of the metric, \rho_t must be the corresponding momentum. The continuous time dependence finally follows from Lemma 11 and the continuity of the geodesic in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m.
We formulated our result for k\leq m since in that range the momentum \rho_t stays a distribution. However, the argument extends to m<k\leq m+\frac d2 (and the result is known to hold for k>m+\frac d2, see later). Indeed, by Theorem 15 we already know \rho_t=\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t^{-1}}^*\rho_0, and it remains to show that \rho_0\in H^{-m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) implies \rho_t\in H^{-m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) for all t. Now let w:\mathbb{T}^d\to\mathbb{R}^d be smooth, then
where the last line follows from Lemma 7, using m-1>\frac d2\geq k-m. Since the determinant is a degree d polynomial and H^{m-1} is a Banach algebra (cf. Lemma 7), we have \|\det D\phi^{-1}\|_{H^{m-1}}\lesssim\|D\phi^{-1}\|_{H^{m-1}}^d\lesssim(1+\|\phi^{-1}-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m})^d. Furthermore, \|\rho_0\circ\phi_t^{-1}\|_{H^{k-m}}\lesssim c(\phi_t^{-1})\|\rho_0\|_{H^{k-m}} by (?) so that overall
with a finite constant C(\phi_t^{-1}) depending only on \phi_t^{-1}\in\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m. Thus, \rho_t\in H^{k-m}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) as desired.
For k>m+\frac d2 it was already shown in [MiPr10, Thm. 4.1] by direct estimates that the solution to the geodesic ODE (?) stays in H^{k-m}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) if \rho_0 is.
Theorem 15, Remark 16 solve a conjecture of [MiPr10]: The article considers right-invariant Sobolev metrics (4) of order m on \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k} with k>0. Those are known as weak Riemannian metrics since they generate a topology on the tangent spaces T_\phi\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k}=H^{m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) with respect to which the tangent space is not complete. As a consequence, the resulting Riemannian manifold is not metrically complete, but nevertheless the geodesic equation and the Riemannian exponential map may still be well-defined. Indeed, [MiPr10, Thm. 4.1] shows that for a smooth metric and k>m+\frac d2 the Riemannian exponential \exp_\phi^{m,k}:T_\phi\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k}\to\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k} is a local diffeomorphism(In fact, the proof of the diffeomorphism property in [MiPr10, Thm. 4.1] does not require smoothness of the metric, but just solvability of the geodesic ODE and differentiable dependence of its solution on the initial data, which holds as soon as the metric is three times differentiable.), and this is conjectured to be true for any k\geq0. Theorem 15, Remark 16 confirm this conjecture: Indeed, they show that the restriction of \exp_\phi^{m,0} from T_\phi\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m to T_\phi\mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k} has range in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k} (recall that by [BrVi17] the flow of a H^{m+k}-regular velocity lies in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k}), thus \exp_\phi^{m,k} is nothing else but this restriction and therefore well-defined. If the metric (4) is three times differentiable, it is even a local diffeomorphism, which follows from the Inverse Function Theorem (noting that differentiability of the metric on \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m implies differentiability on \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^{m+k}).
The results of this section, in particular Theorem 15, also hold for non-integer m and k since all employed estimates essentially go back to boundedness of composition with and inversion of Sobolev diffeomorphisms, which can e.g. be found in [InKaTo13, Lemma B.5-B.6] (on \mathbb{R}^d, but the extension to bounded domains or manifolds is discussed there, too). Of course, Lemma 12 could no longer be applied in Theorem 15 to guarantee twice differentiability of the metric, but would have to be replaced by a version in which B is a bounded operator from the fractional Sobolev space H^m to L^2 such that (w,\phi)\mapsto[B(w\circ\phi^{-1}]\circ\phi is l times differentiable (which is the only property used in the proof of Lemma 12; [GuRaRuWi23, Thm. 1], used in our proof of Theorem 15, even just uses differentiability in \phi). By [BaBrCiEsKo20, Thm. 4.16 & Thm. 5.1] this is for instance satisfied for any B\in\mathrm{OPS}_{1,0}^{m}.
Also the precise control of the constants in Lemma 9 and the following carry over: In the proof of Lemma 9 one would begin the induction with
for \theta\in(0,1) and some C>0, exploiting \det D(\phi^{-1})\leq1+C\|\phi-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m} (cf. the proof of Lemma 9) and |\phi^{-1}(x)-\phi^{-1}(y)|\geq|x-y|/(1+L) with L\lesssim\|\phi-\mathrm{id}\|_{H^m} the Lipschitz constant of \phi-\mathrm{id} (as can be readily seen after the change of variables X=\phi^{-1}(x), Y=\phi^{-1}(y)).
For k\geq l\geq0 we have
Without loss of generality we consider the norm \|f\|_{H^k}^2=\langle f,(1+(\frac{-\Delta}{4\pi^2})^k)f\rangle on H^k(\mathbb{T}^d) and analogously on H^l(\mathbb{T}^d). Let f\in H^k(\mathbb{T}^d), then \|\mathcal{T}_{R} f-f\|_{H^l}^2 =\sum_{|\xi|_\infty>R}|\hat f(\xi)|^2(1+|\xi|^{2l}) \leq\frac{1+R^{2l}}{1+R^{2k}}\sum_{|\xi|_\infty>R}|\hat f(\xi)|^2(1+|\xi|^{2k}) \lesssim R^{2(l-k)}\|\mathcal{T}_{R} f-f\|_{H^k}^2.
Let k\in\mathbb{Z} and w:[0,1]\to H^k(\mathbb{T}^d) be continuous, then \|({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})w_t\|_{H^k}\to0 as R\to\infty, uniformly in t\in[0,1].
For a proof by contradiction assume there exists some C>0 as well as times t_R\in[0,1], R\in\mathbb{N}, such that \|({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})w_{t_R}\|_{H^k}>C for all R. By compactness of [0,1] the sequence t_R contains a converging subsequence with limit t\in[0,1]. Since \|({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{r})w_{t_R}\|_{H^k}>C for all r\leq R we may assume without loss of generality that the whole sequence converges. Let r\in\mathbb{N} be such that \|({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{r})w_t\|_{H^k}<C/2, then for R>r we have
where the limit follows from the continuity of ({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{r}) and t\mapsto w_t, yielding the desired contradiction.
The right-hand side of (?) can be evaluated in O(R^d\log R) time.
Since \hat P_t and \hat V_t are supported on Z_{d,R}, all pointwise multiplications of \hat P_t, \hat V_t, and \widehat{\mathcal{R}}^{R} require O(R^d) floating point operations, likewise the multiplications with \hat\mathcal{L} and \hat D. It remains to compute convolutions of the form \hat f*\hat g with \hat f and \hat g supported on Z_{d,R}; to this end we extend \hat f and \hat g to Z_{d,2R} with zeros and simply perform a circular convolution with subsequent truncation to Z_{d,R}. Using the Fast Fourier Transform and the Discrete Convolution Theorem this requires O(R^d\log R) operations.
The discrete approximation (?) is equivalent to the Euler–Poincaré equation
on H^m_R=\mathcal{T}_{R} H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) with inner product induced by the canonical embedding H^m_R\hookrightarrow H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) and approximate Lie bracket \widetilde{\mathrm{ad}}_{V}W=-[V,W]_R=-\mathcal{T}_{R}([V,W]).
To compare the solutions of (22) and (?) it obviously suffices to work with functions from H^m_R, since the solution of (?) lies in this space. Thus, let W\inH^m_R and let P_t,V_t\inH^m_R solve (22), then
Since this holds for arbitrary W\inH^m_R we have \dot P_t=\mathcal{T}_{R}\dot P_t=-\mathcal{T}_{R}\,\mathrm{ad}_{V_t}^*P_t, which coincides with (?).
The Lie bracket [v,w] satisfies the three characterizing properties of a Lie bracket: bilinearity, antisymmetry, and the Jacobi identity. However, as discussed before, it is not closed in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d), i.e. v,w\in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) does not imply [v,w]\in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d). In contrast, the approximate Lie bracket [V,W]_R is closed in H^m_R, but it is not a legitimate Lie bracket as it does not satisfy the Jacobi identity. This is due to a principal obstruction observed by Omori in [Om78]: There exists no Lie algebra H^m_R with finite Fourier support and correct Lie bracket.
Let us quickly adapt the argument from [Om78] to our setting, for simplicity restricting to dimension d=1: Since the Lie bracket is closed, as soon as the Lie algebra H^m_R contains trigonometric functions of two different nonzero frequencies, then by repeatedly applying the Lie bracket [\cdot,\cdot] one obtains trigonometric functions of arbitrarily high frequencies, which therefore must belong to H^m_R. It does not help to drop the condition on H^m_R of finite Fourier support, either: There cannot exist any Hilbert Lie algebra containing the constant function and trigonometric functions of arbitrarily high frequencies. Indeed, due to [[1,\sin(2\pi\xi x)],1]=[2\pi\xi\cos(2\pi\xi x),1]=(2\pi\xi)^2\sin(2\pi\xi x) the Lie bracket cannot be bounded in any norm on H^m_R. The only exception are the spaces H^m_R=\mathrm{span}(1,\sin(2\pi\xi x),\cos(2\pi\xi x)) with exactly one frequency \xi\in\mathbb{Z}; on those, the standard Lie bracket is closed so that H^m_R is a true Lie algebra.
The solution V_t to (?) conserves \vvvertV_t\vvvert_{H^m} over time.
In fact, this holds for any equation of the form (22) with antisymmetric Lie bracket approximation, i.e. with \widetilde{\mathrm{ad}}_{V}W=-\widetilde{\mathrm{ad}}_{W}V. Indeed, let P_t,V_t denote the solution of (22), then
Let m>\frac d2+1 and let \mathcal{L} satisfy the conditions from Lemma 12 for l=1. Then
For simplicity we assume B=a_mD^m (additional lower derivatives are treated analogously). It is straightforward to see \partial_{x_i}B^*h=B^*\partial_{x_i}h+(D^m)^*[(\partial_{x_i}a_m^*)h] for any function h, where a_m^* is the adjoint of the tensor a_m. Thus, for g\in H^{m+1}(\mathbb{T}^d) we have
The first term is clearly bounded in absolute value by a constant times \|gw\|_{H^m}\|\partial_{x_i}\bar\mathcal{L} w\|_{H^{-m}}\lesssim\|w\|_{H^m}^2\|g\|_{H^m} (recall that H^m is a Banach algebra). Furthermore, by the product rule B(gw) equals (Bw)g plus a sum S of products of derivatives of w and g, each summand with m derivatives in total, at least one of them on g. Thus,
The first integral is bounded by \|Bw\|_{H^0}^2\|\partial_{x_i}g\|_{W^{0,\infty}}\lesssim\|w\|_{H^m}^2\|g\|_{H^{m+1}}, the second by \|\partial_{x_i}Bw\|_{H^{-1}}\|S\|_{H^1}\lesssim\|w\|_{H^m}^2\|g\|_{H^{m+1}} (using Lemma 7). Similarly,
Hence, \left|\int_{\mathbb{T}^d} gw^T\partial_{x_i}\mathcal{L} w\,\mathrm{d} x\right|\lesssim\|w\|_{H^m}^2\|g\|_{H^{m+1}} for all g\in H^{m+1}(\mathbb{T}^d) and all coordinates i so that the result follows from w^TD\mathcal{L} w=\sum_{i=1}^dw^T\partial_{x_i}\mathcal{L} w.
Let m\!>\!\frac d2\!+\!1, k\!\geq\!0, let \mathcal{L} satisfy the conditions from Lemma 12 for l=1, and let \rho satisfy (?). Then \|\dot\rho_t\|_{H^{k-m-1}}\lesssim\|\rho_t\|_{H^{-m}}\|\rho_t\|_{H^{k-m}} or equivalently \|\dot v_t\|_{H^{m-1+k}}\lesssim\|v_t\|_{H^{m}}\|v_t\|_{H^{m+k}}.
For w\in H^{m+1-k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) we have
of which all summands can be bounded by \|\rho_t\|_{H^{k-m}}\|v_t\|_{H^m}\|w\|_{H^{m+1-k}} (using Lemma 7 and for k=0 Proposition 25 in the last summand).
Let m>\frac d2+1 and \mathcal{L} be a Fourier multiplier satisfying the conditions from Lemma 12 for l=2 (so that geodesics are well-posed in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m). Let v_t be the velocity of a geodesic in \mathcal D_{\mathrm{id}}^m and V_t the solution of (22) with V_0=\mathcal{T}_{R} v_0.
If v_0\in H^{m+1}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d), then \|V_t-v_t\|_{H^m}\to_{R\to\infty}0 uniformly in t\in[0,1].
If v_0\in H^{m+k}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) for k>1, then
for all t\in[0,1] with a constant C>0 independent of v_0.
Extend \widetilde\mathrm{ad} to H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d)\times H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) by \widetilde\mathrm{ad}=\mathcal{T}_{R}\mathrm{ad}, which is still antisymmetric. Let e_t=V_t-v_t. We have
We obtain
where we exploited ({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})e_t=-({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})v_t. We estimate the first term as follows,
exploiting [\mathcal{T}_{R} e_t,\mathcal{T}_{R} e_t]=0 and therefore [e_t,\mathcal{T}_{R} e_t]=[({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})e_t,\mathcal{T}_{R} e_t]=-[({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})v_t,\mathcal{T}_{R} e_t]. Using that H^m is a Banach algebra as well as Lemma 19 and (?) we next estimate
Therefore, exploiting Lemma 24 we have
Furthermore, an integration by parts yields
for any u\in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) and q,w\in H^{m+1}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d). Therefore we have
by Proposition 25 as well as
Summarizing,
where the last summand is an upper bound for \langle({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})v_t,({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})\dot\rho_t\rangle. (Note that if we had substituted \langle({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})v_t,({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})\dot\rho_t\rangle=\langle({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})v_t,-\mathrm{ad}_{v_t}^*\rho_t\rangle=\langle[v_t,({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})v_t],\rho_t\rangle, the smallness of the term from two Fourier truncations rather than one would no longer be obvious.) By assumption and Theorem 15, \|v_t\|_{H^{m+1}} is uniformly bounded. Furthermore, from Corollary 26 we see
Since t\mapsto v_t\in H^{m+1}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) is continuous by Theorem 15, \|({\mathcal{I}}-\mathcal{T}_{R})v_t\|_{H^{m+1}} tends to zero uniformly in t as R\to\infty due to Lemma 20. Since also e_0\to0 in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d), the Bihari–LaSalle inequality implies e_t\to0 as R\to\infty, uniformly in t, which proves the first claim.
For the second claim
we collect the occurring powers of R; we start with
Furthermore, denoting by \phi_t the flow of v_t, we have
where in the first step we used Lemma 19, in the second \|\rho_t\|_{H^{-m+k}}=\|\mathcal{L} v_t\|_{H^{-m+k}}\lesssim\|v_t\|_{H^{m+k}}, in the third Theorem 15, in the fourth Proposition 10(?) to estimate the operator norm of \mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t^{-1}}, and in the last step we used that the norm \vvvertv_t\vvvert_{H^m} of the velocity is constant along a geodesic. Similarly,
using Corollary 26 in the second step. In summary, (?) turns into
via Young’s inequality, which together with the estimate for \vvverte_0\vvvert_{H^m} yields the desired estimate via the Gronwall inequality.
Let the conditions of Theorem 27 hold, and let r\in o(\log R). Given v_0\in H^m(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d), let V^r\in\mathcal{T}_{R} H^{m}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) denote the solution of (22) for initial condition V^r_0=\mathcal{T}_{r}v_0. Then \|V^r_t-v_t\|_{H^m}\to0 uniformly in t\in[0,1] as R\to\infty.
Moreover, if v_0\in H^{m+1}(\mathbb{T}^d;\mathbb{R}^d) and the metric (4) is three times differentiable, then \|V^r_t-v_t\|_{H^m}\lesssim C(\|v_0\|_{H^{m+1}})r for all t\in[0,1] for a constant depending only on \|v_0\|_{H^{m+1}}.
Denote by v^r the geodesic with initial velocity v^r_0=V^r_0=\mathcal{T}_{r}v_0. We can estimate
By Theorem 27, for k\geq2 we have
which for r\in o(\log R) tends to zero as R\to\infty. Likewise, \|v^r_t-v_t\|_{H^m}\to0 uniformly in t\in[0,1] due to \|v^r_0-v_0\|_{H^m}\to0 and the continuity of the Riemannian exponential map.
If the metric is three times differentiable, the Riemannian exponential is even differentiable so that \|v^r_t-v_t\|_{H^m}\leq C(\vvvertv_0\vvvert_{H^m})\|v^r_0-v_0\|_{H^m}\leq\tilde C(\|v_0\|_{H^{m+1}})r for constants C(\vvvertv_0\vvvert_{H^m}),\tilde C(\|v_0\|_{H^{m+1}}) depending only on the norm of v_0. Furthermore, the right-hand side of (Proof) tends to zero faster than R^{\frac32-k} (with a constant depending on \vvvertv_0\vvvert_{H^m}), which implies the second claim.
The arguments hold verbatim also when replacing the domain \mathbb{T}^d by \mathbb{R}^d and interpreting \mathcal{T}_{R} as the truncation operator on continuous Fourier space. However, this is of course of little numerical relevance since the resulting truncated ODE (?) is still infinite-dimensional.
In certain situations the geodesic ODE on \mathbb{R}^d can actually be reduced to the geodesic ODE on \mathbb{T}^d. Indeed, an integral of (?) with momentum \rho, velocity v and flow \phi is given by \rho_t=\mathrm{Ad}_{\phi_t}^*\rho_0, from which one can quickly see that if \rho_0 has compact support, then so does \rho_t for all t\in[0,1] [MiTrYo06, Sec. 4.3.1]. By rescaling and shifting coordinates we may assume \rho_t to stay supported within [0,1)^d. Hence, by appropriately choosing the operator \mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{T}^d} (the Riesz isomorphism to be used on the torus; the subscript distinguishes it from the original operator \mathcal{R} on \mathbb{R}^d) one obtains the identical evolution of \rho_t on \mathbb{T}^d as on \mathbb{R}^d: Operator \mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{T}^d} would be the composition of an extension (of \rho_t) from [0,1)^d to \mathbb{R}^d by zero (in Fourier space this would mean to interpret the discrete Fourier sum as a sum of Dirac measures and convolving this measure with the Fourier transform \hat\chi of the characteristic function \chi of [0,1)^d), an application of \mathcal{R} (which then yields v_t on \mathbb{R}^d), a restriction (of v_t) to [0,1)^d (in Fourier space another convolution with \hat\chi), and a reinterpretation as periodic function (by the Poisson summation formula, the discrete Fourier coefficients would just be the sampling of the continuous ones). Unfortunately, our error analysis only applies in this setting if \mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{T}^d} is a Fourier multiplier, which for natural choices (such as \mathcal{R}=\mathcal{L}^{-1} with \mathcal{L}=(1-\Delta)^m) is not the case.
For initial momentum of unbounded support the situation of course becomes even more involved. For a numerical approximation one would need to periodize momentum or velocity (typically via the Poisson summation formula) in addition to truncating in Fourier space and then analyze the error inflicted by both. A possible direction would be to truncate \rho_0 in space and investigate the resulting error, after which in a second step the above reduction from \mathbb{R}^d to \mathbb{T}^d is applied.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2410.06788v2 by Benedikt Wirth, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2410/2410.06788.jsonl.