Uncertainty principles
and optimally sparse wavelet transforms
Ron Levie

Nir Sochen

arXiv:1707.04863v2 [] 13 Mar 2018

ronlevie@post.tau.ac.il

sochen@post.tau.ac.il

Tel Aviv University
Abstract
In this paper we introduce a new localization framework for wavelet transforms, such
as the 1D wavelet transform and the Shearlet transform. Our goal is to design nonadaptive
window functions that promote sparsity in some sense. For that, we introduce a framework for
analyzing localization aspects of window functions. Our localization theory diverges from the
conventional theory in two ways. First, we distinguish between the group generators, and the
operators that measure localization (called observables). Second, we define the uncertainty
of a signal transform based on a window as a whole, instead of defining the uncertainty of an
individual window. We show that the uncertainty of a window function, in the signal space, is
closely related to the localization of the reproducing kernel of the wavelet transform, in phase
space. As a result, we show that using uncertainty minimizing window functions, results in
representations which are optimally sparse in some sense.

1

Introduction

In this paper we consider “generalized wavelet transforms”, namely signal transforms based on
taking the inner product of the input signal with a set of transformations of a window function.
Such a transform is defined as follows. Let the Hilbert space H be the space of signals to be
transformed. Let G be a manifold, and let π : G → U(H) be a a strongly continuous mapping
from G to unitary operators in H. Consider a Radon measure of G, and take L2 (G) as the output
signal space of the generalized wavelet transform. A generalized wavelet transform is defined by


Vf : H → L2 (G) ,
Vf [s] (g) = hs, π(g)f i .
(1)

Here, s ∈ H denotes the signal we input to the transform. The vector f ∈ H, called a window
function, is a part of the definition of the transform. The independent variable of the output
signal Vf (s) ∈ L2 (G) is denoted by g. Some examples are the short time Fourier transform
(STFT) [14], the continuous wavelet transform [15][8], the Shearlet transform [17], the curvelet
transform [5], and the dyadic wavelet transform [8]. The first three examples are based on a square
integrable representation of a group G. Such representations are sometimes called continuous
wavelet transforms, but in this paper we reserve this name to the classical 1D continuous wavelet
transform. Signal transforms based on square integrable representations where extensively studied,
see e.g the classical paper [16] and the more recent book [12]. The latter two examples, namely
the Curvelet transform and the discrete wavelet transform, are not based on a group G. We give
additional restrictions on Vf in our framework in Assumptions 5 and 27.
Many generalized wavelet transforms provide a sparse or optimal representation for their respective classes of signals, in the following sense. Consider a discretization of a generalized wavelet
transform. Namely, assume that there is some sampling {gn }n∈N ⊂ G, such that the mapping


df : H → l2 , [df (s)]n = hs, π(gn )f i = Vf [s] (gn )
1

has the inversion formula
s=

X

[df (s)]n π(gn )y

n∈N

where y is some other window function. Let sN be the approximation of the signal s using only
the N largest wavelet coefficients [df (s)]n of s. For the optimality statement of the 1D wavelet
transform, consider the class of piecewise smooth functions. The asymptotic behavior of the
N -best approximation is
ks − sN k22 ≍ N −2 , N → ∞
which is the best approximation rate possible when approximating piecewise smooth functions
with dictionaries [9]. Similar optimality properties were proved for the curvelet transform [4] and
the Shearlet transform [18] in a class of 2D piecewise-smooth signals called “cartoon-like images”.
Such optimality properties are independent of the specific choice of the window function. Yet,
choosing different window functions for a given generalized wavelet transform may lead to signal
representations with different properties. In this paper we address the question of how to design
and analyze window functions. Our goal is to design window functions that promote sparsity, or
“localized” representations, in some non-asymptotic sense. We do this by defining uncertainty
principles. In Section 2 we define an uncertainty of windows, and in Section 3 we strengthen the
definition to obtain an uncertainty of a generalized wavelet transform as a whole. An uncertainty
minimizing function can be taken as the window function of the corresponding generalized wavelet
transform. This leads to signal transforms that map to a function space with optimally localized
reproducing kernels. In Section 4 we explain how this window choice leads to the “sparsest” signal
representation possible for the respective generalized wavelet transform.

1.1

Motivation for defining new uncertainty principles

In the STFT there is a well understood framework for analyzing the localization of window functions. The STFT measures the content of the signal at different times and frequencies. This is
done by translating the time and modulating the frequency of the window function and taking
the inner product of the transformed window with the signal. Namely, in (1) H = L2 (R), G = R2
and π(g1 , g2 )f (t) = eig2 t f (t − g1 ). Thus a prevailing approach for localization, is to analyze window functions in term of their time and frequency variances. The mean time of a normalized f
2
R∞
R∞
2
is defined as e1 = −∞ t |f (t)| dt, the mean frequency of f is defined as e2 = −∞ ω fˆ(ω) dω
(where fˆ is the Fourier transform of f ). The spreads of f around its mean time and mean fre2
R∞
R∞
quency are defined as the variances σ1 = −∞ (t − e1 )2 |f (t)| dt and σ2 = −∞ (ω − e2 )2 fˆ(ω) dω
respectively. A good window function in this approach is one that has small spreads both in time
and frequency. Quantitatively, the uncertainty of a window function is defined as the product of
its variances in time and frequency, and we wish to find a window function with minimal uncertainty. The smaller the uncertainty of a window function is, the more “accurately” the window
probes the content of the signal at different times and frequencies simultaneously. The Heisenberg
uncertainty principal poses a lower bound on the uncertainty of any signal, and a classical result
states that the modulated Gaussians are the optimal window functions, in the sense that they
have minimal uncertainty [14].
There is a conventional generalization of this localization analysis framework to generalized
wavelet transforms. To describe this approach, we first reformulate the localization framework of
the STFT described above, and then perform the conventional abstraction. In the reformulation,
we observe that the STFT is based on a square integrable representation of the Heisenberg group.
We consider two one parameter subgroups, the subgroup of translations defined by π1 (g1 )f (t) =
f (t − g1 ) and the subgroup of modulations defined by π2 (g2 )f (t) = eig2 t f (t), and note that
π(g1 , g2 ) = π2 (g2 )π1 (g1 ) for any transformation parameters (g1 , g2 ) ∈ R2 . Next we obtain the
infinitesimal generators T1 and T2 of these one parameter unitary groups. Namely π1 (g1 ) =
∂
f (t) and
eig1 T1 and π2 (g2 ) = eig2 T2 where the infinitesimal generators are defined by T1 f (t) = i ∂t

2

T2 f (t) = tf (t). To define the localization concepts, we adopt the quantum mechanical notion of
an observable (for more on observables see Subection 1.3).
Definition 1. An observable is a self-adjoint or unitary operator T̆ in H. The expected value
and the variance of a normalized vector f ∈ H with respect to T̆ are defined to be
D
E
ef (T̆ ) = T̆ f, f
(2)
σf (T̆ ) =

respectively.


T̆ − ef (T̆ ) f

2

(3)

When the vector f ∈ H is not normalized, we still use the notations (3). In this case, ef (T̆ )
and σf (T̆ ) are no longer interpreted as expected value and variance.
In our case of the time-frequency localization, the suitable time and frequency observables are
∂
f (t). Indeed, our “probabilistic” concepts of time and
defined by Q̆f (t) = tf (t) and P̆ f (t) = −i ∂t
frequency localizations, defined by e1 , e2 , σ1 and σ2 above, coincide with the quantum mechanical
localization notions ef (Q̆), ef (P̆ ), σf (Q̆) and σf (P̆ ) respectively.
The construction of the general localization framework stems from the observation that the
pair of infinitesimal generators T1 , T2 coincide with the pair of observable P̆ , Q̆ up to sign. Indeed,
the conventional localization analysis framework for generalized wavelet transforms is based on
the following scheme. Consider a signal transform based on a square integrable representation of a
Lie group G, consider a set of linearly independent infinitesimal generators T1 , . . . , Tn of the group
of transformations π(G), and take them as the observables. This approach can be found in the
literature, e.g [1][2], and in papers, e.g [7][6]. The variances of the window function f are defined
to be σf (T1 ), . . . , σf (Tn ). Consider two observables Tk , Tl . The product σf (Tk )σf (Tl ) is called the
uncertainty of f with respect to Tk , Tl . Let us treat the case where Tk , Tl are self-adjoint. The
general uncertainty principle states [11]
σf (Tk )σf (Tl ) ≥

1
h[Tk , Tl ]f, f i2 .
4

(4)

Here, [Tk , Tl ] = Tk Tl − Tl Tk denotes the commutator of Tk and Tl . In order to obtain an optimal window function with respect to σf (Tk ), σf (Tl ), the conventional procedure is to solve the
uncertainty equality
1
2
σf (Tk )σf (Tl ) = |hf, [Tk , Tl ]f i| .
(5)
4
A classical result states that the solution of (5) satisfies (Tk − a)f = ic(Tl − b)f for some a, b, c ∈ R
[11].
In [22] it was indicated that substituting equality in the uncertainty principle instead of inequality, does not lead to a window function with minimal uncertainty in general. Instead, in
order to find a window with minimal uncertainty, one should minimize the uncertainty of f using
variational methods.
Applying the above procedure, with variational methods for the minimization problem instead
of equation (5), leads to uncertainty minimizing window functions. These optimal window functions were never applied in engineering. Indeed the results are quite strange and counter intuitive,
e.g [27]. Our assertion is that the conventional generalization is flawed, in the sense that the
derived localization notions do not correspond to the “metaphysical concept” of localization. An
obvious example follows. Consider the signal transform L2 (R) → L2 (R) based on the one parameter group of time translations π(g)f (t) = f (t − g). Applied to a signal s, the corresponding
transform (1) returns the convolution of the signal with the window function (up to a complex
conjugation and reflection). An obvious choice of an observable is the time observable Q̆: the less
spread in time the window is, the more accurately it probes the signal at different times. But
∂
which coincides
note that the infinitesimal generator of the time translations is the operator i ∂t
up to sign with the frequency observable P̆ . This observable is inadequate for measuring time
localization.
3

In this paper we define new notions of uncertainty for generalized wavelet transforms. We illustrate how our definitions encapsulate the notion of locality, by connecting our notion of uncertainty
to sparsity. Some preliminary results were published in [21].

1.2

Heuristic derivation of the framework

Let us start by discussing the STFT again. Consider a window function f positioned at time and
frequency zero. Namely, ef (Q̆) = ef (P̆ ) = 0. The STFT can be interpreted as a procedure of
measuring the signal content of s at different values of time and frequency (g1 , g2 ). This probing
of s is calculated by the inner product hs, π2 (g2 )π1 (g1 )f i.
Let us set forth some important ingredients that help lead the way to a generalization. First,
there are two underlying physical quantities in the STFT, namely time and frequency. The parameter g1 of π1 corresponds to different values of time. The time values are numbers in R, and they
have a “natural” Lie group structure, namely R with addition. Indeed, time delaying by g1 and
then by g1′ , results in a time delay of g1 + g1′ . Thus we define the physical quantity time as the Lie
group {R, +}. A similar construction holds for frequency. The two Lie groups of physical quantities are accompanied by two maps that represent them as unitary operators. time is accompanied
by π1 that maps each time g1 to the operator that time-translate by g1 . frequency is accompanied
by π2 that maps each frequency value to a modulation. Next, to each physical quantity there
is a corresponding observable, in our case the time observable Q̆ and the frequency observable
P̆ . These observables are tailored to the unitary operators translation and modulation in the
following sense. Using our notion of mean time ef (Q̆), it is easy to verify that time-translating
f by g1 changes the mean time of f by g1 . Namely, eπ1 (g1 )f (Q̆) = ef (Q̆) + g1 , and similarly for
mean frequency eπ2 (g2 )f (P̆ ) = ef (P̆ ) + g2 . Hence the interpretation of π(g1 , g2 ) as an operator
that changes the time and frequency of window functions. The Heisenberg point of view of
quantum mechanics states the following. “Translating a window f by applying a unitary operator
U is equivalent to keeping the window constant and translating the observable by conjugating it
with U ”. More accurately, for unitary U and any T̆
E
D
E
D

= U ∗ T̆ U f, f = ef U ∗ T̆ U
(6)
eUf (T̆ ) = T̆ U f, U f
and

2

T̆ − eUf (T̆ ) U f
D 
E


∗
U U ∗ T̆ − ef U ∗ T̆ U U f, f
= U ∗ T̆ − ef U ∗ T̆ U
D

 E
 
= U ∗ T̆ U − ef U ∗ T̆ U f, U ∗ T̆ U − ef U ∗ T̆ U f = σf U ∗ T̆ U .

σUf (T̆ ) =

(7)
(8)
(9)

In our case, for U = π1 (g1 ) and T̆ = Q̆, it is easy to verify that
π1 (g1 )∗ Q̆π1 (g1 ) = g1 I + Q̆.

(10)

To interpret (10) we turn to notions from spectral theory (for more on spectral theory and
observables see Subsection 1.3). First note that the spectrum of Q̆ is R, which is the set of possible
values of the Lie group of time. The spectrum of an observable corresponds to the set of possible
outcomes of measurements by this observable. In particular ef (Q̆) is always in the convex hall
of the spectrum of Q̆. To interpret the right hand side of (10), note that the spectral family of
projections of Q̆ coincides with the spectral family of projections of Q̆ + g1 I, but the value in the
spectrum to which each spectral projection corresponds is translated by g1 . In the language of
eigenvectors and eigenvalues, which is ill suited in this case but helps illustrate the situation, the
set of eigenvectors of the observable is kept constant but the eigenvalues are translated by g1 . We
interpret the spectral family of projections of an observable as the “physical dimension” of the
observable (to be defined precisely in Subsection 1.3). In Q̆ for example, the spectral family of
4

projections partitions H to subspaces having windows with different time supports. Taking all
of the above into account, (10) is interpreted as follows. Transforming the observable Q̆ by its
corresponding unitary operator π1 (g1 ), is equivalent to keeping the physical dimension of time
intact, while translating the values of time by g1 . Namely, time-translations do not change the
very definition of what time is, but only change the values of time.
Let us add one last note before we generalize. Note that the + sign in the right hand side of
(10) corresponds to the group rule in the Lie group of the physical quantity time. Thus, if we
want to generalize (10) to other Lie groups, with • denoting the group multiplication, (10) should
take the form
π1 (g1 )∗ T̆1 π1 (g1 ) = g1 • T̆1 .
(11)
where g1 is in the Lie group of the physical quantity, π1 is a unitary representation of the physical
quantity and T̆1 is the unknown observable corresponding to π1 . We call (11) the one parameter
canonical commutation relation, and study it in Section 2. Note that in (11) we multiply T̆1 by
a group element using the group multiplication, which may seem ill defined. However, in spectral
theory this operation has a precise meaning. In the next subsection we offer a short discussion on
spectral theory and observables.
In case G is a group with physical quantities as subgroups, and π is a representation, the
canonical commutation relation (11) can be extended to a canonical commutation relation of the
group as a whole, namely
π(g)∗ T̆π1 (g) = g • T̆.
(12)
Here, T̆ is a tuple of observables to be defined in Subsection 3.3. We call (12) the multi-canonical
commutation relation, and study it in Section 3. In Section 4 we show how the uncertainty defined
for the multi-canonical observable T̆ is correlated with the sparsifying capability of the generalized
wavelet transform. For this, we introduce a model for sparse signals in the context of generalized
wavelet transforms. For a sparse signal s, the smaller the uncertainty of a window function f is,
the more Vf [s] is sparse in some sense.

1.3

Observables

In this paper an observable in a separable Hilbert space H is a self-adjoint or unitary operator. We
denote observables with capital letters with a “breve”, e.g T̆ . In the following discussion we show
how to interpret a self-adjoint or unitary operator, which is a mapping of vectors to vectors, as
an entity that defines and measures physical quantities. The interpretation relies on the spectral
theorem.
An observable in an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space H does not admit an eigendecomposition in general. Instead it admits a more subtle notion of spectral decomposition, called
a projection-valued Borel measure, or PVM. This form of spectral decomposition of unitary or
self-adjoint operators is guaranteed by the spectral theorem. We begin by defining a PVM in our
case of unitary or self-adjoint operators.
Definition 2. Let H be a separable (complex) Hilbert space, and S be R or eiR . Let B be the
standard Borel σ-algebra of S, and let P be the set of orthogonal projections in H. A mapping
P : B → P is called a projection valued Borel measure (PVM) if
1. P (S) = I and P (∅) = 0.
2. If {Bn }n∈N is a sequence of pairwise disjoint Borel sets, then for every k 6= j, P (Bk ) and
P (Bj ) are projections to two orthogonal subspaces, and
[
X
P(
Bn ) =
P (Bn ).
n∈N

n∈N

Next we describe how a PVM P : B → P is interpreted as a physical quantity, that we shall
call quantity P . The set S is interpreted as a set of numbers that contains the possible values
5

that quantity P can take. For any Borel set B of values of quantity P , P (B) is interpreted as the
projection upon the subspace Image(P (B)) ⊂ H having windows with values of quantity P in B.
Let us make this interpretation concrete with an example. In H = L2 (R) and S = R, consider the
PVM P that maps every Borel set B to the projection upon the space of functions having support
in B. Namely for any f ∈ L2 (R) and x ∈ R

f (x) if x ∈ B
[P (B)f ](x) =
(13)
0
if x ∈
/ B.
This PVM corresponds to the physical quantity time (or position). Indeed, P (B) projects to the
space of windows with time support in B.
The above notion of a physical quantity based on a PVM is related to the notion of an observable
by the spectral theorem. The theorem states that any self-adjoint or unitary operator corresponds
to a unique PVM (modulu sets of measure 0 in B) and vice versa. Here, we present a “RiemannStieltjes” formulation of the spectral theorem (see e.g [20]).
Theorem 3. Let T̆ be a self-adjoint or unitary operator in the separable Hilbert space H. Let
S = R in case T̆ is self-adjoint, and S = eiR in case T̆ is unitary. Then, there is a PVM, P : S → P
such that
1.
T̆ =

Z

λ dP (λ)

(14)

S

where the integral in (14) is defined as follows. Let x = {x0 , . . . , xn } denote a finite Riemann
partition of S. Let diam(x) denote the maximal diameter of intervals in x. Denote by
[xk , xk+1 ] a general interval in the partition, and by [x0 , xn ] the union of the intervals of x.
We have
n−1
X

T̆ =
lim
xk P [xk , xk+1 )
diam(x) → 0
[x0 , xn ] → S k=0

where the limit is in the strong topology in case T̆ is unbounded (and thus self-adjoint), and
in the operator norm topology otherwise.
2. For S = R, f is in the domain of T̆ if and only if
Z

λ2 d P (−∞, λ] f

2

R

<∞

(15)

where the integral in (15) is the Riemann-Stieltjes integral with respect to the weight function
 2
P (−∞, · ] f : R → R.

Remark 4. (Functional calculus) A smooth function φ : S → C of an observable T̆ is defined to
be the normal operator
Z
(16)
φ(T̆ ) = φ(λ)dP (λ).
S

defined on the domain of vectors f ∈ H satisfying
Z

2
|φ(λ)| d P (−∞, λ] f
R

2

< ∞.

This definition is consistent with polynomials of T̆ in the following sense. If f ∈ H is band-limited,
namely there exists some compact subset B ⊂ S such that f = P (B)f , and if {qn }n∈N is a sequence
of polynomials satisfying
lim kpn − φkL∞ (B) = 0
n→∞

6

then
lim

n→∞

pn (T̆ )f − φ(T̆ )f

H

=0

where pn (T̆ ) is in the sense of compositions, additions, and multiplication by scalars of T̆ , and
φ(T̆ ) is in the sense of (16).
We say that two observables T̆1 , T̆2 , with the same set of values S, are dimensionally equivalent,
if T̆1 = φ(T̆2 ) where φ : S → S is a diffeomorphism (smooth, with smooth inverse). A physical
dimension is an equivalence class of dimensionally equivalent observables. This definition is
intuitive. For example, what makes the time observable an observable of time is its spectral
family of projections, and not the specific value corresponding to each projection.
Returning to (11), the group multiplication of T̆ by λ satisfies
Z
g • T̆ = g • λ dP (λ)
S

R

where T̆ = S λ dP (λ). In other words, transforming the observable by its corresponding operator
keeps the physical dimension intact, and only changes the values of the physical quantity.

2

The one parameter localization framework

2.1

Definition of the framework

We are now ready to introduce our first generalization of uncertainty. We define a physical
quantity as one of the following numerical Lie groups
{R, +} ,

{eiR , ·} ,

{Z, +} ,

{e2πiZ/N , ·} (N ∈ N).

This set of Lie groups exhausts up to isomorphism a set of zero dimensional and one dimensional
Lie groups that satisfy some regularity conditions (abelian and connected one dimensional-locally
compact groups, or cyclic-discrete groups).
The following list summarizes our assumptions on generalized wavelet transforms.
Assumption 5 (Generalized wavelet transform). A generalized wavelet transform is constructed
by, and assumed to satisfy, the following.
1. Consider a tuple of physical quantities G1 , . . . , Gn where Gk is called quantityk . We denote
by the same notation • the group product of each Gk .
2. G is a (manifold) direct product of the manifolds G1 , . . . , Gn (note that G is not a group in
general).
3. We consider a radon measure dg on the manifold G.
4. πk are a strongly continuous unitary (SCU) representations of Gk in the separable Hilbert
space H, k = 1, . . . , n. Namely πk (gk ) is a unitary operator in H and πk (gk • gk′ ) = πk (gk ) ◦
πk (gk′ ) for any gk , gk′ ∈ Gk . Here ◦ is composition.
5. For any g = (g1 , . . . , gk ) ∈ G, we define π(g) = π1 (g1 ) ◦ . . . ◦ πn (gn ) (note that π is not a
group representation in general).
6. There exists a densely defined positive self-adjoint operator A on H, with densely defined
inverse, such that Vf [f ] ∈ L2 (G) if and only if f is in the domain A of A. The domain A,
which is dense in H, is called the space of admissible vectors. In our context we also call A
the window space, and call vectors in A windows.

7

7. Given windows f, h, and signals s, q, the wavelet transform Vf : H → L2 (G) defined by
Vf [s](g) = hs, π(g)f i satisfies
hAh, Af iH hs, qiH = hVf [s], Vh [q]iL2 (G) .
Remark 6.
1. Item 7 in Assumption 5 can be read off as a reconstruction formula. Namely
Z
hAh, Af iH s = Vf [s](g)π(g)h dg

(17)

where the convergence in the definition of the integral is in the weak topology.
2. Vf is also called the analysis operator corresponding to the window f . For a window h,
Vh∗ is called the synthesis operator corresponding to h. For Q ∈ L2 (G), we have
Z
∗
Vh [Q] = Q(g)π(g)hdg
(18)
where the integral is defined in the weak sense as in 1. The reconstruction formula (17) can
be written in the form hAh, Af iH s = Vh∗ Vf [s].
Remark 7. An important class of a generalized wavelet transforms is when G is a locally compact
topological group, dg is the left Haar measure, and π is a square integrable (irreducible) representation. In this case, sections 6 and 7 of Assumption 5 are theorems, and A is called the Duflo-Moore
operator [10][16].
Generalized wavelet transforms based on square integrable representations include the wavelet
and the Shearlet transforms, and the STFT. An important example in which G is not a group,
but Assumption 5 is still satisfied, is the continuous Curvelet transform.
A generalized wavelet transform is interpreted as a procedure of measuring the content of a
signal by probing it at different values of quantity1 , . . . , quantityn . Since our goal is to measure
these values as accurately as possible, we want to define corresponding observables, and notions
of localization.
Definition 8. Let πk be a SCU representation of the physical quantity Gk . An observable T̆k
satisfying the canonical commutation relation
πk (gk )∗ T̆k πk (gk ) = gk • T̆

,

∀gk ∈ Gk

(19)

is called a canonical observable of πk .
To each representation πk from Assumption 5 we define a corresponding canonical observable
T̆k . Once we have the canonical observables, we may define the uncertainty of a window f as
some combination of the variances {σf (T̆k )}nk=1 , and look for an optimal window that minimizes
this uncertainty. For example, in the STFT if we define the uncertainty of a window either as the
product or as the sum of it’s time and frequency variances, the optimal windows in either case are
modulated Gaussians.

2.2

Analysis of the canonical commutation relation

In this subsection we show how to restrict the pair {π, T̆ } to a special case, called a canonical
system. For canonical systems, there is a procedure for solving the canonical commutation relation
(19), given in Subsection 2.3. We motivate the definition of a canonical system using heuristic
arguments on the roles of π and T̆ . Since in both this section and the next we study a single
representation of one physical quantity, we omit subscripts. Namely, we denote the physical
quantity by G, its representation by π and the canonical observalbe by T̆ .
8

First we recall some basic facts from harmonic analysis [19]. A character of an abelian group
K is a homomorphism χ : K → {eiR , ·}. The set of characters of K, denoted by K̂, is an abelian
group with the group rule (χη)(k) = χ(k)η(k) for η, χ ∈ K̂ and k ∈ K, where in the right hand
side the multiplication is in C. The Pontryagin duality states that the group of characters of K̂ is
isomorphic to K. If K is compact then K̂ is discrete and vice-versa.
In our case, the group is a physical quantity G. The following list exhausts the Lie groups of
physical quantities and their Pontryagin duals (up to isomorphism). If G = {R, +} then Ĝ = G,
if G = {eiR , ·} then Ĝ = {Z, +} and vise-versa, and if G = {e2πiZ/N , ·} then Ĝ = G. We assume,
with abuse of notation, that Ĝ is equal to a physical quantity. When we want to treat Ĝ as a
group of characters, we denote it by χ(G).
Let π be a SCU representation of the physical quantity G, and let T̆ be a corresponding
canonical observable. First we characterize the spectrum spec(T̆ ) of T̆ .
Proposition 9. Let π be a SCU representation of the physical quantity G, and let T̆ be a canonical
observable of π. Then
• If G = R or G = eiR , then spec(T̆ ) = G.
• If G = Z or G = e2πiZ/N , then spec(T̆ ) ⊂ R or spec(T̆ ) ⊂ eiR respectively.
Proof. First, the spectrum of any normal operator is non-empty, so there exists λ0 ∈ spec(T̆ )
where λ0 ∈ C. consider the canonical commutation relation
∀g ∈ G.

π(g)∗ T̆ π(g) = g • T̆

On the one hand, note that conjugating any operator
 A with a unitary operator, doesn’t change
the spectrum of A, so spec π(g −1 )T̆ π(g) = spec T̆ . On the other hand, note that



spec(T̆ ) = spec π(g −1 )T̆ π(g) = spec g • T̆ = g • spec T̆ = {g • λ | λ ∈ spec(T̆ )}

This is true for any g ∈ G, so

G • spec(T̆ ) = spec(T̆ ) ,

G • λ0 ⊂ spec(T̆ ).

(20)

As a result of (20), the following list exhausts all of the cases of T̆ and G. Since T̆ is unitary
or self-adjoint, spec(T̆ ) is a subset of eiR or of R respectively. As a result, if G = R or G = Z,
we must have spec(T̆ ) ⊂ R, and if G = eiR or G = e2πiZ/N , we must have spec(T̆ ) ⊂ eiR . In case
G = R or G = eiR , we must have spec(T̆ ) = G.
Since the role of T̆ is to measure quantityG, we further demand the following assumption.
Assumption 10. spec(T̆ ) = G.
Next we show that under Assumption 10, the roles in the canonical commutation relation (19)
of the observable T̆ and the representation π are interchangeable in some sense. To see this we
need to derive an observable from the representation π, and to generate a representation from
the observable T̆ . We start by deriving the observable from π. In case G is one-dimensional,
by Stone’s theorem on one parameter unitary groups, there is a self-adjoint generator T of the
unitary π(G) [28]. Namely, every element of π(G) can be written as eitT , where t ∈ R. In case
G is zero-dimensional, there is an element T ∈ π(G) that generates π(G). Namely, every element
of π(G) can be written as T n , where n ∈ Z. Now, the idea is that the canonical observable T̆
can be treated as a generator of a unitary group π̆(Ĝ), which can be treated as a representation
of the physical quantity Ĝ, whereas the generator T of the unitary group π(G) can be taken as a
canonical observable of π̆(ĝ).
We show the construction for the case of G = {Z, +}. The other cases are treated similarly.
Define T := π(−1), and note that T generates the unitary group π(G).
Claim 11. T eiqT̆ = eiq(T̆ +I) T .
9

Proof. The canonical commutation relation reads
T g T̆ T −g = π(g)∗ T̆ π(g) = T̆ + gI

,

g ∈ Z.

By taking g = 1 we have
T T̆ = (T̆ + I)T.
Thus by induction
T T̆ k = (T̆ + I)k T.

(21)

The idea now is to use the series expansion of the exponential map and to substitute (21) term
by term to get
∞
X


(iq)k
T̆ k =
(T̆ + I)k T = eiq(T̆ +I) T.
k!
k!

∞
X
(iq)k

T eiqT̆ = T

k=0

(22)

k=0

To make this formal, we need a density argument. Following Remark 4, we consider the space of
band-limited signals Hbl with respect to T̆ . By Remark 4, for band-limited vectors we have
lim

K→∞

K
X
(iq)k

k=0

k!

T̆ k f = eiqT̆ f.

(23)

By the unitarity of T and by
K
X
(iq)k

T

k=0

equation (23) shows that

K
X


(iq)k
T̆ k =
(T̆ + I)k T
k!
k!
k=0

(iq)k
k
iqT̆ ∗
T y for any y
k! (T̆ + I) y converges to T e
PK (iq)k
k
iq(T̆ +I)
series
k=0 k! (T̆ + I) y also converges to e
iqT̆ ∗
iq(T̆ +I)

PK

k=0

subspace T Hbl . Since the
subspace Hbl , by continuity of T e

T and e

in the dense
in the dense

we must have

T eiqT̆ T ∗ f = eiq(T̆ +I) f
For any f ∈ H.
Let us now define π̆ and show the canonical commutation relation for our case of G = {Z, +}.
By Claim 11 and since I commutes with every operator, we have
T eiqT̆ = eiq(T̆ +I) T = eiq eiqT̆ T.

(24)

Consider the mapping {R, +} → U(H), q 7→ eiqT̆ . By Assumption 10, spec(T̆ ) = Z, so by Remark
4, eiqT̆ = ei(q+2π)T̆ for every q ∈ R. Thus we define
π̆ : {eiR , ·} → U(H)

,

π̆(eiq ) = eiqT̆

and note that π̆ is a SCU representation of Ĝ. To conclude, (24) can now be written as
∀eiq ∈ Ĝ. π̆(eiq )∗ T π̆(eiq ) = eiq • T.
Let us now study the spectrum of T in the general case. In the case where G is one dimensional,
by Proposition 9, spec(T ) = Ĝ. For the other cases we adopt an assumption
Assumption 12. spec(T ) = Ĝ.
We summarize our construction and assumptions in the following definition.

10

Definition 13. {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆, T̆ } is called a canonical system, if π and π̆ are representations of
the physical quantities G and Ĝ respectively, T and T̆ are generators (or infinitesimal generators)
of π(G) and π̆(Ĝ) respectively satisfying spec(T̆ ) = G and spec(T ) = Ĝ, and T̆ is a canonical
observable of π.
Note that the representations in a canonical system must be faithful. Otherwise, if for g 6= e
in G we have π(g) = I, then
T̆ = π(g)∗ T̆ π(g) = g • T̆

which is a contradiction, since the mapping g ′ 7→ g • g ′ has no fixed points. This is also true for
π̆. To conculde the above results, the following list exhausts all possibilities of canonical systems.
Proposition 14. Let {G, π, T, π̆, T̆ } be a canonical system. Then
1. If G = {R, +}: Ĝ = G. T and T̆ are self-adjoint with spec(T ) = spec(T̆ ) = R. π(g) = eigT
and π̆(q) = eiqT̆ are SCU faithful representations of {R, +}. Here, g denotes elements of G
and q denotes elements of Ĝ.
2. If G = {eiR , ·}: Ĝ = {Z, +}. T is self-adjoint with spec(T ) = Z and T̆ is unitary with
spec(T ) = eiR . π(eiθ ) = eiθT is a SCU faithful representation of {eiR , ·}, and π̆(n) = T̆ n is
a SCU faithful representation of {Z, +}. Here, eiθ with θ ∈ [0, 2π) denotes elements of G
and n denotes elements of Ĝ.
3. If G = {Z, +}: Ĝ = {eiR , ·}. The rest is as in case (2), with the roles of T, π and T̆ , π̆
interchanged.
4. If G = {e2πiZ/N , ·}, (N ∈ N): Ĝ = G. T and T̆ are unitary with spec(T ) = spec(T̆ ) =
2πi
2πi
e2πiZ/N , and π(e N n ) = T n and π̆(e N m ) = T̆ m are SCU faithful representations of {e2πiZ/N , ·}.
2πi
2πi
Here, e N n ,e N m with n, m ∈ (Z mod N ) denote elements of G and Ĝ respectively.

2.3

Solving the canonical commutation relation

In this subsection we present a general procedure for finding a canonical observalbe for a given
representation of a physical quantity. The construction is guaranteed under the assumption that
{G, π} are members of a canonical system. We base our construction on the the Stone-von
Neumann-Mackey theorem [24], and give a restricted version of the theorem for abelian groups,
the proof of which can be found in [25].
Let us first recall the definition of generalized Heisenberg groups (see e.g [25]). Let K be a
locally compact abelian Lie group, and let χ(K) be its dual group of characters. Consider the
following unitary operators on L2 (K) (where the Haar measure is used to define the inner product).
Generalized left translation operators:
L(k)f (t) = f (k −1 • t) ,

k∈K

and generalized modulation operators:
M (χ)f (t) = χ(t)f (t)

,

χ ∈ χ(K).

These operators satisfy the commutation relation
[L(k), M (χ)] = L(k)∗ M (χ)∗ L(k)M (χ) = χ(k)I.

(25)

Thus, the following set of unitary operators is a Lie group of operators on L2 (K), called the
Heisenberg group associated with K
J = {e2πit L(k)M (χ) | t ∈ [ 0, 1) , k ∈ K, χ ∈ χ(K)}.
As a unitary group, J has a natural representation on L2 (K), namely γ(h) = h for any h ∈ J. We
denote elements of J in coordinates by (t, k, ĝ), where ĝ ∈ Ĝ ∼
= χ(G).
11

Theorem 15 (Stone - von Neumann - Mackey).
1. The representation γ is irreducible. Namely, L2 (K) has no non-trivial proper closed subspace
invariant under J.
2. Let H be a Hilbert space and ρ an irreducible SCU representation of J in H, such that
ρ(e2πit I) = e2πit I for all t ∈ [ 0, 1) . Then ρ is unitarily equivalent to γ. Namely, there exists
a unique (up to a constant) isometric isomorphism U : H → L2 (K) satisfying
U ρ(h)U ∗ = γ(h)

for any h ∈ J.

,

(26)

3. In case ρ from 2 is reducible, there exists an orthogonal sum decomposition of Hilbert spaces
M
H=
Hn
n∈κ

where κ is a finite or countable index set, such that each Hn is invariant under ρ(J), and
ρ is irreducible in Hn . For each n ∈ κ there exists a unique (up to a constant) isometric
isomorphism Un : Hn → L2 (K) satisfying
Un ρ(h)|Hn Un∗ = γ(h)

,

for any h ∈ J

(27)

where ρ(h)|Hn is the restriction of ρ to Hn .
Next we formulate a uniqueness property of the decomposition in 3 of Theorem 15. It’s proof
relies on the notion of direct integral decomposition of representations. Since this is the only part
in the paper in which we use direct integrals, in the Appendix we only give restricted definitions,
limited to our specific needs. For a general exposition we refer the reader to Chapter 3.4 of [12].
Given a representation ρ(g) of H, and N ∈ N ∪ {∞}, we denote by HN the direct product of H
with itself N times, if N is finite, and define HN to be the space of square summable H sequences
N
by
if N = ∞. We denote by ρ(g)[N ] the representation in HN defined for {fn }N
n=1 ∈ H
N
ρ(g)[N ] {fn }N
n=1 = {ρ(g)fn }n=1 .

Proposition 16. Consider two representations ρ and ρ′ in the same Hilbert space H, satisfying
3 of Theorem 15, for a physical quantity K. Denote by ρ|K and ρ′ |K the restrictions of the
representations ρ and ρ′ to the subgroup of translations K of J respectively, and assume ρ|K = ρ′ |K .
Let κ and κ′ be the index sets from 3 of Theorem 15, corresponding to ρ and ρ′ respectively. Then
κ and κ′ are of the same size.
Proof. By 3 of Theorem 15, ρ and ρ′ are equivalent to the two direct product representations γ [κ]
′
′
(acting on L2 (K)|κ| ) and γ [κ ] (acting on L2 (K)|κ | ) respectively. By (168), the representation γ
restricted to K, γ|K , has the direct integral decomposition
γ|K (k) ∼
=
So
ρ|K (k) ∼
=

Z

⊕

χ[κ] dµ(χ)

⊕

Z

χ[1] dµ(χ).

K̂

,

K̂

ρ′ |K (k) ∼
=

Z

⊕

′

χ[κ ] dµ(χ)

K̂

By Proposition 56, the multiplicities in a direct integral decomposition are unique. Therefore,
since ρ|K (k) = ρ′ |K (k), we must have |κ| = |κ′ |.
To bridge the gap between our theory and the Stone - von Neumann - Mackey theorem, we
define a representation of Heisenberg groups corresponding to canonical systems.

12

Definition 17. Let {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆, T̆ } be a canonical system, and let J be the Heisenberg group
assosiated with G. The mapping Π : J → U(H), defined by
Π(t, g, ĝ) = e2πit π(g)π̆(ĝ),

t ∈ [0, 1) , g ∈ G, ĝ ∈ Ĝ.

(28)

is called the Schrödinger representation of the canonical system {G, π, T, π̆, T̆ }.
The following proposition shows that Schrödinger representations are representations of J.
Proposition 18. Let {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆, T̆ } be a canonical system. Then there exists an isomorphism
Ĝ → χ(G)

,

ĝ 7→ χĝ

such that
π(g)∗ π̆(ĝ)∗ π(g)π̆(ĝ) = χĝ (g)I.

(29)

Proof. Let us treat the case where G = Ĝ = R. The other cases are treated similarly.
k
∀k ∈ Z+ . π(g)∗ T̆ k π(g) = π(g)∗ T̆ π(g) = (T̆ + g)k ,

so by the series expantion of the exponential map (and using a density argument as before) hg
π(g)∗ π̆(ĝ)π(g) = eiq(T̆ +g) = eigĝ π̆(ĝ).
Therefore
π(g)∗ π̆(ĝ)π(g)π̆(ĝ)∗ = eigĝ I.
By substituting ĝ 7→ −ĝ, we get
π(g)∗ π̆(ĝ)∗ π(g)π̆(ĝ) = eigĝ I,
and the corresponding mapping is ĝ 7→ χĝ where χĝ (g) = eigĝ .
By Proposition 18, the Schrödinger representation Π is a representation of J satisfying the
conditions in the Stone - von Neumann - Mackey theorem (Theorem 15). Thus we have the
following corollary.
Corollary 19. Let {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆, T̆ } be a canonical system, with Schrödinger representation Π.
Then there exists an orthogonal sum decomposition of Hilbert spaces
M
H=
Hn
n∈κ

such that each Hn is invariant under Π. Moreover, in every Hn , Π(g)|Hn is unitarily equivalent
to γ(g) (where γ(g) is the natural representation of the Heisenberg group of G in L2 (G)). Namely,
there exist unique isometric isomorphisms Un : Hn → L2 (G) such that
∀g ∈ G.

Un Π(g)|Hn Un∗ = γ(g).

To construct a canonical observable for a given π, we assume that there exists a canonical
system containing {G, π}. First let us assume that the corresponding Π is an irreducible representation of J. Corollary 19 can be utilized as follows. Given π, G, we first construct an isometric
isomorphism U : H → L2 (G) such that
U π(g)U ∗ = L(g)

(30)

for any g ∈ G. A solution of (30) is guaranteed to exist. Consider the multiplicative operator in
L2 (G),
Q̆G f (g) = gf (g),
(31)
13

where the multiplication in (31) is the usual arithmetic multiplication. It is straightforward to
show that Q̆G is a canonical observable of L(g) in L2 (G). Now, we can pull back the canonical
observable Q̆G to H using U . Namely,
T̆ = U ∗ Q̆G U

(32)

is a canonical observable of π. Indeed,
π(g)∗ T̆ π(g) = π(g)∗ U ∗ Q̆G U π(g)
= U ∗ L(g)∗ Q̆G L(g)U = U ∗ g • Q̆G U = g • U ∗ Q̆G U = g • T̆ .
where the operation “g • (·)” commutes with unitary operators since it is either the multiplication
by the scalar g, or the addition with the scalar operator gI.
The following proposition extends this analysis to the reducible case.
Proposition 20. Let π be a SCU representation of G, such that there exists a canonical system
containing {G, π}. Then there exists an
L index set κ of size uniquely defined by π, a decomposition
of H to invariant subspaces of π(g),
n∈κ Hn , and a sequence of isometric isomorphisms {Un :
Hn → L2 (G)}n∈κ , such that
(33)
Un π(g)|Hn Un∗ = L(g)
L
for any g ∈ G. Moreover, for any decomposition H = n∈κ Hn and {Un : Hn → L2 (G)}n∈κ that
satisfies the above,
1. The operator
T̆n = Un∗ Q̆G Un

(34)

is a canonical observable of π(g)|Hn .
L
2. T̆ = n∈κ T̆n is a canonical observable of π(g).

Note that the uniqueness of |κ| in Proposition
L 20 follows Proposition 16.
In practice, finding the decomposition H = n∈κ Hn , given a representation π, may seem like a
convoluted task. Indeed, this decomposition only makes sense in view of the unknown observables
T̆n , since it is a decomposition to irreducible subspaces of the Schrödinger representation. In the
following discussion we formulate a more accessible version of Proposition 20.
Under the assumptions of Proposition 20, define the isometric isomorphism
M
U : H → L2 (G)|κ| , U =
Un .
(35)
n∈κ

Consider the left translation L(g)[κ] : L2 (G)|κ| → L2 (G)|κ| . Consider the multiplicative operator
[κ]
Q̆G : L2 (G)|κ| → L2 (G)|κ| defined by
[κ]

Q̆G {Fn (g)}n∈κ = {gFn (g)}n∈κ .
[κ]

Proposition 20 states that U intertwines π and L(g)[κm ] , and T̆ = U ∗ Q̆G U . Note that in this
construction, the space L2 (G)|κ| is isomorphic to the space L2 (X) = L2 (G × Y), where Y is the
standard discrete measure space {n}n∈κ. Under this isomorphism, the left translation L(g)[κ]
takes the following form in L2 (X). For any h ∈ L2 (X),
LX (g)h(g ′ , y) = h(g −1 • g ′ , y).
[κ]

Moreover, the observable Q̆G takes the form Q̆X h(g, y) = gh(g, y) in L2 (X). Motivated by
this observation, another technique for constructing a canonical multi-observable for a SPWT is
explained next. First, find an isometric isomorphisms Ψ : H → L2 (G × Y), where Y is some
14

manifold with Radon measure, and Ψ maps π(g) to translations LX (g). Then, consider the
multiplicative operator Q̆X : L2 (X) → L2 (X) defined by
Q̆X h(g, y) = gh(g, y).
Last, define the canonical observable of π to be T̆ = Ψ∗ Q̆X Ψ. This construction guarantees the
canonical commutation relations (19). When π is a representation of quantityG , we call Ψ the
quantityG transform, and call L2 (X) the quantityG domain. We summarize this discussion
in a theorem.
Theorem 21. Let {G, π} be members of a canonical system. Then there exists a manifold Y with
a Radon measure, where for X = G×Y there exists an isometric isomorphism Ψ : H → L2 (X) (the
quantityG transform) that intertwines π with translations along G. Namely, π(g) = Ψ∗ LX (g)Ψ.
For any such transform Ψ, the observable T̆ = Ψ∗ Q̆X Ψ is a canonical observable of π.
Remark 22. In the analysis preceding Theorem 21, it was shown that there exists a discrete
manifold Y corresponding to Theorem 21. In practice, it is beneficial to consider also non-discrete
manifolds Y. We illustrate how a non-discrete manifold can be constructed
in the framework of
L
∼
H
Theorem 21 in the following exmample. In case κ = N, we have
= L2 (G × N). It is
n
n∈N
2
2
possible to map L (G × N) to L (G × R) (with an isometric isomorphism), by using the fact that
the space L2 (N) = l2 is isometrically isomorphic to L2 (R) via an orthogonal basis expansion. In
this construction, we consider an orthogonal basis {ηn }n∈N ⊂ L2 (R), and consider the isometric
isomorphism
X
W : L2 (G × N) → L2 (G × R), , W {fn }n∈N =
fn ⊗ ηn
n∈N

where [fn ⊗ ηn ](g, y) = fn (g)ηn (y). The quantityG transform is then related to Proposition 20 by
Ψ = W ◦ U , where U is defined in (35).
Using non-discrete Y spaces simplify the construction in the Curvelet transform and the Shearlet transforms of Subsections 2.5.3 and 3.7.1.

2.4

Characterization of the set of canonical observables

Note that for a representation π, a canonical representation containing {G, π} is not uniquely
defined. Therefore, a canonical observable is not uniquely defined for a given π. The following
theorem characterizes the set of all possible canonical observables of a given representation of a
physical quantity.
Proposition 23. Consider a canonical system {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆, T̆ }, represented in H. Let T̆ be the
set of observables T̆ ′ in H that belong to some other canonical system of the form {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆ ′ , T̆ ′ }.
Then
T̆ = {U ∗ T̆ U | U ∈ U(H) commutes with T }.
Note that U commutes with T if and only if U commutes with π(g) for any g ∈ G.
Proof. For the first direction, if U commutes with π(g) for any g ∈ G, then
π(g)∗ U ∗ T̆ U π(g) = U ∗ π(g)∗ T̆ π(g)U = U ∗ g • T̆ U = g • U ∗ T̆ U
For the other direction, denote by {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆, T̆ } the given canonical system, and by Π the
corresponding Schrödinger representation. Let T̆ ′ be another canonical observable with canonical
system {G, π, T, Ĝ, π̆ ′ , T̆ ′ } and Schrödinger representation Π′ . By Corollary 19 and by Proposition
16, there are two orthogonal sum decomposition of H
M
M
H=
Hn =
Hn′
n∈κ

n∈κ

15

with the same index set κ, and sequences of isometric isomorphisms Wn , Wn′ such that
Wn Π(h)|Hn Wn∗ = γ(h) ,

Wn′ Π′ (h)|H′n Wn′∗ = γ(h)

for any h ∈ J. Thus, for any n
Π′ (h)|H′n = Wn′∗ Wn Π(h)|Hn Wn∗ Wn′

for any h ∈ J.

(36)

Here Wn′∗ Wn are isometric isomorphisms Hn → Hn′ . Note that for g in the subgroup G ⊂ J, we
have Π(g) = Π′ (g) = π(g). Thus, restricting (36) to the subgroup G, we get
for any g ∈ G
π(g)|H′n = Wn′∗ Wn π(g)|Hn Wn∗ Wn′
L
Consider the unitary operator U = n∈κ Wn′∗ Wn . We have
π(g) = U π(g)U ∗

for any g ∈ G

so U commutes with π. Moreover, restricting (36) to the subgroup Ĝ ⊂ J and using U , we get
π̆ ′ (g) = U π̆(g)U ∗

for any g ∈ Ĝ.

This identity holds for the generators as well, and we have T̆ ′ = U T̆ U ∗ .

2.5

Examples

We present three examples of our localization theory. First, the finite STFT (FSTFT) is a version
of the STFT used in numerical applications. A standard approach for window design for FSTFT
is to consider an optimal window for the continuous STFT, namely a Gaussian, and to discretize
it to obtain a window of the finite STFT. Instead, in our approach we formulate the localization
framework directly in the finite dimensional signal space. The second example is the 1D wavelet
transform, and is given to motivate the construction in Section 3. Last, we give a localization
framework for the Curvelet transform.
2.5.1

The finite short time Fourier tansform

Consider the Heisenberg group J corresponding to G = {e2πiZ/N , ·} (see e.g [13]). We call G time,
and Ĝ f requency. We call the center of J, which is isomorphic to {eiR , ·} phase. Let H = L2 (G).
Consider the subgroup J ′ of J having phase in {e2πiZ/N , ·}, called reduced phase. We call J ′
the (classical) finite Heisenberg group. The group J ′ is isomorphic to the semi-direct product
(reduced phase × time) ⋊ f requency. Consider the canonical SCU faithful representation of J ′ in
H
π(z, g, q) = zπ1 (g)π2 (q) , z, g1 , g2 ∈ e2πiZ/N
where π1 (g1 )f (x) = f (g1−1 x), π2 (g2 )f (x) = χg2 (x)f (x). Here

χe2πim/N (e2πik/N ) = e2πimk/N ,
where e2πim/N , e2πik/N ∈ e2πiZ/N are generic elements. The representation π is irreducible. By
the fact that J ′ is unimodular, the space of admissible functions is L2 (G), and A = I (see e.g [12]
Theorem 2.25, and Assumption 5 for square integrable representations).
The natural choices for canonical time and frequency observables are
Q̆f (x) = xf (x)

,

P̆ f (x) = f (e2πi/N x).

Note that F [P̆ f ](ω) = Q̆fˆ(ω) = ω fˆ(ω). We define the uncertainty
S(f ) = w1 σf (Q̆) + w2 σf (P̆ )
where w1 , w2 ∈ R+ are weights.
16

(37)

2.5.2

The 1D wavelet transform

The 1D wavelet transform comprises dilations and time translations of a window in L2 (R). In
this section we recall the canonical observables developed in [21]. Positive dilations and time
tanslations are defined by
π1 (g1 )f (t) = f (t − g1 )
(38)

−g2 /2
−g2
(39)
π2 (g2 )f (t) = e
f e t

for g1 ∈ G1 = R and g2 ∈ G2 = R. To include also negative dilations, we introduce the reflection
physical quantity G2 = {−1, 1} with representation π3 (g3 )f (x) = f (g3 x). Note that often the
wavelet transform is defined only with positive dilations, in which case it is not based on a direct
sum of two irreducible representation. The group
G = (time translations) ⋊ (positive dilations × ref lections) = R ⋊ (R × {−1, 1})

is the 1D affine group, represented by π(g) = π1 (g1 )π2 (g2 )π3 (g3 ) in the 1D wavelet transform.
The representation π is square integrable (and specifically irreducible) in L2 (R). The Duflo-Moore
operator A in L2 (R) is given by
1
[F Af ](ω) = √ fˆ(ω) ,
ω
and the space of admissible functions is

A = f ∈ L2 (R)

Z

∞

−∞


2
1 ˆ
f (ω) dω ≤ ∞ .
ω

Let us introduce canonical observalbes. The canonical observable for π3 can be chosen to
be F [T̆3 f ](ω) = sign(ω)[F f ](ω). A perfectly localized window f with respect to T̆3 is one with
support of fˆ in R+ or R− . Since T̆3 measures the “weight of the support of fˆ in R± ”, and since
functions with frequency support in R± correspond to time signals with counterclockwise and
clockwise phase respectively, we call T̆3 the phase direction observable. A natural choice for the
canonical observable T̆1 is the time observable T̆1 f (t) = tf (t). Next, it is accustomed to call the
physical quantity represented by dilations scale. In [21] a scale canonical observable T̆2 was defined
by
F T̆2 F ∗ fˆ(ω) = − ln(|ω|)fˆ(ω).
(40)
Note that this choice of T̆2 is plausible from a physical point of view. Scale is related to wavelength,
so a multiplication operator in the frequency domain is a suitable choice.
Next we show that our definition of T̆2 is based on a canonical system. The isometric isomorphism of Proposition 20 is constructed as follows. The invariant subspaces of Proposition 20
are
L2± (R) = {f ∈ L2 (R) | support(fˆ) ⊂ R± },

where L2 (R) = L2+ (R) ⊕ L2− (R). Consider the two warping transforms W± : L2± (R) → L2 (R)
defined by
(41)
f˜± (c) = [W± fˆ](c) = e−c/2 fˆ(±e−c ).
−1
The inverse warping transforms W±
: L2 (R) → L2± (R) are given by
1

L2± (R) ∋ fˆ± (ω) = [W −1 f˜± ](±ω) = |ω|− 2 f˜± (− ln(|ω|)).
Define the positive and negative scale transforms by
U± : L2± (R) 7→ L2 (R)

,

U± = WF ,

and define the scale transform, that maps functions in the time domain to the scale domain by
U : L2 (R) → L2 (R)2
17

,

U = U+ ⊕ U− .

Define the standard observable in the scale domain
Q̆[2] : L2 (R)2 → L2 (R)2

,

Q̆[2] (f˜+ (c), f˜− (c)) = (cf˜+ (c), cf˜− (c)).

It is now straight forward to show that T̆2 = U ∗ Q̆[2] U .
Remark 24. Let us explain our choice of the physical quantity G2 . It is possible to define the
wavelet transform using dilations defined by
−1

π2′ (g2 )f (x) = g2 2 f (g2−1 x)
for g2′ in the group G′2 = {R+ , ·}. A canonical scale observable T̆ ′ in this case can be defined by
F T̆2′ F −1 fˆ(ω) = ω −1 fˆ(ω). Indeed, by F π2′ (g2 )F −1 fˆ = π2′ (g2−1 )fˆ, we have


1

 ′
F π2 (g2 )∗ T̆2′ π2′ (g2 )F −1 fˆ (ω) =F π2′ (g2 )∗ F −1 ω −1 g22 fˆ(g2 ω)
(42)


=g2 ω −1 fˆ(ω) = F g2 • T̆2′ F −1 fˆ (ω).

However, this construction is not based on a canonical system. For canonical systems, using
Proposition 20, the discussion can be pulled forwards to L2 (G2 )2 , where the canonical observable
is defined as Q̆[2] . Intuitively, it is sensible to define the integral over G2 in the calculation of the
expected values and variances, using the Haar measure of G2 . To see this, for f˜ ∈ L2 (G2 )2 , we
think of |f˜(g2 )|2 as the signal content at scale g2 , we think of ef˜(Q̆[2] ) as the center of mass of
scales, and think of σf˜(Q̆[2] ) as the spread about the center of mass. Defining ef˜(Q̆[2] ) and σf˜(Q̆[2] )
using the Haar measure of L2 (G2 )2 assures that the integral has the interpretation of a sum, or
a weighted average, over the group G2 . If we use T̆2′ as a canonical observable, the integration in
ef (T̆2′ ) and σf (T̆2′ ) is not based on the Haar measure.
The following list collects some translation laws of the observables T̆1 and T̆2 .
eπ1 (g1 )f (T̆2 ) = ef (T̆2 )

(43)

σπ1 (g1 )f (T̆2 ) = σf (T̆2 )

(44)

eπ2 (g2 )f (T̆1 ) = eg2 ef (T̆1 )

(45)

σπ2 (g2 )f (T̆1 ) = e

2g2

σf (T̆1 )

(46)

If we ignore the less important phase direction observable, the uncertainty S(f ) of a mother
wavelet f is defined as the sum or the product of σf (T˘1 ), σf (T˘2 ). Next we recall an asymptotic
minimizer of S, namely a sequence of windows fn with uncertainty converging to zero as n → ∞
[21]. The construction is as follows:
• Choose a two times differentiable bump function fˆ(ω) supported in (0, 1). An example is a
cubic B-spline
• Choose κ(n) such that n = o(κ(n)). Example: κ(n) = n2 .
• Define fn by



ω − κ(n)
1
fˆn (ω) = √ fˆ
n
n

(47)

and normalize to kfn k = 1.
The following proposition holds:
Proposition 25. The function system fn satisfies
n→∞

(48)

n→∞

(49)

σfn (T̆1 ) −→ 0

efn (T̆1 ) = 0
n→∞

σfn (T̆2 ) −→ 0.

efn (T̆2 ) −→ −∞
18

We draw the following qualitative conclusion from this example: the smaller the scale of a
window is, the more simultaneous time-scale localization is possible.
Here, we want to discuss the shortcomings and limitations of the 1D wavelet uncertainty S(f )
as defined above. Note that for large n, efn (T̆2 ) is large and negative, so fn measures small scales.
The measurements of “macroscopic” scales in the wavelet transform with the mother wavelet fn
is performed using π2 (g2 )fn with large g2 . Note that for measuring macroscopic scales we use
g2 → ∞ as n → ∞, and in this case σπ2 (g2 )fn (T̆1 ) → ∞. Moreover, σπ2 (g2 )fn (T̆2 ) stays constant,
so the uncertainty in measuring macroscopic scales of signals using fn tends to infinity as n → ∞.
To conclude, fn with large n is a bad mother wavelet for measuring signals having macroscopic
scales.
Let us explain the reason for this bad result. When we construct a wavelet transform we choose
a mother wavelet f , and take the inner product of the signal s with the set {π(g)f | g ∈ G}, called
the orbit of f . For any other mother wavelet of the form π(g ′ )f , where g ′ ∈ G, the wavelet
transform is the same up to a right translation in the domain G. Indeed
Vπ(g′ )f [s](g) = hs, π(g)π(g ′ )f i = Vf [s](g • g ′ ).
Thus, when analyzing a wavelet transform, the object of interest is not the mother wavelet itself,
but the orbit of the mother wavelet. The standard uncertainty S(f ) = σf (T̆1 )σf (T̆2 ) (or σf (T̆1 ) +
σf (T̆2 )) is a measure of the uncertainty of an individual window f , and it is not invariant under the
group action of π on f . Hence, it is not suitable as an uncertainty measure of a wavelet transform
as a whole. In Section 3 we present a generalization of the time-frequency Heisenberg uncertainty
to generalized wavelets, that encapsulates the global uncertainty of the orbit of a window. Such a
quantity captures the uncertainty in measuring physical quantities with the signal transform as a
whole.
2.5.3

The Curevelet transform

In this subsection boldface lower case letters, e.g x, denote vectors in R2 . The Curvelet transform
comprises translations, rotations, and anisotropic dilations of a window in L2 (R2 ) [5]. Translation
by g1 ∈ R × R is defined as usual by π1 (g1 )f (x) = f (x − g1 ). Consider the rotation matrix
operator, with g2 ∈ eiR ,


Re(g2 ) Im(g2 )
Rg2 =
.
−Im(g2 ) Re(g2 )
Rotaton by g2 ∈ R of L2 (R2 ) functions is defined by
x).
π2 (g2 )f (x) = f (Rg−1
2
Consider the anisotropic dilation matrix operator, with g3 ∈ R,

 g3
0
e
.
Dg3 =
1
0 e 2 g3
Anisotropic dilation by g3 ∈ R of L2 (R2 ) functions is defined by
3

π3 (g3 )f (x) = e− 4 g3 f (Dg−1
x).
3
Last, reflections by g4 ∈ {−1, 1} are represented by
π4 (g4 )f (x) = g4 f (x).
The Curvelet transform is based on the operators
π(g) = π1 (g1 )π2 (g2 )π3 (g3 )π4 (g4 ).

19

To construct canonical observables, we transform the discussion to the frequency domain. We
have
π̂1 (g1 )fˆ(ω) := F π1 (g1 )F −1 fˆ(ω) = e−iω·g1 fˆ(ω).

To derive π̂2 and π̂3 , note that for a general invertible matrix B ∈ R2×2 ,
ZZ
e−2πiω·x f (Bx)dx
[F f (Bx)](ω) =
2
R
ZZ
−1
=J(B)−1
e−2πiω·B x f (x)dx = J(B)−1 fˆ(B −T ω),

(50)
(51)

R2

where J(B) is the Jacobian of B, and B −T is the transpose of B −1 . Therefore,
π̂2 (g2 )fˆ(ω) := F π2 (g2 )F −1 fˆ(ω) = fˆ(Rg2 ω)
3
π̂3 (g3 )fˆ(ω) := F π3 (g3 )F −1 fˆ(ω) = e 4 g3 fˆ(Dg3 ω)

Let us define the canonical observables directly in the frequency domain. For translation, the
natural definition is the position observable

∂ ˆ
∂ ˆ 
T̆11 fˆ(ω), T̆12 fˆ(ω) = i
f (ω), i
f (ω) .
∂ω1
∂ω2

For rotations define the angle observable

T̆2 fˆ(ω) = Arg(ω)fˆ(ω),
where Arg : R2 → C is defined by Arg(ω1 , ω2 ) = eiθ for θ satisfying (ω1 + iω2 ) = |ω1 + iω2 | eiθ .
For dilations, define the anisotropic scale observable by the arithemetic average of scales along the
axis,

1
T̆3 fˆ(ω) = − ln(|ω1 |) − ln(|ω2 |) fˆ(ω),
2
which is equal to the geometric average

1
T̆3 fˆ(ω) = − ln(|ω1 | 2 |ω2 |) fˆ(ω).

(52)

As before, we define the uncertainty by


S(f ) = w1 σf (T̆11 ) + σf (T̆12 ) + w2 σf (T̆2 ) + w3 σf (T̆3 ),

for some choice of weights w1 , w2 , w3 > 0.
Last we introduce the angle transform and the anisotropic scale transform, as described in
Theorem 21. The angle transform Θ : L2 (R2 ) → L2 (eiR × R+ ) is defined to be
[Θf ](g2 , r) = fˆ(rRe(g2 ), rIm(g2 )).
Note that Θ intertwines rotations with translations along the G2 axis.
the
For 1/2
 anisotropic scale transform, note that anisotropic1 dilations keep the variable q =
|ω1 |
ln |ω2 |
constant, and translates the variable g2 = − ln(|ω1 | 2 |ω2 |). Inverting this gives
ω1 = ±eq e−g3

,

1

1

ω2 = ±e− 2 q e− 2 g3 .

This leads to the following construction of the anisotropic scale transform. Consider the four
subspaces of L2 (R2 ) with frequency supports in each of the four quadrants of R2
L2n (R2 ) = {fˆ ∈ L2 (R) | support(fˆ) ⊂ R± × R± },
20

and n = 1, . . . , 4 is some ordering of the quadrants. Consider the four anisotropic warping transforms Wn : L2n (R2 ) → L2 (R2 ), n = 1, . . . , 4, defined by
1
1
3
1
[Wn fˆ](g3 , q) = e 4 q e− 4 g3 fˆ(±eq e−g3 , ±e− 2 q e− 2 g3 ).

(53)

Let us define
W=

4
M
n=1

Wn : L2 (R2 ) → L2 (R2 )4

,

[W fˆ](g3 , q; n) = [Wn fˆ](g3 , q).

We define the anisotropic scale transform by C = WF , and call L2 (R2 )4 the anisotropic scale
domain. Note that C intertwines anisotropic dilations with translations along the G3 axis.

3

The global localization framework

In this section we construct a framework for defining all of the canonical observables of a generalized
wavelet transform “at once”. This framework is a special case of the one parameter localization
framework. In this global framework, it is possible to define variances that are constant on orbits.
For motivation, we start with the example of the 1D wavelet transform. This transform is based
on the affine group, which has a semidirect product structure.

3.1

Semidirect products

A group G is called a semidirect product of a normal subgroup N ⊳ G and a subgroup H ⊂ G,
if G = N H and N ∩ H = {e}. This is denoted by G = N ⋊ H. If G = N ⋊ H, then each element
g ∈ G can be written in a unique way as nh where n ∈ N , h ∈ H. Thus we can identify elements
of G with ordered pairs, or coordinates (n, h) ∈ N × H. In the coordinate representation, the
group multiplication takes the form
(n, h)(n′ , h′ ) ∼ nhn′ h′ = n hn′ h−1 hh′ ∼ (n hn′ h−1 , hh′ ).
Since N is a normal subgroup, Ah (n′ ) = hn′ h−1 is in N . Moreover, Ah is a smooth group action
of H on N , and a smooth automorphism of N for each h ∈ H.
When N, H are isomorphic to physical quantities, G = N × H is interpreted as the group of
ordered pairs of quantity1 , quantity2. Each coordinate of G corresponds to the physical dimension
of the corresponding physical quantity, and the value at this coordinate corresponds to the value
of the physical quantity. Thus, the semidirect product structure allows us to make the following
philosophical argument apply to groups: “physical quantities may change their values under the
application of transformations, but they retain their dimensions.” Namely, multiplying a group
element g of G with another, may change the values of the coordinates of g, but may not change
the ordered pair structure itself. Recall that this philosophical statement was employed only for
observables up until now. This interpretation holds also in the case where N and H are direct
products of physical quantities.
Example 26. In the case of the affine group, we have G = N ⋊ H, where N ∼ {R, +} is the
subgroup of translations and H ∼ {R, +} × {−1, 1} is the subgroup of dilations and reflections.
The group product takes the following form in coordinates
(n, h1 , h2 ) • (n′ , h′1 , h′2 ) = (n + h2 eh1 n′ , h1 + h′1 , h2 h′2 ).
Namely, A(h1 ,h2 ) (n′ ) = h2 eh1 n′ .

21

3.2

The global localization framework for the wavelet transform

Let us now motivate the construction of the global localization framework for the case of the 1D
wavelet transform. In this anlysis we ignore the less important phase direction observable, and
consider the subgroup time translations ⋊ dilations of the affine group, called the reduced affine
group. By (46), the time variance of a window f is multiplied by e2g2 when the window is dilated by
g2 . This agrees with the observation in Subsection 2.5.2 that the smaller the mean scale of a window
is, the more simultaneous time-scale localization is possible when using the standard uncertainty
σf (T̆1 )σf (T̆2 ). As is noted in Subsection 2.5.2, in generalized wavelet transforms we are interested
in an uncertainty which is invariant under the action π on the window f . In the 1D wavelet
transform we may define the global variances as Σf (T̆1 ) = e−2ef (T̆2 ) σf (T̆1 ) and Σf (T̆2 ) = σf (T̆2 ).
As required, the global variances are constant on orbits. Namely, Σπ(g)f (T̆1 ) = Σf (T̆1 ) for any
g ∈ G, and similarly for Σf (T̆2 ). We define the global uncertainty as
S(f ) = w1 Σf (T̆1 ) + w2 Σf (T̆2 ) = w1 e−2ef (T̆2 ) σf (T̆1 ) + w2 σf (T̆2 )

(54)

for weights w1 , w2 ∈ R+ . By finding a minimizer to the global uncertainty we avoid the misleading
result discussed in Subsection 2.5.2.
Let us formulate this example in a way that allows generalization. We are interested in the
transformations of σf (T̆1 ), σf (T̆2 ) under the application of π(g) on f . From the Heisenberg point
of view , it is enough the know the transformations of T̆1 , T̆2 under conjugation with π(g). Indeed,
by (6) and (7) we have for m = 1, 2


(55)
eπ(g)f (T̆m ) = ef π(g)∗ T̆m π(g) , σπ(g)f (T̆m ) = σf π(g)∗ T̆m π(g) .

Let us define the multi-observalbe T̆ : H → H2 by T̆f = (T̆1 f, T̆2 f ), and define conjugation
by π(g)∗ T̆π(g) = (π(g)∗ T̆1 π(g), π(g)∗ T̆2 π(g)). It is readily verified that
π(g)∗ T̆π(g) = (g1 I + eg2 T̆1 , g2 I + T̆2 ).

(56)

By the fact that Ag2 (g1′ ) = eg2 g1′ , (56) can be written in the form
π(g)∗ T̆π(g) = g • T̆

(57)

where the right hand side of (57) is given by functional calculus (Remark 4) as
Z

Z


g2 + λ2 dP (λ2 ) .
g • T̆ =
g1 + Ag2 (λ1 ) dP (λ1 ),

We interpret (57) as a canonical commutation relation, relating the multi-observalbe T̆ with the
representation π. We call (57) the multi-cnonical commutation relation, and call T̆ a canonical
multi-observable.


We define expected values and variances of T̆ by ef (T̆) = ef (T̆1 ), ef (T̆2 ) and σf (T̆) =


σf (T̆1 ), σf (T̆2 ) . Observe that the transformation rules (43)-(46) can be derived from the Heisenberg point of view (55) and the commutation relation (57), and written as


eπ(g)f (T̆) = g • ef (T̆) = g1 + eg2 ef (T̆1 ), g2 + ef (T̆2 ) ,

(58)


 

σπ(g)f (T̆) = e2g2 σf (T̆1 ), σf (T̆2 ) = A2g2 σf (T̆1 ), σf (T̆2 ) .

(59)

ey (T̆) = eπ(g−1 )f (T̆) = g −1 • ef (T̆) = g −1 • g = (0, 0).

(60)

where A2g2 = Ag2 ◦ Ag2 is defined by composition.
Our goal is to design a “global variance” which is constant on orbits π(G)f . Given f and its
orbit π(G)f , there is always an element y ∈ π(G)f with ey (T̆1 ) = ey (T̆2 ) = 0. Namely, for g given

in coordinates by (g1 , g2 ) = ef (T̆1 ), ef (T̆2 ) , y = π(g −1 )f . Indeed, by (58),
22

Now, by (59) and (60),
Σf (T̆1 ) = e−2ef (T̆2 ) σf (T̆1 ) = e−2g2 σf (T̆1 ) = σπ(g−1 )f (T̆1 ) = σy (T̆1 ),
Σf (T̆2 ) = σf (T̆2 ) = σπ(g−1 )f (T̆2 ) = σy (T̆2 ).
This shows that Σf (T̆1 ), Σf (T̆1 ) are the variances of the unique element y ∈ π(G)f having zero
expected values, and thus S(f ), as defined in (54), is constant on orbits.

3.3

Semi-direct product wavelet transforms

We are now ready to introduce the general setting of the global localization framework. The
following assumption strengthen Assumption 5.
Assumption 27 (Semi-direct product wavelet transform). A Semi-direct product wavelet transform is constructed by, and assumed to satisfy, the following.
1. The group G is a nested semi-direct product group, namely
G = H0
H0 = (N0 × N1 ) ⋊ H1
Hm = Nm+1 ⋊ Hm+1
HM−1 = NM .

(61)
(62)
,

m = 1, . . . , M − 2

(63)
(64)

Here, N0 is the center of G. For m = 0, . . . , M , Nm is a group direct product of physical
m
quantities, G1m × . . . × GK
m , where Km ∈ N. We denote elements of Nm in coordinates by
1
Km
gm = (gm , . . . , gm ), and elements of Hm by hm . Note that hm = (gm+1 , . . . , gM ). For the
center, we also denote Z = N0 , and Kz = K0 , and denot elements of Z in coordinates by
z = (z 1 , . . . , z Kz ).
1
1
Km Km
2. We consider the representations πm (gm ) = πm
(gm
) ◦ . . . ◦ πm
(gm ) of Nm , m = 0, . . . , M
in H. We assume that π(g) = π0 (g0 ) ◦ . . . ◦ πM (gM ) is a square integrable representation
of G. Namely, π is a SCU irreducible representation, and there is a vector f ∈ H such that
Vf [f ] ∈ L2 (G). Here, Vf [f ] is defined in (1).

3. The semi-direct product wavelet transform based on π and on the window f ∈ H, satisfying
Vf [f ] ∈ L2 (G), is defined to be Vf : H → L2 (G), as defined in (1).
We abbreviate semi-direct product wavelet transforms by SPWT. By the theory of square
integrable representations of locally compact topological groups, we have the following theorem
(for example see [16]).
Proposition 28. Any SPWT also satisfies Assumption 5.
Note that this assumption includes Schrödinger representations of Heisenberg groups based on
tuples of physical quantities, like the STFT and the FSTFT. Indeed, Heisenberg groups can be
written as J = (phase rotations × translations) ⋊ modulations. The 1D wavelet transform and
the Shearlet transform are also SPWTs.
Remark 29. Consider a SPWT.
1. As a result of the semi-deirect product structure, the group multiplication has the following
form in coordinates
′
g • g ′ =(z, g1 , . . . , gM ) • (z′ , g1′ , . . . , gM
)



′
′
) , gM • gM
= (z, g1 ) • Az,1 h1 ; (z′ , g1′ ) , g2 • A2 (h2 ; g2′ ) , . . . , gM−1 • AM−1 (hM−1 ; gM−1

(65)

23

′
where Am are smooth automorphisms with respect to gm
if m ≥ 2, and with respect to
′
′
(z , g1 ) for m = (z, 1). Moreover, Am with respect to hm , are smooth group actions of Hm
on Nm for m ≥ 2, and on Z × N1 for m = (z, 1). Here, hm (m = 1, . . . , M ) are coordinates
corresponding to g.

2. We can write a formula for the group inverse of g ∈ G in coordinates. For m = 2, . . . , M ,
′
let (gm
, h−1
m ) be the inverse of (gm , hm ). We use
′
′
−1
(gm , hm ) • (gm
, h−1
m ) = (gm • Am (hm ; gm ), hm • hm ) = (e, e)



−1
−1
′
−1
.
, g1−1 ) , h−1
to get gm
= Am (h−1
m ; gm ). The inverse of (z, g1 , h1 ) is given by Az,1 h1 ; (z
1

Next we explain how the center Z of G may be omitted in a SPWT. Assume that Z = G1z ×. . .×
where Gkz is a physical quantity. Denote πz,1 (z, g1 ) = πz (z) ◦ π1 (g1 ), where πz (z) = π0 (g0 )
is the representation of the center. A character of a group is a unitary representation of the group
in C. Any irreducible representation π of G, restricted to the center of the group Z, is a character
times the identity operator. Therefore, πz (z) = χ(z)I for some character χ of Z, and I the identity
operator in H. As a result, wavelet transform Vf [s] of any s ∈ H is completely determined by the
values of Vf [s] on the cross section

z
GK
z ,

Gz = {g ∈ G | z = e} ∼
= G/Z

(66)

where e is the unit element of Z in coordinates, and G/Z is the quotient group of G relative to
Z. Indeed, for any g ∈ G, we have in coordinates π(z, g1 , h1 ) = χ(z)π(e, g1 , h1 ), so
Vf [s](z, g1 , h1 ) = χ(z)Vf [s](e, g1 , h1 ).

(67)

Thus in a SPWT, restricting Vf [s] to the domain Gz , preserves the invertibility of the SPWT. For
this reason, in SPWT like the STFT, Vf [s](g) is calculated only for g ∈ Gz .
We can now show that Gz is a nested semi-direct product group with trivial center. For this,
let us analyze the automorphism Az,1 (h1 ; ·) : Z × N1 → Z × N1 . Let z ′ ∈ G be an element in
the subgroup Z, and g1′ ∈ G be an element in the subgroup N1 . Any generic element in the
′
subgroup Z × N1 can be written uniquely as gz,1
= z ′ g1′ . Let gz,1 be another element in Z × N1 ,
′
′
and h1 , h1 elements in H1 . Any two generic elements in G can be written as gz,1
h′1 = z ′ g1′ h′1 and
′
′
′
′
gz,1 h1 . By the semi-direct product structure we have gz,1 h1 gz,1 h1 = gz,1 h1 gz,1 h−1
1 h1 h1 , where
′
′
h1 gz,1
h1−1 = Az,1 (h1 ; gz,1
) ∈ Z × N1 . By the fact that the center commutes with every element,
′
′
′
′
′
′ −1
Az,1 (h1 ; gz,1
) = h1 gz,1
h−1
1 = z h1 g1 h1 = z Az,1 (h1 ; g1 ).

(68)

We denote the projection of Az,1 (h1 ; g1′ ) to the subgroup N1 ⊂ Z × N1 by A1 (h1 ; g1′ ), and the
projection to Z by Az (h1 ; g1′ ). By the direct product structure, the projections Z × N1 → N1 and
Z × N1 → Z are homomorphisms. Thus, A1 (h1 ; g1 ) and Az (h1 ; g1 ) are smooth homomorphism
N1 → N1 and N1 → Z respectively. Moreover,
′
Az,1 (h1 ; gz,1
) = z ′ Az (h1 ; g1′ ) A1 (h1 ; g1′ ).

(69)

′
′
By the fact that Az,1 (h1 ; gz,1
) is invertible with respect to gz,1
, and by the direct product struc′
ture, (69) shows that A1 (h1 ; g1 ) is also invertible, and thus an automorphism with respect to g1′ .
Moreover, A1 (h1 ; g1′ ) is a group action of H1 on N1 with respect to h1 . Indeed
′−1
Az (h′1 h1 ; g1′ ) A1 (h′1 h1 ; g1′ ) = Az,1 (h′1 h1 ; g1′ ) = h′1 h1 g1′ h−1
1 h1

=h′1 Az,1 (h1 ; g1′ )h′−1
= Az (h1 ; g1′ ) h′1 A1 (h1 ; g1′ )h′−1
1
1




′
′
′
′
=Az (h1 ; g1 )Az h1 ; A1 (h1 ; g1 ) A1 h1 ; A1 (h1 ; g1′ ) ,

24

(70)



so A1 (h′1 h1 ; g1′ ) = A1 h′1 ; A1 (h1 ; g1′ ) . To conclude, the group Gz is the nested semi-direct product
group,
G = H0
Hm = Nm+1 ⋊ Hm+1
HM−1 = NM ,

,

m = 0, . . . , M − 2

(71)
(72)
(73)

with Am mappings equal to those of G.
Observe that the representation operators πzk (zk ) = χ(zk )|Gk0 I commute with every operator,
so they do not have a canonical observable as defined in (19). Moreover, by (67), no localization
in the Z direction is possible. This motivates us to develop our localization theory in Gz instead
of G. Working in Gz instead of in G also makes sense since observables interact with π(g) via
conjugations, which are elements of the inner automorphism group of G, isomorphic to Gz . Note
that π may be restricted to the cross-section Gz , but it is no longer a representation of Gz in
general.
Last, we present a convenient way to represent the automorphisms Am (hm ; · ) in a SPWT. Let
us denote in short A = Am (hm ; · ) the automorphism Nm → Nm for some m = 1, . . . , M . Since
m
Nm is a direct product of the physical quantities G1m ×. . .×GK
m , A can be written as an invertible
matrix A as explained next. For each k = 1, . . . , Km , consider the projections Pk : Nm → Gkm ,
defined in coordinates by
k
1
Km
) = (e, . . . , e, gm
, e, . . . , e)
Pk (gm
, . . . , gm
′

where e are the unit elements of each Gkm , k ′ = 1, . . . , Km . Since Nm is a direct product, Pk are
homomorphisms. For each pair k, k ′ = 1, . . . , Km consider the homomorphism ak,k′ = Pk APk′ :
′
Gkm → Gkm . The automorphism A can now be written in coordinates as the homomorphism valued
invertible matrix A with entries ak,k′ . The multiplication of A by gm is defined by
∀k = 1, . . . , Km ,

Km
1
).
[Agm ]k = ak,1 (gm
) • . . . • ak,Km (gm

Here, invertibility means that there is another homomorphism valued matrix A−1 with AA−1 =
A−1 A = I. We denote these matrices in the extended notation by Am (hm ). By (69), the matrix
Az,1 (h1 ) has the block form
Z
Az,1 (h1 ) = I
0

N1 
Az (h1 ) Z
A1 (h1 ) N1

(74)

where 0 is a matrix with all entries equal to the trivial homomorphism mapping to the unit
element, I is the matrix of identity automorhisms on the diagonal, and Az (h1 ), A1 (h1 ) are the
matrix representation of Az (h1 , ·), A1 (h1 , ·). Here, A1 (h1 ) is invertible, and Az (h1 ) is not in
general.
Remark 30. In 1 of Assumption 27 we usually assume that each Nm is a group direct product
k
m
G1m × . . . × GK
m , where for each k = 1, . . . , Km , Gm = Gm is a physical quantity of the same type.
Here, the entries of the matrix A are homomorphisms Gm → Gm . For example, if Gm = {R, +},
any automorphism is an invertible matrix in RKm ×Km . If Gm = {Z, +}, any automorphism is
an invertible matrix in ZKm ×Km , with inverse in ZKm ×Km . Another example is the case where
Nm = Gm consists of one coordinate. In this case, for Nm = Gm = {R, +}, A is a multiplication by
a nonzero scalar. For Nm = Gm = {Z, +}, A is a multiplication by ±1. For Nm = Gm = {eiR , +},
A is a multiplication of the exponent by ±1. Last, for Nm = G = {e2πiZ/N }, A is a multiplication
of the exponent by a co-prime of N .
In the rest of this paper we assume that for each k = 1, . . . , Km , Gkm = Gm is a physical
quantity of the same type, as in Remark 30. This assumption is taken to simplify formulations,
though it is not always necessary.
25

3.4

Canonical multi-observables and localization

In this subsection we define concepts of localization corresponding to the structure of semi-direct
product wavelet transforms. Particularly, we define the general multi-canonical observable, extending the multi-canonical observable of the 1D wavelet transform. The general multi-canonical
observable is a tuple of observables, measuring “at once” all of the physical quantities. We start
by restricting the class of tuples of observables.
k
Definition 31. Consider a SPWT. We call the sequence of observables {T̆m
}m = 1, . . . , M

a multi-

k = 1, . . . , Km

1
Km
T̆m
, . . . , T̆m

commute. We denote T̆m =
observable, if for every m = 1, . . . , M , the observables
1
Km
(T̆m
, . . . , T̆m
) : H → HKm , and denote the multi-observable by T̆ = (T̆1 , . . . , T̆M ) : H → HN for
PM
N = m=1 Km .

1
Km
for any m = 1, . . . , M ,
Let T̆ be a multi-observable. By the commutativity of T̆m
, . . . , T̆m
1
Km
1
Km
the spectral families of projections Pm , . . . , Pm of T̆m , . . . , T̆m also commute. Therefore, each
T̆m has spectral decomposition
Z
Z
Z
Km
1
1
Km
m
(75)
T̆m = λm dPm (λm ) = . . . (λ1m , . . . , λK
m )dPm (λm ) . . . dPm (λm ).

Here, Pm is the PVM, mapping borel sets of Nm to projections in H, such that for any sequence
1
Km
m
of G1m , . . . , GK
of Borel sets Bm
, . . . , Bm
m respectively,

Km
1
1
Km
1
Km
).
(Bm
= Pm
(Bm
) ◦ . . . ◦ Pm
× . . . × Bm
Pm Bm
Smooth functions F : Nm → Nm act of T̆m by
Z
F (T̆m ) = F (λm )dPm (λm ).

(76)

By definition, representation operators π(G) act on multi-observables T̆ : H → HN by conjugation
according to the formula
π(g)∗ T̆π(g) = π(g)∗ (T̆1 , . . . , T̆N)π(g) =
π(g)∗ T̆1 π(g), . . . , π(g)∗ T̆N π(g) .

Next we define the canonical multi-observable of the whole group G.
Definition 32. Consider a SPWT, and a multi-observable T̆. We call T̆ a canonical multiobservable of π, if T̆ and π satisfy the multi-canonical commutation relation
∀g ∈ Gz ,

π(g)∗ T̆π(g) = g • T̆

(77)

where


g • T̆ = g1 • A1 (h1 ; T̆1 ) , . . . , gM−1 • AM−1 (hM−1 ; T̆M−1 ) , gM • T̆M ,

and • is the group product in Gz .

k
Note that if T̆ is a canonical multi-observable, then any one of its entries T̆m
is a canonical
k
observable of the corresponding πm . This shows that canonical multi-observable is a stronger
definition than a sequence of canonical observables.
Let us now define notions of localization. Since each Nm consists of a number of physical
quantities, the natural generalization of variances are covariances. Consider a SPWT, and a
canonical multi-observable T̆ of π. For each m = 1, . . . , M and f ∈ H, we define the multiexpected value ef (T̆m ) as the vector with entries
h
i
k
ef (T̆m ) = ef (T̆m
).
(78)
k

26

We define the multi-covariance σf (T̆m ) as the matrix in CKm ×Km with entries
h
i
D
  ′
 E
k
k
k
k′
σf (T̆m )
=
T̆
−
e
(
T̆
)
f,
T̆
−
e
(
T̆
)
f .
f
f
m
m
m
m
′
k,k

(79)

Next we define one dimensional variances along directions in Nm . Let wm be a column vector in
CKm , interpreted as a direction in Nm . Define the directional variance
∗
σfwm (T̆m ) = wm
σf (T̆m )wm .

(80)

Note that the multi-covariance matrix σf (T̆m ) is self-adjoit. Moreover, the variance σfwm (T̆m ) is
non-negative. Indeed
0≤

Km
X

m=1

2
k
wm



k
k
− ef (T̆m
) f
T̆m

∗
σf (T̆m )wm = σfwm (T̆m ),
= wm

(81)

which shows that σf (T̆m ) is positive semidefinite. Equation (81) gives an interpretation to the
P Km k k
directional variance, as the variance of the normal observable T̆wm = m=1
wm T̆m . Namely
σfwm (T̆m ) = σf (T̆wm ).

(82)

We may now define a scalar variance as a combination of directional variances
Dm
X

wm

σf d (T̆m )

(83)

d=1
wm

m
where w1m , . . . , wD
are directions. Note that σf d (T̆m ) can be written as the Frobenius scalar
m
product of the rank one self-adjoint positive semi-definite matrix wdm wdm∗ with σf (T̆m ). Since
rank one self-adjoint positive semi-definite matrices span the space of self-adjoint positive semidefinite matrices, we define scalar variances using a simpler formulation of (83) as
D
E
m
σfW (T̆m ) = Wm , σf (T̆m )
(84)
F

m

where W is a self-adjoint positive semidefinite matrix, and the inner product in (84) is the
Frobenius inner product. We call Wm the weight matrix corresponding to Nm . For example, the
choice of Wm = I amounts to summing the variances along the axis of Nm . The choice of Wm
as a matrix with all entries equal to the same positive constant, corresponds to an isotropic scalar
variance.
Last, we study how multi expected values and variances of multi-observables are transformed
by π. We divide the analysis to two cases. The self-adjoint case, where Gm is R or Z, and the
unitary case, where Gm is eiR or e2πiZ/N .
Proposition 33. Consider a SPWT, and let m be an index such that Gm is R or Z. Let T̆ be a
canonical multi-observable. Then for any g ∈ Gz
eπ(g)f (T̆m ) = gm • Am (hm )ef (T̆m ),
Am (hm )Wm Am (hm )∗

Wm
(T̆m ) = σf
σπ(g)f

(T̆m ),

for any weight matrix Wm , where • is the arithmetic sum of numbers.
Proof. By Remark 30, Am (hm ; · ) is the invertible Gm valued matrix operator
 1,1

1,Km
am (hm ) . . . am
(hm )


..
..
Am (hm ) = 
.
.
.
Km ,1
Km ,Km
am (hm ) . . . am
(hm )
27

(85)
(86)

By the multi-canonical commutation relation (77), we have
∗

π(g)

k
T̆m
π(g)

=

k
gm
I

+

Km
X

l
ak,l
m (hm )T̆m .

(87)

l=1

So
k
eπ(g)f (T̆m
)

=

k
gm

+

Km
X

l
ak,l
m (hm )ef (T̆m )

l=1

which gives (85).
For any directional variance, with direction w, we have by the Heisenberg point of view (7),
by (87) and by (81)
w
σπ(g)f
(T̆m ) = σfw (π(g)∗ T̆m π(g))

=

Km
X

wk

k=1

=
=

Km
X
l=1

Km  X
Km
X

(88)

l
ak,l
m (hm )T̆m −

ak,l
m (hm )wk

l=1 k=1
Am (hm )w
σf
(T̆m ).



l
T̆m

Km
X

!

l
ak,l
m (hm )ef (T̆m ) f

l=1

−

2

(89)

2



l
ef (T̆m
)

f

(90)
(91)

As a result, by expanding any self-adjoint positive semidefinite matrix Wm using the rank-one
self-adjoint positive semidefinite matrices based on the eigenvectors of Wm , we obtain (86).
For the unitary case, we present a restricted result.
Proposition 34. Consider a SPWT, and let m be an index such that Gm is eiR or e2πiZ/N . If
Am (hm ) = I, then for any g ∈ Gz
eπ(g)f (T̆m ) = gm • ef (T̆m ).

(92)

Wm
(T̆m ) = σfWm (T̆m ),
σπ(g)f

(93)

for any weight matrix Wm , where • is the arithmetic product of numbers, and operates elementwise.
Proof. By the assumption that Am (hm ) = I, the restriction of the canonical commutation relation
(77) to Nm reads
π(g)∗ T̆m π(g) = gm • T̆m .
(94)
Therefore,

D
E D
E
eπ(g)f (T̆m ) = π(g)∗ T̆m π(g)f, f = gm • T̆m f, f = gm • ef (T̆m ).

(95)

where gm • (·) commutes with the inner product since it is a multiplication by a scalar. As a result
of (81), (95), and (94), for any directional variance with direction w, we have

w
(96)
(T̆m ) = σfw π(g)∗ T̆m π(g)
σπ(g)f
=

Km
X

k=1

=

Km
X

k=1

2



wk gm •

wk



k
T̆m

− gm •

2
k
T̆m

−



k
ef (T̆m
)

f



k
ef (T̆m
)

f

= σfw (T̆m ).

Similarly to the proof of Proposition 33, (96) extends to weight matrices Wm .
28

(97)

(98)

3.5

Solving the multi-canonical commutation relation

To solve (77), we develop a theory analogous to Subsection 2.3. First we define an extension of
canonical systems for {G, π, T̆}, where {G, π} satisfy Assumption 27, and T̆ is a canonical multi1
1
Km Km
1
Km
(gm ) respec) the generators of πm
(gm
), . . . , πm
observable. We denote by Tm = (Tm
, . . . , Tm
1
1
Km Km
tively. Note that by the direct product structure of Nm , the operators πm (gm ), . . . , πm
(gm )
1
Km
commute, and thus Tm , . . . , Tm commute. We denote T = (T1 , . . . , TM ). For self-adjoint T̆m
we define for ĝ ∈ Ĝ
if Gm = R :
π̆m (ĝm ) = eiĝm ·T̆m
(99)
T̆m
:= eln(ĝm )·T̆m
if Gm = Z :
π̆m (ĝm ) = ĝm
PKm k k
where qm · T̆m = k=1
qm T̆m . For unitary T̆m we define for ĝ ∈ Ĝ
if Gm = eiR :

π̆m (ĝm ) = T̆ĝmm := eĝm ·ln(T̆m )

if Gm = e2πiZ/N :

π̆m (ĝm ) = T̆m 2π

−

i

ln(ĝm )

−i

:= e 2π

ln(ĝm )·ln(T̆m )

.

(100)

Note that in the definition of a canonical system (Definition 13) G is a physical quantity. It is
straight forward to extend Definition 13 to apply also to groups G which are group direct products of physical quantities. We include the Schrödinger representation in the following definition
(analogous to Definition 17).
Definition 35. {Nm , πm , Tm , N̂m , π̆m , T̆m } is called an extended canonical system if
1. Nm is a direct product of physical quantities Gm × . . . × Gm , N̂m = Ĝm × . . . × Ĝm , πm and
π̆m are representations of Nm and N̂m respectively, Tm and T̆m are the generators of πm
1
Km
are canonical
and π̆m respectively, spec(T̆m ) = Nm and spec(Tm ) = N̂m , and T̆m
, . . . , T̆m
1
Km
observable of πm , . . . , πm respectively.
2. Let Jm be the Heisenberg group associated with Nm , then
Πm (t, gm , ĝm ) = e2πit πm (gm )π̆m (ĝm ),

(t, gm , ĝm ) ∈ Jm

is called the Schrödinger representation of the extended canonical system {Nm , πm , Tm , N̂m , π̆m , T̆m }.
Similarly to Proposition 18, we can show that Schrödinger representation is a representation
of Jm . Next we define the analog to a canonical system for the whole group G.
Definition 36. Consider a SPWT. In the notations of Assumption 27, if for every m = 1, . . . , M ,
{Nm , πm , Tm , N̂m , π̆m } is an extended canonical system, and T̆ = (T̆1 , . . . , T̆M ) is a canonical
multi-observable, then we call {Nm , πm , Tm , N̂m , π̆m }M
m=1 a multi-canonical system.
The following result extends Proposition 20.
Proposition 37. Consider a SPWT, such that {π, G} are members of a multi-canonical system
with canonical multi-observable T̆. Then for each m = 1, . . . , M , there exists a decomposition of
H to invariant subspaces of πm ,
M
n
Hm
,
(101)
H=
n∈κm

where κm is a discrete index set of size uniquely defined by π. For each m, there exists a sequence
n
n
of isometric isomorphisms Um
: Hm
→ L2 (Nm ) that satisfy the following,
L
n
.
1. Consider the isometric isomorphism Um : H → L2 (Nm )|κm | defined by Um = n∈κm Um
2
|κm |
∗
Consider the pull-forward of π to L (Nm )
, τm (g) = Um π(g)Um . We have
∗
= Lm (gm )[κm ] .
τm |Nm (gm ) = Um πm (gm )Um

where Lm (gm ) is the left translation in L2 (Nm ).
29

(102)

2. Consider the multiplicative operators Q̆kNm : L2 (Nm ) → L2 (Nm ) defined by
k
1
Km
1
Km
).
) = gm
f (gm
, . . . , gm
, . . . , gm
Q̆kNm f (gm

Define the multi-multiplicative operator Q̆nm : L2 (Nm ) → L2 (Nm )Km of the n-th copy of
L2 (Nm ) in L2 (Nm )|κm | by
m
Q̆nm = (Q̆1Nm , . . . , Q̆K
Nm )

,

n ∈ κm .

Define the multi-observable Q̆m : L2 (Nm )|κm | → L2 (Nm )Km |κm | to be
M
Q̆nm .
Q̆m =

(103)

n∈κm

We have
∀g ∈ Gz .

τm (g)∗ Q̆m τm (g) = gm • A(hm )Q̆m .

(104)

In addition, the canonical multi-observable T̆ satisfies
∀m = 1, . . . , M ,

∗
T̆m = Um
Q̆m Um .

(105)

n
n
Moreover, for any sequence of decompositions (101), and isometric isomorphisms Um
: Hm
→
2
L (Nm ), for m = 1, . . . , M and n ∈ κm , that satisfy (102) and (104), the multi-observable T̆
defined by (105) is a canonical multi-observable.

Proof. Similarly to the analysis in Subsction 2.3 , by the Stone - von Neumann - Mackey theorem
(Theorem 15), for any m = 1, . . . , M ,
M
n
H=
Hm
(106)
n∈κm

and each Πm (hm )|Hnm (hm ∈ Jm ) is unitarily equivalent to the natural representation of Jm ,
n
n
γm (hm ) = hm in the space L2 (Nm ). Namely, there exist isometric isomorphisms Um
: Hm
→
2
L (Nm ) such that
n
n ∗
Um
Πm (hm )|Hnm Um
= γm (hm ).
(107)
Restricting (107) to the subgroup Nm ⊂ Jm , we get (102). Restricting (107) to the subgroup
N̂m ⊂ Jm , we get
n
n ∗
Um
π̆m (gm )|Hnm Um
= Mm (gm ),
(108)
where Mm (gm ) are modulations. Equation (108) also applies to the generators, and we get
∗
T̆m = Um
Q̆m Um ,

(109)

which shows (105). By the fact that Um maps the spectral family of projections of T̆m to the
spectral family of projections of Q̆m , and keeps the values corresponding to each projection, and
by the fact that T̆ is a canonical multi-observable, we get
∗
∗
τm (g)∗ Q̆m τm (g) =Um πm (g)∗ Um
Q̆m Um πm (g)Um
∗
=Um πm (g)∗ T̆m πm (g)Um

(110)

∗
=Um gm • A(hm )T̆m Um
= gm • A(hm )Q̆m .

which shows (104).
The last statement of the proposition follows by pulling backwards Q̆m to H via Um , and using
a similar calculations to (110).

30

In the following discussion we formulate a more accessible version of Proposition 37. In the
setting of Proposition 37, the space L2 (Nm )|κm | is isomorphic to the space L2 (Xm ) = L2 (Nm ×Ym ),
where Ym is the standard discrete measure space {n}n∈κm . The representation Lm (gm )[κm ] takes
the following form in L2 (Xm ). For any h ∈ L2 (Xm ),
′
−1
′
, ym ) = h(gm
• gm
, ym )
LXm (gm )h(gm

(111)

Moreover, the multi-observables Q̆m takes the following form in L2 (Xm ). For any h ∈ L2 (Xm ),

1
Km
h(gm , ym ) .
(112)
h(gm , ym ), . . . , gm
Q̆Xm h(gm , ym ) = gm

Consider the isometric isomorphism Ψm : H → L2 (Xm ) that corresponds to Um . Consider the
pull-forward representation of π to L2 (Xm ), ρm (g) = Ψm πm (g)Ψ∗m . By (104) we have
ρm (g)∗ Q̆Xm ρm (g) = gm • Am (hm )Q̆Xm .

(113)

The following theorem formulates Proposition 37 in terms of the above construction.
Theorem 38. Consider a SPWT, and assume that {G, π} are members of a multi-canonical
system. Then for each m = 1, . . . , M , there exists a manifold Ym with a Radon measure, where
for Xm = Nm × Ym there exists an isometric isomorphism Ψm : H → L2 (Xm ) that satisfies
πm (gm ) = Ψ∗m LXm (gm )Ψm and (113). For any such sequence of transforms {Ψm }M
m=1 , the multiobservable T̆ = (T̆1 , . . . , T̆M ), defined by T̆m = Ψ∗m Q̆Xm Ψm , is a canonical multi-observable of
π.
Similarly to Subsection 2.3, we call Ψm the quantityNm transform, and call L2 (Xm ) the
quantityNm domain. Non-discrete Ym spaces may be used in Theorem 38 as explained in Remark 22.

3.6

Global uncertainties

In this subsection we define global variances, invariant on orbits, corresponding to each canonical
observable T̆m . The global uncertainty is then defined to be the sum of the global variances.
In this section we are interested in scalar variances σfWm (T̆m ). By (82), it is enough to focus
P Km k k
wm
m
on variances of the form σf (T̆w
m ), where T̆m =
k=1 wm T̆m is a normal operator. We study
wm
(T̆m ) | g ∈ G}. By the Heisenberg point of view (7), and by (82),
the orbit of variances {σπ(g)f
m
this orbit of variances is equal to the set {σf (π(g)∗ T̆w
m π(g)) | g ∈ G}. Recall that Z ⊂ G is
represented by πz (z) as the unit operator times a character, and thus πz (z) commutes with any
operator. Therefore, for g represented in coordinates by (z, g1 , h1 ), we have

∗ wm
m
π(z, g1 , h1 )∗ T̆w
m π(z, g1 , h1 ) = π(g1 , h1 ) T̆m π(g1 , h1 ).
Wm
(T̆m ) | g ∈ Gz }. We divide
As a result, it is enough to study the orbits under Gz , namely {σπ(g)f
the analysis to two cases. The self-adjoint case, where Gm is R or Z, and the unitary case, where
Gm is eiR or e2πiZ/N .

3.6.1

The self-adjoint case

For motivation, we start by considering a SPWT, where for all m = 1, . . . , M , Gm is R. The
m
definition of the global scalar variance ΣW
(T̆m ), constant on orbits π(Gz )f , is explained for this
f
special case. Given f , the following analysis shows that there is some element y in the orbit of f ,
having all of its expected values ef (T̆1 ), . . . , ef (T̆M ) equal to 0, which are the unit elements of
Nm respectively. Moreover, it shows the way to calculate the unique group element g ∈ Gz such
that f = π(g)y. By (85),


ef (T̆) = eπ(g)y (T̆) = g1 • A1 (h1 )ey (T̆1 ) , . . . , gM−1 • AM−1 (hM−1 )ey (T̆M−1 ) , gM • ey (T̆M ) .
(114)
31

The right hand side of (114) can be viewed as the group product in Gz (represented in coordinates)
of the element g with the element having coordinates ey (T̆). Thus we have
ef (T̆) = g • ey (T̆) = g.
This construction shows that there exists y and a unique g ∈ Gz such that y = π(g −1 )f has
expected values equal to 0, and shows that g is the group element with coordinates ef (T̆). Thus,
denoting by ef (T̆)−1 the inverse group element of ef (T̆) in coordinates of Gz , we have


(115)
y = π ef (T̆)−1 f.
h
i
Denote by ef (T̆)−1

hm

i
h
ef (T̆)−1

the hm component of ef (T̆)−1 , and note that by Remark 29,

hm

=



− Am′



M
−1
ef (T̆m+1 ), . . . , ef (T̆M )
ef (T̆m′ )

.

(116)

m′ =m+1

Hence, by Proposition 33 and (115) we have
Am ([ef (T̆)−1 ]

σyWm (T̆m ) = σf

hm

)Wm Am ([ef (T̆)−1 ]

hm

)∗

(T̆m ).

This leads us to define the m-th scalar global variance to be
Am ([ef (T̆)−1 ]

m
ΣW
(T̆m ) = σf
f

hm

)Wm Am ([ef (T̆)−1 ]

hm

)∗

(T̆m ).

(117)

m
To conclude, ΣW
(T̆m ) calculates the scalar uncertainty of the unique window y ∈ π(Gz )f , having
f
expected values 0, and is thus constant on orbits. Now, we define the uncertainty of the wavelet
transform Vf by
M
X
m
S(f ) =
ΣW
(T̆m )
f

m=1

for some choice of the weights Wm .
Let us now define the global variance of a self-adjoint canonical multi-observable in the general
case. Assume that for some m, Gm is R or Z. In case Gm′ 6= R for some m′ > m, ef (T̆m′ ) is not
in Nm′ in general. Therefore, the expression [ef (T̆)−1 ]hm′ is meaningless, and (117) is not well
defined. However, there is a way to project ef (T̆m′ ) to Nm′ in a way that is consistent with the
m
action of πm′ on Gm′ , leading to a definition of ΣW
(T̆m ) similar to (117).
f
Definition 39. The projected expected value of an observable T̆ , with spec(T̆ ) = G where G
a physical quantity, is defined to be the closest point Ef (T̆ ) ∈ G to ef (T̆ ).

In case there is more than one closest point in G to ef (T̆ ), Ef (T̆ ) is defined in some consistent
way. For example, in Z we may round to the smaller integer of the two. In e2πiZ/N we project to
the point in the clockwise direction. Last, the projection of ef (T̆ ) = 0 in eiR and e2πiZ/N is not
defined.
Remark 40. The projected expected values of an observable T̆ are given in each of the four cases
of physical quantities as follows.
1. The projected expected value of a normalized f with respect to the self-adjoint observable T̆
with spectrum spec(T̆ ) = R is Ef (T̆ ) = ef (T̆ ).
2. The rounded expected value of a normalized f with respect to the self-adjoint observable
T̆ with spectrum spec(T̆ ) = Z is defined to be
j
k
Ef (T̆ ) = ef (T̆ )
where ⌊x⌋ is the closest integer to x ∈ R.

32

3. The expected argument of a normalized f with respect to the unitary observable T̆ with
spectrum spec(T̆ ) = eiR is defined to be


Ef (T̆ ) = Arg ef (T̆ )
where Arg(z) = eiθ for any z = reiθ with r, θ ∈ R.

4. The rounded expected argument of a normalized f with respect to the unitary observable
T̆ with spectrum spec(T̆ ) = e2πiZ/N is defined to be
j

k
Ef (T̆ ) = Arg ef (T̆ )
 
where eiθ is the closest point in e2πiZ/N to eiθ ∈ eiR .

In each of these cases, we denote the coresponding projection by Λ. Namely, Λ(z) = z, ⌊z⌋ , Arg(z), ⌊Arg(z)⌋
if spec(T̆ ) = R, Z, eiR , e2πiZ/N respectively.
For a SPWT and T̆ a canonical multi-observable, we define the multi-projected expected
value by


Ef (T̆) = Ef (T̆1 ), . . . , Ef (T̆M )

where for each m = 1, . . . , M ,



1
Km
) .
Ef (T̆m ) = Ef (T̆m
), . . . , Ef (T̆m

Proposition 41. Consider a SPWT, and a multi-canonical observable T̆. Then for each m =
1, . . . , M , the projected expected values satisfy the one parameter canonical commutation relation
Eπm (gm )f (T̆m ) = gm • Ef (T̆m ).

(118)

k
Equation (118) is not satisfied if Gm is eiR or e2πiZ/N , and ef (T̆m
) = 0 for some k.

Proof. By Remark 40, and by (92),




Eπ(gm )f (T̆m ) = Λ eπm (gm )f (T̆m ) = Λ gm • ef (T̆m )

Now, for each of the four cases of Λ in Remark 40 we have




Λ gm • ef (T̆m ) = gm • Λ ef (T̆m ) = gm • Ef (T̆m ).

(119)

(120)

In the above notations, note that Ef (T̆) is the coordinate representation of some element in
Gz , so Ef (T̆)−1 is well defined. Therefore, the following definition of the global scalar variance is
legal.
Definition 42. Consider a SPWT, and a canonical multi-observable T̆. Let m be an index such
that Gm is Z or R. Define the matrix operator
i
h
−1
),
(121)
A−1
(f
)
=
A
(
E
(
T̆)
m
f
m
hm

i
h
where Ef (T̆)−1

hm

is defined as in (116), and in case Gm is eiR or e2πiZ/N , and ef (T̆ ) = 0, we

define Am (f )−1 = I. The global scalar variance of T̆m is defined to be
−1
∗
A−1
m (f ) Wm Am (f )

m
ΣW
(T̆m ) = σf
f

for some weight matrix Wm .
33

(T̆m ).

(122)

m
By Proposition 33 and Remark 40, the value ΣW
(T̆m ) is the variance of an element y ∈
f
π(Gz )f having expected values in the Nm dimensions satisfying

 

ey (T̆)gm = Λ ef (T̆)−1 • ef (T̆) gm .
(123)

This expected value is in some sense close to the unit element of the group Nm . The following
proposition extends this result in the special case of a group G, where all of the coordinates gm
with Gm 6= R, are not dilated in the group product (as defined in the proposition).

Proposition 43. Consider a SPWT, such that for every m with Gm 6= R, Am (hm ) = I. Let T̆
k
be a canonical multi-observable. Let f ∈ H be a window such that ef (T̆m
) 6= 0 for any m such that
iR
2πiZ/N
m
Gm is e or e
, and k = 1, . . . , Km . For any m such that Gm is R or Z, let ΣW
(T̆m ) be
f
Wm
Wm
the global scalar variance of Definition 42. Define Σf (T̆m ) = σf (T̆m ) for any m such that
m
Gm is eiR or e2πiZ/N . Then for any index m, the global scalar variance ΣW
(T̆m ) is constant
f
Wm
on orbits π(Gz )f . Moreover, Σf (T̆m ) is the variance of the unique element y ∈ π(Gz )f having
multi-expected value
ey (T̆) = Ef (T̆)−1 • ef (T̆).
(124)
Proposition 43 is used for defining the global uncertainty as follows. Assume the conditions
m
of Proposition 43 are satisfied. Therefore, the global variances ΣW
(T̆m ) are invariant on orbits.
f
Thus, the uncertainty
M
X
m
S(f ) =
ΣW
(T̆m )
f
m=1

is constant on orbits for any choice of the weights Wm . Hence, S(f ) is interpreted as an uncertainty
of the SPWT Vf , and not of the individual window f .
To prove Proposition 43, we present the following lemma, which can be seen as the projected
version of (85) or as an extension of Proposition 41.

Lemma 44. Consider a SPWT, such that for every m with Gm 6= R, Am (hm ) = I. Let T̆ be a
k
canonical multi-observable. Let f ∈ H be a window such that ef (T̆m
) 6= 0 for any m such that Gm
is eiR or e2πiZ/N , and k = 1, . . . , Km . Then for any g ∈ Gz ,
Eπ(g)f (T̆) = g • Ef (T̆).

(125)

[Eπ(g)f (T̆)]hm = hm • [Ef (T̆)]hm .

(126)

Proof. We prove
by induction on m. In the base of the induction, m = M − 1. By Proposition 41, noting that
hM−1 = gM , we have
(127)
[Eπ(g)f (T̆)]hM −1 = hM−1 • [Ef (T̆)]hM −1 .
For the induction step, assume (126) is true for m + 1, and prove it for m. We have


[Eπ(g)f (T̆)]hm = Eπ(g)f (T̆m+1 ) , [Eπ(g)f (T̆)]hm+1

(128)

and by the induction assupmtion,

[Eπ(g)f (T̆)]hm+1 = hm+1 • [Ef (T̆)]hm+1 .

(129)

If m + 1 has Gm+1 6= R, then by assumption we have Am+1 = I, and by Proposition 41
Eπ(g)f (T̆m+1 ) = gm+1 • Ef (T̆m+1 ).

(130)

In case Gm+1 = R, we have by (85)
Eπ(g)f (T̆m+1 ) =eπ(g)f (T̆m+1 ) = Am+1 (hm+1 )ef (T̆m+1 ) + gm+1
=Am+1 (hm+1 )Ef (T̆m+1 ) + gm+1
34

(131)

Equations (130) and (131) give the leftmost coordinate gm+1 of the group product in (126), and
(129) is the remaining coordinates hm+1 , which proves (126).
Proof of Proposition 43. First consider the case where Gm 6= R. By the assumption that Am (hm ) =
m
m
I, the global variance is ΣW
(T̆m ) = σfWm (T̆m ). Moreover, by Propositions 33 and 34, ΣW
(T̆m )
f
f
is constant on orbits.
Next consider the case where Gm = R. Denote y = π(Ef (T̆)−1 )f . By Definition 42, and by
the fact that Am (·) is a group action of Hm ,
h
i 

 −1
= I.
(f ) = Am Ef (T̆)hm Am Ef (T̆)−1
Am Ef (T̆)hm Am
hm

Therefore, by (86)

m
ΣW
(T̆m ) = σ
f

−1
∗
A−1
m (f ) Wm Am (f )



π Ef (T̆) y

(T̆m ) = σyWm (T̆m ).

(132)

Let π(g)f be some element in the orbit π(Gz )f . Then, by Lemma 44
i
i
h
h
−1
) = Am ( Ef (T̆)−1 • g−1
A−1
m (π(g)f ) = Am ( Eπ(g)f (T̆)

hm

hm

)

(133)

so

)∗
)Wm Am ([Ef (T̆)−1 •g−1 ]
Am ([Ef (T̆)−1 •g−1 ]
hm
hm
m
(T̆m ).
(134)
ΣW
π(g)f (T̆m ) = σπ(g)f

Note that π(g)f = π g • Ef (T̆) y, so by (86) and by the fact that Am (·) is a group action, (134)
gives
Wm
m
(T̆m ).
(135)
ΣW
π(g)f (T̆m ) = σy

Here, (135) is true by
h
i
Am (hm • Ef (T̆)hm )Am ( Ef (T̆)−1 • g−1

hm

) = I.

To conclude (132) and (135),
Wm
m
ΣW
(T̆m ).
π(g)f (T̆m ) = Σf
m
Hence, ΣW
(T̆m ) is constant on orbits, and equal to σyWm (T̆m ), where y is unique for each orbit
f
π(Gz )f . The expected value (124) of y follows (85) and (92).

3.6.2

The unitary case

Next we treat the unitary case, where Gm is eiR or e2πiZ/N
this section we restrict ourselves to
PKm . In
k
k
k
scalar variances along the axis, namely σ Wm (T̆m ) = k=1
.
wm
σf (T̆m
), for some scalar weights wm
2

k
k
k
First note that by the unitarity of each T̆m
, we have σf (T̆m
) = 1− ef (T̆m
) . Therefore, it is enough
k
to study ef (T̆m
), k = 1, . . . , Km . Consider the quantitym transform Ψm : H → L2 (Nm × Ym )
guaranteed by Theorem 38. In the notation of Theorem 38, we have

LXm (gm ) = Ψm πm (g)Ψ∗m ,
and T̆m = Ψ∗m Q̆Xm Ψm . This means that we can pull forward the whole discussion from the
canonical system {Nm , πm , Tm , N̂m , π̆m , T̆m } to the concrete quantitym domain, with the standard translation LXm (gm ) and standard multi-observable Q̆Xm . Since expected values and variances are based on inner products, they are invariant under isometric isomorphisms, and we have
the following property.

35

Proposition 45. Under the above construction,
ef (T̆m ) = eΨm f (Q̆Xm )

,

σf (T̆m ) = σΨm f (Q̆Xm )

Wm
σfWm (T̆m ) = σΨ
(Q̆Xm ).
mf

,

By Proposition 45, it is enough to study the localization of Q̆xm in L2 (Nm × Ym ). The inner
product in L2 (Nm × Ym ) is based on integration (along the Nm axis), which is based on additions.
Since the group multiplication in the unitary case is the arithmetic product, the calculation of the
variances is only consistent with the group multiplication in the self-adjoint case, where Gm is R
or Z and • is +. Hence, there are no localization transformation properties for unitary observables
analogous to Proposition 33 in case Am (hm ) 6= I. Defining global variances in the unitary case,
invariant on orbits, requires a different approach.
Since Proposition 45 allows to restrict the analysis to the space L2 (Nm × Ym ) and the multiobservable Q̆Xm , we omit the subscript m, and simply denote the space by L2 (GK × Y), and
the multi-observable by Q̆ = (Q̆1 , . . . , Q̆K ). Here, G is the physical quantity eiR or e2πiZ/N , and
Q̆k f (g1 , . . . gK , y) = gk f (g1 , . . . gK , y). We assume without loss of generality that the signal space
is H = L2 (GK × Y).
Denote the Fourier transform in L2 (GK ) by FGK : L2 (GK ) → L2 (ĜK ). Note that Q̆1 , . . . , Q̆K
are multiplications by characters of GK , independent of the variable y. Thus, by abuse of notation,
we treat each Q̆k as the function Q̆k (g1 , . . . gK , y) = Q̆k (g1 , . . . gK ) = gk . Note that each Q̆k can
be treated as the unit frequency element of FGK along the k axis. Consider the calculation of the
expected values
D
E
D
E
ef (Q̆) = Q̆1 f, f , . . . , Q̆K f, f
Z Z
Z Z

2
2
=
Q̆1 (g, y) |f (g, y)| dgdy, . . . ,
Q̆K (g, y) |f (g, y)| dgdy
(136)
k
Y Gk
Z Y G Z
Z
Z

2
2
=
|f (g, y)| dydg
Q̆K (g)
|f (g, y)| dydg, . . . ,
Q̆1 (g)
Gk

Gk

Y

Y

2

Consider the function F ∈ L1 (GK ), defined by F (g) = Y |f (g, y)| dy. By (136), the expected
values ef (Q̆) are the −1 Fourier coefficients, along the axis of GK , of the function F . Namely,


ef (Q̆) = [FGK F ](−1, 0, . . . , 0), . . . , [FGK F ](0, . . . , 0, −1) ,
R

where (0, . . . , 0, −1, 0, . . . , 0) denotes the character Q̆k in coordinates of ĜK . By Remark 30,
Am (hm , ·) is written as the matrix Am (hm ), with homomorphisms ak′ ,k (hm ) : G → G as entries.
These homomorphisms are multiplication of the exponent by the real numbers ak′ ,k (hm ), namely
G ∋ eiω 7→ ak′ ,k (hm )(eiω ) = eiak′ ,k (hm )ω ∈ G.
Consider the orbit Am (Hm )Q̆k . Note that homomorphisms of G, applied on the value of characters
of GK , map them to characters. Namely, for the character Q̆k ∈ χ(G),
ak′ ,k (hm ) ◦ Q̆k ∈ χ(G).
Thus, the collection of entries of the orbit Am (Hm )Q̆, is a set of characters. By the Heisenberg
point of view (7), the orbit of expected values
Ofm = {eπ(g)f (Q̆km ) | k = 1, . . . , Km , g ∈ Gk }
is a set of values of FGK F . Since we are interested in defining a variance over the whole orbit, we
define Σf (T̆) as some norm of the Fourier coefficients of F in Ofm .
Remark 46. Consider the special case where Y = {1}, and the collection of entries of the orbit
Am (Hm )Q̆ are all of the frequencies. In this case we define the mean square average expected
value
2
2
Ef (Q̆) = FGK |f |
.
(137)
2

36

By Parseval’s theorem we can calculate (137) in the GK demain by
Z
2
2
Ef (Q̆) = |f |
|f (g)|4 dg,
=
2

GK

Z

|f (g)| dg .

(138)

and define the global variance by
Σf (Q̆) = 1 −

4

GK

2

Note that we want to minimize Σf (Q̆) under kf k2 = 1, so the definition promotes localization.

3.7

Examples

In this section we give five examples. First, the observables of the STFT from Subsection 1.1
and the observales of FSTFT from Subsection 2.5.1 constitute canonical multi-observables. Additionally, the global multi-observable of the 1D wavelet transform was developed in Subsection 3.2.
Next we develop the localization theory of the Shearlet transform and the finite wavelet transform.
3.7.1

The Shearlet transform

The Shearlet transform is a modification of the Curvelet transform, making it a SPWT. The
modification is based on replacing rotations with shears. Hence, the Shearlet transform comprises
translations, shears, and anisotropc dilations of a window in L2 (R2 ) [17]. In [6], the Shearlet
transform was studied as a generalized wavelet transform, including the group stracture and the
representation generators. There, for the localization notions, the canonical observables were
defined to be the generators of the representations πm . In this section we apply our localization
theory for the Shearlet transform.
Translation by g1 ∈ R × R is defined as usual by π1 (g1 )f (x) = f (x − g1 ). Consider the shear
matrix operator, with g2 ∈ R,


1 g2
.
Sg2 =
0 1
Shear by g2 ∈ R of L2 (R2 ) functions is defined by

x).
π2 (g2 )f (x) = f (Sg−1
2
Consider the anisotropic dilation matrix operator, with g3 ∈ R,

 g3
0
e
.
Dg3 =
1
0 e 2 g3
Anisotropic dilation by g3 ∈ R of L2 (R2 ) functions is defined by
3

π3 (g3 )f (x) = e− 4 g3 f (Dg−1
x).
3
Last, consider the reflection by g4 ∈ {−1, 1}
π2 (g4 )f (x) = f (g4 x).
Note that the standard definition of the Shearlet transform is based on the anisotropic dilation,
with g3 ∈ R,


g3
0p
.
D̃g3 =
0 sign(g3 ) |g3 |

The standard definition incorporates dilations and reflections. Our version gives rise to a Shearlet
group that is isomorphic to the standard Shearlet group, and compatible with our localization
theory.
37

The Shearlet group


G = translations ⋊ shears ⋊ (dilations × ref lections)


= R × R ⋊ R ⋊ (R × {−1, 1})

(139)

has an empty center, and is represented in the Shearlet transform by
π(g) = π1 (g1 )π2 (g2 )π3 (g3 )π4 (g4 ).

In the notation of Assamption 27, we have G1 = G2 = G3 = R, G4 = {−1, 1}, N1 = G1 × G1 ,
N2 = G2 , N3 = G3 , N4 = G4 , and


G = G1 × G1 ⋊ G2 ⋊ (G3 ⋊ G4 )

where the last ⋊ is actually ×. The actions Am (hm ) in the semi-direct product group structure
are given next. Denote the reflection matrix operator Ig4 = g4 I, and observe
Dg3 Ig4 Sg2 Ig4 D−g3 = S
so

1

g4 e 2 g3 g2

,

1

A2 (g3 , g4 )g2 = g4 e 2 g3 g2 .
To calculate A1 (g2 , g3 , g4 ), observe



f [Ig4 D−g3 S−g2 ]−1 [Ig4 D−g3 S−g2 ]x − g1 = f x − [Ig4 D−g3 S−g2 ]−1 g1

so

A1 (g2 , g3 , g4 )g1 = Sg2 Dg3 Ig4 g1 = g4



eg3
0

1

e 2 g3 g2
1
e 2 g3



g1 .

To construct a canonical multi-observable, we transform the discussion to the frequency domain. By (51),
ω)
π̂2 (g2 )fˆ(ω) := F π2 (g2 )F −1 fˆ(ω) = fˆ(Ŝg−1
2
where Ŝg2 is the orthogonal shear, defined by

Ŝg2 =
Morefover,

1
−g2

0
1



.

3
π̂3 (g3 )fˆ(ω) := F π3 (g3 )F −1 fˆ(ω) = e 4 g3 fˆ(Dg3 ω),

and π̂4 (g4 )fˆ(ω) = fˆ(g4 ω). Let us define the canonical multi-observable directly in the frequency
domain. For translation, the natural definition is
T̆1 fˆ(ω) = i

∂ ˆ 
∂ ˆ
f (ω), i
f (ω) .
∂ω1
∂ω2

We call the physical quantity translated by shears slope, and define the slope observable
ω2
T̆2 fˆ(ω) = − fˆ(ω).
ω1
2
Note that the slope − ω
ω1 , corresponding to the point (ω1 , ω2 ) in the frequency domain, is a measure
of direction or angle. For dilations, we take the anisotropic scale observable

T̆3 fˆ(ω) = − ln(|ω1 |)fˆ(ω).
Last, for reflections

T̆4 fˆ(ω) = sign(ω1 )fˆ(ω).
38

It is straight forward to check that T̆ is a canonical multi-observable.
By (117), the global variances are defined to be
Am ([efˆ(T̆ )−1 ]hm )Wm Am ([efˆ(T̆ )−1 ]hm )∗

m
ΣfW
(T̆m ) = σfˆ
ˆ

(T̆m ).

(140)

To calculate (140) in practice, we use the inversion formula in Remark 29 on [efˆ(T̆ )−1 ]hm . Recall
−1
, so
that (gm , hm )−1 |gm = Am (hm )−1 gm
!
−1
 g
1
e 3 e 2 g3 g2
− 21 g3
−1
g1 , −e
(g1 , g2 , g3 , g4 ) = − g4
g2 , −g3 , g4 .
1
0
e 2 g3
Thus, the scalar global variance of T̆1 , with weight W1 , is given by
A (f )W1 A1 (f )∗

1
1
ΣfW
ˆ (T̆1 ) = σfˆ

where

(T̆1 ),



1
A1 (f ) = A1 −e− 2 efˆ(T̆3 ) efˆ(T̆2 ), −efˆ(T̆3 ), efˆ(T̆4 ) .

The scalar global variance of T̆2 is given by

A (f )W2 A2 (f )∗

2
2
ΣfW
ˆ (T̆2 ) = σfˆ

where

(T̆2 ),



A2 (f ) = A2 −efˆ(T̆3 ), efˆ(T̆4 ) .

W3
3
Last, ΣfW
ˆ (T̆3 ) = σfˆ (T̆3 ). Next we define the Shearlet global uncertainty. Note that windows
supported on the domain
R+ × R = {ω ∈ R2 | ω1 > 0}

are perfectly concentrated with respect to T̆4 . Thus, we restrict our search to windows supported
on R+ × R, and define
W2
W3
1
S(fˆ) = ΣfW
ˆ (T̆1 ) + Σfˆ (T̆2 ) + Σfˆ (T̆3 )
for some choice of the weights W1 , W2 , W3 .
Let us introduce the transformations corresponding to Theorem 38. Shearing translates the
variable g2 = − ωω12 , and keeps ω1 constant. The inversion of this change of variable is ω2 = −g2 ω1 ,
and ω1 kept unchanged. By normalizing this change of variable, we define the slope transform to
be
1
Ψ : L2 (R2 ) → L2 (R2 ) , [Ψf ](g2 , ω1 ) = |ω1 | 2 fˆ(ω1 , −g2 ω1 ).
The anisotropic scale transform for fˆ supported on ω1 > 0 is given in by
1

3

[W+ fˆ](g3 , y) = e− 4 g3 fˆ(e−g3 , ye− 2 g3 ),
and for fˆ supported on ω1 < 0 by
1
3
[W− fˆ](g3 , y) = e− 4 g3 fˆ(−e−g3 , −ye− 2 g3 ).

Together, we define
W : L2 (R2 ) → L2 (R2 )2

39

,

W = W+ ⊕ W− .

3.7.2

The finite wavelet transform

The following generalized wavelet transform can be traced back to [3]. Consider the set G =
e2πiZ/N for a prime number N . This set is a finite field with e2πin/N + e2πim/N := e2πi(n+m)/N
and e2πin/N · e2πim/N := e2πinm/N . Consider the space L2 (e2πiZ/N ). We define the finite wavelet
transform directly in the frequency domain. Translations are defined in time by π1 (g1 )f (q) =
f (q − g1 ), or in frequency by π̂1 (g1 )fˆ(q) = q · g1 fˆ(q), where q · g1 is the multiplication in the field.
Here π̂1 is a representation of the additive group G+ of e2πiZ/N . Consider the multiplicative group
G× of e2πiZ/N , namely the group e2πiZ/N \ {0} with the field’s multiplication as the group product.
Dilations are defined by π̂2 (g2 )fˆ(q) = fˆ(g2 ·q), for g2 ∈ G× , q ∈ e2πiZ/N . Here π̂2 is a representation
of G× . It can be shown that π1 , π2 are unitary representations, and π(g) = π1 (g1 )π2 (g2 ) is a
unitary representation of the finite affine group
translations ⋊ dilations = G+ ⋊ G× .
In the following we represent elements e2πin/N in short by n. The representation π has two
irreducible subspaces, namely
H0 ={f ∈ L2 (e2πiZ/N ) | ∀ n 6= 0, fˆ(n) = 0 }
H1 ={f ∈ L2 (e2πiZ/N ) | fˆ(0) = 0}.

(141)

As a representation of a finite group, irreducible in each of H0 and H1 , π satisfies Assumption
27 in each of these irreducible subspaces. Moreover, since π(g)|H0 and π(g)|H1 are not unitarily
equivalent, by finite group representation theory, VH0 [H0 ] and VH1 [H1 ] are orthogonal subspaces
of L2 (G), and the reconstruction formula 7 of Assumption 5 holds also in the reducible space
L2 (e2πiZ/N ) (this is by the canonical decomposition of the representation π, see e.g [26]).
The following choice of T̆1 and T̆2 is a multi-canonical observable. Define [T̆1 f ](n) = e2πin/N f (n)
in time, or [F T̆1 F −1 fˆ](n) = fˆ(n−1) in frequency. For scale, define [F T̆2 F −1 fˆ](2m ) = e2πim/N fˆ(2m ),
where 2m is defined using the multiplication in the field e2πiZ/N , and m ∈ Z. Note that for m ∈ Z,
2m exhausts the elements in e2πiZ/N , so T̆2 is well defined. Since 2m is an “exponential scale”
of the doamin of definition of fˆ, and e2πim/N is in a “linear scale” in the image of fˆ, the scale
observable T̆2 is interpreted as a frequency logarithmic observable.
It can be shown that the orbit of A2 (g2 )T̆1 are the multiplicative operators by all of the
characters of G+ , exept for the unit character. Thus, by (137), we define the global scalar variance
P
2
4
N −1
|f
(n)|
, for f ∈ H1 . For scale, we define the global scalar variance
Σf (T̆1 ) = 1 −
n=0
Σf (T̆2 ) = σf (T̆2 ). As a result of the construction in Subsection 3.6.2, Σf (T̆1 ) and Σf (T̆2 ) are
invariant on orbits. We define the global uncertainty of the window f by S(f ) = w1 Σf (T̆1 ) +
w2 Σf (T̆2 ) for some weights w1 , w2 ∈ R+ .

4

Uncertainty minimizers as sparsifying windows

In this section we show how the global localization framework lends itself to estimating the localization of ambiguity functions, which control the sparsity of the wavelet transform in some
sense.

4.1

Ambiguity functions

Consider a SPWT. Given a window f ∈ H, it’s ambiguity function is defined to be Vf [f ]. The
ambiguity function accommodates an important property given in Proposition 47 below. This
property relies on convolution of L2 (G) functions, defined for F, Q ∈ L2 (G) by
Z
[F ∗ Q](g) = F (q −1 • g)Q(q)dµ(q).
40

Here, dµ(q) is the left Haar measure of G. To gain intuition on F ∗Q, we can adopt the usual signal
processing interpretation of convolution. Namely, F ∗ Q is interpreted as “filtering, or blurring, Q
using the kernel F ”. The following proposition can be found e.g in [12].
Proposition 47. Let f ∈ H be an admissible window with kAf k = 1, where A is the DufloMoore operator (see 7 of Assumption 5, and Remark 7). Consider the image space of the wavelet
transform, Vf [H]. Then Vf Vf∗ is the orthogonal projection L2 (G) → Vf [H]. Moreover, for any
Q ∈ L2 (G), Vf Vf∗ [Q] = Vf [f ] ∗ Q.
The following is a result of Proposition 47.
Corollary 48. Let f ∈ H be an admissible window with kAf k = 1. Then the image space of the
wavelet transform, Vf [H], is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with kernel Vf [f ]. Precisely, for
any Q ∈ Vf [H], Q = Vf [f ] ∗ Q.
By the “blurring” interpretation of the convolution, Corollary 48 is interpreted as follows.
“Any function in Vf [H] is blurry, with the blurring kernel Vf [f ]”, or “the pixels of Vf [H] are based
on the point spread function Vf [f ]”. This interpretation demonstrates the utility in well localized
ambiguity functions. Namely, the more Vf [f ] is localized, the less each value of Vf [s] is correlated
with its neighbors, and thus the more “information” each value of Vf [s] carries.
Next we show that the more localized the ambiguity function of the window is, the more
sparsifying the wavelet transform is in some sense. For that we discuss sparse signals in the
context of generalized wavelet transforms.

4.2

Sparse signals and separation preservation

Let us consider the following model for sparse signals. Let f be a window with kAf k = 1, where
A is the Duflo-Moore operator (see 7 of Assumption 5, and Remark 7). Let δg0 (g) = δ(g0−1 • g)
be a translated delta functional in phase space. We define a sparse phase function as a finite
combination of translated delta functionals, namely
F =

N
X

cn δgn

n=1

For some N ∈ N and coefficients cn ∈ C. We define the synthesis of F to be the signal
s = Vf∗ F =

N
X

cn π(gn )f

n=1

∈ H.

This is consistent with the wavelet inversion formula (18). We call such an s a sparse signal. It
is easy to see that the wavelet transform of a sparse signal is given by
[Vf Vf∗ F ](g) =

N
X

n=1

cn Vf [f ](gn−1 • g),

which is consistent with Proposition 47.
Note that the wavelet transform of a sparse signal is a blurring of the sparse phase function
with the ambiguity function. Thus, the better the ambiguity function is localized, the better
Vf Vf∗ F preserves the separation of F . Preserving separation is an important property for greedy
sparse algorithms e.g. matching pursuit [23], explained next. Given a sparse signal s, based on
the points {gn }N
n=1 we want to calculate it’s sparse representation in phase space F , basing our
calculation on the wavelet transform. In matching pursuit, we initialize s0 = s, and at each step k
pick the largest wavelet coefficient ck = Vf [sk ](gk′ ) and its position in phase space gk′ ∈ G. Then,
we define the remainder sk+1 = sk − ck π(gk′ )f , and continue the process until ck is sufficiently
small. Now, the better localized Vf [f ] is, the better Vf [s] retains the separation of F , keeping
the peaks of Vf [sk ] as close as possible to {gn }N
n=k . As a result, we expect matching pursuit to
performe better the more Vf [f ] is localized.
41

4.3

Localization of ambiguity functions

The global localization framework relates the localization of Vf [f ] with the variances σfWm (T̆m ).
Namely, it relates the variances σfWm (T̆m ) with decay estimates of Vf [f ]. Note that by (67), no
localization of Vf [f ] is possible in the direction of the center Z. Thus, in this section we study the
localization of Vf [f ] in the cross-section Gz , defined in (66).
Let us start with a toy example. Consider the group G = {R, +}, the space L2 (R), the left
translation representation π(g) = L(g), and the observable Q̆f (x) = xf (x). This representation
is not a SPWT on its own, as it is reducible, but we can think of π(g) as a restriction of a
representation of a “bigger” group to a subgroup. The ambiguity function of f ∈ L2 (R) satisfies
Vf [f ](g) = f ∗ f˜(g), where f˜(x) = f (−x). It is intuitive that the more localized f is, the more
localized Vf [f ] is. One way to see this is by a corollary of the Chebyshev inequality [21]. Namely,
for f, h with ef (Q̆) = e1 , eh (Q̆) = e2 , σf (Q̆) = σ1 and σh (Q̆) = σ2 , we have
√
√
√
2 σ2
4 σ1 σ2
2 σ1
.
(142)
+
+
|hf, hi| ≤
|e1 − e2 | |e1 − e2 | |e1 − e2 |2
As a result of (142), we have
|Vf [f ]| (g) = hf, π(g)f i ≤

4

q
σf (Q̆)

+

4σf (Q̆)
2

.

The bound in (143) involves two parts. One part are the decay terms

4
|g|

|g|

|g|

(143)
and

4
,
|g|2

independent of

2

the choice of f . The other part are the constants σf (Q̆) and σf (Q̆) , which we control. Thus, the
smaller the variance of f is, the more localized the bound of Vf [f ] is.
In the general case, consider the construction in Subsection 3.5. Using Theorem 38, we are
able to pull forward the discussion on the decay of the ambiguity function to the quantitym spaces
L2 (Nm × Y), m = 1, . . . , M . In these spaces, πm are mapped to left translations, so we can use
standard versions of multidimensional Chebyshev inequalities. In the following we show how to
reduce the analysis to the case where Y = {1}.
Let Ψm be the quantitym transform guaranteed by Theorem 38, and L2 (Nm ×Y) the quantitym
m
domain. We have T̆m = Ψ∗m Q̆Xm Ψm , where Q̆Xm = (Q̆1Xm , . . . , Q̆K
) is a tuple of multiplicative
PKm k Xkm
wm
operators along the Nm axis of Nm × Ym . Let Q̆m = k=1 wm Q̆Xm be a linear combination of
the observables in Q̆Xm . Let us denote, by abuse of notation, the functions Nm × Y → C, defined
P m k k
to be (gm , y) 7→ K
k=1 wm gm , by
m
Q̆w
m (gm , y)

=

m
Q̆w
m (gm )

=

Km
X

k k
wm
gm .

k=1
m
Q̆w
m

Both the expected value and the variance of
are based on integrations of the form
ZZ
2
R(gm , y) |f (gm , y)| dgm dy,

(144)

Nm ×Y

wm
wm
m
where the functions R : Nm × Y → C is Q̆w
m for the expected value, and Q̆m − ef (Q̆m )

2

for

2

the variance. Consider the function F ∈ L (Nm ), defined by
sZ
2

F (gm ) =

Y

|f (gm , y)| dy.

By Fubini’s theorem on (144), we may wright
Z
2
wm
m
m
Q̆w
)
=
ef (Q̆w
m (gm ) |F (gm )| dgm = eF (Q̆m )
m
Nm

42

(145)

(146)

m
σf (Q̆w
m ) =

Z

2

Nm

2

wm
wm
m
Q̆w
m (gm ) − ef (Q̆m ) |F (gm )| dgm = σF (Q̆m ).

(147)

This calculation shows that we may reduce the analysis in the following two subsections, to the
case where Y = {1}. Thus, in the following we assume without loss of generality that Ψm : H →
L2 (Nm ), and denote by Lm (gm ) the left translation in L2 (Nm ).
4.3.1

The self-adjoint case

Let e denote the unit element in each of the groups Nm , m = 0, . . . , M . Fix and index m ≥ 1, and
assume that Gm is R or Z. let g ′ ∈ Gz be a point in phase space with corresponding coordinate
′
gm
= e. Let us denote, with abuse of notation, a generic point g ∈ G having coordinates gm′ = e
for every m′ 6= m, by gm . Our goal is to analyze the decay of Vf [f ](gm • g ′ ) as gm varies.
Denote q = Ψm f the mapping of f to the quantitym domain L2 (Nm ), and note that Ψm
intertwines π(g) in H with the representation ρm (g) = Ψm π(g)Ψ∗m in L2 (Nm ). We have ρm (gm ) =
Lm (gm ), where Lm (gm ) is the left translation in L2 (Nm ). Moreover, by T̆m = Ψ∗m Q̆m Ψm , and
by Propositions 45 and 33, we have
eρm (gm •g′ )q (Q̆m ) = eπm (gm •g′ )f (T̆m ) = gm • Am (h′m )ef (T̆m ) = gm • Am (h′m )eq (Q̆m ),
σρW
(Q̆m )
′
m (gm •g )q

=

W
σπ(g
(T̆m )
′
m •g )f

=

A (h′ )WAm (h′m )∗
(T̆m )
σf m m

=

(148)

A (h′ )WAm (h′m )∗
σq m m
(Q̆m ),

(149)
′

′

|Vf [f ](gm • g )| = hq, ρm (gm • g )qi ,

(150)

for any weight matrix W.
To relate the variance of f with the decay of Vf [f ], we start by considering a simple type
of decay. We demand optimal decay of Vf [f ] along the directions of the axis of Nm . For any
k = 1, . . . , Km , consider the weight Wk = wk wk∗ corresponding to the standard direction wk with
entries wkj = δk,j . Now, by (142), (148), and (86), for any k = 1, . . . , Km we have
|Vf [f ](gm • g ′ )| = |hq, ρm (gm )ρm (g ′ )qi| ≤
q
q
A (h′ )w
k)
2 σf m m k (T̆m )
2 σf (T̆m
+
l ) − g k • [A (h′ )e (T̆ )]
l ) − g k • [A (h′ )e (T̆ )]
ef (T̆m
ef (T̆m
m
f
m
k
m
m k
m
m
m
m f
q
′
k )σ Am (hm )wk (T̆ )
4 σf (T̆m
m
f
+
l ) − g k • [A (h′ )e (T̆ )]
ef (T̆m
m
m k
m
m f

(151)
(152)

2

(153)

where [Am (h′m )ef (T̆m )]k is the k-th entry of the vector Am (h′m )ef (T̆m ). In case ef (T̆m ) = 0,
(151) reduces to
|Vf [f ](gm • g ′ )| ≤
q
q
q
′
Am (h′m )wk
k )σ Am (hm )wk (T̆ )
k
2 σf
(T̆m ) 4 σf (T̆m
2 σf (T̆m )
m
f
+
+
2
k
k
k
|gm |
|gm |
|gm |

(154)
(155)

Let us interpret (151) or (154). For f with fixed expected values, the denominators are decay
terms independent of f . The numerators are variances of f , which we can control. Thus the decay
of the bound (151) and (154) is faster the smaller the variances of f are.
The following Proposition extends (154) to directional variances.
Proposition 49. Consider a SPWT, and a canonical multi-observable T̆. Let m ≥ 1 be an index
such that Gm is R or Z. Let f be a window with ef (T̆m ) = 0, and let wk ∈ CKm be a direction.

43

Then
|Vf [f ](gm • g ′ )| ≤
q
q
q
A (h′ )w
A (h′ )w
2 σfwm (T̆m )
2 σf m m m (T̆m ) 4 σfwm (T̆m )σf m m m (T̆m )
+
+
2
|wm · gm |
|wm · gm |
|wm · gm |

(156)
(157)

In Proposition 49, the vector wm is the direction in which we apply the corollary of Chebyshev
inequality (142), and gm is the direction in which we bound the decay. As a first application of
Proposition 49, we are interested in fast decay in the directions of the axis of Nm . Note that the
variances of elements in the orbit of f appear in (156). Therefore, we want to choose a window
with a minimal global variance ΣIfm (T̆m ). As a second example, let us demand fast isotropic decay
in Nm . We decompose the coordinate vector gm = |gm | ĝm , where ĝm is a unit vector. Assuming
that ef (T̆m ) = 0, we get by Proposition 49,
|Vf [f ](gm • g ′ )| ≤
q
q
q
A (h′ )ĝ
A (h′ )ĝ
2 σfĝm (T̆m )
2 σf m m m (T̆m ) 4 σfĝm (T̆m )σf m m m (T̆m )
.
+
+
2
|gm |
|gm |
|gm |

(158)
(159)

Since we are interested in fast isotropic decay, we decrese the numerators of (159) by minimizing
Σ1f m (T̆m ) where 1m is the isotropic weight function with all entries equal to a single positive
constant.
4.3.2

The unitary case

In the unitary case, where Gm is equal to eiR or e2πiN/N for some m ≥ 1, we can derive
a corresponding version of Chebyshev inequality. Since the discussion can be pulled forward
to L2 (Nm ) as described above, we assume without loss of generality that H = L2 (Nm ) and
π|Nm (gm ) = Lm (gm ) is the left translation. We start with the case Gm = eiR . In the following we
show an equivalence of standard localization notions in R2 , and the localization notions ef (Q̆km )
and σf (Q̆km ) = 1 − ef (Q̆km )

2

based on observabes.

First we consider a procedure for mapping f ∈ L2 (eiR ) to a function in L2 (R2 ). Consider the
standard embedding of eiR to the unit circle in R,
eiR ∋ x + iy 7→ ν(x + iy) = (x, y) ∈ R2 .
Let f ∈ L2 (eiR ), and ǫ > 0. Denote by fǫ ∈ L2 (R2 ) the function, defined in polar coordinates, by


f (eiθ ) , |r − 1| ≤ ǫ
iθ
fǫ rν(e ) =
0
, |r − 1| > ǫ

Next we show how to relate the localization of f to the localization of fǫ . Denote generic points
in R2 by x = (x, y). Define the standard expected values of h ∈ L2 (R2 ) by
ZZ
x |h(x)|2 dx
Xh =
R2

Yh =

ZZ

R2

y |h(x)|2 dx

and denote Xh = (Xh , Yh ), where h ∈ L2 (R2 ). Define the isotropic variance
ZZ
2
2
Dh =
|x − Xh | |h(x)| dx.
R2

44

It is easy to see that

Xfǫ = ν ef (Q̆) + oǫ (1) ,

Dfǫ = σf (Q̆) + oǫ (1),

(160)
2

where oǫ (1) converges to zero as ǫ → 0. Note that by σf (Q̆) = 1 − ef (Q̆) , (160) also relates the
variance of f to the expected value of fǫ .
Since our goal is to derive a version (142) for unitary observables, and since localization in
L2 (eiR ) relates to localization in L2 (R2 ), our next goal is to derive a version of (142) to some
Chebyshev inequality in L2 (R2 ). Let Br (Xh ) be a disc of radius r about Xh . The standard
isotropic Chebyshev inequality in L2 (R2 ) reads
ZZ
Dh
(161)
|h(x)|2 dx ≤ 2 .
r
Br (Xh )c
Lemma 50. Let h1 , h2 ∈ L2 (R2 ), and denote r = |Xh1 − Xh2 | /2. Then
p
p
p
p
D h1
D h2
D h1 D h2
hh1 , h2 i ≤
.
+
+
r
r
r2
Proof. We have
ZZ

h1 (x)h2 (x)dx =

R2

ZZ

h1 (x)h2 (x)dx +

ZZ

h1 (x)h2 (x)dx +

h1 (x)h2 (x)dx.

Br (Xh1 )c ∩Br (Xh2 )c

Br (Xh2 )

Br (Xh1 )

ZZ

Therefore, by the Cauchy Schwarz inequality, by the monotonicity of integrals of nonnegative
functions, and by the isotropic Chebyshev inequality (161),
sZ Z
sZ Z
ZZ
R2

h1 (x)h2 (x)dx ≤
+

2

R2

|h1 (x)| dx

sZ Z

2

Br (Xh1 )c

+

sZ Z

Br (Xh2 )c

|h1 (x)| dx
2

Br (Xh1 )c

|h1 (x)| dx

sZ Z
sZ Z

R2

|h2 (x)| dx

|h2 (x)| dx

(162)
2

Br (Xh2 )c

|h2 (x)| dx

p
p
p
p
D h1
D h2
D h1 D h2
≤
+
+
r
r
r2
We can now relate the decay of Vf [f ] to variances, using Lemma 50 on h1 = fǫ and h2 =
[π(g)f ]ǫ . Recall that we assume that for a specific m ≥ 1, Nm = Gm = eiR is one dimensional.
Let e denote the unit element in eiR . As in Subsection 4.3.1, let g ′ ∈ G be a point in phase
′
space with corresponding coordinate gm
= e, and denote a generic point g ∈ G having coordinates
′
′
gm = e for every m 6= m, by gm . Our goal is to analyze the decay of Vf [f ](gm • g ′ ) as gm varies.
Similarly to the proof of Proposition 34, using the linearity of the expected values with respect to
Q̆m , and by the multi-canonical comutation relation (77),

eπ(gm •g′ )f (Q̆m ) = gm • ef Am (h′m )Q̆m .
2

Moreover, by σπ(gm •g′ )f (Q̆m ) = 1 − eπ(gm •g′ )f (Q̆m ) , we have


σπ(gm •g′ )f (Q̆m ) = σf Am (h′m )Q̆m .
45

Denote ∆gm (Q̆m ) = eπ(gm •g′ )f (Q̆m ) − ef (Q̆m ). By (160), we have

1
1
∆g (Q̆m ) =
Xfǫ − X[π(gm •g′ )f ]ǫ + oǫ (1).
2
2
By Lemma 50 on fǫ and [π(gm • g ′ )f ]ǫ , and by (160), we have
rgm =

Vf [f ](gm • g ′ ) = hf, π(gm • g ′ )f i
q
q
q
q
σf (Q̆m )
σf (Am (h′m )Q̆m )
σf (Q̆m ) σf (Am (h′m )Q̆m )
+
+
+ oǫ (1).
≤
rgm
rgm
rg2m
(163)

This is true for every ǫ > 0, so we must have
q
q
q
q
′ )Q̆ )
(
Q̆
)
(A
(h
(
Q̆
)
σ
σ
σ
σf (Am (h′m )Q̆m )
f
m
f
m
m
f
m
m
Vf [f ](gm • g ′ ) ≤
+
+
.
rgm
rgm
rg2m

(164)

To control the decay rate of (164), we want to minimize the variances of the windows in the orbit
of f . Therefore, we minimize the global variance Σf (Q̆m ).
Next we explain the way to extend (164) to the Km -dimensional case, where Nm = [eiR ]Km . In
the Km -dimensional case, f ∈ L2 ([eiR ]Km ). It is easy to extend the above results to a correspondence between L2 ([eiR ]Km ) and L2 (R2Km ), based on the mapping ν : [eiR ]Km → TKm , where TKm
is the unit torus in R2Km . A Chebyshev inequality with a “torus symmetry”, extending Lemma
50 to L2 (R2Km ), can be derived. Here, the Chebyshev inequality is isotropic in 2D subspaces
of L2 (R2Km ) spanned by pairs of axis. The resulting decay estimate is given in the following
Proposition.
Proposition 51. Consider a SPWT, and a canonical multi-observable T̆. Let m ≥ 1 be an index
such that Gm = eiR , let f be a window with ef (Q̆m ) = e, and let wk be a standard direction, with
entries wkj = δk,j . Let gm • g ′ ∈ G as before, let ∆gm (Q̆m ) = eπ(gm •g′ )f (Q̆m ) − ef (Q̆m ) ∈ CKm ,
and let
1
∆gm (Q̆m ) ∈ RKm .
rgm =
2
Then
q
q
q
q
wk
′
k
σf (Am (hm )Q̆m )
σf (Q̆km ) σfwk (Am (h′m )Q̆m )
σ
(
Q̆
)
f
m
Vf [f ](gm • g ′ ) ≤
. (165)
+
+
2
|rgm |
|rgm |
|rgm |
As before, Proposition 165 leads us to minimize the global variance Σf (Q̆m ).
Example 52. Let us consider the special case where Am (h′m ) = I and Nm = Gm = eiR . Here,
π(gm • g ′ ) is translation in eiR by gm . As a result, by the law of cosines, rg = ∆g (T̆m ) /2 satisfies
q


1
rgm =
1 − σf (Q̆m ) 2 − 2 cos(gm ) .
2
Now, equation (164) takes the form
Vf [f ](gm • g ′ ) = hf, π(gm • g ′ )f i
q
σf (Q̆m )
σf (Q̆m )
≤ 2q

 + 4 1 − σ (Q̆ ) 2 − 2 cos(g ) .
f
m
m
1 − σf (Q̆m ) 2 − 2 cos(gm )

(166)

The only controlable part in the decay (166) is σf (Q̆m ), which shows that minimal variance corresponds to optimally decaying ambiguity function.
The case where Gm = e2πiZ/N is treated similarly, by embedding each e2πin/N in ν(e2πin/N ) in
the unit circle in R2 , and extending f (e2πin/N ) in a small disc about ν(e2πin/N ) to get a function
fǫ ∈ L2 (R2 ).
46

Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the EU FET Open grant UNLocX: Uncertainty principles
versus localization properties, function systems for efficient coding schemes (Grant agreement no
255931).

References
[1] S.T. Ali, J.P. Antoine, and J.P. Gazeau. Coherent states, wavelets and their generalizations.
Springer, 2000.
[2] J.P. Antoine, R. Murenzi, P. Vandergheynst, and S.T. Ali. Two-dimensional wavelets and
their relatives. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[3] G. Caire, R.L Grossman, and H.V Poor. Wavelet transforms associated with finite cyclic
groups. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 39(4):1157 – 1166, 1993.
[4] E. Candes and D. Donoho. New tight frames of curvelets and optimal representations of
objects with piecewise C 2 singularities. Comm. Pure and Appl. Math., 56:215–266, 2004.
[5] E. Candes and D. Donoho. Continuous curvelet transform: I. resolution of the wavefront set.
Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 19(2):162–197, 2005.
[6] S. Dahlke, G. Kutynoik, P. Maass, C. Sagiv, H.G Stark, and G. Teschke. The uncertainty
principle associated with the continuous shearlet transform. International journal of wavelets
multiresolution and information processing, 06, 2008.
[7] S. Dahlke and P. Maass. The affine uncertainty principle in one and two dimensions. Computers and mathematics with applications, 30:293–305, 1995.
[8] Ingrid Daubechies. Ten Lectures on Wavelets. SIAM: Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics, 1992.
[9] R. A. DeVore. Nonlinear approximation. Acta Numerica, A. Iserles (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 51–150, 1998.
[10] M. Duflo and C.C. Moore. On the regular representation of a nonunimodular locally compact
group. J. Funct. Anal., 21:209 – 243, 1976.
[11] G. B. Folland and A. Sitaram. Harmoni Analysis in Phase Spase. Prinseton University Press,
1989.
[12] Hartmut Führ. Abstract harmonic analysis of continuous wavelet transforms. Springer, 2005.
[13] J. Grassberger1 and G. H. ormann. A note on representations of the finite heisenberg group
and sums of greatest common divisors. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer
Science, 4(2):91 – 100, 2001.
[14] K. Gröchenig. Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis. Birkhäuser Basel, 2001.
[15] A. Grossmann and J. Morlet. Decomposition of hardy functions into square integrable
wavelets of constant shape. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 15(4):723–736, 1984.
[16] A. Grossmann, J. Morlet, and T. Paul. Transforms associated with square integrable group
representations i. general results. J. Math. Phys., 26(10):2473 – 2479, 1985.
[17] K. Guo, G. Kutyniok, and D. Labate. Sparse multidimensional representations using
anisotropic dilation and shear operators. International Conference on the Interaction between
Wavelets and Splinesl, Wavelets and Splines, 2005.
47

[18] K. Guo and D. Labate. Optimally sparse multidimensional representation using shearlets.
SIAM J. Math Anal, 39:298–318, 2007.
[19] B.C. Hall. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction.
Springer, 2003.
[20] G. Helmberg. Introduction to spectral theory in Hilbert space. North-Holland publishing
company, 1969.
[21] R. Levie, H.G. Stark, F.Lieb, and N.Sochen. Adjoint translation, adjoint observable and
uncertainty principles. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 40:609–627, 2014.
[22] Peter Maass, Chen Sagiv, Nir Sochen, and Hans-Georg Stark. Do uncertainty minimizers
attain minimal uncertainty? Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, 16(3):448 – 269,
2010.
[23] S. G. Mallat and Z. Zhang. Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 41(12):3397 – 3415, 1993.
[24] A. Prasad. A theorem of stone and von neumann. Duke Mathematical Journal, 16:313–326,
1949.
[25] A. Prasad. An easy proof of the stone-von neumann-mackey theorem. Expositiones Mathematicae, 29:110–118, 2011.
[26] Jean-Pierre Serre. Linear Representations of Finite Groups. Springer New Yorkr, 1977.
[27] H.G. Stark and N. Sochen. Square integrable group representations and the uncertainty
principle. Journal of Fourier analysis and applications (JFAA), 17:916 – 931, 2011.
[28] K. Yoshida. Functional Analysis, sixth edition (p. 345). Springer, 1992.

A

Direct integrals

A direct integral of Hilbert spaces is a generalization of a direct product. The idea is that instead
of using a finite set for the carrier space (the index set of the Hilbert spaces), we use a measure
space. We introduce the theory in a very restricted case which is of importance to us.
Definition 53. Let Y be a measure space, and consider the Hilbert space H = L2 (Y). Let X
Rbe⊕another measure space. The direct integral of H, over the carrier space X , is denoted by
Hdµ(x), and defined to be
X
Z ⊕
Hdµ(x) ∼
= L2 (X × Y).
X

For a vector f ∈

R⊕
X

Hdµ(x) and x ∈ X , we denote in short f (x) = f (x, ·).

Note that Definition 53 extends the notion of direct product. Indeed, a vector f ∈ HN =
L2 (Y)N can be thought of as a function that maps each index 1 ≤ n ≤ N to a vector fn ∈ L2 (Y).
R⊕
In direct integrals the index set is X , and f ∈ X Hdµ(x) is the function that maps indices x ∈ X
to vectors f (x, ·) ∈ L2 (Y).
One of the main endeavors of representation theory is to describe any arbitrary representation
as a combination of explicit “simple” representations, served as building blocks. For this end, there
is a way to decompose certain classes of representations of G to a direct integral of irreducible
representations. To formulate this statement, the index running over the different representations
in the decomposition is in a measure carrier space, and the Hilbert space on which the decomposed
representation acts is a direct integral. We assume in our analysis that G is a physical quantity.
In this case, the carrier space is the space of irreducible unitary representations of G, namely the
characters χ(G). There is a way to define a measure on this carrier space, called a Plancherel
measure, that admits the desired decomposition.
48

Definition 54. Let G be a physical quantity. The Plancherel measure of χ(G) is the standard
Lebesgue measure of χ(G), considered as the physical quantity Ĝ.
Given a character χ of a physical quantity G, and m ∈ N ∪ {∞}, we denote by χ[m] the
representation in Cm defined by
χ[m] (g)(z1 , . . . , zm ) = (χ(g)z1 , . . . , χ(g)zm ).
In case m = ∞, the notation C∞ means l∞ .
Definition 55. Let G be a physical quantity. Let m ∈ N ∪ {∞}. Consider the Hilbert space
Z ⊕
H=
Cm dµ(χ).
χ(G)′

The representation
ρ=

Z

⊕

χ[m] dµ(χ)

(167)

χ(G)

in the space H, is defined by

[ρ(g)f ] (χ) = χ[m] (g)f (χ)

for any f ∈ H and χ ∈ χ(G) (almost everywhere).
Let ρ′ be a representation of G on Hρ′ , unitarily equivalent to ρ. Then ρ is called a direct
integral decomposition of ρ′ , and m is called the multiplicity of the decomposition.
The informal idea in this limited definition, is that some representations ρ′ of physical quantities
contain each character of G as an irreducible subrepresentation, with a constant multiplicity
m over all irreducible subrepresentations. It is not accurate to say that the characters χ are
subrepresentations of ρ′ in the sense that they are unitarily equivalent to the restrictions of ρ′ to
invariant subspace of Hρ′ . However, in the language of direct integrals, we are able to say that
each character χ of G appears in ρ′ with multiplicity m in the sense of (167).
The following uniqueness theorem can be found in its general form in Theorem 3.25 of [12].
Proposition 56. Let
Z

⊕
χ(G)

χ[m] dµ(χ) ∼
=

Z

⊕

′

χ[m ] dµ(χ)

χ(G)

be two unitarily equivalent representations of a physical quantity G. Then m = m′ .
Last, we give a direct integral decomposition of a usefull representation. Let G be a physical
quantity, and consider the left translation L(g) in L2 (G). Consider an isomorphism Ĝ 7→ χ(G),
ĝ 7→ χĝ . Let FG be the Fourier transform between L2 (G) and L2 (Ĝ). Namely, for f ∈ L1 (G) ∩
L2 (G) we have
Z
Z
f (g)χĝ−1 (g)dg,

f (g)χĝ (g)dg =

[FG f ](ĝ) =

G

G

and FG f is defined by a density argument for f ∈ L2 (G). Here, ĝ are interpreted as frequencies.
The Fourier transform FG transforms translations L(g) to a modulation operator, namely
[FG L(g)f ](ĝ) = χĝ−1 (g)[FG f ](ĝ).
As a result, we have the representation equivalence
Z ⊕
L∼
χ[1] dµ(χ)
=

(168)

χ(G)

To see this, we interpret the carrier space χ(G) as the reflected frequency domain. The isometric
R⊕
isomorphism U between the representation spaces of L and χ(G) χ[1] dµ(χ) is given by [U f ](χĝ ) =
[FG f ](ĝ −1 ), which gives
[U L(g)f ](χĝ ) = χĝ (g)[FG f ](ĝ −1 ) = χĝ (g)[U f ](χĝ ).

49

