Explainable Binary Classification of Separable Shape Ensembles

By definition of the scalar dot product, k_{\mathcal{T}}[\boldsymbol{c}](s,u) = \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}](s) \cdot \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}](u) = \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}](u) \cdot \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}](s) = k_{\mathcal{T}}[\boldsymbol{c}](u,s).

Assuming an integrable curve implies boundedness of \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}] in (?) and thus

The remainder is simply an application of Theorem 2.1 of [fasshauer2015kernel]. In short, Theorem 2.1 in [fasshauer2015kernel] states \mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{T}}[\boldsymbol{c}] is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and every Hilbert-Schmidt operator on L^2(\mathcal{I}, \mu) is of the form (2) for some unique k_{\mathcal{T}}[\boldsymbol{c}]:(s,u) \mapsto k_{\mathcal{T}}[\boldsymbol{c}](s,u) in L^2(\mathcal{I} \times \mathcal{I},\mu\times \mu).

Given \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c} +\boldsymbol{b}] = \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}] for arbitrary \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathbb{R}^d independent of the curve parameter. Additionally, for arbitrary R \in O(d) independent of the curve parameter,

Substituting the definition of the CLO into the generalized FIE,

Thus, solving for the eigenfunctions as the (scaled) evaluation functionals implies

where \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{\top}_j \coloneqq (\langle \tau_1,v_j\rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d},\dots,\langle \tau_d,v_j\rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d}). In other words, the j-th eigenfunctions are a linear combination of the component functions of the curve for non-trivial \boldsymbol{\alpha}_j \neq 0.

Substituting the solution (Proof) for v_j(s) back into the definition of \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{\top}_j = (\alpha_{j1},\alpha_{j2},\dots,\alpha_{jd}) reveals an algebraic dual of eigensolutions as paired eigenvalues and eigenfunctions:

We have defined \langle \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau}\rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d} as the component-wise integration of the outer product of centered component functions. Rearranging this expression implies the eigenproblem,

Here, \langle \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau}\rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d} \coloneqq \langle \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}] \otimes \mathcal{T}[\boldsymbol{c}]\rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d}\in S^d_{++} is symmetric positive definite (full rank) by symmetry of the inner product \langle\cdot, \cdot\rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d} and the assumed linearly independent component functions, \tau_j for j=1,\dots,d.

Next, note that \langle\boldsymbol{\tau}\otimes\boldsymbol{\tau}\rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d} admits strictly positive real eigendecomposition \langle \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau} \rangle_{\mathcal{H}^*_d} = A\Sigma^2_d A^{\top} = (A\Sigma_d)(\Sigma_d A^{\top}) where A \in O(d). That is, columns of A = (\boldsymbol{\alpha}_1, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_2,\dots, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_d) satisfy \boldsymbol{\alpha}_j \cdot \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{j'} =\delta_{jj'} where \delta_{jj'} is Kronecker’s delta function. Thus, \Sigma_d A^{\top}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_j = \sigma_j\boldsymbol{e}_j, with \boldsymbol{e}_j the j-th column of the identity, implies

Normalizing the eigenfunctions to be orthonormal such that \Vert \widetilde{v}_j\Vert_{\mathcal{H}_d} = 1 results in

Maximization of our derived parametric problem statement is equivalent to maximization of the form of Umeyama’s Lagrangian—defined in the proof of the Lemma in [umeyama1991leastsquares] and denoted here as \mathcal{U}. Rewritten absent the sign convention for general R\in O(d) and composition over p, Umeyama’s Lagrangian is

Next, consider an equivalent problem stated with an extraneous constraint identifying parameter separability similar to [golub1973differentiation],

However, distinct from [golub1973differentiation], the bijection,

is defined by the SVD, \mathcal{L}(p) \,\overset{SVD}{=} U_p\Omega_pV_p^{\top}, such that \Omega_p = \text{diag}(\omega_1(p),\omega_2(p),\dots,\omega_d(p)) with \omega_1(p) \geq \omega_2(p)\geq \dots \geq \omega_d(p)>0.

Finally, we argue that the extraneous parametric constraint \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)) for any p is best. By definition, \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)) is best if and only if \langle \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)),\mathcal{L}(p)\rangle_F > \langle R ,\mathcal{L}(p)\rangle_F for all R \neq \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)) \in O(d) and p \in \mathcal{N}. Equivalently, it is sufficient to show \langle R - \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)), \mathcal{L}(p) \rangle_F<0 for all R \neq \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)) \in O(d). Utilizing the definition of \pi_{\mathcal{U}},

and, thus,

By the original argument of orthogonal Procrustes solution [gibson1962least, schonemann1966generalized, lawrence2019purely],

for some Q_p = U_p^{\top}RV_p \in O(d) which satisfies \langle Q_p, \Omega_p\rangle_F \leq \langle \mathbb{I}_d, \Omega_p\rangle_F = \Vert \mathcal{L}(p) \Vert_1 with equality when Q_p = \mathbb{I}_d. However, Q_p = \mathbb{I}_d if and only if R = U_pV_p^{\top} = \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)), thus \langle R,\mathcal{L}(p)\rangle_F - \Vert \mathcal{L}(p) \Vert_1 < 0 for all R \neq \pi_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{L}(p)) \in O(d).