An obstruction to Delaunay triangulations in Riemannian manifolds

Abstract: Delaunay has shown that the Delaunay complex of a finite set of points $P$ of Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^m$ triangulates the convex hull of $P$, provided that $P$ satisfies a mild genericity property. Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay complexes can be defined for arbitrary Riemannian manifolds. However, Delaunay's genericity assumption no longer guarantees that the Delaunay complex will yield a triangulation; stronger assumptions on $P$ are required. A natural one is to assume that $P$ is sufficiently dense. Although results in this direction have been claimed, we show that sample density alone is insufficient to ensure that the Delaunay complex triangulates a manifold of dimension greater than 2.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}

We thank Gert Vegter for suggesting that we look for an obstruction
that can exist at all scales.  We also thank David Cohen-Steiner and
Mathijs Wintraecken for illuminating discussions.

This research has been partially supported by the 7th Framework
Programme for Research of the European Commission, under FET-Open
grant number 255827 (CGL Computational Geometry Learning). Partial
support has also been provided by the Advanced Grant of the European
Research Council GUDHI (Geometric Understanding in Higher Dimensions).

Arijit Ghosh is supported by Ramanujan Fellowship
number SB/S2/RJN-064/2015. Part of this work was done when he
was a researcher at the Max-Planck-Institute for Informatics, Germany
supported by the IndoGerman Max Planck Center for Computer Science
(IMPECS). Part of this work was also done while he was a
visiting scientist at the Advanced Computing and Microelectronics Unit,
Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India.

\bibliographystyle{alpha}

\section{Discussion}

We have shown that for constructing a Delaunay triangulation of an
arbitrary compact Riemannian manifold, a sampling density requirement
is not sufficient in general. One approach to this problem might be to
constrain the kind of metrics that are considered. However, the
example shown here exhibits a problem even with a mild deviation from
homogeneity, so the admissible metrics will be severely limited. We
expect this kind of problem to arise any time one attempts to contruct
an anisotropic triangulation using the empty sphere property in
dimension $m>2$, unless the $(m-1)$-spheres circumscribing $m$ points
are constrained to all intersect in a unique $(m-2)$-sphere defined by
those points. In particular, this obstruction will be encountered when
attempting to extend the planar anisotropic triangulation result of
Canas and Gortler~\cite{canas2012} to higher dimensions.

An alternate approach is to constrain the kinds of point sets
considered, so that the problematic configurations do not arise. We
have developed this approach in other
work~\cite{boissonnat2013manmesh.arxiv}.

The example demonstrated here shows that even asymptotic arguments
involving Delaunay triangulations on manifolds must be handled with
care.  Clarkson~\cite{clarkson2006} remarked that an implication of
Leibon and Letscher's claim \cite{leibon2000} is that for $m+1$
sufficiently close points there is a unique circumsphere with small
radius. Our construction is an explicit counter-example.

It is worth emphasising that the problems discussed here only arise
when the dimension is greater than $2$. Density based sampling
criteria for Delaunay triangulation of two dimensional manifolds has
been validated \cite{leibon1999,dyer2008sgp}.

\section{Delaunay complex and Delaunay triangulation}

Let $(\mathcal{M}, \gdistG{\mathcal{M}})$ be a metric space, and let $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ be a
finite set of points of $\mathcal{M}$.  An \defn{empty ball} is an open ball
in the metric $\gdistG{\mathcal{M}}$ that contains no point from $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$.  We say
that an empty ball $B$ is \defn{maximal} if no other empty ball with
the same centre properly contains $B$.  A \defn{Delaunay ball} is a
maximal empty ball.

A simplex $\sigma$ is a \defn{Delaunay simplex} if there exists some
Delaunay ball $B$ that circumscribes $\sigma$, i.e., such that the
vertices of $\sigma$ belong to $\bdry{B}\cap P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$.  The
\defn{Delaunay complex} is the set of Delaunay simplices, and is
denoted $\delM{\mpts}$. It is an abstract simplicial complex and so
defines a topological space, $\carrier{\delM{\mpts}}$, called its
\defn{carrier}. We say that $\delM{\mpts}$ \defn{triangulates} $\mathcal{M}$ if
$\carrier{\delM{\mpts}}$ is homeomorphic to $\mathcal{M}$.  A Delaunay
\defn{triangulation} of $\mathcal{M}$ is a homeomorphism
$H\colon \carrier{\delM{\mpts}} \to \mathcal{M}$.

The \defn{Voronoi cell} associated with $p \in P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$
is given by
\begin{equation*}
  \vorcellman{p} = \{x \in \mathcal{M} \mid \distM{x}{p} \leq \distM{x}{q}
  \text{ for all } q \in P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P} \}.
\end{equation*}
More generally, a \defn{Voronoi face} is the intersection of a set of
Voronoi cells: given $\sigma = \{p_0,\ldots, p_k\} \subset P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$, we
define the associated Voronoi face as
\begin{equation*}
  \vorcellman{\sigma} = \bigcap_{i=0}^{k} \vorcellman{p_i}.
\end{equation*}
It follows that $\sigma$ is a Delaunay simplex if and only if
$\vorcellman{\sigma} \neq \emptyset$. In this case, every point in
$\vorcellman{\sigma}$ is the centre of a Delaunay ball for $\sigma$.
Thus every Voronoi face corresponds to a Delaunay simplex. The Voronoi
cells give a decomposition of $\mathcal{M}$, denoted $\Vor_{\man}(\mpts)$, called the
\defn{Voronoi diagram}.  The Delaunay complex of $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ is the nerve
of the Voronoi diagram.

In the case of $\reel^m $ equipped with the standard Euclidean metric,
Delaunay~\cite{delaunay1934} showed that, if $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ is
\defn{generic}, then the natural inclusion
$P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P} \hookrightarrow \reel^m$ induces a piecewise linear embedding
$\carrier{\del{\reel^m}{P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}}} \hookrightarrow \reel^m$ of the Delaunay
complex of $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ into $\reel^m$.
This is
called the Delaunay triangulation of $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ (it is a triangulation of
the convex hull of $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$).
The point set $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ is generic if there is no Delaunay ball with
more than $m+1$ points of $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ on its boundary.  Point sets that
are not generic are often dismissed in theoretical work, because
an
arbitrarily small perturbation of the points will almost surely
yield a generic point set \cite{delaunay1934}.
In the sense of the standard measure
in the configuration space $\mathbb{R}^{m \times \size{P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}}}$, almost all
point sets will yield a Delaunay triangulation.

A similar situation is known for certain standard non-Euclidean
geometries, such as Laguerre geometry~\cite{Aurenhammer87}, spaces
equipped with a Bregman divergence~\cite{BoissonnatNN10-Bregman}, or
Riemannian manifolds of constant sectional curvature\footnote{This is
  standard folklore. We are not aware of a published reference.}.

Leibon and Letscher~\cite{leibon2000} announced sampling density
conditions which would ensure that the Delaunay complex defined by the
intrinsic metric of an arbitrary compact Riemannian manifold admits a
triangulation.  When triangulating submanifolds of dimension $3$ and
higher in Euclidean space using Delaunay techniques, it was
subsequently discovered that near degenerate ``sliver'' simplices pose
problems which cannot be escaped simply by increasing the sampling
density.  In particular, developing an example on a $3$-manifold
presented by Cheng et al.~\cite{cheng2005}, Boissonnat et
al.~\cite[Lemma 3.1]{boissonnat2009} show that, using the metric of
the ambient Euclidean space restricted to the submanifold, the
resulting Delaunay complex (called the \defn{restricted Delaunay
  complex}) need not triangulate the original submanifold, even with
dense well-separated (no two points are too close) sampling.

Here we develop a similar example from the perspective of the
intrinsic metric of the manifold. It can be argued that this is an
easier way to visualize the problem, since we confine our viewpoint to
a three dimensional space and perturb the metric, without referring to
deformations into a fourth ambient dimension. This viewpoint also
provides an explicit counterexample to the results announced by Leibon
and Letscher~\cite{leibon2000}.  We construct a fixed compact
Riemannian manifold and demonstrate (\Thmref{thm:counter.ex}) that for
any sampling density there exists a point set that meets the sampling
density and has good separation, but that does not admit a Delaunay
triangulation, and furthermore, this property is retained when the
point set is subjected to a sufficiently small perturbation. Thus, not
only is there no sampling density that is sufficient to ensure the
existence of a Delaunay triangulation on all compact Riemannian
manifolds, but for any given fixed compact manifold, there may exist
no sampling density that can guarantee a Delaunay triangulation. In
particular, this latter property will complicate attempts to use
Delaunay techniques in the construction and asymptotic analysis of
optimal triangulations \cite{clarkson2006,deLaat2011}.

Although we focus on the intrinsic metric, the same qualitative
construction applies to the restricted ambient metric, demonstrating
that the claim by Cairns~\cite{cairns1961}, that the Voronoi faces of
the restricted Voronoi diagram are closed topological balls if the
sampling is sufficiently dense, is also incorrect.

The main purpose of this note is to clear up these persistent
misconceptions that have appeared in the published literature.

\section{A qualitative argument}
\label{sec:qualitative.counterex}

As we show in this section with a qualitative argument, the problem
can be viewed as arising from the fact that in a manifold of dimension
$m>2$, the intersection of two metric spheres is not uniquely
specified by $m$ points. We demonstrate the issue in the context of
Delaunay balls. The problem is developed quantitatively in terms of
the Voronoi diagram in Section~\ref{sec:counter.ex}.

We work exclusively on a three dimensional domain. The problem is a
local one, and we are not concerned with ``boundary conditions''; we
are looking at a coordinate patch on a densely sampled compact
$3$-manifold.

One core ingredient in Delaunay's triangulation
result~\cite{delaunay1934} is that any triangle $\tau$ is the face
of exactly two tetrahedra. This follows from the observation that a
triangle has a unique circumcircle, and that any circumscribing sphere
for $\tau$ must include this circle. The affine hull of $\tau$
cuts space into two components, and if $\tau \in \del{\reel^m}{P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}}$,
then it will have an empty circumscribing sphere centred at a point $c$ on the
line through the circumcentre and orthogonal to $\affhull{\tau}$.
The point $c$ is contained on an interval on this line which contains
all the empty spheres for $\tau$. The endpoints of the interval are
the circumcentres of the two tetrahedra that share $\tau$ as a face.

The argument hinges on the assumption that the points are in general
position, and the uniqueness of the circumcircle for $\tau$. If
there were a fourth vertex lying on that circumcircle, then there
would be three tetrahedra that have $\tau$ as a face, but this
configuration would violate the assumption of general position.

Now if we allow the metric to deviate from the Euclidean one, no
matter how slightly, the guarantee of a well defined unique
circumcircle for $\tau$ is lost. In particular, if three spheres $S_1$,
 $S_2$ and $S_3$ all circumscribe $\tau$, their pairwise intersections
 will be different in general, i.e.,
 \begin{equation*}
   S_1 \cap S_3 \neq S_2 \cap S_3.
 \end{equation*}
 Although these intersections may be topological circles that are
 ``very close'' assuming the deviation of the metric from the
 Euclidean one is small enough, ``very close'' is not good enough when
 the only genericity assumption allows configurations that are
 arbitrarily bad.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{imgs/new_three_tets}
  \end{center}
  \caption{In three dimensions, three closed geodesic balls can all
    touch three points, $u,v,p$, on their boundary and yet no one of
    them is contained in the union of the other two.
In Euclidean space $\asimplex{u,v,p}$
    defines a unique circumcircle (shown dashed black) that is the
    intersection of any two distinct spheres that circumscribe
    $\asimplex{u,v,p}$, but if the metric deviates from Euclidean,
    this circle is no longer relevant; we can have
three distinct spheres, $S_1$, $S_2$, and $S_3$ all circumscribing
$\asimplex{u,v,p}$ and such that $S_1 \cap S_3 \neq S_2 \cap S_3$.
This means that
    $\asimplex{u,v,p}$ can be a face of three Delaunay tetrahedra, e.g.,
    $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$ could be circumscribing spheres for
    $\asimplex{a,u,v,p}$, $\asimplex{u,v,p,b}$, and
    $\asimplex{u,v,p,w}$, respectively.}
  \label{fig:three.tets}
\end{figure}
The problem is illustrated in \Figref{fig:three.tets}, where
$\tau = \asimplex{u,v,p}$. Here, circumspheres $S_1$ and $S_2$ of
the Delaunay tetrahedra $\asimplex{a,u,v,p}$ and $\asimplex{u,v,p,b}$
would contain any empty sphere $S_3$ that circumscribes $\tau$ if
the metric were Euclidean, but any aberration in the metric may leave
a part of $S_3$ exposed to the outside. This means that in principle
another sample point $w$ could lie on~$S_3$, while $S_1$ and $S_2$
remain empty. Thus there would be a third Delaunay tetrahedron,
$\asimplex{u,v,p,w}$ that shares $\tau$ as a face.

In dimension 2 this problem does not arise \cite{leibon1999,dyer2008sgp}.
The essential difference between dimension 2 and the higher dimensions
can be observed by examining the topological intersection properties
of spheres. Specifically, two $(m-1)$-spheres intersect transversely
in an $(m-2)$-sphere. For a non-Euclidean metric, even if this
property holds for sufficently small geodesic spheres, it is only when
$m=2$ that the sphere of intersection of the Delaunay spheres of two
adjacent $m$-simplices is uniquely defined by the vertices of the
shared $(m-1)$-simplex.

\section{An obstruction to intrinsic Delaunay triangulations}
\label{sec:counter.ex}

We now explicitly show how density assumptions alone cannot escape
topological problems in the Delaunay complex.  The configuration
considered here may be recognised as similar to the one described
qualitatively in \Secref{sec:qualitative.counterex}, but here we
consider the Voronoi diagram rather than Delaunay balls.  As before we
work exclusively in a local coordinate patch on a densely sampled
compact $3$-manifold.

The idea is to consider four points in the $xz$-plane in Euclidean
space, and show that with a mild perturbation of the metric, this
tetrahedron exhibits exactly two distinct circumcentres. We construct
a perturbed metric such that for any sampling density, a tetrahedron
with two distinct Delaunay balls can exist. This means that the
Delaunay complex, defined as the nerve of the Voronoi diagram, will
not triangulate the manifold (this Delaunay tetrahedron will have two
triangle faces that are not the face of any other Delaunay
tetrahedron, as discussed below).

Delaunay's genericity condition~\cite{delaunay1934} naturally extends
to the setting where $\mathcal{M}$ is a manifold, and Leibon and
Letscher~\cite[p.~343]{leibon2000} explicitly assume genericity in
this sense:
\begin{definition}
  \label{def:ll.delaunay.gen}
  If $\mathcal{M}$ is a Riemannian $m$-manifold, the set
  $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P} \subset \mathcal{M}$, is \defn{generic} if no subset of $m+2$ points
  lies on the boundary of a geodesic ball.
\end{definition}
Delaunay only imposed the constraint on empty balls, and he showed
that any (finite or periodic) point set in Euclidean space can be made
generic through an arbitrarily small affine perturbation. That a
similar construction of a perturbation can be made for points on a
compact Riemannian manifold has not been explicitly
demonstrated. However, in light of the construction we now present, it
seems that the question is moot when $m>2$, because an arbitrarily
small perturbation from degeneracy will not be sufficient to ensure
that a Delaunay triangulation exists.

For a point $x$ in a compact Riemannian manifold $\mathcal{M}$ (without
boundary), the injectivity radius at $x$ is the supremum of radii $r$
such that a geodesic ball with radius $r$, i.e.,
$\ballM{x}{r} = \{ y \in \mathcal{M} \mid \distM{x}{y} < r \}$, has the
property that each $y \in \ballM{x}{r}$ is connected to $x$ by a
unique minimising geodesic. The \defn{injectivity radius} of $\mathcal{M}$,
denoted $\injrad{\man}$, is the infimum of the injectivity radii at the
points of $\mathcal{M}$. When $\mathcal{M}$ is a compact manifold, $\injrad{\man} > 0$;
see Chavel~\cite[\S III.2]{chavel2006}.

We say $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P} \subset \mathcal{M}$ is \defn{$\epsilon$-dense} if
$\distM{x}{P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}} < \epsilon$ for any $x \in \mathcal{M}$. If
$\distM{p}{q} \geq \tilde{\epsilon}$ for all $p,q \in P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$, then $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$
is \defn{$\tilde{\epsilon}$-separated}. The set $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$ is an
\defn{$\epsilon$-net} if it is $\epsilon$-dense and
$\epsilon$-separated.

\begin{theorem}
  \label{thm:counter.ex}
  For every integer $m>2$ there exists a compact Riemannian
  $m$-manifold $\mathcal{M}$ such that for any $\epsilon > 0$, with
  $\epsilon < \injrad{\man}/2$, there exists a generic $\epsilon$-net
  $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P} \subset \mathcal{M}$ such that $\delM{\mpts}$ does not triangulate
  $\mathcal{M}$. Furthermore, this holds true for all perturbed point sets
  $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}' \subset \mathcal{M}$ that are within a small positive Hausdorff
  distance of $P} %{\mathrm{P}} %{\mathcal{P}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
  Consider $3$-dimensional Euclidean space, parameterised by $x$, $y$
  and $z$, to be the parameter domain of a coordinate chart of a
  compact Riemannian $3$-manifold $\mathcal{M}$. Place points $u$ and $v$ at
  $\pm \epsilon a$ on the $z$ axis, and points $w$ and $p$ at
  $\pm \epsilon a (1 + \xi)$ on the $x$-axis. Here $\epsilon > 0$ is
  the sampling parameter that parameterises the scale of the example,
  $a = \unfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, and $\xi> 0$ is a small parameter that
  will be constrained by considerations below. We will fix a metric
  $\gdistG{\mathcal{M}}$ on $\mathcal{M}$, and the value of $\xi$ will depend on this
  metric, as well as the sampling parameter $\epsilon$.

  With this configuration, $u$ and $v$ will share a Voronoi face in
  the Euclidean metric which will extend indefinitely in the
  $y$-direction, but have a very short extent in the $x$-direction,
  assuming $\xi$ is very
  small. \Figref{fig:face.views}\subref{sfig:xzvor} depicts the slice
  of this Voronoi diagram defined by the $xz$-plane, as viewed from
  somewhere on the negative $y$-axis.

  \begin{figure}[t]
    \begin{center}
      \subfloat[Euclidean metric]{
        \label{sfig:xzvor}
        \includegraphics[width=.45\columnwidth]{imgs/xzvor} }
      \subfloat[Metric of $\mathcal{M}$]{
        \label{sfig:after.xzvor}
        \includegraphics[width=.45\columnwidth]{imgs/after_xzvor} }
    \end{center}
    \caption{ A qualitative schematic of a vertical slice (the $y=0$
      plane) of the Voronoi diagram, seen from the negative $y$ axis. In
      this plane the Euclidean diagram \protect\subref{sfig:xzvor} is
      qualitatively different from the diagram
      \protect\subref{sfig:after.xzvor} defined by the metric $\gdistG{\mathcal{M}}$
      of $\mathcal{M}$.  }
    \label{fig:face.views}
  \end{figure}

  We now construct a metric on $\mathcal{M}$ such that the geodesic distance
  between $u$ and $v$ will be greater than the distance between $p$
  and $w$, thus qualitatively changing the structure of the Voronoi
  diagram in the $xz$-plane, as shown in
  \Figref{fig:face.views}\subref{sfig:after.xzvor}. To do this we
  employ a $C^\infty$ non-negative bump function
  $f\colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ that is symmetric:
  $f(-y) = f(y)$, and satisfies $f'(y) \leq 0$ for $y>0$ within our
  region of interest, and a strict inequality $f'(y)<0$ for $y>0$ in
  some open neighbourhood of the origin.  Thus there is a unique
  maximum at the origin.  As an explicit example, we may assume that
  the underlying set of $\mathcal{M}$ is the torus $\mathbb{R}^3/\mathbb{Z}^3$, and
  that $f(y) = A(1 + \cos(\pi y))$, where the amplitude is constrained
  by $A \leq 3/8$, as described below.

  We define the metric tensor of $\mathcal{M}$ in our coordinate system by
  \begin{equation*}
    g(q) =
    \begin{pmatrix}
      1 & 0 & 0 \\
      0 & 1 & 0 \\
      0 & 0 & 1 + f(y(q))
    \end{pmatrix},
  \end{equation*}
  where $y(q)$ denotes the $y$-coordinate of the point $q$.

  By integrating along the $z$-axis we obtain an upper bound on the
  geodesic distance between $v$ and $u$:
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:gdistuv}
    \distM{v}{u} \leq 2\int_0^{a\epsilon}  (1 + f(0))^{1/2}dz
    = 2a \epsilon (1 + f(0))^{1/2}.
  \end{equation}
  In fact, if the right hand side of \eqref{eq:gdistuv} is less than
  the injectivity radius of $\mathcal{M}$, then equality with $\distM{v}{u}$
  is attained. Indeed, in this case the curve represented by the
  $z$-axis is the minimising geodesic between $v$ and $u$. This
  follows from the symmetry of the metric: the reflection through the
  $xz$-plane $(x,y,z) \mapsto (x, -y, z)$ is an isometric involution
  that leaves points in the $xz$-plane fixed. Since an isometry maps
  geodesics to geodesics, and the minimising geodesic between $v$ and
  $u$ is unique, it must lie in the $xz$-plane, and, again by
  symmetry, the minimising curve is the straight line in the parameter
  domain.

  We require that all four points lie within a ball centred at the
  origin, and with diameter less than $\injrad{\man}$.  The final
  constraint that we impose on $f$ is that $f(0) \leq 3/4$. Another
  reason for this constraint is described below, but in particular it
  implies that $a (1 + f(0))^{1/2} < 1$. Then we see that, provided
  that $\epsilon < \injrad{\man}/2$,
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:distuv}
    \distM{v}{u} = 2a \epsilon (1 + f(0))^{1/2} <\injrad{\man}.
  \end{equation}

  We also require that $\distM{p}{w} < \distM{u}{v}$, so that we have
  the qualitative Voronoi diagram in the $xz$-plane depicted by
  \Figref{fig:face.views}\subref{sfig:after.xzvor}. Observing that
  \begin{equation*}
    \distM{p}{w} = \distE{p}{w} = 2a\epsilon(1+\xi),
  \end{equation*}
  and equating with \eqref{eq:distuv}, we see that
  $\distM{p}{w} = \distM{u}{v}$ if $\xi$ is equal to the critical
  value defined by
  \begin{equation*}
    \xi_0 = (1+ f(0))^{1/2} - 1,
  \end{equation*}
  and so we require $\xi < \xi_0$.

  The goal is to show that the tetrahedron $\sigma = \{u,v,w,p \}$ can
  be a Delaunay tetrahedron admitting two distinct Delaunay balls in
  an $\epsilon$-net $P$.  To that end, we require that it has a
  circumcentre $c$ on the positive $y$-axis, at a distance less than
  $\epsilon$ from the vertices ($-c$ will also be a
  circumcentre). Let the $y$-coordinate of $c$ be $b\epsilon$. We
  argue that for any $b>0$, there is a $\xi<\xi_0$ such that
  $c=(0,b\epsilon,0)$ and $-c$ are circumcentres of $\sigma$.

  The geodesic distance between $u$ and a given $c$ is no greater than
  the geodesic length of the straight line between them in the
  parameter domain:
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:upper.bnd.xi}
    \begin{split}
      \distM{u}{c}
      &\leq \int_0^{b\epsilon} \left( (1+ f(y))
        \frac{a^2}{b^2} + 1 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} dy \\
      &< \int_0^{b\epsilon} \left( (1+ f(0)) \frac{a^2}{b^2} + 1
      \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} dy = b\epsilon
      \left((1+\xi_0)^2\frac{a^2}{b^2} +1 \right)^{\frac12}.
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  Also, the geodesic distance between $u$ and $c$ is greater than the
  Euclidean distance:
  \begin{equation*}
    \distM{u}{c} > \distE{u}{c}
    = b\epsilon\left(\frac{a^2}{b^2}+1 \right)^{\frac12}.
  \end{equation*}
  It follows then that for any $b>0$, there exists a positive
  $\tilde{\xi}(b) <\xi_0$ such that
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:def.xi}
    \distM{u}{c}
    = b\epsilon \left( (1+\tilde{\xi}(b))^2 \frac{a^2}{b^2} + 1 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
  \end{equation}
  Since $\distM{u}{c}$ varies smoothly with $b$, $\tilde{\xi}$ must be a
  smooth function.

  The symmetry of the metric implies that the unique minimizing
  geodesic between $p$ and $c$ must lie in the $xy$-plane, where the
  metric coincides with the Euclidean one. It follows that, for
  $p=(-(1+\xi)a\epsilon,0,0)$, we have
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:distpc}
    \distM{p}{c} = \distE{p}{c}
    =
    b\epsilon \left( (1+\xi)^2 \frac{a^2}{b^2} + 1 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
  \end{equation}
  Thus when $\tilde{\xi}(b)=\xi$ we have $\distM{u}{c}=\distM{p}{c}$, and it
  follows (by symmetry) that $c$ is a circumcentre for $\sigma$.

  We need to keep $b$ small enough that $\distM{u}{c} < \epsilon$, so
  that $\sigma$ can be a Delaunay tetrahedron in an
  $\epsilon$-net. It is sufficient to demand that
  $b \leq b_{\mathrm{max}} = a/2$; then the fact that $\distM{u}{c} < \epsilon$
  follows from the constraint $f(0) \leq 3/4$ and the definitions
  $a^2 = 1/2$, and $b^2 \leq b_{\mathrm{max}}^2 = 1/8$:
  \begin{equation*}
    \distM{u}{c}
    < b\epsilon
    \left( (1+ f(0)) \frac{a^2}{b^2} + 1 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
    \leq \epsilon.
  \end{equation*}
  Also, it follows from the construction that the vertices of $\sigma$
  meet the separation criterion of an $\epsilon$-net: geodesic
  distances between the points are bounded below by the Euclidean
  distances in the parameter domain, e.g.,
  $\distM{u}{w} > \norm{u-w} = a\epsilon(1+(1+\xi)^2)^{1/2} >
  \epsilon$.
  Thus, $\sigma$ can be realised as a Delaunay simplex with exactly
  two distinct Delaunay balls in an $\epsilon$-net.

  The configuration can be realised as part of an $\epsilon$-net so
  that the two circumcentres of $\sigma$ remain Voronoi
  vertices. Furthermore, this is not a degenerate configuration in the
  sense of \Defref{def:ll.delaunay.gen}, because the requirements of
  an $\epsilon$-net are met without placing any further vertices on
  the Delaunay spheres associated to $\sigma$; i.e., $\sigma$ is not
  the proper face of any Delaunay simplex.

  When we deviate from a Euclidean metric we can encounter
  degeneracies different from those described by
  \Defref{def:ll.delaunay.gen}. For example, if we were to choose
  $\xi=\xi_0$ in our example, then $\sigma$ would have a unique
  circumcentre (at the origin), and it could be a Delaunay simplex
  that is not the proper face of any other. But an arbitrarily small
  perturbation, sending $u$ or $v$ towards the origin, for example,
  would mean that $\sigma$ has no circumcentre at all.

  However, at least for some positive $b\leqb_{\mathrm{max}}$, the presented
  example is not degenerate in any strict sense: there is some number
  $\rho>0$ such that the vertices of $\sigma$ can be each
  independently displaced by a distance $\rho$ without disturbing the
  combinatorial structure of the Voronoi diagram.  In other words,
  this bad configuration is represented by a set of positive measure
  in the configuration space.

  In order to demonstrate this it is sufficient to show that the
  circumcentres of $\sigma$ depend continuously on the position of the
  vertices, at least in a neighbourhood of $s_0 = (p,v,w,u)$. This can
  be shown by demonstrating that the origin is a regular value of the
  map
\begin{equation}
  \begin{split}
    h\colon \mathbb{R}^3 &\to \mathbb{R}^3 \\
    q &\mapsto \bigl(\distM{q}{u} - \distM{q}{p}, \distM{q}{v} -
    \distM{q}{p}, \distM{q}{w} - \distM{q}{p}\bigr).
  \end{split}
  \label{eq:cc.equation}
\end{equation}
Indeed, if this is the case, then the implicit function theorem
applied to the function $F\colon\mathbb{R}^{12}\times\nobreak \mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3$
defined by \eqref{eq:cc.equation}, such that $F(s_0,q) = h(q)$,
ensures that for all vertex positions $s$ in a neighbourhood of $s_0$,
there will be circumcentres (solutions to $F(s,q)=0$) close to $c$ and
$-c$.

In order to estimate the Jacobian determinant of $h$ at $q=c$, let
$H(q) = H(x,y,z) = \distM{q}{u} - \distM{q}{p}$ be the first component
of $h$, and observe that, by symmetry,
$H(x,y,-z) = \distM{q}{v} - \distM{q}{p}$ is the second component. For
the third component, $W(q) = \distM{q}{w}-\distM{q}{p}$, we observe
that $W(q)=0$ if $x(q)=0$. Therefore, denoting partial derivatives
with subscripts, we have $W_y = W_z = 0$ at $q=c$. Also, we observe
directly that $W_x$ is negative. Let $W_x(c) = t < 0$. Therefore the
Jacobian matrix has the form
\begin{equation*}
  Dh(c) =
  \begin{pmatrix}
    H_x & H_y & H_z \\
    H_x & H_y & -H_z \\
    t & 0 & 0
  \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation*}
and to show that its determinant is nonzero, we need to verify that
$H_y$ and $H_z$ are nonzero at~$c$.

By inspection $H_z(c) < 0$ since $c$ is a critical point of
$\distM{q}{p}$ with respect to variation in the $z$ direction, and
$\distM{q}{u}$ is strictly decreasing at $c$ as $q$ moves up a
vertical line. For $H_y(c)$, we exploit the fact that we have explicit
expressions, \eqref{eq:def.xi} and \eqref{eq:distpc}, that describe
$\distM{u}{c}$ and $\distM{p}{c}$. When differentiating with respect
to $b$ at the point where $\tilde{\xi}(b)=\xi$, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:expr.Hy}
  H_y(c) = \partial_b\distM{c}{u} - \partial_b\distM{c}{p}
= \frac{a^2(1+\xi)\tilde{\xi}'\epsilon}{((1+\xi)^2a^2+b^2)^{\frac12}}.
\end{equation}
\Eqnref{eq:upper.bnd.xi} shows that for any $b>0$, we have
$\tilde{\xi}(b)<\xi_0 = \tilde{\xi}(0)$, and in particular, this is true for
$b=b_{\mathrm{max}}$. So it follows from the mean value theorem that there is a
$b \in (0,b_{\mathrm{max}}]$ such that $\tilde{\xi}'(b)<0$, and \eqref{eq:expr.Hy}
implies that when $\xi$ is chosen so that this $b$ represents a
cicumcentre, we have $H_y(c) < 0$. Thus this configuration is stable
with respect to small perturbations of the vertices.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \begin{center}
    \subfloat[$xy$-plane seen from positive $z$-axis]{
      \label{sfig:from.above}
      \includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{imgs/from_above} } \\
    \subfloat[$yz$-plane seen from positive $x$-axis]{
      \label{sfig:front.view}
      \includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{imgs/front_view} }
  \end{center}
  \caption{Looking at cross-sections; the positive $y$-direction is to
    the right. The tetrahedron $\sigma = {p,u,v,w}$, admits exactly
    two small circumballs with distinct centres (the red and blue
    points).}
  \label{fig:side.views}
\end{figure}
This constructed Delaunay tetrahedron $\sigma$ with two distinct
circumcentres implies a defect in the Voronoi diagram that prevents
$\delM{\mpts}$ from triangulating $\mathcal{M}$.  A schematic view of the
Voronoi diagram associated with $\sigma$ is depicted in
\Figref{fig:side.views}.  The circumumcentres of $\sigma$ are the
Voronoi vertices shown in the diagram. A Voronoi edge corresponds to a
Delaunay triangle, and the cofaces of the triangle are the Delaunay
tetrahedra that correspond to the Voronoi vertices at the ends of the
Voronoi edge. So for triangle $t=\{u,p,w\}$, since the Voronoi vertex
at each end of $\vorcellman{t}$ represents the same simplex, $\sigma$,
there will be only one coface of $t$ (likewise for triangle
$\{v,p,w\}$). Since our manifold $\mathcal{M}$ has no boundary, $\delM{\mpts}$
cannot admit a triangulation of~$\mathcal{M}$.

Finally, observe that this kind of counter-example to Delaunay
triangulations will also exist in higher dimensional manifolds. For
example, the same basic construction when $m>3$ can be obtained by
starting with a regular simplex $\sigma$ of dimension $(m-2)$ such
that its circumcentre is at the origin, and its circumradius is
$\epsilon a(1+\xi)$, with $a=1/\sqrt{2}$, and such that
$\affhull{\sigma}=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^m \mid x_{m-1}=x_{m}=0\}$. Then place two
additional vertices at $\pm a\epsilon$ on the $x_{m-1}$-axis to
obtain an $m$-simplex.  The metric $g$ is then the diagonal matrix
with $g_{ii}(q)= (1+f(x_{m-1}(q)))$ if $i=m$ and $g_{ii}(q)=1$
otherwise, and $f$ defined exactly as before.
\end{proof}

The qualitative construction of the previous section
(\Figref{fig:three.tets}) is similar to the one we have considered
here except that it conceptually employs a different perturbation
function, whose support does not include the $y$-axis, so that the
simplex $\{u,v,p,w\}$ can be dual to a single stable Voronoi
vertex. The Delaunay perspective on the example represented in
\Figref{fig:side.views} would be similar to \Figref{fig:three.tets},
except that there would be two distinct green Delaunay balls for
$\sigma$.

Computational Geometry (cs.CG); Differential Geometry (math.DG); Geometric Topology (math.GT)


Spacetime invariants and their uses

Abstract: There are various types of global and local spacetime invariant in general relativity. Here I focus on the local invariants obtainable from the curvature tensor and its derivatives. The number of such invariants at each order of differentiation that are algebraically independent will be discussed. There is no universally valid choice of a minimal set. The number in a complete set will also be discussed. The invariants can then be used to characterize solutions of the Einstein equations (locally), to test apparently distinct solutions for equivalence, and to construct solutions. Other applications concern limits of families of spacetimes, and the characterization of horizons and singularities. Further uses are briefly mentioned.

\section{Introduction and motivation}
This lecture developed from one given some years ago at the retirement
party of my friend, colleague and co-author Dr.\ Eduard (``Eddie'')
Herlt. At the Lahore meeting, time did not permit a complete
exposition of all aspects of the subject. This text follows what was
said rather than what might have been said in an expanded version. I
intend to write up the expanded version as a review article in due
course.

I could have been more precise in my title, at the cost of being
rather lengthy. There are many occurrences of the word 'invariant' in our
field, e.g.:\\
gauge-invariant (in gauge theory)\\
gauge-invariant (in perturbation theory)\\
invariant under a symmetry\\
Lorentz-invariant\\
scale-invariant.\\
And I could be talking about some global conserved quantity, without a
well-defined local density, e.g.\ Bondi mass.

What I actually meant was local, geometric, invariants of spacetime:
essentially curvature invariants.

I started to be seriously interested in this area when we were writing
the first edition of the exact solutions book \cite{KraSteMac80} in
the late 1970s.  One of the big problems we faced was that of
identifying the same solution when found with different assumptions or
for different reasons, and presented in different coordinate
systems. I realised at the time that the work of the Stockholm group
on invariant classification, which I will mention later, and which I
first heard about in the late 70s, held the key.

This first application, as far as I was concerned, the ``equivalence
problem'', was what got me started.

\section{Mathematics}

\subsection{Definitions of invariants}

Christoffel proved in 1869 that scalars constructed from the metric and its
derivatives must be functions of the metric itself and the Riemann
tensor and its covariant derivatives.

The first examples to spring to mind are {\bf scalar polynomial (s.p.)
  invariants},
such as $R_{ab}R^{ab}$ or $C_{abcd}C^{cdef}{C_{ef}}^{ab}$. Often
when people just say ``invariant'' they mean ``s.p. invariant''.

However, these are not adequate in all circumstances, as one can see by
noting that $pp$ waves and flat space both have all
scalar polynomial invariants, of all orders, equal to zero \cite{JorEhlKun60}.

Fortunately they are not the only choice.
An important alternative is to use ideas due to Cartan, as follows.
As a side benefit, in my view an important one, Cartan invariants
require less calculation, in general.

Let $F({\cal M})$ denote a ``suitable'' frame bundle over a spacetime ${\cal M}$
(i.e.\ take the set of all frames at each point) and ${\cal R}^q$ be the set
$\{R_{abcd},\,R_{abcd;f} ,\,\ldots,R_{abcd;f_1f_2\cdots f_q}\}$ of the
components of the Riemann tensor and its derivatives up to the $q$th
in a frame.

Choose from $F({\cal M})$ in a canonical and invariant way,
e.g.\ use the principal null directions of the Weyl tensor, when they
are distinct, as the
basis vectors. The
resulting
\[\{R_{abcd},\,R_{abcd;f} ,\,\ldots,R_{abcd;f_1f_2\cdots
  f_q}\}\] are called the {\bf Cartan invariants}. They are scalars,
because the frames are invariantly defined, e.g.\ if {\bf a}, {\bf b},
{\bf c} and {\bf d} are basis vectors (not necessarily all distinct)
of the chosen frame, one of the Cartan invariants is
$R_{ijkl}a^ib^jc^kd^l$ .  The idea is like characterizing a symmetric
bilinear map (matrix) by its eigenvalues.

\subsection{Independence of (s.p.) invariants}
In a manifold ${\cal M}$ of $n$ dimensions, at most $n$ scalar invariants
can be {\bf functionally independent}, i.e.\ independent functions on
${\cal M}$.

The number of {\bf algebraically independent} scalar polynomial
invariants, i.e.\ s.p.\ invariants not satisfying any polynomial relation
(called a {\em syzygy}), is rather larger, as we shall see
next. (A set of algebraically independent Cartan invariants in a
general spacetime, written using the Newman-Penrose spinor formalism, is
given in \cite{MacAma86}: it takes fully into account the Ricci and
Bianchi identities.)

Larger still is the size of a complete set of s.p.\ invariants (a
finite Hilbert basis): such a set $\{I_1,\,I_2,\ldots,\,I_k\}$ is {\bf
  complete} if any other such s.p.\ invariant can be written as a {\em
  polynomial} in the $I_j$ but no invariant in the set can be so
expressed in terms of the others.

One way to find the number of algebraically independent scalar
invariants is to consider Taylor expansions of the metric and
of the possible coordinate transformations \cite{Sik76}; another
way follows Hilbert \cite{Sik06}.

The result \cite{Tho34}
is that in a general $V_n$ the number of algebraically
independent scalars constructible from the metric and its derivatives
up to the $p$th order (the Riemann tensor and its derivatives up to
the $(p-2)$th) is 0 for $p=0$ or $p=1$ and
\[
N(n,p) = \frac{n[n+1][(n+p)!]}{2n!\,p!} - \frac{(n+p+1)!}{(n-1)!\,(p+1)!}
+ n,
\]
for $p \geq 2$, except for $N(2, 2) = 1$.  Thus in a general
space-time the Riemann tensor has $N(4,2)=14$ algebraically
independent scalar invariants. In
particular cases the number is
reduced.

The origin of many syzygies can be understood in terms of the
vanishing of any object skewed over $(n+1)$ indices in $n$ dimensions
\cite{Har95,Bon98,Edg99}. In a series of papers
\cite{LimCar04,CarLim06,LimCar07} Carminati and Lim
have given a detailed discussion
of the syzygies for scalar polynomial (s.p.)~invariants of the Riemann
tensor, using graph-theoretic techniques.

A given invariant may be written in more than one way, due to
symmetries, and other relations between components, of the Riemann
tensor and its derivatives. This is essentially a problem in
representations of the permutation group. The issue is to select a
canonical representative of each equivalence class in the orbit under
permutations.

One wants to select a canonical set of invariants and then express any
other invariant in terms of canonized members of the algebraically
independent set.

Several methods have been used to do this for s.p.\ invariants,
e.g.\ by H\"ornfeldt, by Fulling et al., by Ilyin and Kryukov, and by
Dresse.  The method most readily available is due to Portugal \cite{Por98}. It
has been implemented in Maple${}^{\rm TM}$ and {\it
  Mathematica}${}^{\circledR}$ by Martin-Garcia {\em et al,} and is
distributed in xAct, a package for use with {\it
  Mathematica}${}^{\circledR}$. It has (e.g.) been applied to all
objects with up to 12 derivatives of the metric \cite{MarYllPor08}.

Any complete set of s.p.\ invariants of the Riemann tensor, and any
set which {\em always} contains a maximal set of independent scalars,
contains redundant elements.  Hence all the old papers giving specific
sets of 14, in 4 dimensions, are inadequate.

The smallest known set of s.p.\ invariants for a general Riemann
tensor that always contains a maximal set of algebraically independent
scalars consists of 17 polynomials \cite{ZakMcI97}, though 16 suffice
for perfect fluids and Einstein-Maxwell fields. There is a special
subclass of spacetimes \cite{ZakCar01} which require 18.

The smallest set of s.p.\ invariants known to be complete contains 38
scalars \cite{Sne99}, and Lim and Carminati \cite{LimCar07} proved that it is
minimal.

\subsection{Computation of invariants}
The s.p.\ invariants are expressions whose contractions hide very
large numbers of individual terms, and are therefore hard to
calculate. It is thus very useful to adopt a method that reduces
the number of terms. One can use a bivector formalism
(see e.g.\ \cite{ZakMcI97}).  Another way, in 4 dimensions, is to use the
Newman-Penrose complex spinor (or null tetrad) formalism, the GHP formalism, or
related ideas: this has analogues in other dimensions (e.g.\ in three
dimensions one can use real two-component spinors: see \cite{SouFonRom08}).

For higher dimensions it may be efficient to use parallel computing,
i.e.\ to split the calculation into subproblems e.g.\ by fixing some
of the dummy indices, and then sending the subproblems to separate
processors \cite{Koe06}.

A simple practical way in many cases is to use Cartan invariants
instead. They are quite cheap to calculate {\bf provided} the frame choice
is easy to calculate with, in particular because one never has to multiply
curvature components, or their derivatives, together.  In a general
case, either s.p.\ or Cartan invariants would characterize the
spacetime, as we shall see below. so the choice is really a question
of convenience or purpose.  There is an open research problem
about which is actually more computationally efficient (or for which cases).

In four dimensions we can always choose a frame, for example by the
principal null directions of the Weyl tensor, and thus compute Cartan
invariants, but in general this may entail using the unpleasant
algebraic expressions which arise from the general formulae for
solutions of quartics. However, in practice many solutions give way easily. Note
that in 5 dimensions or more there is no guarantee we can calculate
frames of a specified type even if we can show they must exist, as
there is no general algebraic formula for solutions of quintics.

\subsection{Do scalar polynomial invariants suffice?}

Until 2009, I would have said definitely not.
I mentioned earlier that $pp$ waves and flat space both have all
scalar polynomial invariants, of all orders, equal to zero. In fact
all vacuum type N and III metrics with $\rho=0$ have this property
\cite{PraBi01}.
There are also metrics which have equal non-zero
s.p.\ invariants e.g.\ \cite{Sik96,Pra99,Her04}.

 These ambiguities
are associated with the indefiniteness of the metric and the
non-compactness of the Lorentz group \cite{Sch98}.

Coley {\em et al.} \cite{ColHerPel09} gave an argument that
spacetimes are completely characterized by their s.p.\ invariants,
except for spacetimes in the Kundt class.  Although their proof seems
to me to have a gap, and I have not yet been able to see if it has been
filled, the result seems correct.

In particular Coley and collaborators have followed up by a
substantial number of papers, which I did not have time to review
comprehensively in my Lahore talk. These consider not only 4D
spacetimes, but higher dimensional spaces and various signatures.  I
just mentioned a few to give the flavour. In the initial paper
\cite{ColHerPel09}, they also discuss what properties a given set of
invariants characterize.

\begin{itemize}
\item Hervik and Coley \cite{HerCol10}
 show that any metric with an
  analytic continuation to the pure Riemannian case is completely
  characterized by its s.p. invariants%
\item Coley {\em et al.} \cite{ColHerDur11}
 give a detailed analysis of the generic 5D
  spacetimes.%
\item Hervik \cite{Her11}
 gave arguments that spacetimes not characterized by
  s.p. invariants are limits of families that are so characterized.
\end{itemize}

It may be worth noting that since it is obvious that the algebraically
independent set of Cartan invariants given in \cite{MacAma86}
completely and uniquely specify the s.p.\ invariants, the result of
\cite{ColHerPel09} amounts to saying that in general the converse is
true, i.e.\ that the s.p.\ invariants uniquely determine the Cartan
invariants (given the procedure for the choice of frame).

The work just described picked out the Kundt class as the
exceptions. These are spacetimes which have a null vector field which
is geodesic, and expansion-, shear- and twist- free.  In a paper
\cite{ColHerPap09} which appeared just before \cite{ColHerPel09} this
class was discussed in detail. For it, one has to use the Cartan
approach or some equivalent.

In \cite{ColHerPap09} Coley {\em et al.} discussed the Petrov D
examples in the Kundt class.  Podolsky and Svarc \cite{PodSva13} gave
a classification of Kundt metrics in arbitrary dimension, and later
discussed their physical interpretation. A subclass of ``universal
spacetimes'' was discussed by Hervik {\em et al.} \cite{HerPraPra14}:
universal in that they solve vacuum equations of all gravitational
theories with Lagrangian constructed from the metric, the Riemann
tensor and its derivatives of arbitrary order. Hervik {\em et al.}
\cite{HerHaaYam14} found all cases where there exists a continuous
family of metrics having identical [scalar] polynomial invariants.

\section{Uses of spacetime invariants}
\subsection{The Equivalence Problem}

Now let me return to my original motivation, i.e.\ identifying the same
solution when found with different motivations and assumptions and
presented in different coordinate systems. It could be
considered either a mathematical or a physical problem. It is essentially
resolved by the following theorem (in terms of Cartan invariants).

\begin{theorem} {\rm (Sternberg \cite{Ste64}, Ehlers \cite{Ehl81})} Given
  two spacetimes,
  ${\cal M}$ and $\overline{{\cal
  M}}$, each expressed using some frames $E$ and $\overline{E}$, then
  there is an isometry which maps $(x,\,E)$ to
  $(\overline{x\vphantom{E}},\,\overline{E})$ if and only if ${\cal
  R}^{p+1}$ for ${\cal M}$ is such that the independent quantities and
  the functional relations are the same for ${\cal R}^{p+1}$ and
  $\overline{{\cal R}}^{p+1}$, where $p$ is the last derivative at
  which a new functionally independent entry in ${\cal R}^{p}$ arises.
\end{theorem}

See \cite{SteKraMac03} for a more careful statement.

One could therefore calculate everything on a suitable frame bundle.
\begin{itemize}
\item Christoffel used coordinate frames. This works but the dimension of
$F({\cal M})$ is large.
\item Cartan proposed using frames with constant
scalar products, e.g.\ null frames or orthonormal frames, which is
better (hence the credit for Cartan invariants).
\item In 1965 Brans \cite{Bra65}
proposed practical use of this
method via lexicographic indexing of components.
\item Later Brans and, more fully, Karlhede \cite{Bra77,Kar80a}
  realised that a more efficient way to implement the idea was to
  restrict the frames wherever possible by only allowing canonical
  forms of the curvature and its derivatives (i.e.\ go to Cartan
  invariants).
\item This makes the
  whole thing manageable (with a computer) and it was first
  implemented by {\AA}man in 1979 \cite{KarAma79}.
\end{itemize}

Given the Coley et al. results, we now know we could in general work
only with s.p.\ invariants, but the present software \cite{MacSke94,PolSkeDin00}
uses the Cartan method.  In an algebraically general spacetime, one
can choose the principal null directions of the Weyl tensor to fix the
frame, or in a conformally flat spacetime one can begin with
eigenvectors of the Ricci tensor. In the actual implementaion we use
the Weyl PNDs, where they exist, as the first choice.

Many details have been considered (by {\AA}man, myself, Skea, d'Inverno,
McLenaghan, Pollney and others) in specifying frames and in making
the computations more efficient. The main aspects are the enumeration
of canonical forms, the tests of which canonical form applies, and the
transformation of the non-canonical to the canonical. The literature
cited in the exact solutions book gives more information.

A first extension is to maps more general than isometries,
e.g.\ homotheties \cite{Kou92} or conformal equivalence \cite{Lan93}. One can of course tackle Euclidean metrics and metrics
in any dimension, though the details of making the method work
efficiently are different (e.g.\ \cite{Kar86}).

The above ideas are in fact a special case of Cartan's general
procedures (see e.g.\ \cite{Car46}), which apply to other situations
which can be expressed in differential forms and a connection
or similar structures. In particular it applies to the equivalence of
(systems of) differential equations, under coordinate transformations
(see the books of Gardner \cite{Gar89} and Olver \cite{Olv95}).

Another context is that of gauge theories of physics, the gauge
potential being just a connection \cite{Kar86a}.

One interesting issue for spacetimes is how large $p$ in the theorem
has to be. Karlhede \cite{Kar80a} showed $p\leq 7$. For a long time examples
suggested $p \leq 3$. At the time of the second edition of the exact
solutions book \cite{SteKraMac03} an example with $p=5$ was known, as
were a number of bounds for subclasses. We quoted results suggesting
that $p\leq 5$ was generally true.

In 2009 (the result was actually first announced in 2007),
Milsom and Pelavas
\cite{MilPel09} showed that
the original bound of 7 is sharp, by giving a (unique) example. This is still
small enough for calculation to be practical. The example is of course in
Kundt's class, as are those further examples they found where $p=6$.

As well as giving a way to compare two spacetimes, the theorem above
also implies that the Cartan invariants uniquely classify and
determine the local geometry. This implies that all local properties
are encoded in this information.  I will rather briefly discuss some
of the possible resulting applications. Aspects I was not able to
cover in Lahore included: applications to three-dimensional spaces,
incuding the use in checking junction conditions; applications in
numerical relativity; applications to cosmology and to perturbations;
use in constructing alternative theories of gravity; and applications
to internal state spaces of thermodynamics.  I think there must be
more we have not yet explored.

Note that global topology is of course not determined by the
invariants we have been considering (local
invariants cannot distinguish a plane and a flat torus) and nor are
continuations which do not respect the required differentiability for
the theorem above.

My original motivation can now be carried out for many cases.  I used
these methods, for example, to disentangle the known exact solutions
for inhomogeneous cosmologies with a symmetry group $G_2$. It would be
good to have a complete online catalogue of (at least) the solutions
in \cite{SteKraMac03}. Skea and Lake have
independently implemented systems to facilitate this.  Properties such
as the isometry group can also be found
\cite{KarMac82,AraDraSke92,BonCol92}: for examples see
e.g.\ \cite{Sei92,MacSik92}. Similar results apply for homotheties
\cite{Kou92}.

\subsection{Finding solutions}
The same ideas can be used to {\em find} solutions, by working out
consistent sets of Cartan invariants and then integrating to get a
metric. Examples are mentioned in the exact solutions book.  Machado
Ramos and Edgar \cite{MacEdg05,EdgMac07} used these ideas, implemented
in their invariant operator formalism, to find pure radiation
solutions of types N and O with a cosmological constant.

Coley and collaborators looked for all spacetimes in which all
s.p.\ invariants vanish (which they called VSI spacetimes although not
all Cartan scalar invariants vanish).
In the 4-d Lorentzian case
these give all spacetimes indistinguishable from flat space by
s.p.\ invariants \cite{PraPraCol02}. The higher dimensional cases
give examples  in supergravity and string theory.
A closely related series of papers has studied the spacetimes with
constant s.p.\ invariants (CSI spacetimes). For a review of this work
see \cite{Col08}.

\subsection{Limits of families of spacetimes}
Another aspect, described first by Paiva {\em et al.}
\cite{PaiRebMac93}, is the use of invariants to work out the limits of
families described by parameters. This enables one to find all
possible limits in a coordinate-free way, whereas previous treatments
were in effect trial and error. This is another area where further
work would be useful.

I did not give more detail in my Lahore lecture, but passed quickly on
to limiting points within spacetimes.

\subsection{Black hole and other horizons}
Karlhede {\em et al} \cite{KarLinAma82} first noted that $R_{abcd;e}R^{abcd;e}=0$ at
the Schwarzschild horizon (so a prudent space traveller might monitor
that). Skea in his thesis \cite{Ske86} noted that this is not true for other
horizons (a point rediscussed by Saa \cite{Saa07} for higher-dimensional
static cases: Saa also found points where $R_{abcd;e}R^{abcd;e}=0$ but
which are not horizons).
 Lake \cite{Lak03} continued the work on Kerr by considering first derivative
invariants, and found their vanishing characterized the horizons.

Related to my arguments against the claims of Antoci and others that
the Schwarzschild horizon was singular, I proposed in 2006
\cite{Mac06} a new
test for occurrence of a horizon using ratios of Cartan invariants
which works in all cases of Petrov type D. I believe it works more
generally, but this needs further study. Maybe it could also be useful
to numerical relativists (and space travellers).

More recently Abdelqader and Lake \cite{AbdLak13,AbdLak14}
have given an invariant characterization of the Kerr horizon, and,
prompted by that, Page and Shoom \cite{PagSho15} have given another for
stationary black holes. I have not yet had the opportunity to check how
these relate to earlier characterizations.

Moffat and Toth \cite{MofTot14} considered the relation of the ``Karlhede
invariant'' (i.e.\  $R_{abcd;e}R^{abcd;e}$) to discussions of a
``firewall'' at the horizon.

\subsection{Singularities}
Singularities in general relativity are defined to occur when a causal
geodesic cannot be continued to infinite affine parameter values even
when the spacetime is maximally extended -- ``geodesic
incompleteness'' (for the reasons for this definition see \cite{Ger68}).

It is well-known that this happens if an s.p.\ invariant of the
Riemann tensor itself (not its derivatives) blows up along the
geodesic. This does not however mean that:\\ (i) an ``infinite''
Riemann tensor implies a singularity, or\\ (ii) if an invariant blows
up, there is a singularity, or\\ (iii) at all singularities, an
s.p.\ invariant of the Riemann tensor blows up.

\begin{enumerate}
\item An ``infinite'' Riemann tensor does not imply a
singularity. Geodesics can be continued across a delta function
curvature modelling a thin shell or an impulsive gravitational wave.
\item The blowing up of an invariant does not imply a singularity. For
example \cite{Mac06} the invariant $1/R_{abcd;e}R^{abcd;e}$ blows
up at the Schwarzschild horizon, but the horizon is not singular.
\item There are singularities at which no s.p.\ invariant of the
  Riemann tensor blows up. At ``whimper'' singularities an invariant
  involving first derivatives does, though \cite{Sik78}. An example
  was studied by Podolsky and Belan \cite{PodBel04}.
\end{enumerate}

Question: when does blow up of higher derivative invariants imply a
singularity?

Another application is to ``directional'' singularities, where
a singular point apparently has directionally dependent
limits. Scott and Szekeres \cite{ScoSze86,ScoSze86a} showed
that the
directional singularity of the Curzon metric hid more extended
regions at whose boundary the original coordinates broke down. My
student Taylor \cite{Tay05} showed that such cases could be
appropriately ``unravelled'' by using level surfaces of Cartan
invariants to define new coordinates.
Lake \cite{Lak03} used the Weyl tensor s.p.\ invariants to show that the Kerr
singularity was not directional.

With Coley and others \cite{ColHerLim09}, I
considered ``kinematic singularities'' (where fluid expansion blows
up),
giving examples
in which, given an integer $p$, the Cartan (and hence s.p.) scalars can
be finite up to the $p$-th derivative, but not the $(p+1)$-th.

Geodesic continuation needs a $C^{2-}$ metric. In
invariantly-defined frames the connection coefficients (which would be
$C^{1-}$) are typically
expressible as ratios of first derivative Cartan invariants to zeroth
derivative ones. We know that there are ``intermediate'' or
``whimper'' singularities where s.p.\ invariants of the Riemann tensor
do not blow up, while
   s.p.\ invariants of
the first derivatives of the Riemann tensor do. Hence I conjecture
that under some suitable differentiability conditions:

{\bf Conjecture:} Spacetime singularities are either locally
extendible or at least one Cartan invariant in ${\cal R}^1$ has an
infinite limit along any curve approaching the singularity.

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

Spacetime invariants and their uses