arXiv:1708.02516v3 [math.FA] 13 Mar 2018

EQUIVALENCE OF WEAK AND STRONG MODES
OF MEASURES ON TOPOLOGICAL VECTOR SPACES
HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN
Abstract. Modes of a probability measure on a normed space X can be defined by maximising the small-radius limit of the ratio of measures of norm
balls. Helin and Burger weakened the definition of such modes by considering only balls whose centres differ by a vector in a topologically dense, proper
subspace E of X, and posed the question of when these two types of modes coincide. We generalise these definitions, by replacing norm balls with bounded,
open neighbourhoods that satisfy a boundary regularity condition, and probability measures with non-atomic measures that are finite on bounded sets.
We show that a coincident limiting ratios condition is a necessary and sufficient condition for the equivalence of these two types of modes, and that this
condition is satisfied under the assumption that E is dense in X.

1. Introduction
A probability measure µ on a topological vector space X can be described using
summary statistics such as means and covariances or, as in this article, modes,
meaning points of maximum µ-mass in an appropriate sense. There are multiple
ways of defining such modes, particularly for infinite-dimensional vector spaces;
the strong mode of Dashti et al. [8] and the weak mode of Helin and Burger [16]
describe the notion of a point of maximum probability in a separable Banach space
by examining the probabilities of small norm balls in the limit as the radius tends to
zero. Helin and Burger observed that every strong mode is a weak mode, and asked
whether the converse holds [16, Section 6]. Here, we shall assume the following:
Assumption 1.1. X is a first countable, Hausdorff topological vector space over
K := R or C; µ is a non-zero, non-atomic measure on the Borel σ-algebra of X that
is finite on bounded sets; and K is a bounded, open neighbourhood of the origin.
In [8, 16], X is a separable Banach space, K is its unit norm ball, and µ is
a Borel probability measure with topological support supp(µ) = X. Here, we
do not assume that X is complete or separable, that supp(µ) = X, or that µ is
finite on X. Assumption 1.1 implies that the topology on X is metrisable; see,
e.g. [25, Theorem 6.2.1].
For any λ ∈ K, x ∈ X, and E ⊂ X, x + λE := {x + λy | y ∈ E}, N (x) denotes
the collection of open neighbourhoods of x; for any U ∈ N (0), U (x, λ) := x + λU .
For K as in Assumption 1.1, define the evaluation map f : X × R>0 → R≥0 by
(1.1)

f (x, r) := µ(K(x, r)) ≥ 0.

Date: March 14, 2018.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 28C20 (62G35 49Q20 49N45) .
Key words and phrases. mode, small ball probabilities, topological vector space, maximum a
posteriori estimation, minimum action principle.
1

2

HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN

In Section 4, we remove the restriction to r > 0 in (1.1). Assumption 1.1 implies
that f (x, r) is finite for all (x, r) ∈ X × R>0 .
Definition 1.2. A strong mode (or simply mode) of µ is any u ∈ X satisfying
(1.2)

lim
r↓0

supz∈X f (z, r)
= 1.
f (u, r)

The intuition behind (1.2) is that, if u is a mode, then, for sufficiently small r,
translating the rK-neighbourhood of u does not yield an increase in measure.
We now define an E-weak mode. In Proposition 3.1, we prove the equivalence
of this definition and Helin and Burger’s definition [16, Definition 4].
Definition 1.3. Let E ⊂ X. An E-weak mode (or simply weak mode) of µ is a
point u ∈ supp(µ) such that
(1.3)

lim
r↓0

supz∈u−E f (z, r)
≤ 1.
f (u, r)

By comparing (1.2) and (1.3), and observing that u − E ⊂ X for any u ∈ X and
E ⊂ X, it follows that a strong mode is a weak mode. A weak mode u differs from
a strong mode in that it considers translations of K(u, r) only by vectors in E; thus
every mode is an E-weak mode for every E ⊂ X. We require u ∈ supp(µ) in order
to exclude “0/0” degeneracies: for example, if µ := 21 (µ1 + µ2 ), where µ1 (resp. µ2 )
is the standard one-dimensional Gaussian measure on {+1} × R (resp. {−1} × R),
and E := span(e1 ), then 0 ∈
/ supp(µ) is an E-weak mode in the 0/0 sense.
Helin and Burger asked when an E-weak mode (for a topologically dense subspace E of some Banach space X) is also a strong mode. We have the following.
Definition 1.4. The coincident limiting ratios condition holds for x and E ⊂ X if
(CLR)

lim
r↓0

supz∈x−E f (z, r)
supz∈X f (z, r)
= lim
.
r↓0
f (x, r)
f (x, r)

Definition 1.5. A bounded set K ∈ N (0) has locally inwardly translatable boundary ∂K if, for all z ∈ ∂K, there exists v ∈ X \ {0} and U ∈ N (z) such that
(LITB)

− λv + U ∩ ∂K ⊂ K,

∀λ ∈ (0, 1).

Theorem 1.6. Suppose that Assumption 1.1 holds. If K satisfies (LITB), and if
E is topologically dense in X, then (CLR) holds for all x ∈ X.
Theorem 1.7. Suppose Assumption 1.1 holds. Let E contain the origin or be
topologically dense in a neighbourhood of the origin, and let u be an E-weak mode.
Then u is a strong mode if and only if u and E satisfy (CLR).
Note that Theorem 1.7 makes no claim about the existence of modes. Theorem 1.7 indicates that, in order to decide whether an E-weak mode is a mode, then
the condition that E be a topologically dense subspace in [8, p. 2] or [16, Assumption (A1)] can be weakened to one of the conditions on E in Theorem 1.7.
In Corollary 2.2 we show that convex K satisfy (LITB). With this in mind, we
answer Helin and Burger’s question in the following corollary of Theorem 1.6 and
Theorem 1.7.
Corollary 1.8. Suppose Assumption 1.1 holds. Let E be topologically dense in X
and K satisfy (LITB). Then u is an E-weak mode if and only if u is a strong mode.

STRONG AND WEAK MODES OF MEASURES ON VECTOR SPACES

3

We describe two areas where Corollary 1.8 may be applied. In mathematical
models of chemical reactions, rare events of diffusion processes on energy landscapes
play an important role; the rare events of interest are typically transitions from one
energy well (metastable state) to another one over an intermediate energy barrier.
The qualitative description of such rare events requires studying the paths that a
diffusion process is most likely to take. Studying the modes of a probability measure
on some path space is often done with the help of a least-action principle formulated
by an Onsager–Machlup functional, and an application of Freidlin–Wentzell theory
or large deviations theory [9, 11, 12, 23].
In Bayesian inverse problems, one transforms prior beliefs about a function —
e.g., the initial conditions or governing parameter fields of a partial differential
equation over a given domain — into the posterior probability distribution, with
the help of observed data and Bayes’ rule. In the setting of inverse problems, the
modes of the posterior (maximum a posteriori estimators, or MAP points) play an
important role, because of their interpretation as being the most likely solutions
of the inverse problem given the observed data [27]. A far from exhaustive list of
studies that have considered MAP points is [3–7, 10, 13–15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 29, 31].
Another attractive feature of modes is that they can be characterised in a variational
fashion, as minimisers of a regularised misfit functional [2, 8, 16].
When µ is a Bayesian reweighting of a Gaussian prior, the definition of a strong
mode given in [8, Definition 3.1] is connected to variational methods, in that the
strong modes of µ are the minimisers of an appropriate Onsager–Machlup functional
[8, Theorem 3.5]. This functional can be formally regarded as a misfit regularised by
the negative logarithm of the prior density. The weak mode given in [16, Definition
4] is similarly motivated, with the aim of establishing a correspondence between
weak modes and zeros of logarithmic derivatives of µ; see [16, Theorems 2 and 3].
In the context of inverse problems, Corollary 1.8 provides theoretical support
for certain choices of negative log-likelihood or potential functions, in which the
Onsager–Machlup functional assumes the value +∞ outside a topologically dense
subset of X; see, e.g. [8, Equation (2.1)]. Our results apply not only to normed
spaces, but also to F -spaces, so that one may apply the MAP approach in function
spaces that have desirable sparsity properties, e.g. Lp for 0 < p < 1.
An interesting feature of our proof of Theorem 1.6 (which follows from Theorem 2.9 below) is that, for any r, we do not require continuity of f ( · , r) in order
for supz∈X f (z, r) and supz∈u−E f (z, r) to coincide. This feature follows from the
assumptions that µ is nonatomic and that K satisfies (LITB).
We prove Theorems 1.6 and 1.7 in Sections 2 and 3 respectively. In Section 4.1,
we show that the restriction of r in (1.1) to R>0 is unnecessary. In Section 4.2,
we consider the local modes defined by Agapiou et. al. [2]. Finally, in Section 4.3,
we show that a probability measure on a topological vector space need not have a
mode (Example 4.5), and we show that the set of modes can depend on the choice
of the set K (Example 4.6).
2. Consequences of topological density
In this section, we show that the condition (LITB) yields a useful property,
which is described in Lemma 2.5. We then use Lemma 2.5 and the topological
density of E ⊂ X to show that, regardless of whether or not the evaluation map
f ( · , r) is continuous on all of X, it follows that supz∈X f (z, r) and supz∈x−E f (z, r)

4

HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN

coincide, for any (x, r) ∈ X × R>0 . The latter result is given in Theorem 2.9, which
immediately implies Theorem 1.6.
For distinct x, y ∈ X, let Rx (y) := {x + λ(y − x) : λ ≥ 0}, and let [x, y] :=
{x + λ(y − x) : 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1}, [x, y) := [x, y] \ {y}, and so on. Recall that U (x, r) :=
x + rU for any U ∈ N (0). For ∅ 6= A ⊂ X, we denote the indicator function,
interior, closure, and boundary of A by IA , int(A), cl(A), and ∂A respectively.
2.1. Sets with locally inwardly translatable boundary. We show that a large
class of sets satisfies (LITB). Note that (LITB) can be understood as a locally
uniform version of the cone of inward-pointing vectors based at a point of ∂K and
pointing into K, see e.g. [24, Definition 2.2].
Proposition 2.1. Let K ∈ N (0) be bounded, such that for all z ∈ ∂K, there exist
U ∈ N (0) and w ∈ U (z, 1) ∩ K, such that
(2.1)

[w, z ′ ) ⊂ U (z, 1) ∩ K,

Then K satisfies (LITB).

∀z ′ ∈ U (z, 1) ∩ ∂K.

In Corollary 2.2 and Lemma 2.3, we show that (2.1) can be seen as a local version
of a property that is stronger than being star-shaped.
Proof. Let z ∈ ∂K, and let U ∈ N (0) and w ∈ U (z, 1) ∩ K be as in the hypotheses.
Define a map Λ : U (z, 1) ∩ ∂K → R>0 ∪ {−∞} by
Λ(z ′ ) := sup {λ > 0 : ∀λ′ ∈ (0, λ), z ′ + λ′ (w − z) ∈ K} .

Observe that if there exists a U ′ ∈ N (z) with U ′ ⊂ U (z, 1) such that inf{Λ(z ′ ) :
z ′ ∈ U ′ ∩ ∂K} > 0, then (LITB) holds, with the vector z − w and neighbourhood
U ′ . By the contrapositive, if (LITB) does not hold, then for every U ′ ∈ N (z) with
U ′ ⊂ U (z, 1), either inf{Λ(z ′ ) : z ′ ∈ U ′ ∩ ∂K} is zero or −∞. We shall choose
U ′ ∈ N (z) so that the relative closure of U ′ ∩ ∂K is a proper subset of U (z, 1) ∩ ∂K.
Case 1. If the infimum of Λ over U ′ ∩ ∂K is −∞, then for some z ′ ∈ U ′ ∩ ∂K,
Λ(z ′ ) = −∞. By definition of Λ, this implies that there exists (vm )m∈N ⊂ K ∁ that
converges to z ′ on the open line segment (z ′ , z ′ +w−z). Since vm = z ′ +λm (w−z) for
some (λm )m∈N ⊂ (0, 1) converging to zero, and since the relative closure of U ′ ∩ ∂K
is a proper subset of U (z, 1) ∩ ∂K, it follows that for large enough m ∈ N, Rw (vm )
intersects U (z, 1) ∩ ∂K at some z ′′ 6= vm . Thus, [w, z ′′ ) contains vm ∈ U (z, 1) ∩ K ∁ ,
and we obtain a contradiction with (2.1).
Note that the preceding paragraph implies the strict positivity of Λ on sufficiently
small relatively open neighbourhoods of z that are contained in U (z, 1) ∩ ∂K.
Case 2. If the infimum of Λ over U ′ is zero, then since Λ is strictly positive on
sufficiently small relatively open neighbourhoods of z, it follows that there exists
(zn )n∈N ⊂ U ′ ∩ ∂K converging to z, such that the sequence (Λ(zn ))n∈N strictly
decreases to zero. By definition of Λ, for each n ∈ N, it holds that vn := zn +
Λ(zn )(w − z) ∈ K ∁ . Thus, for some N ∈ N, n ≥ N implies that Rw (vn ) intersects
U (z, 1) ∩ ∂K at some z ′′ 6= vn , and we obtain a contradiction with (2.1).

Corollary 2.2. Let K ∈ N (0) be bounded. If [0, z) ⊂ K for all z ∈ ∂K, then K
satisfies (LITB). In particular, if K ∈ N (0) is bounded and convex, then [0, z) ⊂ K
for all z ∈ ∂K, and hence K satisfies (LITB).
Proof of Corollary 2.2. For the first statement, we may set U := X and w := 0 ∈
U ∩ K = K in Proposition 2.1. For the second statement, let K be a bounded,

STRONG AND WEAK MODES OF MEASURES ON VECTOR SPACES

5

convex, open neighbourhood of the origin. The closure cl(K) of K is convex, so for
any z ∈ ∂K, [0, z] ⊂ cl(K). Since K is open, it follows that cl(K) = K ⊎ ∂K. Since
[0, z] = [0, z) ⊎ {z}, it holds that [0, z) ⊂ K for all z ∈ ∂K.

A nonempty set J is star-shaped with respect to some x ∈ J if for any y ∈ J with
x 6= y, [x, y] ⊂ J. Together with Corollary 2.2, the following lemma shows that
(2.1) can be seen as a local version of a property that implies being star-shaped.
Lemma 2.3. If K is a bounded, open neighbourhood of the origin such that for all
z ∈ ∂K, [0, z) ⊂ K, then K is star-shaped with respect to the origin.
Proof. Let x ∈ K be arbitrary. The boundedness of K implies that there exists
some z ∈ R0 (x) ∩ ∂K. Since [0, z) ⊂ K by assumption, and since x ∈ [0, z(x)), it
follows that [0, x] ⊂ [0, z(x)) ⊂ K.

Note that there are sets that are not star-shaped, but satisfy (LITB). Let
Bp (0, 1) denote the open unit ball of the ℓp quasinorm on X = R2 , and e1 and
e2 denote the canonical orthonormal basis vectors. Then for 0 < p < 1 and |r| < 1,
K := Bp (0, 1) ∪ Bp (re1 , 1) is not star-shaped, but satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 2.1, and hence (LITB). The next example concerns a star-shaped set that
does not satisfy either the hypotheses of Proposition 2.1 or (LITB).
Example 2.4. Let K := Bp (0, 1) \ [ 13 e2 , e2 ] be the slit unit ℓp ball for 0 < p < 1;
then K is star-shaped with respect to the origin, but does not satisfy (LITB),
since for z = e2 ∈ ∂K and for any (v, U ′ ) ∈ R2 \ {0} × N (z), −v + U ′ ∩ ∂K will
have nonempty intersection with K ∁ . Moreover, K does not satisfy the hypotheses
of Proposition 2.1. Let U ′ ∈ N (z) be arbitrary, and let w ∈ U ′ ∩ K. If w ∈
span(e2 ) ∩ K, then for any z ′ ∈ ( 13 e2 , e2 ] ⊂ ∂K, [w, z ′ ) ∩ ∂K = [ 31 e2 , z ′ ], which
contains uncountably many elements of ∂K. On the other hand, if w ∈ K \span(e2 ),
then for z ′ ∈ ( 31 e2 , e2 ], it follows that Rw (z ′ ) ∩ ∂K \ {z ′ } contains some element
z ′′ ∈ ∂K; hence [w, z ′′ ) is not contained in U ′ ∩ K.
We shall use the next result in Proposition 2.7.
Lemma 2.5. Let K ∈ N (0) be bounded and satisfy (LITB). Then for all z ∈ ∂K,
there exists U ∈ N (z) and an open, nonempty set V ⊂ X with 0 ∈ ∂V , such that
for all v ′ ∈ V , −v ′ + U ∩ ∂K ⊂ K.
Proof. Let z ∈ ∂K be arbitrary, and let (v, U ) ∈ X \ {0} × N (z) satisfy (LITB).
Since K is an open neighbourhood of −λv + U ∩ ∂K for all λ ∈ (0, 1), it follows
that we may assign to every λ ∈ (0, 1) an open neighbourhood V (λ) of λv. Let
V := ∪λ∈(0,1) V (λ); then every v ′ ∈ V has the desired property, and V contains the
open line segment (0, v) (in particular, 0 ∈ cl(V )). Since K is open, −0 + U ∩ ∂K
cannot be a subset of K; hence 0 ∈ cl(V ) \ V = ∂V .

2.2. Continuity of the evaluation map f and (CLR). Let f be as in (1.1).
Lemma 2.6. For arbitrary r > 0, f ( · , r) is lower semicontinuous on X.
Proof. Fix an arbitrary x ∈ X and an arbitrary sequence (xn )n∈N converging to x.
To prove the desired statement, it suffices to show that
(2.2)

∀y ∈ X,

IK(x,r) (y) ≤ lim inf IK(xn ,r) (y),
n→∞

6

HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN

by considering separately the cases of when y ∈ K(x, r), when y ∈
/ cl(K(x, r)), and
when y ∈ ∂K(x, r). Given (2.2), it follows from (1.1) and Fatou’s lemma that
Z
Z
IK(xn ,r) (y) µ(dy).
lim inf IK(xn ,r) (y) µ(dy) ≤ lim inf
f (x, r) ≤
X n→∞

n→∞

X

Since the rightmost term is equal to lim inf n→∞ f (xn , r), it follows that f ( · , r) is
lower semicontinuous at x, for arbitrary x ∈ X. It remains only to establish (2.2).
Let y ∈ K(x, r) be arbitrary. Since y ∈ K(x, r), and since K(x, r) is open, there
exists a bounded U ∈ N (0) such that, for all v ∈ U , y − v ∈ K(x, r). Since y − v ∈
K(x, r) if and only if y ∈ K(x + v, r), it follows that z ∈ (x + U ) =⇒ y ∈ K(z, r).
Since xn → x as n → ∞, there exists some N ∈ N such that xn ∈ (x + U ) for all
n ≥ N . Then IK(xn ,r) (y) = 1 for n ≥ N , and
∀y ∈ K(x, r),

(2.3)

IK(xn ,r) (y) → IK(x,r) (y).

Now let y ∈
/ cl(K(x, r)) be arbitrary. Since cl(K(x, r)) is closed, there exists a
bounded U ′ ∈ N (0) such that, for all v ∈ U ′ , y − v ∈
/ cl(K(x, r)). Since y − v ∈
/
cl(K(x, r)) if and only if y ∈
/ cl(K(x + v, r)), it follows that z ∈ (x + U ′ ) =⇒ y ∈
/
cl(K(z, r)). Since xn → x, there exists some N ∈ N such that xn ∈ x + U ′ for all
n ≥ N . This implies that IK(xn ,r) (y) = 0 for all n ≥ N . Thus,
∀y ∈
/ cl(K(x, r)),

(2.4)

IK(xn ,r) (y) → IK(x,r) (y).

Observe that lim inf n→∞ IK(xn ,r) (y) is either 0 or 1, because IK(xn ,r) (y) is either 0
or 1. On the other hand, since K(x, r) is open, IK(x,r) (y) = 0 for every y ∈ ∂K(x, r).
Thus, IK(x,r) ≤ lim inf n→∞ IK(xn ,r) on ∂K(x, r).

Proposition 2.7. Let (x, r) ∈ X × R>0 be arbitrary, and let K ∈ N (0) be bounded
and satisfy (LITB). The following are equivalent:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

f ( · , r) is upper semicontinuous at x;
f ( · , r) is continuous at x;
for any (xn )n∈N converging to x, µ(K(xn , r) ∩ ∂K(x, r)) converges to zero;
the boundary measure zero property holds at (x, r), i.e.

(2.5)

µ(∂K(x, r)) = 0.

We use (LITB) only to establish the implication (iii)⇒(iv). We use this implication in Corollary 2.8, which we then use to establish Theorem 2.9.
Proof. (i) ⇐⇒ (ii). Lemma 2.6 implies the equivalence of (i) and (ii).
(ii) ⇐⇒ (iii). Since X is first countable by Assumption 1.1, we only need to prove
sequential
S continuity. For an arbitrary sequence (xn )n∈N converging to x, the set
Y := n∈N K(xn , r) ∪ K(x, r) is bounded and open, since K(0, 1) is bounded and
open. Furthermore, IY ≥ IK(x,r) , IY ≥ IK(xn ,r) for all n ∈ N, and IY ∈ L1 (µ)
by Assumption 1.1, so we may apply the dominated convergence theorem. Letting
εn := IK(xn ,r) − IK(x,r) , and using (2.3), and (2.4), we obtain
Z
Z
(2.6a)
lim εn (y) µ(dy) = 0;
εn (y) µ(dy) =
lim
n→∞ K(x,r)
K(x,r) n→∞
Z
Z
(2.6b)
lim εn (y) µ(dy) = 0.
εn (y) µ(dy) =
lim
n→∞

cl(K(x,r))∁

cl(K(x,r))∁ n→∞

STRONG AND WEAK MODES OF MEASURES ON VECTOR SPACES

7

Since εn = IK(xn ,r) on ∂K(x, r), it follows from (2.6) and the definition of εn that
Z
IK(xn ,r) (y) µ(dy).
(2.7)
lim (f (xn , r) − f (x, r)) = lim
n→∞

n→∞

∂K(x,r)

The right-hand side of (2.7) is identical to µ(K(xn , r) ∩ ∂K(x, r)).
(iv) =⇒ (iii). If (iv) holds, then every subset of ∂K(x, r) has measure zero.
(iii) =⇒ (iv). We prove the contrapositive, using the hypothesis that K satisfies
(LITB) in order to apply Lemma 2.5.
If µ(∂K(x, r)) > 0, then by Sierpiński’s theorem for non-atomic measures, there
exists a decreasing collection {St }0<t≤µ(∂K(x,r)) of non-empty subsets of ∂K(x, r),
such that µ(St ) = t. Since {St }t is decreasing, there exists a sufficiently small
0 < t ≤ µ(∂K(x, r)) with corresponding St , such that for some z ∈ ∂K(x, r) – with
corresponding neighbourhood U ∈ N (z) and non-empty open V ⊂ X as given in
Lemma 2.5 – it follows that
St ⊂ U ∩ ∂K(x, r) ⊂ v + K(x, r),

∀v ∈ V.

Since 0 ∈ ∂V , there exists a sequence (vn )n∈N ⊂ V that converges to zero; by
defining xn := x + vn , it follows that (xn )n∈N converges to x. Replacing v with vn
above and using that vn + K(x, r) = K(x + vn , r) = K(xn , r), we obtain by the
monotonicity of measures that
0 < t = µ(St ) ≤ µ(U ∩ ∂K(x, r)) ≤ µ(K(xn , r) ∩ ∂K(x, r)),
Therefore, if (iv) does not hold, then (iii) does not hold, as desired.

∀n ∈ N.


In the proof of the implication (iii)⇒(iv), we use (LITB) so that we may choose
a sequence (xn )n∈N with the property that every set in (K(xn , r) ∩ ∂K(x, r))n∈N
contains St for some fixed t. This is so that the sequence (µ(K(xn , r)∩∂K(x, r)))n∈N
is uniformly bounded away from zero. Note that we do not assume that the support
of µ is empty, as there exist examples of regular Borel measures on completely
normal locally compact Hausdorff spaces with empty support [30, Example 4.33].
Before describing some consequences of Proposition 2.7, we consider some examples where the boundary measure zero property (2.5) holds. Any measure that assigns measure zero to sets of strictly positive codimension satisfies (2.5) for all (x, r),
so Gaussian measures on Banach spaces satisfy the boundary measure zero property. Probability measures on infinite-dimensional vector spaces that are countable
products of absolutely continuous probability measures R also satisfy the boundary
measure zero property. Examples of such probability measures include Besov priors [16], ℓp - and Wp -priors [18], and the α-stable distributions considered in [21,28].
For an example of a measure that does not satisfy the boundary measure zero
property, consider the space X of continuous real-valued paths starting at 0 at time
0, equipped with the supremum norm; fix ρ > 0, let τ := inf{t > 0 | |u(t)| > ρ},
let µρ be the law of the killed Brownian motion process B = {Bt∧τ }0≤t≤1 , and
let K(0, 1) be the open unit norm ball. Since Brownian motion is almost surely
continuous, we have µρ (∂K(0, ρ)) = 1 − µρ (K(0, ρ)); since 0 < µρ (K(0, ρ)) < 1,
(2.5) does not hold for (x, r) = (0, ρ).
Corollary 2.8. Let (x, r) ∈ X × R>0 be arbitrary, U ∈ N (0), and E be topologically dense in U . Suppose that K ∈ N (0) in (1.1) satisfies (LITB). If f ( · , r) is
discontinuous at x, then, for some κ > 0 that depends only on x and r, f (x, r)+κ ≤
supz∈(x−E)∩U(x,−1) f (z, r).

8

HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN

Proof. Recall the sequence (xn )n∈N , and the sets V and St from the proof of the
implication (iii)⇒(iv) in Proposition 2.7. By the hypotheses that U ∈ N (0) and
that E is topologically dense in U , it follows that U (x, −1) = x − U is an open
neighbourhood of x, and that x − E is topologically dense in U (x, −1) respectively.
Since (xn )n∈N ⊂ x + V for a nonempty, open V ⊂ X with 0 ∈ ∂V , we may require
in addition that xn ∈ (x − E) ∩ U (x, −1) for every n ∈ N, and set κ = µ(St ).

Theorem 2.9. Suppose that Assumption 1.1 holds. If E is topologically dense in
X and K satisfies (LITB), then supz∈X f (z, r) = supz∈x−E f (z, r) for all (x, r).
Proof. Let (x, r) be arbitrary, and let D(r) denote the set of points of discontinuity
of f ( · , r). Since x − E is a subset of X, supz∈x−E f (z, r) ≤ supz∈X f (z, r). If
f ( · , r) is discontinuous at x, then by setting U = X in Corollary 2.8, we obtain that
f (x, r) ≤ supz∈x−E f (z, r). If f ( · , r) is continuous at x, then given that X is first
countable by Assumption 1.1, it follows that for any (xn )n∈N ⊂ x−E that converges
to x, we have limn→∞ f (xn , r) = f (x, r), and thus f (x, r) ≤ supz∈x−E f (z, r). 
Proof of Theorem 1.6. The result follows from Theorem 2.9: if supz∈X f (z, r) =
supz∈x−E f (z, r) for all (x, r) ∈ X × R>0 , then (CLR) holds for all x ∈ X.

3. Proof of Theorem 1.7
We begin with Proposition 3.1, which shows that Definition 1.3 is equivalent to
the generalisation of [16, Definition 4] of an E-weak mode to our setting.
Proposition 3.1. The inequality (1.3) holds if and only if
(3.1)

lim
r↓0

f (u − v, r)
≤ 1,
f (u, r)

∀v ∈ E.

Proof. Given that (1.3) implies (3.1) by definition of the supremum, it remains to
prove the other implication. Fix an arbitrary sequence (rn )n∈N of strictly positive
reals that decreases to zero. It follows from the definition of the supremum that for
(n)
every n ∈ N, there exists a sequence (vm )m∈N ⊂ E such that
(3.2)

(n)
, rn ) < 2−(m+1) f (u, rn ),
0 < sup f (z, rn ) − f (u − vm
z∈u−E

∀m ∈ N.

Since u ∈ supp(µ), it follows that
(n)
supz∈u−E f (z, rn )
f (u − vm , rn )
= lim lim
.
n→∞ m→∞
n→∞
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )

(3.3)

lim

If we can interchange the order of limits on the right-hand side of (3.3), then
(3.4)

(n)
supz∈u−E f (z, rn )
f (u − vm , rn )
= lim lim
≤ lim 1 = 1,
n→∞
m→∞ n→∞
m→∞
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )

lim

where we have applied (3.1) in the inequality, and then the desired conclusion
follows. The rest of the proof consists of showing that we may indeed change the
order of the limits on the right-hand side of (3.3).
By the triangle inequality and (3.2),


(n)
(n)
f (u − vm+1 , rn ) − f (u − vm
, rn ) < 2−(m+2) + 2−(m+1) f (u, rn ), ∀m ∈ N.

STRONG AND WEAK MODES OF MEASURES ON VECTOR SPACES

9

By Definition 1.3, it follows that f (u, rn ) > 0 for all n ∈ N, and hence
(n)

(n)
f (u − vm+1 , rn ) f (u − vm
, rn )
−
< 2−m ,
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )

(3.5)

∀m, n ∈ N.

We shall use the inequality above with dominated convergence to justify the interchange of limits, using the suggestion of J. Madnick in [1]. Define for every
n∈N
(n)
(n)
f (u − vj , rn ) f (u − vj−1 , rn )
gn : N → R, gn (j) :=
−
,
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )
so that (3.5) means that |gn (j)| ≤ 21−j . The telescoping sum identity
(n)

(3.6)

m

(n)

f (u − vm , rn )
f (u − v0 , rn ) X
gn (j),
=
+
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )
j=1

∀m, n ∈ N,

(n)

holds for any choice of v0 that does not depend on m. For example, we may set
(n)
v0 = 0 for all n ∈ N. Since sums are integrals with respect to counting measure
κ, it follows from (3.6) that we have


m
(n)
(n)
X
f
(u
−
v
,
r
)
f (u − vm , rn )
n
0
gn (j)
= lim 
+
lim
m→∞
m→∞
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )
j=1
(n)

f (u − v0 , rn )
=
+
f (u, rn )

Z

gn (j) κ(dj)

N

for every n ∈ N. Now observe that (3.5) is equivalent to the assertion that the
sequence of functions (gn )n∈N satisfies |gn | ≤ g on N, for the function g : N → R>0
definedPby g(j) := 21−j . The function g is integrable with respect to κ, since the
series j∈N 2−j converges. Hence, by the series interpretation of integrals with
respect to counting measure κ and dominated convergence,
Z
m
X
gn (j) κ(dj)
gn (j) = lim
lim lim
n→∞ m→∞

(3.7)

=

Z

j=1

n→∞

N

lim gn (j) κ(dj) = lim

N n→∞
(n)

Therefore, since v0

m→∞

m
X
j=1

lim gn (j) = lim lim

n→∞

m→∞ n→∞

m
X

gn (j).

j=1

does not depend on m, (3.6) yields

m
(n)
(n)
X
f (u − vm , rn )
f (u − v0 , rn )
gn (j).
= lim
+ lim lim
n→∞ m→∞
n→∞
n→∞ m→∞
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )
j=1

lim lim

By (3.7), we may switch the order of limits in the second term on the right-hand
side above. Thus, since the first term does not depend on m, we have


m
(n)
(n)
X
f (u − vm , rn )
,
r
)
f
(u
−
v
n
0
lim lim
= lim lim 
+
gn (j)
n→∞ m→∞
m→∞ n→∞
f (u, rn )
f (u, rn )
j=1
and applying (3.6) again yields the desired result.
Corollary 3.2. If u is an E-weak mode that satisfies (CLR), then u is a mode.



10

HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN

Proof. By Definition 1.3 and (CLR), the limit in (1.2) is less than or equal to 1.
Since the limit cannot be strictly less than 1, the result follows.

Lemma 3.3. Let u be an E-weak mode, and suppose that u and E satisfy
supz∈u−E f (z, r)
.
(3.8)
1 ≤ lim
r↓0
f (u, r)
If u is also a mode, then u satisfies (CLR).
Proof. We prove the contrapositive. Suppose that (CLR) does not hold; then
1 ≤ lim
r↓0

supz∈x−E f (z, r)
supz∈X f (z, r)
< lim
r↓0
f (x, r)
f (x, r)

and by (1.2) it follows that u is not a mode.



Proposition 3.4. Let u ∈ supp(µ) and ∅ =
6 E ⊂ X. If Assumption 1.1 holds and
E contains the origin or is topologically dense in a neighbourhood of the origin,
then u and E satisfy (3.8).
Proof. If 0 ∈ E, then u ∈ u − E, and f (u, r) ≤ supz∈u−E f (z, r) for all r.
If E is topologically dense in a neighbourhood V ∈ N (0), then u − E is dense
in u − V , and there exists a sequence of points in (u − E) ∩ (u − V ) that converges
to u. Let r > 0 be arbitrary. If f ( · , r) is continuous at u, then for any sequence
(un )n∈N ⊂ (u − E) ∩ (u − V ) such that un → u, it holds that f (un , r) → f (u, r),
which implies f (u, r) ≤ supz∈u−E f (z, r). If f ( · , r) is discontinuous at u, then by
Corollary 2.8, the same conclusion holds.

Proof of Theorem 1.7. Sufficiency of (CLR) follows from Corollary 3.2. Necessity
follows from Lemma 3.3 and Proposition 3.4.

4. Discussion
In this section, K× denotes K \ {0}, where K = R or C by Assumption 1.1.
4.1. Arbitrary non-zero scaling factors. As noted in Section 1, the fact that
we restrict the scaling factor r in (1.1) to R>0 even when the base field K of
X is C implies that the preceding results apply only to the real restriction of
X. However, a careful examination of the proofs indicates that the restriction to
strictly positive r ∈ R is not necessary, even when X is a real topological vector
space. This is because the set K in (1.1) is a bounded neighbourhood of the origin,
by Assumption 1.1. In particular, ρK is a bounded neighbourhood of the origin for
any ρ ∈ K× , for both K = R and K = C. We therefore define, analogously to (1.1),
(4.1)

J(x, ρ) := x + ρK,

φ(x, ρ) := µ(J(x, ρ)) ≥ 0,

for J ∈ N (0) and (x, ρ) ∈ X × K× . Let |ρ| denote the complex modulus of ρ ∈ C.
Then we can modify Definitions 1.2 and 1.3 to admit arbitrary non-zero scalings:
Definition 4.1. A strong mode (or simply mode) of µ is any u ∈ X such that
(4.2)

lim

|ρ|→0

supz∈X φ(z, ρ)
= 1.
φ(u, ρ)

An E-weak mode (or simply weak mode) of µ is a point u ∈ supp(µ) such that
(4.3)

lim

|ρ|→0

supz∈u−E φ(z, ρ)
≤ 1.
φ(u, ρ)

STRONG AND WEAK MODES OF MEASURES ON VECTOR SPACES

11

Theorem 4.2. Suppose Assumption 1.1 holds. If E is topologically dense in X
and K satisfies (LITB), then u satisfies (4.3) if and only if u satisfies (4.2).
Proof. The proofs of the results in Sections 2 and 3 apply for a fixed scaling.
Therefore, modifying these proofs by replacing f , r, and small-r limits with φ,
ρ, and small |ρ|-limits respectively yields the desired conclusion as an analogue of
Corollary 1.8.

4.2. Local modes. In [2, Definition 2.5], one defines a point u in a Banach space
X to be a local mode and local E-weak mode by allowing translations to points in
a norm ball centred at u and the intersection of this ball with E.
Definition 4.3. Let V ∈ N (0) be bounded. A point u ∈ X is a local strong mode
of µ with respect to V if
supz∈u−V φ(z, ρ)
= 1.
|ρ|→0
φ(u, ρ)

(4.4)

lim

A local E-weak mode of µ with respect to V is a point u ∈ supp(µ) such that
supz∈u−E∩V φ(z, ρ)
≤ 1.
φ(u, ρ)
|ρ|→0

(4.5)

lim

The global nature of a point u that satisfies (4.2) and (4.3) is evident by writing
the latter in a similar form to (4.4) and (4.5), in which case V = X.
In [2, Theorem 2.10], it was shown that for any log-concave probability measure
µ on separable Banach space X, every local strong mode is a global strong mode,
and every local E-weak mode is also a global E-weak mode, for the case when X
is a Banach space and V is the unit norm ball. We now consider the question of
when a local E-weak mode is a local strong mode.
We say that the local coincident limiting ratios (LCLR) condition with respect
to V holds for x ∈ X and E ⊂ X if
(LCLR)

lim

|ρ|→0

supz∈x−V φ(z, ρ)
supz∈x−E∩V φ(z, ρ)
= lim
.
φ(x, ρ)
|ρ|→0
φ(x, ρ)

If, in the proof of Theorem 2.9, we replace X with x − V , x − E with x − E ∩ V ,
and f with the function φ from (4.1), we obtain that the suprema of φ( · , ρ) over
x − V and x − E ∩ V agree for all (x, ρ) ∈ X × K× . Thus, if E is topologically dense
in V , then (LCLR) holds for all (x, ρ) ∈ X × K× . Similarly modifying the proof of
Proposition 3.4 yields that (4.5) holds if and only if
lim

|ρ|→0

φ(u − v, ρ)
≤ 1,
φ(u, r)

∀v ∈ E ∩ V,

so that Definition 4.3 and [2, Definition 2.5] are consistent.
Theorem 4.4. Suppose that Assumption 1.1 holds. Let V ∈ N (0) be bounded, and
suppose that E is topologically dense in V . Then u satisfies (4.5) if and only if u
satisfies (4.4).
Proof. The desired conclusion follows as an analogue of Corollary 1.8 by appropriate
modification of the results in Section 3, as was outlined above for Theorem 2.9. 

12

HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN

4.3. Examples concerning the existence and K-dependence of modes. So
far, this article has not addressed the question of whether or not µ actually has any
strong or weak modes. Questions of multimodality have also not been considered.
Our first example shows that, even for finite-dimensional X, there exist probability
measures that do not have a mode.
Example 4.5 (Probability P
measure without a mode). Fix parameters 1 < a < b <
∞ with b > 2; write A := n∈N a−n < ∞. A good choice, which helps with the
intuition, is to take a = 2 and b = 3 or 4. Define µ to be the probability measure
with Lebesgue density (probability density function) ρ : R → R≥0 ,
(4.6)

ρ(x) ≡

X 1


dµ
(x) :=
(b/a)n I |x − n| < b−n .
dx
2A
n∈N

1
(b/a)n on each interval of length 2b−n
That is, ρ is a step function with height 2A
centred on each natural number n, so that this interval has mass a−n /A; the density
function ρ takes the value 0 outside these intervals. (The restriction
 that b > 2
ensures that the supports of the indicator functions I |x − n| < b−n in (4.6) are
pairwise disjoint.)
As can be seen from inspection, ρ is unbounded above and has no global maximum. Thus, µ has no mode in the naı̈ve sense of a maximiser of its density function.
Furthermore, the small-balls approach does not rectify the situation. For the ball
radius rn = b−n > 0, the unique maximiser of x 7→ µ((x − rn , x + rn )) is x∗n = n
(with maximum value a−n /A). Clearly, the sequence (x∗n )n∈N does not converge in
R, and indeed has no convergent subsequence, so we cannot hope that a mode will
arise as an accumulation point of the sequence (x∗n )n∈N of approximate modes, in
the style of [8], since this sequence has no such accumulation points.
Indeed, it is possible to directly verify that µ has no strong modes in the sense
of (1.2). For any proposed strong mode u ∈ R, let N := ⌈u⌉ + 1. Then, for
r := rN = b−N and x∗N = N ,

supz∈R f (z, r)
a−N
b
f (x∗N , r)
A−1 a−N
= −1 1−N = > 1.
≥
≥ −N
−1
N
−1
f (u, r)
f (u, r)
2b
· (2A) (b/a)
b a
a
Hence, u cannot be a strong mode for µ.
This example can be modified to produce a smooth density ρ with the same
pathology. Also, under the map x 7→ π −1 arctan(x), this pathological measure is
pushed forward to one with compact support in [0, 1]; in this case, the sequence
(x∗n )n∈N of approximate modes would converge to 1, which is again not a mode.
In light of Example 4.5, it would be interesting to determine conditions on µ
that guarantee the existence of a mode, or conditions on µ and E that guarantee
the existence of an E-weak mode.
Observe that the notion of a mode and an E-weak mode depends on the choice
of the set K in (1.2) and (1.3). The question then arises as to whether, for distinct
bounded K, K ′ ∈ N (0), a mode defined in terms of K is also a mode defined in
terms of K ′ . The following two-dimensional example indicates that this is not
always the case.
Example 4.6. Let B1 and B∞ be the open unit balls in R2 of the 1- and ∞-norms
respectively. Let µ be a probability measure on R2 that is absolutely continuous

STRONG AND WEAK MODES OF MEASURES ON VECTOR SPACES

13

with respect to Lebesgue measure with density function ρ. Let e1 := (1, 0) ∈ R2 ,
and suppose that




1
1
⊎ B∞ −e1 ,
.
supp(µ) = B1 e1 , √
2
2
Consistent with the earlier K(z, r) notation, B1 (z, r) is the open ball in the 1-norm
centred at z of radius r, and similarly for B∞ (z, r). Thus, µ is supported on the
disjoint union of two unit squares, one parallel to the coordinate axes and one at
angle π/4 to the axes.
Suppose furthermore that ρ has two maxima at e1 and −e1 , with the graph of ρ
over each square being a square pyramid with isosceles triangle sides and height 3/2.
Note the height of 3/2 is uniquely determined by the facts that ρ is a probability
density function and that each base square is a unit square. Note also that both e1
and −e1 are modes of µ in the classical sense of being global maximisers of ρ.
We now consider the modes of µ with respect to K := B1 and K := B∞ . For all
sufficiently small 0 < r ≤ 1/2, it is clear that
arg max µ(z + rB1 ) ∈ {±e1 }.
z∈R2

A brief calculation of the volume of the intersection of a pyramid with a squarebased prism aligned with the pyramid’s peak reveals that
12
µ(e1 + rB1 ) = 6r2 − 8r3 > 6r2 − √ r3 = µ(−e1 + rB1 ),
2
and so e1 is the unique strong mode of µ with respect to K. A similar calculation
reveals that −e1 is the unique strong mode of µ with respect to K ′ := B∞ .
Example 4.6 indicates the importance of the choice of the sets K and J in the
definitions (1.1) and (4.1) of f and φ respectively. In the case when (X, k · k) is
a normed vector space, or when (X, d) is a vector space endowed with a metric,
then it is natural to choose K to be the the open k · k-norm or d-metric ball of
radius 1, since these sets are native to the structure of the vector space. If there
is no unambiguous choice, then it may be useful to determine whether there exist
conditions for which a mode defined in terms of K is also a mode in terms of K ′ .
Acknowledgements
The authors thank S. Agapiou and T. Helin for their feedback on a preliminary
version of this manuscript. The authors are supported by the Freie Universität
Berlin within the Excellence Initiative of the German Research Foundation (DFG).
This work was partially supported by the DFG through grant CRC 1114 “Scaling
Cascades in Complex Systems”, and by the National Science Foundation (NSF)
under grant DMS-1127914 to the Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences
Institute (SAMSI) and SAMSI’s QMC Working Group II “Probabilistic Numerics”.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the above-named
funding agencies and institutions.
References
1. When can you switch the order of limits?, http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/15240/
when-can-you-switch-the-order-of-limits. Accessed 11th April 2017.

14

HAN CHENG LIE AND T. J. SULLIVAN

2. S. Agapiou, M. Burger, M. Dashti, and T. Helin, Sparsity-promoting and edge-preserving maximum a posteriori estimators in non-parametric Bayesian inverse problems, Inverse Probl.
(2018).
3. A. Alexanderian, N. Petra, G. Stadler, and O. Ghattas, A fast and scalable method for Aoptimal design of experiments for infinite-dimensional Bayesian nonlinear inverse problems,
SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 38 (2016), no. 1, A243–A272.
4. T. Bui-Thanh and Q. P. Nguyen, FEM-based discretization-invariant MCMC methods for
PDE-constrained Bayesian inverse problems, Inverse Probl. Imaging 10 (2016), no. 4, 943–
975.
5. M. Burger and F. Lucka, Maximum a posteriori estimates in linear inverse problems with
log-concave priors are proper Bayes estimators, Inverse Probl. 30 (2014), no. 11, 114004, 21.
6. L. Calatroni, J. C. De Los Reyes, and C.-B. Schönlieb, Infimal convolution of data discrepancies for mixed noise removal, SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 10 (2017), no. 3, 1196–1233.
7. D. Calvetti, H. Hakula, S. Pursiainen, and E. Somersalo, Conditionally Gaussian hypermodels
for cerebral source localization, SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 2 (2009), no. 3, 879–909.
8. M. Dashti, K. J. H. Law, A. M. Stuart, and J. Voss, MAP estimators and their consistency
in Bayesian nonparametric inverse problems, Inverse Probl. 29 (2013), no. 9, 095017, 27.
9. A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni, Large Deviations Techniques and Applications, second ed., Applications of Mathematics (New York), vol. 38, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
10. M. M. Dunlop and A. M. Stuart, MAP estimators for piecewise continuous inversion, Inverse
Probl. 32 (2016), no. 10, 105003, 50.
11. W. E, W. Ren, and E. Vanden-Eijnden, Minimum action method for the study of rare events,
Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 57 (2004), no. 5, 637–656.
12. M. I. Freidlin and A. D. Wentzell, Random Perturbations of Dynamical Systems, second ed.,
Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical
Sciences], vol. 260, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998, Translated from the 1979 Russian original by Joseph Szücs.
13. K. Hämäläinen, A. Kallonen, V. Kolehmainen, M. Lassas, K. Niinimäki, and S. Siltanen,
Sparse tomography, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 35 (2013), no. 3, B644–B665.
14. L. Harhanen, N. Hyvönen, H. Majander, and S. Staboulis, Edge-enhancing reconstruction
algorithm for three-dimensional electrical impedance tomography, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 37
(2015), no. 1, B60–B78.
15. P. Héas, F. Lavancier, and S. Kadri-Harouna, Self-similar prior and wavelet bases for hidden
incompressible turbulent motion, SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 7 (2014), no. 2, 1171–1209.
16. T. Helin and M. Burger, Maximum a posteriori probability estimates in infinite-dimensional
Bayesian inverse problems, Inverse Probl. 31 (2015), no. 8, 085009, 22.
17. T. Helin and M. Lassas, Hierarchical models in statistical inverse problems and the Mumford–
Shah functional, Inverse Probl. 27 (2011), no. 1, 015008, 32.
18. B. Hosseini, Well-posed Bayesian inverse problems with infinitely divisible and heavy-tailed
prior measures, SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif. 5 (2017), no. 1, 1024–1060.
19. N. Hyvönen and M. Leinonen, Stochastic Galerkin finite element method with local conductivity basis for electrical impedance tomography, SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif. 3 (2015),
no. 1, 998–1019.
20. A. Krol, S. Li, L. Shen, and Y. Xu, Preconditioned alternating projection algorithms for
maximum a posteriori ECT reconstruction, Inverse Probl. 28 (2012), no. 11, 115005, 34.
21. H. C. Lie and T. J. Sullivan, Quasi-invariance of countable products of Cauchy measures under
non-unitary dilations, Electron. Commun. Probab. (to appear) (2018), arXiv:1611.10289.
22. J. Liu and X. Zheng, A block nonlocal TV method for image restoration, SIAM J. Imaging
Sci. 10 (2017), no. 2, 920–941.
23. Y. Lu, A. Stuart, and H. Weber, Gaussian approximations for transition paths in Brownian
dynamics, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 49 (2017), no. 4, 3005–3047.
24. A. Mielke, F. Theil, and V. I. Levitas, A variational formulation of rate-independent phase
transformations using an extremum principle, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 162 (2002), no. 2,
137–177.
25. L. Narici and E. Beckenstein, Topological Vector Spaces, second ed., Pure and Applied Mathematics (Boca Raton), vol. 296, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2011.
26. M. Pereyra, Maximum-a-posteriori estimation with Bayesian confidence regions, SIAM J.
Imaging Sci. 10 (2017), no. 1, 285–302.

STRONG AND WEAK MODES OF MEASURES ON VECTOR SPACES

15

27. A. M. Stuart, Inverse problems: a Bayesian perspective, Acta Numer. 19 (2010), 451–559.
28. T. J. Sullivan, Well-posed Bayesian inverse problems and heavy-tailed stable quasi-Banach
space priors, Inverse Probl. Imaging 11 (2017), no. 5, 857–874.
29. G. Vaksman, M. Zibulevsky, and M. Elad, Patch ordering as a regularization for inverse
problems in image processing, SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 9 (2016), no. 1, 287–319.
30. G. L. Wise and E. B. Hall, Counterexamples in Probability and Real Analysis, The Clarendon
Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.
31. Z. Yao, Z. Hu, and J. Li, A TV-Gaussian prior for infinite-dimensional Bayesian inverse
problems and its numerical implementations, Inverse Probl. 32 (2016), no. 7, 075006, 19.
Han Cheng Lie, Institut für Mathematik, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin,
Germany
Current address: Zuse Institute Berlin, Takustr. 7, 14195 Berlin, Germany
E-mail address: hlie@math.fu-berlin.de
T. J. Sullivan, Free University of Berlin and Zuse Institute Berlin, Takustr. 7, 14195
Berlin, Germany
E-mail address: sullivan@zib.de

