arXiv:1703.01232v2 [] 7 Mar 2017

Inconsistency of Template Estimation with the
Fréchet mean in Quotient Space
Loïc Devilliers∗

Xavier Pennec†

Stéphanie Allassonnière‡

March 8, 2017

Abstract
We tackle the problem of template estimation when data have been
randomly transformed under an isometric group action in the presence
of noise. In order to estimate the template, one often minimizes the
variance when the influence of the transformations have been removed
(computation of the Fréchet mean in quotient space). The consistency
bias is defined as the distance (possibly zero) between the orbit of the
template and the orbit of one element which minimizes the variance. In
this article we establish an asymptotic behavior of the consistency bias
with respect to the noise level. This behavior is linear with respect to the
noise level. As a result the inconsistency is unavoidable as soon as the
noise is large enough. In practice, the template estimation with a finite
sample is often done with an algorithm called max-max. We show the
convergence of this algorithm to an empirical Karcher mean. Finally, our
numerical experiments show that the bias observed in practice cannot be
attributed to the small sample size or to a convergence problem but is
indeed due to the previously studied inconsistency.

∗ Université

Côte d’Azur, Inria, France loic.devilliers@inria.fr
Côte d’Azur, Inria, France
‡ Université Paris Descartes, INSERM UMRS 1138, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers,
France
† Université

1

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Inconsistency of the Template Estimation

4

3 Template estimation with the Max-Max Algorithm
3.1 Max-Max Algorithm Converges to a Local Minima of the Empirical Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Max-Max Algorithm is a Gradient Descent of the Variance . . .

5

4 Simulation on synthetic data
4.1 Max-max algorithm with a step function as template . .
4.2 Max-max algorithm with a continuous template . . . . .
4.3 Does the max-max algorithm give us a global minimum
a local minimum of the variance? . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .
. . . . .
or only
. . . . .

5
8
9
9
10
11

5 Discussion and Conclusion

11

A Proof of Theorem 1

13

1

Introduction

The template estimation is a well known issue in different fields such as statistics
on signals [KSW11], shape theory, computational anatomy [GMT00, JDJG04,
CMT+ 04] etc. In these fields, the template (which can be viewed as the prototype of our data) can be (according to different vocabulary) shifted, transformed,
wrapped or deformed due to different groups acting on data. Moreover, due to
a limited precision in the measurement, the presence of noise is almost always
unavoidable. These mixed effects on data lead us to study the consistency of
algorithms which claim to compute the template. A popular algorithm consists
in the minimization of the variance, in other words, the computation of the
Fréchet mean in quotient space. This method has been already proved to be
inconsistent [BC11, MHP16, DATP16]. One way to avoid the inconsistency is to
use another framework, for a instance a Bayesian paradigm [CDH16]. However,
if one does not want to change the paradigm, then one needs to have a better
understanding of the geometrical and statistical origins of the inconsistency.
Notation: in this paper, we suppose that observations belong to a Hilbert
space (H, h·, ·i), we denote by k · k the norm associated to the dot product h·, ·i.
We also consider a group of transformation G which acts isometrically on H the
space of observations. This means that x 7→ g · x is a linear automorphism of
H, such that1 kg · xk = kxk, g 0 · (g · x) = (g 0 g) · x and e · x = x for all x ∈ H,
g, g 0 ∈ G, where e is the identity element of G.
1 Note that in this article, g · x is the result of the action of g on x, and · should not to be
confused with the multiplication of real numbers noted ×.

2

The generative model is the following: we transform an unknown template t0 ∈ H with φ a random and unknown element of the group G and we add
some noise σ with a positive noise level σ,  a standardized noise: E() = 0,
E(kk2 ) = 1. Moreover we suppose that  and φ are independent random variables. Finally, the only observable random variable is:
Y = φ · t0 + σ.

(1)

If we assume that the noise is independent and identically
√ distributed on each
pixel or voxel with a standard deviation s, then σ = N s, where N is the
number of pixels/voxels.
Quotient space and Fréchet mean: the random transformation of the
template by the group leads us to project the observation Y into the quotient
space defined as the set containing all the orbit [x] = {g · x, g ∈ G} for x ∈ H.
Because the action is isometric, the quotient space H/G is equipped with a
pseudometric2 defined by:
dQ ([x], [y]) = inf kx − g · yk = inf kg · x − yk.
g∈G

g∈G

The quotient pseudometric is the distance between x and y 0 where y 0 is the
registration of y with respect to x. We define the variance of the random
orbit [Y ] as the expectation of the square pseudometric between the random
orbit [Y ] and the orbit of a point x in H:
F (x) = E(d2Q ([x], [Y ])) = E( inf kx − g · Y k2 ) = E( inf kg · x − Y k2 ).
g∈G

g∈G

(2)

Note that F (x) is well defined for all x ∈ H because E(kY k2 ) is finite. In
order to estimate the template, one often minimizes this function. If m? ∈ H
minimizes F , then [m? ] is called a Fréchet mean of [Y ]. The consistency bias,
noted CB, is the pseudometric between the orbit of the template [t0 ] and [m? ]:
CB = dQ ([t0 ], [m? ]). If such a m? does not exist, then the consistency bias is
infinite.
Questions:
• What is the behavior of the consistency with respect to the noise?
• How to perform such a minimization of the variance? Indeed, in practice
we have only a sample and not the whole distribution.
Contribution: in this article, we provide a Taylor expansion of the consistency bias when the noise level σ tends to infinity. As we do not have the whole
distribution, we minimize the empirical variance given a sample. An element
which minimizes the variance is called an empirical Fréchet mean. We already
know that the empirical Fréchet mean converges to the Fréchet mean when
the sample size tends to infinity [Zie77]. Therefore our problem is reduced to
2d
Q is called a pseudometric because dQ ([x], [y]) can be equal to zero even if [x] 6= [y]. If
the orbits are closed sets then dQ is a distance.

3

find an empirical Fréchet mean with a finite but sufficiently large sample. One
algorithm called the max-max algorithm [AAT07] aims to compute such an empirical Fréchet mean. We establish some properties of the convergence of this
algorithm. In particular, when the group is finite, the algorithm converges in a
finite number of steps to an empirical Karcher mean (a local minimum of the
empirical variance given a sample). This helps us to illustrate the inconsistency
in this very simple framework.
Of course, generally people use a subgroup of diffeomorphisms which acts
non isometrically on data such that images, landmarks etc. We believe that
studying the inconsistency in this simplified framework will help us to better
understand more complex situations. Moreover it is also possible to define and
use isometric actions on curves [HCG+ 13, KSW11] or on surfaces [KKD+ 11]
where our work can be directly applied.
This article is organized as follows: in Section 2, we study the presence
of the inconsistency and we establish the asymptotic behavior when the noise
parameter σ tends to ∞. In Section 3 we detail the max-max algorithm and its
properties. Finally, in Section 4 we illustrate the inconsistency with synthetic
data.

2

Inconsistency of the Template Estimation

We start with the main theorem of this article which gives us an asymptotic
behavior of the consistency bias when the noise level σ tends to infinity. One key
notion in Theorem 1 is the concept of fixed point under the action G: a point
x ∈ H is a fixed point if for all g ∈ G, g · x = x. We require that the support
of the noise  is not included in the set of fixed points. But this condition is
almost always fulfilled. For instance in Rn the set of fixed points under a linear
group action is a null set for the Lebesgue measure (unless the action is trivial
g · x = x for all g ∈ G but this situation is irrelevant).
Theorem 1. Let us suppose that the support of the noise  is not included in
the set of fixed points under the group action. Let Y be the observable variable
defined in Equation (1). If the Fréchet mean of [Y ] exists, then we have the
following lower and upper bounds of the consistency bias noted CB:
σK − 2kt0 k ≤ CB ≤ σK + 2kt0 k,
(3)


where K = sup E sup hg · v, i is a constant which depends only on the stankvk=1

g∈G

dardised noise and on the group action. We have K ∈ (0, 1]. The consistency
bias has the following asymptotic behavior when the noise level σ tends to infinity:
CB = σK + o(σ) as σ → +∞.
(4)
It follows from Equation (3) that K is the consistency bias with a null
template t0 = 0 and a standardised noise σ = 1. We can ensure the presence of
4

inconsistency as soon as the signal to noise ratio verifies ktσ0 k < K
2 . Moreover,
kt0 k
K
if the signal to noise ratio verifies σ < 3 then the consistency bias verifies
CB ≥ kt0 k. In other words, the Fréchet mean in quotient space is too far
from the template: the template estimation with the Fréchet mean in quotient
space is useless in this case. In [DATP16] the authors also give lower and upper
bounds as a function of σ but these bounds are less informative than our current
bounds. Indeed, in [DATP16] the lower bound goes to zero when the template
becomes closed to fixed points. This may suggest that the consistency bias was
small for this kind of template, which is not the case. The proof of Theorem 1
is postponed in Appendix A, the sketch of the proof is the following:
• K > 0 because the support of  is not included in the set of fixed points
under the action of G.
• K ≤ 1 is the consequence of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
• The proof of Inequalities (3) is based on the triangular inequalities:
km? k − kt0 k ≤ CB = inf kt0 − g · m? k ≤ kt0 k + km? k,
g∈G

(5)

where m? minimizes (2): having a piece of information about the norm of
m? is enough to deduce a piece of information about the consistency bias.
• The asymptotic Taylor expansion of the consistency bias (4) is the direct
consequence of inequalities (3).
Note that Theorem 1 is absolutely not a contradiction with [KSW11] where
the authors proved the consistency of the template estimation with the Fréchet
mean in quotient space for all σ > 0. Indeed their noise was included in the set
of constant functions which are the fixed points under their group action.
One disadvantage of Theorem 1 is that it ensures the presence of inconsistency for σ large enough but it says nothing when σ is small, in this case one
can refer to [MHP16] or [DATP16].

3
3.1

Template estimation with the Max-Max Algorithm
Max-Max Algorithm Converges to a Local Minima of
the Empirical Variance

Section 2 can be roughly understood as follows: if we want to estimate the
template by minimising the Fréchet mean with quotient space then there is a
bias. This supposes that we are able to compute such a Fréchet mean. In practice, we cannot minimise the exact variance in quotient space, because we have
only a finite sample and not the whole distribution. In this section we study
the estimation of the empirical Fréchet mean with the max-max algorithm. We

5

suppose that the group is finite. Indeed, in this case, the registration can always
be found by an exhaustive search. In a compact group acting continuously, the
registration also exists but is not necessarily computable without approximation. Hence, the numeric experiments which we conduct in Section 4 lead to an
empirical Karcher mean in a finite number of steps.
If we have a sample: Y1 , . . . , YI of independent and identically distributed
copies of Y , then we define the empirical variance in the quotient space:
I

I

I

1X
1X
1X 2
dQ ([x], [Yi ]) =
min kx − gi · Yi k2 =
min kgi · x − Yi k2 .
FI (x) =
I i=1
I i=1 gi ∈G
I i=1 gi ∈G
(6)
The empirical variance is an approximation of the variance, indeed thanks to
the law of large number we have limI→∞ FI (x) = F (x) for all x ∈ H. One
element which minimizes globally (respectively locally) FI is called an empirical
Fréchet mean (respectively an empirical Karcher mean). For x ∈ H and g ∈ GI :
g = (g1 , . . . , gI ) where gi ∈ G for all i ∈ 1..I we define J an auxiliary function
by:
I
I
1X
1 X −1
kx − gi · Yi k2 =
kg · x − Yi k2 .
J(x, g) =
I i=1
I i=1 i
The max-max algorithms iteratively minimizes the function J in the variable
x ∈ H and in the variable g ∈ GI :
Algorithm 1 Max-Max algorithm
Require: A starting point m0 ∈ H, a sample Y1 , . . . , YI .
n = 0.
while Convergence is not reached do
Minimizing g ∈ GI 7→ J(mn , g): we get gin by registering Yi with respect
to mn .
PI
Minimizing x ∈ H 7→ J(x, g n ): we get mn+1 = I1 i=1 gin · Yi .
n = n + 1.
end while
m̂ = mn
Note that the empirical variance does not increase at each step of the
algorithm since: FI (mn ) = J(mn , g n ) ≥ J(mn+1 , g n ) ≥ J(mn+1 , g n+1 ) =
FI (mn+1 ). This algorithm is sensitive to the the starting point. However we
PI
remark that m1 = I1 i=1 gi ·Yi for some gi ∈ G, then without loss of generality,
PI
we can start from m1 = I1 i=1 gi · Yi for some gi ∈ G.
Proposition 1. As the group is finite, the convergence is reached in a finite
number of steps.
Proof. The sequence (FI (mn ))n∈N is non-increasing. Moreover the sequence
PI
(mn )n∈N takes value in a finite set which is: { I1 i=1 gi · Yi , gi ∈ G}. Therefore, the sequence (FI (mn ))n∈N is stationary. Let n ∈ N such that FI (mn ) =
6

FI (mn+1 ). Hence the empirical variance did not decrease between step n and
step n + 1 and we have:
FI (mn ) = J(mn , g n ) = J(mn+1 , g n ) = J(mn+1 , g n+1 ) = FI (mn+1 ),
as mn is the unique element which minimizes m 7→ J(m, g n ) we conclude that
mn+1 = mn .
g
J(mn , g n )

gn
g n−1

J(mn−1 , g n−1 ) J(mn , g n−1 )

g1

J(m1 , g 1 )

g 0 J(m0 , g 0 )
J(m1 , g 0 )

x
m0

m1

mn−1 mn

m2

Figure 1: Iterative minimization of the function J on the two axis, the horizontal
axis represents the variable in the space H, the vertical axis represents the set
of all the possible registrations GI . Once the convergence is reached, the point
(mn , gn ) is the minimum of the function J on the two axis in green. Is this
point the minimum of J on its whole domain? There are two pitfalls: firstly
this point could be a saddle point, it can be avoided with Proposition 2, secondly
this point could be a local (but not global), this is discussed in Subsection 4.3.
This proposition gives us a shutoff parameter in the max-max algorithm: we
stop the algorithm as soon as mn = mn+1 . Let call m̂ the final result of the
max-max algorithm. It may seem logical that m̂ is at least a local minimum
of the empirical variance. However this intuition may be wrong: let us give a
simple counterexample (but not necessarily realistic), suppose that
observe
Pwe
n
Y1 , . . . , YI , due to the transformation of the group it is possible that i=1 Yi = 0.
We can start from m1 = 0 in the max-max algorithm, as Yi and 0 are already
registered, the max-max algorithm does not transform Yi . At step two, we still
have m2 = 0, by induction the max-max algorithm stays at 0 even if 0 is not
a Fréchet or Karcher mean of [Y ]. Because 0 is equally distant from all the
points in the orbit of Yi , 0 is called a focal point of [Yi ]. The notion of focal
point is important for the consistency of the Fréchet mean in manifold [BP03].

7

Fortunately, the situation where m̂ is not a Karcher mean is almost always
avoided due to the following statement:
Proposition 2. Let m̂ be the result of the max-max algorithm. If the registration of Yi with respect to m̂ is unique, in other words, if m̂ is not a focal point of
Yi for all i ∈ 1..I then m̂ is a local minimum of FI : [m̂] is an empirical Karcher
mean of [Y ].
Note that, if we call z the registration of y with respect to m, then the
registration is unique if and only if hm, z − g · zi 6= 0 for all g ∈ G \ {e}. Once
the max-max algorithm has reached convergence, it suffices to test this condition
for m̂ obtained by the max-max algorithm and for Yi for all i. This condition
is in fact generic and is always obtained in practice.
Proof. We call gi the unique element in G which register Yi with respect to m̂,
for all h ∈ G \ {gi }, km̂ − gi · Yi k < km̂ − hi · Yi k. By continuity of the norm we
have for a close enough to m: ka − gi · Yi k < ka − hi · Yi k for all hi 6= gi (note
that this argument requires a finite group). The registrations of Yi with respect
to m and to a are the same:
I

FI (a) =

1X
ka − gi · Yi k2 = J(a, g) ≥ J(m̂, g) = FI (m̂),
I i=1

because m 7→ J(m, g) has one unique local minimum m̂.

3.2

Max-Max Algorithm is a Gradient Descent of the Variance

In this Subsection, we see that the max-max algorithm is in fact a gradient
descent. The gradient descent is a general method to find the minimum of a
differentiable function. Here we are interested in the minimum of the variance
F : let m0 ∈ H and we define by induction the gradient descent of the variance
mn+1 = mn − ρ∇F (mn ), where ρ > 0 and F the variance in the quotient space.
In [DATP16] the gradient of the variance in quotient space for m a regular point
was computed (m is regular as soon as g · m = m implies g = e), this leads to:
mn+1 = mn − 2ρ [mn − E(g(Y, mn ) · Y )] ,
where g(Y, mn ) is the almost-surely unique element of the group which register Y
with respect to mn . Now if we have a set of data Y1 , . . . , Yn we can approximated
the expectation which leads to the following approximated gradient descent:
I

mn+1 = mn (1 − 2ρ) + ρ

2X
g(Yi , mn ) · Yi ,
I i=1

PI
now by taking ρ = 12 we get mn+1 = I1 i=1 g(Yi , mn ) · Yi . So the approximated
gradient descent with ρ = 12 is exactly the max-max algorithm. But the maxmax algorithm is proven to be converging in a finite number of steps which is
not the case for gradient descent in general.
8

4

Simulation on synthetic data

In this Section3 , we consider data in an Euclidean space RN equipped with its
canonical dot product h·, ·i, and G = Z/NZ acts on RN by circular permutation
on coordinates:
(k̄ ∈ Z/N Z, (x1 , . . . , xN ) ∈ RN ) 7→ (x1+k , x2+k , . . . xN +k ),
where indexes are taken modulo N . This space models the discretization of
functions with N points. This action is found in [AAT07] and used for neuroelectric signals in [HCG+ 13]. The registration between two vectors can be made
by an exhaustive research but it is faster with the fast Fourier transform [CT65].

4.1

Max-max algorithm with a step function as template
Empirical quotient variance at the template in blue and at the template estimation in red
template and estimated template with max-max algorithm

F_I(t_0)

2
template
max max

97.5

F_I(m)

1.5

97
1

0.5

96.5

0

96
-0.5

2e+06

-1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

4e+06
6e+06
I: size of the sample

8e+06

1e+07

(b) Variation of FI (t0 ) (in blue) and of
FI (m̂) (in red) as a function of I the size
of the sample. Since convergence is already
reached, F (m̂), which is the limit of red
curve, is below F (t0 ): F (t0 ) is the limit of the
blue curve. Due to the inconsistency, m̂ is an
example of point such that F (m̂) < F (t0 ).

(a) Example of a template (a step function)
and the template estimation with a sample size 105 in R64 ,  is Gaussian noise and
σ = 10. At the discontinuity points of the
template, we observe a Gibbs-like phenomena.

Figure 2: Template t0 and template estimation m̂ on Fig. 2(a). Empirical variance at the template and the template estimation with the max-max algorithm
as a function of the size of the sample on Fig. 2(b).
We display an example of a template and the template estimation with
the max-max algorithm on Fig 2(a). Note that this experiment was already
conducted in [AAT07]. But no explanation of the appearance of the bias was
provided. On the opposite, we know from the precedent Section that the maxmax result is an empirical Karcher mean, and that this result can be obtained
in a finite number of steps. Taking σ = 10 may seem extremely high, however
3 The

code used in this Section is available at http://loic.devilliers.free.fr/ipmi.html.

9

the standard deviation of the noise at each point is not 10 but √σN = 1.25 which
is not so high.
The sample size is 105 , and the algorithm stopped after 94 steps, and m̂ the
estimated template (in red on the Fig. 2(a)) is not a focal points of the orbits
[Yi ], then Proposition 2 applies. We call empirical bias (noted EB) the quotient
distance between the true template and the point m̂ given by the max-max
result. On this experiment we have EB
σ ' 0.11. Of course, one could think that
we estimate the template with an empirical bias due to a too small sample size
which induces fluctuation. To reply to this objection, we keep in memory m̂
obtained with the max-max algorithm. If there was no inconsistency then we
would have F (t0 ) ≤ F (m̂). We do not know the value of the variance F at these
points, but thanks to the law of large number, we know that:
F (t0 ) = lim FI (t0 ) and F (m̂) = lim FI (m̂),
I→∞

I→∞

Given a sample, we compute FI (t0 ) and FI (m̂) thanks to the definition of the
empirical variance FI (6). We display the result on Fig. 2(b), this tends to
confirm that F (t0 ) > F (m̂). In other words, the variance at the template is
bigger that the variance at the point given by the max-max algorithm.

4.2

Max-max algorithm with a continuous template
template, estimated template with max-max algorithm, mean of data with the true amount of transformations
2
template
max max
mean knowing transformations
1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Figure 3: Example of an other template (here a discretization of a continuous
function) and the template estimation with a sample size 103 in R64 (in red),
 is Gaussian noise and σ = 10. Even with a continuous function the inconsistency appears. In green we compute the mean of data with the true amount of
transformations.
Figure 2(a) shows that the main source of the inconsistency was the discontinuity of the template. We could think that a continuous template leads to
consistency. But it is not the case, even with a large number of observations
created from a continuous template we do not observe a convergence to the
template see Fig. 3, the empirical bias satisfies EB
σ = 0.25. If we knew the
10

original transformations we could invert the transformations on data and take
the mean, that is what we deed in green on Fig. 3. We see that with a sample
size 103 , the mean gives us almost the good result since we have in that case
EB
σ = 0.03.

4.3

Does the max-max algorithm give us a global minimum or only a local minimum of the variance?

Proposition 2 tells us that the output of the max-max algorithm is a Karcher
mean of the variance, but we do not know that if it is Fréchet mean of the
variance. In other words, is the output a global minimum of the variance? In
fact, FI has a lot of local minima which are not global. Indeed we can use
the max-max algorithm with different starting points and we observe different
outputs (which are all local minima thanks to Proposition 2) with different
empirical variance (result non shown).

5

Discussion and Conclusion

We provided an asymptotic behavior of the consistency bias when the noise level
σ tends to infinity, as a consequence, the inconsistency cannot be neglected when
σ is large. However we have not answered this question: can the inconsistency
be neglected? When the noise level is small enough, then the consistency bias
is small [MHP16, DATP16], hence it can be neglected. Note that the quotient
space is not a manifold, this prevents us to use a priori the Central Limit
theorem for manifold proved in [BP03]. But if the Central Limit theorem could
be applied to quotient space, the fluctuations induce an error which would be
approximately equal to √σI and if K  √1I , then the inconsistency could be
neglected because it is small compared to fluctuation.
If the Hilbert Space is a functional space, for instance L2 ([0, 1]), in practice,
we never observe the whole function, only a finite number values of this function.
One can model these observable values on a grid. When the resolution of the
grid goes to zero, one can show the consistency [PZ16] by using the Fréchet
mean with the Wasserstein distance on the space of measures rather than in the
space of functions. But in (medical) images the number of pixels or voxels is
finite.
Finally, in a future work one needs to study the template estimation with
non isometric action. But we can already learn from this work: in the numerical
experiments we led, we have seen that the template estimated is more detailed
that the true template. The intuition is that the estimated template in computational anatomy with a group of diffeomorphisms is also more detailed. But
the true template is almost always unknown. It is then possible that one think
that the computation of the template succeeded to capture small details of the
template while it is just an artifact due to the inconsistency. Moreover in order
to tackle this question, one needs to have a good modelisation of the noise, for

11

instance in [KSW11], the observations are curves, what is a relevant noise in
the space of curves?

References
[AAT07]

Stéphanie Allassonnière, Yali Amit, and Alain Trouvé. Towards a
coherent statistical framework for dense deformable template estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical
Methodology), 69(1):3–29, 2007.

[BC11]

Jérémie Bigot and Benjamin Charlier. On the consistency of fréchet
means in deformable models for curve and image analysis. Electronic
Journal of Statistics, 5:1054–1089, 2011.

[BP03]

Rabi Bhattacharya and Vic Patrangenaru. Large sample theory
of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds. i. Annals of
statistics, pages 1–29, 2003.

[CDH16]

Wen Cheng, Ian L Dryden, and Xianzheng Huang. Bayesian registration of functions and curves. Bayesian Analysis, 11(2):447–475,
2016.

[CMT+ 04] Timothy F Cootes, Stephen Marsland, Carole J Twining, Kate
Smith, and Christopher J Taylor. Groupwise diffeomorphic non-rigid
registration for automatic model building. In European conference
on computer vision, pages 316–327. Springer, 2004.
[CT65]

James W Cooley and John W Tukey. An algorithm for the machine
calculation of complex fourier series. Mathematics of computation,
19(90):297–301, 1965.

[DATP16] L. Devilliers, S. Allassonnière, A. Trouvé, and X. Pennec. Template
estimation in computational anatomy: Fréchet means in top and
quotient spaces are not consistent. ArXiv e-prints, August 2016.
[GMT00]

A. Guimond, J. Meunier, and J.-P. Thirion. Average brain models:
A convergence study. Computer Vision and Image Understanding,
77(2):192–210, 2000.

[HCG+ 13] Sebastian Hitziger, Maureen Clerc, Alexandre Gramfort, Sandrine
Saillet, Christian Bénar, and Théodore Papadopoulo. Jitteradaptive dictionary learning-application to multi-trial neuroelectric
signals. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3611, 2013.
[JDJG04] Sarang Joshi, Brad Davis, Matthieu Jomier, and Guido Gerig. Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for computational anatomy.
NeuroImage, 23:S151–S160, 2004.

12

[KKD+ 11] Sebastian Kurtek, Eric Klassen, Zhaohua Ding, Malcolm J Avison, and Anuj Srivastava. Parameterization-invariant shape statistics and probabilistic classification of anatomical surfaces. In Biennial International Conference on Information Processing in Medical
Imaging, pages 147–158. Springer, 2011.
[KSW11]

Sebastian A Kurtek, Anuj Srivastava, and Wei Wu. Signal estimation under random time-warpings and nonlinear signal alignment. In
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 675–683,
2011.

[MHP16]

Nina Miolane, Susan Holmes, and Xavier Pennec. Template
shape estimation: correcting an asymptotic bias. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1610.01502, 2016.

[PZ16]

Victor M Panaretos and Yoav Zemel. Amplitude and phase variation
of point processes. The Annals of Statistics, 44(2):771–812, 2016.

[Zie77]

Herbert Ziezold. On expected figures and a strong law of large numbers for random elements in quasi-metric spaces. In Transactions of
the Seventh Prague Conference on Information Theory, Statistical
Decision Functions, Random Processes and of the 1974 European
Meeting of Statisticians, pages 591–602. Springer, 1977.

A

Proof of Theorem 1

Proof. In the proof, we note by S the unit sphere in H. In order to prove that
K > 0, we take x in the support of  such that x is not a fixed point under the
0 ·x
∈ S, we
action of G. It exists g0 ∈ G such that g0 · x 6= x. We note v0 = gkxk
have hv0 , g0 · xi = kxk > hv0 , xi and by continuity of the dot product it exists
r > 0 such that: ∀y ∈ B(x, r) hv0 , g0 · yi > hv0 , yi as x is in the support of 
we have P( ∈ B(x, r)) > 0, it follows:


P sup hv0 , g · i > hv0 , i > 0.
(7)
g∈G

Thanks to Inequality (7) and the fact that supg∈G hv0 , g · i ≥ hv0 , i we have:





K = sup E sup hv, g · i ≥ E sup hv0 , g · i > E(hv0 , i) = hv0 , E()i = 0.
v∈S

g∈G

g∈G
1

Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality: K ≤ supv∈S E(kvk × kk) ≤ E(kk2 ) 2 =
1. We now prove Inequalities (3). The variance at λv for v ∈ S and λ ≥ 0 is:




F (λv) = E inf kλv − g · Y k2 = λ2 − 2λE sup hv, g · Y i + E(kY k2 ). (8)
g∈G

g∈G

13

Indeed kg · Y k = kY k thanks to the isometric action. We note x+ = max(x, 0)
the positive part of x and h(v) = E(supg∈G hv, g · Y i). The λ ≥ 0 which4
minimizes (8) is h(v)+ and the minimum value of the variance restricted to
the half line R+ v is F (h(v)+ v) = E(kY k2 ) − (h(v)+ )2 . To find [m? ] the Fréchet
mean of [Y ], we need to maximize (h(v)+ )2 with respect to v ∈ S: m? = h(v? )v?
with5 v? ∈ argmaxv∈S h(v). As we said in the sketch of the proof we are
interested in getting a piece of information about the norm of km? k we have:
km? k = h(v? ) = supv∈S h. Let v ∈ S, we have: −kt0 k ≤ hv, gφ · t0 i ≤ kt0 k
because the action is isometric. Now we decompose Y = φ · t0 + σ and we get:




h(v) = E sup hv, g · Y i = E sup (hv, g · σi + hv, gφ · t0 i)
g∈G

g∈G



h(v) ≤




E sup (hv, g · σi + kt0 k) = σE sup hv, g · i + kt0 k
g∈G

g∈G



h(v) ≥




E sup (hv, g · σi) − kt0 k = σE sup hv, g · i − kt0 k.
g∈G

g∈G

By taking the biggest value in these inequalities with respect to v ∈ S, by
definition of K we get:
−kt0 k + σK ≤ km? k ≤ kt0 k + σK.

(9)

Thanks to (9) and to (5), Inequalities (3) are proved.

4 Indeed we know that x ∈ R+ 7→ x2 − 2bx + c reaches its minimum at the point x = b+
and f (b+ ) = c − (b+ )2 .
5 Note that we remove the positive part and the square because argmax h = argmax (h+ )2
since h takes a non negative value (indeed h(v) ≥ E(hv, φ · t0 + i) = hv, E(φ · t0 )i and this
last quantity is non negative for at least one v ∈ S).

14

