--- abstract: 'We introduce the new notions of *projected distances* and *projected barcodes* for multi-parameter persistence modules. Projected barcodes are defined as derived pushforward of persistence modules onto ${\mathbb{R}}$. Projected distances come in two flavors: the integral sheaf metrics (ISM) and the sliced convolution distances (SCD). We conduct a systematic study of the stability of projected barcodes and show that the fibered barcode is a particular instance of projected barcodes. We prove that the ISM and the SCD provide lower bounds for the convolution distance. Furthermore, we show that the $\gamma$-linear ISM and the $\gamma$-linear SCD which are projected distances tailored for $\gamma$-sheaves can be computed using TDA software dedicated to one-parameter persistence modules. Moreover, the time and memory complexity required to compute these two metrics are advantageous, since our approach does not require computing nor storing an entire $n$-persistence module.' address: - 'Laboratory for Topology and Neuroscience, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.' - 'Université Paris Cité, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris France' author: - Nicolas Berkouk - François Petit title: 'Projected distances for multi-parameter persistence modules' --- \[section\] \[theorem\]<span>Corollary</span> \[theorem\]<span>Proposition</span> \[theorem\]<span>Lemma</span> \[theorem\]<span>Definition</span> \[theorem\]<span>Example</span> \[theorem\]<span>Remark</span> \[theorem\]<span>Examples</span> \[theorem\]<span>Question</span> \[theorem\]<span>Remark</span> \[theorem\]<span>Notations</span> \[theorem\]<span>Conjecture</span> [^1] [^2] Introduction ============ In this paper, we approach the study of multi-parameter persistence modules through the lens of derived and microlocal sheaf theory of Masaki Kashiwara and Pierre Schapira @KS90 as initiated in @KS18. In this setting, building upon @KS18, the authors have proved, in previous work @BP21, that a multi-parameter persistence module can be identified to a $\gamma$-sheaf (see equation ). Multi-parameter persistence is difficult both in theory (there cannot exist any notion of barcode after @CZ07), and in practice (the interleaving distance is NP-hard to compute @bjerkevik2019computing). Using tools from sheaf theory, we develop new invariants and pseudo-metrics that can be efficiently computed on specific classes of multi-parameter persistence modules thanks to @BG18 [@BGO19]: sub-level and level sets multi-parameter persistence modules. It follows from @PS20 that these pseudo-metrics provide lower bounds for the interleaving distance, and we show how to efficiently approximate them using only one-parameter persistence software such as @tauzin2021giottotda [@gudhi:urm], for sub-level and level sets persistence modules. Moreover, the time and memory complexity required to compute these distances are advantageous, since our approach does not require computing nor storing an entire $n$-persistence module in the machine. Our strategy is to reduce the study of multi-parameter persistence modules to one-parameter persistence modules. Such an idea has already been implemented in topological data analysis with, for instance, the fibered barcode and the matching distance @Cer13 [@Landi2018]. These objects are obtained by considering restrictions of multi-parameter persistence modules along affine lines. In a sheaf theoretic language, this corresponds to pulling back persistence modules along the inclusion of a line into the parameter space. In the sheaf theoretic setting, the pullback operation has an adjoint operation, which is called the pushforward. This later operation is difficult to describe in the language of persistence modules, though it is straightforward to construct and enjoys several properties in the setting of sheaves. Here, considering multi-parameter persistence modules as sheaves, we study their derived pushforward by real-valued functions. Roughly speaking, this operation can be thought as projecting a sheaf on the real line. Doing so and under suitable finiteness assumptions, one obtains a constructible sheaf on ${\mathbb{R}}$ which admits a barcode decomposition. Varying the map used to pushforward the sheaf within a prescribed family of functions ${\mathfrak{F}}$, one gets a family of barcodes called the *${\mathfrak{F}}$-projected barcodes* (Definition \[def:projectedbarcode\]). Motivated by computability constraints, we mostly focus our attention on the case of pushforwards of $\gamma$-sheaves by linear forms. Following the same strategy of reducing the study of multiparameter persistent modules to the study of family of one-dimensional persistent modules, we introduce the notion of *integral sheaf metric* (see equations and ). The distance between two sheaves is the supremum of the distances between the pushforwards of the sheave by morphisms belonging to a family ${\mathfrak{F}}$. Again, using a similar approach, we introduce sliced convolution distances (see equations and ) Implementing such an approach requires relating precisely the classical theory of persistent modules and sheaf theory. This has largely been achieved thanks to several works: @BG18 [@BGO19; @BP21; @Gui16; @KS18; @Mil20d]. Heuristically, this correspondence goes as follows. Persistence theory Sheaf theory ---------------------------- ------------------------------------ level sets persistence sheaves for the usual topology sub-level sets persistence sheaves for the $\gamma$-topology interleaving distances convolution distances tame $\gamma$-constructible at infinity In Section \[sec:gammasheaves\], using results of @PS20, we refine this correspondence by extending to all $\gamma$-sheaves the isometry of @BP21 between the interleaving distance and the convolution distance (Theorem \[thm:isomBP21\]). Our analysis will treat both flavors of persistence in the sheaf language. The first one –level-sets persistence– is simpler, because after @BGO19, the level-sets persistence modules associated to a function $f : X \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is (almost-)equivalent to the derived pushforward of the constant sheaf on $X$ by $f$. The stability and general properties of the projected barcodes and ISM for level-sets persistence follow easily from a recent result @PS20, expressing that pushforwards functors by $C$-Lipschitz maps are $C$-Lipschitz for the convolution distances. We also obtain non-degeneracy results for the ISM using projective duality. Our strategy for sub-level sets persistence modules is more involved and proceeds in three steps. We start with a careful study of pushforwards of $\gamma$-sheaves by linear forms using microlocal techniques (Proposition \[prop:oimgamma\]). This allows to describe the pushforward of a $\gamma$-sheaf by a linear form lying outside of the union of the polar cone of $\gamma$ and its antipodal. We then make precise in Proposition \[prop:bassublevel\] the intuition that sub-level sets persistence is the *gammaification* of level-sets persistence. Importantly, this allows us to prove that under mild conditions, the pushforward by a linear form $u$ satisfying a certain positivity assumption of the sub-level sets persistence module associated to a function $f : X \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the one-parameter sub-level sets persistence module associated to $u\circ f$. Elaborating on these results, we derive several results of theoretical and practical importance. We prove in Corollary \[cor:sensitivitymultipers\] that multi-parameter sub-level sets persistence is at least as sensitive as the most sensitive of its coordinate functions. To the best of our knowledge, this result was not known from the Topological Data Analysis (TDA) community. We further prove in Proposition \[P:directinverse\] that the fibered barcode and matching distances can be expressed as projected barcodes and ISM. Therefore, the framework of projected barcodes and ISM can be considered as a generalization of fibered barcodes. In Subsections \[subsec:sliced\] and \[subsec:gammasliced\], we introduce sliced version of the convolution distance for sheaves satisfying suitable finiteness conditions Our theoretical study allows to provide an approximation scheme by gradient ascent of the $\gamma$-linear ISM, using only one-parameter persistence software. Similarly, the $\gamma$-sliced convolution distance between multi-parameter sub-level sets persistence module can be approximated using only one-parameter persistence software. As a proof of concept, we implemented these computations in *Python* and present an experiment. The implications for topological machine learning of the $\gamma$-linear ISM will be explored further in a companion paper.\ Sheaves ======= This section introduces the necessary background on sheaf theory, convolution distance, and its links with persistence. The main reference for general results on sheaves is @KS90. The convolution distance for sheaves has been introduced in @KS18 and generalized in @PS20. A useful notion for our purpose is the one of constructible sheaves up to infinity, which was introduced recently by Schapira in @schapira2021constructible. Recall that a topological space is good if it is Hausdorff, locally compact, countable at infinity and of finite flabby dimension. Let ${{\mathbf{k}}}$ be a field and let $X$ be a good topological space. We denote by ${\mathsf{D}^{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ the derived category of sheaves of ${{\mathbf{k}}}$-vector space on $X$, by ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ the bounded derived categories of sheaves, that is the full subcategory of ${\mathsf{D}^{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ whose objects are the $F \in {\mathsf{D}^{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ such that there exists $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that for every $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $|k|\geq n$, $\operatorname{H}^k(F)=0$. We write ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\mathrm{comp}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ for the full subcategory of ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ spanned by the objects with compact support In this text, we will freely make use of techniques from microlocal sheaf theory for which, we refer the reader to @KS90. Nonetheless, microlocal techniques will mostly appears in proofs and not in the results themselves. Hence a reader only interested in the results may ignore them. Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. - We denote by $\operatorname{{or\mspace{2mu}}}_M$ its orientation sheaf and by ${\omega_{M}}$ its dualizing sheaf. Recall that ${\omega_{M}}= \operatorname{{or\mspace{2mu}}}_M[\dim M]$. We will also need the duality functors $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathrm{D}}^\prime_M(\cdot) := {{{\mathrm{R}}\mathscr{H}\mspace{-3mu}om}_{\raise1.5ex\hbox to.1em{}{{\mathbf{k}}}_M}}(\cdot,{{\mathbf{k}}}_M), && {\mathrm{D}}_M(\cdot) := {{{\mathrm{R}}\mathscr{H}\mspace{-3mu}om}_{\raise1.5ex\hbox to.1em{}{{\mathbf{k}}}_M}}(\cdot,{\omega_{M}}).\end{aligned}$$ - If $Z$ is a locally closed subset of $M$, we denote by ${{\mathbf{k}}}_Z$ the sheaf associated to the locally closed subset $Z$. - We write $T^\ast M$ for the cotangent bundle of $M$ and set $\dot{T}^\ast M= T^\ast M \setminus 0_M$, with $0_M$ the zero section of $T^\ast M$. - For $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_M)$, we denote by ${\mathrm{SS}}(F)$ the *microssuport* of $F$. It is a closed conical co-isotropic subset of $T^\ast M$. We refer the reader to @KS90 [Chapter V] for a detailed presentation of this notion. - Following @KS90 [§6.1], let $V$ be a susbet of $T^\ast M$. We define the full subcategory ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_V({{\mathbf{k}}}_M)$ of ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_M)$ by setting: $$\operatorname{Ob}({{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_V({{\mathbf{k}}}_M))= \{F \in \operatorname{Ob}({{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_M)) | \; {\mathrm{SS}}(F) \subset V\}$$ - Let $\Omega = T^\ast M \setminus V$, we set $${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_M; \Omega)={\mathsf{D}^{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_M)/\operatorname{Ob}({{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_V({{\mathbf{k}}}_M))$$ for the localisation of ${\mathsf{D}^{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_M)$ with respects to the null system generated by the object of ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_V({{\mathbf{k}}}_M)$. The category ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_M; \Omega)$ is a triangulated category. - We will encounter the technical notion of *cohomologically constructible* sheaf for which we refer the reader to @KS90 [§3.4]. Composition of kernels and integral transforms ---------------------------------------------- In this section, we set up a few notations and present an associativity criterion for non-proper composition of kernels. Given topological spaces $X_i$ $(i=1, \; 2, \;3)$, we write $X_{ij}$ for $X_i \times X_j$, $X_{123}$ for $X_1 \times X_2 \times X_3$, $p_i \colon X_{ij} \to X_i$ and $p_{ij} \colon X_{123} \to X_{ij}$ for the projections. One defines the composition of kernels for $K_{ij} \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{X_{ij}})$ as $$\begin{aligned} K_{12} {\mathop{\circ}\limits_{2}} K_{23}:= {{\mathrm{R}}{p_{13}}_!} ({p_{12}^{-1}} K_{12} \otimes {p_{23}^{-1}} K_{23}),\\ K_{12} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{2}} K_{23}:= {{\mathrm{R}}{p_{13}}_*} ({p_{12}^{-1}} K_{12} \otimes {p_{23}^{-1}} K_{23}).\end{aligned}$$ To a sheaf $K \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{X_{12}})$, one associate the following functor $$\Phi_K \colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{X_1})\to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{X_2}), \; F \mapsto {{\mathrm{R}}{p_2}_!}( K \otimes {p_1^{-1}}F)$$ \[ex:projduality\] Let ${\mathbb{V}}$ be a real vector space of dimension $n+1$. We set $\dot{{\mathbb{V}}}:={\mathbb{V}}\setminus \{0\}$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^\times$ for the multiplicative group ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus \{0\}$. We consider $\mathbb{P}^n:=\dot{{\mathbb{V}}}/ {\mathbb{R}}^\times$ the projective space of dimension $n$. The dual projective space $\mathbb{P}^{\ast n}$ is defined similarly with ${\mathbb{V}}$ replaced by ${\mathbb{V}}^\ast$. We consider the subset $$\label{eq:projdualkernel} A=\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{P}^n \times \mathbb{P}^{\ast n} | \, \langle x, y\rangle=0 \}$$ and the sheaf ${{\mathbf{k}}}_A$. The integral transform associated to the kernel ${{\mathbf{k}}}_A$ $$\Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}\colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}(\mathbb{P}^n) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}(\mathbb{P}^{\ast n}), \; F \mapsto {{\mathbf{k}}}_A \circ F$$ induces an equivalence of categories $$\Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}\colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}(\mathbb{P}^n, \dot{T}^\ast \mathbb{P}^n ) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}(\mathbb{P}^{\ast n},\dot{T}^\ast \mathbb{P}^{\ast n})$$ This is a consequence of @KS90 [Thm 7.2.1] and we refer the reader to @Gao17 for a detailed study. The proper composition of kernel $ - \, {\mathop{\circ}\limits_{2}} \, -$ is associative. This is not the case of the non-proper one $ - \, {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{2}} \, -$. Nonetheless, we have the following result. \[<span>@PS20 [Thm 2.1.8]</span>\]\[th:assocnp\] Let $X_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$), be four $C^\infty$-manifolds and let $K_i\in{{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{X_{i,i+1}})$, ($i=1,2,3$). Assume that $K_1$ is cohomologically constructible, $q_1$ is proper on $\operatorname{Supp}(K_1)$ and ${\mathrm{SS}}(K_1)\cap (T^*_{X_1}X_1\times T^*X_2)\subset T^*_{X_{12}}X_{12}$. Then $$K_1{\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{2}}(K_2{\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{3}}K_3)\simeq (K_1{\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{2}}K_2){\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{3}} K_3.$$ Convolution distance -------------------- It is possible to equip the derived categories of sheaves on a good metric space $(X,d_X)$ with a pseudo-metric @PS20. This pseudo-metric generalized the convolution distance of @KS18 from normed finite dimensional real vector spaces to good metric spaces. Hence, we will also refer to this extension as the convolution distance. The definition of a good metric space and the construction of this pseudo-metric on ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ are involved and we do not need them explicitly. Hence, we do not recall them here and only review the definition of the convolution distance in the special case of sheaves on a normed finite dimensional real vector space. Nonetheless, we will state and prove some of the results at the level of generality of sheaves on a good metric spaces. We consider a finite dimensional real vector space ${\mathbb{V}}$ endowed with a norm $\|\cdot\|$. We equip ${\mathbb{V}}$ with the topology induced by the norm $\|\cdot\|$. Following @KS18, we briefly present the convolution distance. We introduce the following notations: $$s : {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}, ~~~s(x,y) = x + y$$ $$p_i : {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}~~(i=1,2) ~~~p_1(x,y) = x,~p_2(x,y) = y.$$ The convolution bifunctor $\star \colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})\times {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ and the non-proper convolution bifunctor ${\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}\colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})\times {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ are defined as follows. For $F, \; G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$, we set $$\begin{aligned} F \star G := {{\mathrm{R}}{s}_!} (F \boxtimes G),\\ F {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F :={{\mathrm{R}}{s}_*}(F \boxtimes G). \end{aligned}$$ We consider the morphism $$\label{mor:u} u: {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}, \quad (x,y) \mapsto x-y.$$ We will need the following elementary formula relating non-proper convolution and non-proper composition. \[lem:convtocomp\] Let $F, \; G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. Then (i) $({u^{-1}}F) {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}G \simeq F {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}G$ (ii) ${u^{-1}}F {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}{u^{-1}}G \simeq {u^{-1}}(F {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}G)$ We will only prove $(i)$, the proof of $(ii)$ being similar. $$\begin{aligned} {u^{-1}}F {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}G &\simeq {{\mathrm{R}}{p_1}_*}({u^{-1}}F \otimes {p_2^{-1}}G)\\ &\simeq {{\mathrm{R}}{p_1}_*}( {(u \times {\mathrm{id}})^{-1}} {p_1^{-1}} F \otimes {(u \times {\mathrm{id}})^{-1}}{p_2^{-1}}G)\\ & \simeq {{\mathrm{R}}{p_1}_*} {(u \times {\mathrm{id}})^{-1}} (F \boxtimes G)\\ & \simeq {{\mathrm{R}}{p_1}_*} {{\mathrm{R}}{(s \times {\mathrm{id}})}_*} (F \boxtimes G)\\ & \simeq F {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}G. \end{aligned}$$ For $r \geq 0$, let $K_r := {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_r}$ with $B_r = \{x \in {\mathbb{V}}\mid \| x \| \leq r \}$. For $r < 0 $, we set $K_r := {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\{x \in {\mathbb{V}}\mid \, \|x\| < -r\}}[n]$ (where $n$ is the dimension of ${\mathbb{V}}$). The following proposition is proved in @KS18. \[P:propertiesofconvolution\] Let $r, r'\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. There are functorial isomorphisms $$( K_{r} \star K_{r'}) \star F \simeq K_{r + r'} \star F ~~~ and ~~~ K_0 \star F\simeq F.$$ If $r \geq r' \geq 0 $, there is a canonical morphism $\chi_{r, r'} \colon K_{r}\to K_{r'}$ in ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. It induces a canonical morphism $\chi_{r, r'} \star F \colon K_{r} \star F \to K_{r'} \star F $. In particular when $r' = 0$, we get $$\chi_{r,0} \star F \colon K_{r} \star F \to F.$$ Following @KS18, we recall the notion of $c$-isomorphic sheaves. Let $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ and let $c \geq 0$. The sheaves $F$ and $G$ are c-isomorphic if there are morphisms $f : K_r \star F \to G$ and $g : K_r \star G \to F$ such that the diagrams $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{ K_{2r} \star F \ar[rr]^-{{K_{2r}} \star f} \ar@/_2pc/[rrrr]_{{\chi_{2r,0}} \star F} && K_{r} \star G \ar[rr]^-{g} && F },\\ \xymatrix{ K_{2r} \star G \ar[rr]^-{{K_{2r}} \star g} \ar@/_2pc/[rrrr]_{{\chi_{2r,0}} \star G} && K_{r} \star F \ar[rr]^-{f} && G }. \end{aligned}$$ are commutative. The pair of morphisms $f,g$ is called a pair of $r$-isomorphisms. For $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}) $, their *convolution distance* is $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G) := \inf(\{r \geq 0 \mid F ~\text{and}~G~\text{are}~r -\text{isomorphic}\} \cup \{ \infty \}).$$ It is proved in @KS18 that the convolution is, indeed, a pseudo-extended metric, that is, it satisfies the triangular inequality. The following properties of the convolution distance are well-known to the specialists. We include them with proofs for the convenience of the reader as we do not know references for them. \[lem:transaffine\] Let $({\mathbb{V}}, {\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert})$ be a real finite dimensional normed vector space. Let $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. (i) Let $v \in {\mathbb{V}}$ $\tau_v \colon {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}$, $x \mapsto x-v$, then $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\tau_v}_*}F,{{\tau_v}_*}G)={{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G).$$ (ii) let $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ and $h_\lambda \colon {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}$, $x \mapsto \lambda x$. Then $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{h_\lambda}_*}F,{{h_\lambda}_*}G)= \lambda \, {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G).$$ \(i) For $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$, there are the following natural isomorphism $$\begin{aligned} K_{r} \star {{\tau_v}_*} F &\simeq {{s}_!}{({\mathrm{id}}\times \tau_{-v})^{-1}} (K_{r} \boxtimes F)\\ & \simeq {{\tau_{v}}_*} (K_{r} \star F). \end{aligned}$$ Let $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ and assume that they are $c$-isomorphic. Let $f \colon K_{r} \star F \to G$ and $g \colon K_{r} \star G \to F$ be a pair of $c$-isomorphisms. Then, we have the morphisms $$\begin{aligned} f^\prime \colon K_{r} \star {{\tau_v}_*} F \simeq & {{\tau_{v}}_*} (K_{r} \star F) \stackrel{{{\tau_v}_*}f}{\longrightarrow} {{\tau_v}_*} G,\\ g^\prime \colon K_{r} \star {{\tau_v}_*} G \simeq & {{\tau_{v}}_*} (K_{r} \star G) \stackrel{{{\tau_v}_*}f}{\longrightarrow} {{\tau_v}_*} F \end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to verify that $(f^\prime,g^\prime)$ is a pair of $c$-isomorphisms. On shows similarly that if ${{\tau_v}_*}F$ and ${{\tau_v}_*}G$ are $c$-isomorphic, then $F$ and $G$ are $c$-ismorphic.\ (ii) We first observe that $$\begin{aligned} K_{r} \star {{h_\lambda}_*} F &\simeq {{h_{\lambda}}_*}(K_{r} \star F)\\ & \simeq ({h_{1/\lambda}^{-1}}K_{r}) \star F\\ & \simeq K_{\lambda r} \star F.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Then, we notice that ${{h_\lambda}_*} (\chi_{r,0}) \simeq \chi_{\lambda r,0}$ which conclude the proof. We now recall several key inequalities for the convolution distance. \[<span>@KS18 [Prop. 2.6]</span>\]\[prop:dualdis\] (i) Let $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ and $a \in {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$. If ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G) \leq a$ then ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F),{\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(G)) \leq a$, (ii) Assume that ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F_i,G_i) \leq a_i$ ($i=1,2$) then one has $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F_1 \star F_2,G_1 \star G_2) \leq a_1 + a_2.$$ \[lem:dualiso\] For $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$, ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F),{\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(G))={{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G)$. By Proposition \[prop:dualdis\], we have that ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F),{\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(G)) \leq {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G)$. As $F$ and $G$ are constructible, it follows from @KS90 [Prop. 3.4.3], that ${\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F))\simeq F$ and similarly for $G$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G) &= {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}((F)),{\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}((G)))\\ &\leq {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F),{\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(G)). \end{aligned}$$ Hence, ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F,G)={{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(F),{\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}(G))$. Let X be a topological space, $({\mathbb{V}}, {\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert})$ be a normed finite dimensional real vector space and $f_1, \; f_2 \colon X \to {\mathbb{V}}$ be two continuous maps. We set $${\left\lVertf_1-f_2\right\rVert}_\infty=\sup_{x \in X} \, {\left\lVertf_1(x)-f_2(x)\right\rVert}.$$ \[<span>@KS18 [Thm. 2.7]</span>\]\[thm:stability\] Let $X$ be a good topological space and $f_1, \;f_2 : X \rightarrow {\mathbb{V}}$ be two continuous maps. Then for any $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$, we have $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_!} F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_!} F) \leq {\left\lVertf_1-f_2\right\rVert}_\infty && {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_*} F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_*} F) \leq {\left\lVertf_1-f_2\right\rVert}_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ \[<span>@PS20 [Corollary 2.5.9.]</span>\]\[thm:lipstability\] Let $(X,d_X)$ and $(Y,d_Y)$ be two good metric spaces and $f\colon X \rightarrow Y$ a $K$-Lipschitz map. Then, for every $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_X({{\mathrm{R}}{f}_!}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f}_!}G) \leq K \, {{\mathrm{dist}}}_Y(F,G),$$ If moreover $X$ and $Y$ are finite dimensional vector spaces and $d_X$ and $d_Y$ are euclidean distances, then one also has $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_Y({{\mathrm{R}}{f}_*}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f}_*}G) \leq K \, {{\mathrm{dist}}}_X(F,G).$$ Constructible sheaves up to infinity ------------------------------------ We review in this section the notion of sheaves constructible up to infinity, which was recently introduced by Schapira in @schapira2021constructible. The geometric setting is the following. Let $({\mathbb{V}}, {\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert})$ be a real vector space of dimension $n$ endowed with a norm. We denote by ${\mathbb{P}}$ the projectivisation of ${\mathbb{V}}$. That is, we consider the $n$ dimensional projective space ${\mathbb{P}}({\mathbb{V}}\oplus {\mathbb{R}})$. We also write ${\mathbb{P}}^\ast$ for the projectivization of ${\mathbb{V}}^\ast$. We have the open immersion: $$\begin{aligned} j \colon {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{P}}, \quad x \mapsto [x,1]. \end{aligned}$$ In particular, $j$ is an open embedding of real analytic manifolds, whose image is relatively compact. \[<span>@schapira2021constructible [Lemma 2.7]</span>\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. The following are equivalent. (i) The micro-support ${\mathrm{SS}}(F)$ is subanalytic in $T^\ast {\mathbb{P}}$, (ii) The microsupport ${\mathrm{SS}}(F)$ is contained in a locally closed ${\mathbb{R}}^+$-conic subanalytic isotropic subset of $T^\ast {\mathbb{P}}$, (iii) $j_! F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{P}})$, (iv) $\text{R} j_\ast F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{P}})$. If $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ satisfies any (hence all) of the conditions above, we say that $F$ is constructible up to infinity. We denote by ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}_\infty})$ the full triangulated subcategory of ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ whose objects are sheaves constructible up to infinity. The following is a special case of @schapira2021constructible [Definition 2.5]. Let ${\mathbb{V}}$ and $\mathbb{W}$ be two finite dimensional real vector spaces, and ${\mathbb{P}}$ and ${\mathbb{P}}'$ their respective projectivization. A map $f : {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{W}}$ is subanalytic up to infinity if its graph $\Gamma_f \subset {\mathbb{V}}\times \mathbb{W}$ is subanalytic in ${\mathbb{P}}\times {\mathbb{P}}'$. We write (i) $\mathcal{A}({\mathbb{V}}_\infty)$ for the set of morphism of analytic manifolds from ${\mathbb{V}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$ which are subanalytic up to infinity. (ii) $\mathcal{SC}({\mathbb{V}}_\infty)$ for the set of continuous maps from ${\mathbb{V}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$ which are subanalytic up to infinity. Let ${\mathbb{V}}$ and $\mathbb{W}$ be two finite dimensional real vector spaces, ${\mathbb{P}}$ and ${\mathbb{P}}'$ their respective projectivization and $f : {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{W}}$ an element of $\mathcal{SC}({\mathbb{V}}_\infty)$. \[prop:opconstructinf\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}_\infty})$ and $G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{W}_\infty})$. Then, the sheaves $f^{-1} G, f^! G, \text{R} f_\ast F$, and $\text{R}f_! F$ are constructible up to infinity. This follows immediately from @schapira2021constructible [Lem. 1.1] and @schapira2021constructible [Cor. 2.1'] \[<span>@schapira2021constructible [Corollary 2.13]</span>\]\[cor:roimtoreim\] With the same notations, one has $\text{R}f_\ast F \simeq {\mathrm{D}}_\mathbb{W} \text{R}f_! {\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}F$ and $f^! G \simeq {\mathrm{D}}_{\mathbb{V}}f^{-1} {\mathrm{D}}_\mathbb{W} G$. gamma-sheaves {#sec:gammasheaves} ============= The interplay between sheaves on a real vector space and persistence theory necessitates the use of a topology on a vector space introduced by Kashiwara and Schapira @KS90, called the $\gamma$-*topology*. In this section, we first recall the basic definitions associated to the $\gamma$-topology. There is a notion of interleaving distance between sheaves on the $\gamma$-topology, which the authors proved to coincide under some properness hypothesis with the convolution distance @BP21 [Corollary 5.9]. Here, we strengthen this result by removing the properness assumption. We then recall some results specific to the dimension one case, where $\gamma$-sheaves have a graded-barcode @BG18. We end the section with the notion of fibered barcode which was introduced in @Cer13 for persistence modules, that we translate in our $\gamma$-sheaf setting. Let ${\mathbb{V}}$ be a finite dimensional real vector space. We write $a \colon x \mapsto -x$ for the antipodal map. If $A$ is a subset of ${\mathbb{V}}$, we write $A^a$ for the image of $A$ by the antipodal map. A subset $\gamma$ of the vector space ${\mathbb{V}}$ is a cone if (i) $0 \in \gamma$, (ii) ${\mathbb{R}}_{>0} \, \gamma \subset \gamma$. A convex cone $\gamma$ is proper if $\gamma^a \cap \gamma =\lbrace 0 \rbrace$. The polar cone $\gamma^\circ$ of a cone $\gamma \subset {\mathbb{V}}$ is the cone of ${\mathbb{V}}^\ast$ $$\gamma^\circ=\lbrace \xi \in {\mathbb{V}}^\ast \, | \, \forall v \in \gamma, \langle \xi, v \rangle \geq 0 \rbrace.$$ From now on, we assume that $\gamma$ is a $$\label{hyp:cone} \textnormal{\textit{closed proper convex cone with non-empty} interior.}$$ We say that a subset $A$ of ${\mathbb{V}}$ is *$\gamma$-invariant* if $A=A+ \gamma$. The set of $\gamma$-invariant open subset of ${\mathbb{V}}$ is a topology on ${\mathbb{V}}$ called the $\gamma$-topology. We denote by ${\mathbb{V}}_\gamma$ the vector space ${\mathbb{V}}$ endowed with the $\gamma$-topology. We write $\phi_\gamma \colon {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}_{\gamma}$ for the continuous map whose underlying function is the identity. We set, following @KS18, $$\label{def:gammasheaf} {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})=\lbrace F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}) \, \vert \, {\mathrm{SS}}(F) \subset {\mathbb{V}}\times \gamma^{\circ,a} \rbrace,$$ We call an object of ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ a *$\gamma$-sheaf*. This terminology is motivated by the following result. \[<span>@KS18 [Thm. 1.5]</span>\] Let $\gamma$ be a proper closed convex cone in ${\mathbb{V}}$. The functor ${{\mathrm{R}}{\phi_\gamma}_*} \colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}_\gamma})$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories with quasi-inverse ${\phi_\gamma^{-1}}$. The canonical map ${{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma^a} \to {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\lbrace 0 \rbrace}$ induces a morphism $$\label{mor:gammacar} F {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma^a} \to F.$$ \[<span>@GS14 [Prop. 3.9]</span>\]\[prop:gammaloc\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. Then $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ if and only if the morphism is an isomorphism. The following lemma is closely related. \[<span>@KS90 [Prop. 3.5.4]</span>\] The endofunctors $ {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}(\cdot)$ of ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ factors through ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ and defines a projector ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. This functor is the "gammaification" functor.\ Let $v\in {\mathbb{V}}$, we set $$\tau_v \colon {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}, \; x \mapsto x - v.$$ For $v,w \in {\mathbb{V}}$ such that $w + \gamma \subset v + \gamma$, we can use proposition \[prop:gammaloc\] to construct a morphism of functors from ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$ to ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$ $$\label{mor:bismoothmu} \chi^\mu_{v,w} \colon {{\tau_v}_*} \to {{\tau_w}_*}.$$ We refer the reader to @BP21 [§4.1.2] for details. Let $F$, $G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$, and $v \in \gamma^a$. We say that $F$ and $G$ are $v$-interleaved if there exists $f \in {\mathrm{Hom}_{\raise1.5ex\hbox to.1em{}{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}}}( {{\tau_v}_*}F, G)$ and $g \in {\mathrm{Hom}_{\raise1.5ex\hbox to.1em{}{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}}}( {{\tau_v}_*}G, F)$ such that the following diagram commutes. $$\xymatrix{ {{\tau_{2v}}_*}F \ar[rrd]\ar@/^0.75cm/[rrr]^{\chi_{2v,0}(F)} \ar[r]^-{\sim} & {{\tau_{v}}_*} {{\tau_{v}}_*} F \ar[r]^{{{\tau_v}_*} f} & {{\tau_v}_*} G \ar[rd] \ar[r]^{g} & F \\ {{\tau_{2v}}_*}G \ar[urr]\ar@/_0.75cm/[rrr]_{\chi_{2v,0}(G)} \ar[r]^-{\sim} & {{\tau_{v}}_*} {{\tau_{v}}_*} G \ar[r]_-{{{\tau_v}_*} g} & {{\tau_v}_*} F \ar[ur] \ar[r]_{f\;\;\,} & G. }$$ The interleaving distance between $F$ and $G$ with respect to $v\in \gamma^a$ is $$d_I^v(F,G) := \inf(\{r \geq 0 \mid F ~\text{and}~G~\text{are}~r \cdot v-\text{interleaved}\} \cup \{ \infty \}).$$ The interleaving distance was introduced in @Chazal2009. We refer the reader to @Silva2018 for details. Distances comparison -------------------- In this subsection, we compare the interleaving distance on ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$ with the convolution distance on ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$. We sharpen Proposition 5.8 and Corollary 5.9 of @BP21 by removing the $\gamma$-properness assumption. The architecture of the proof is the same as in @BP21. The $\gamma$-properness hypothesis is removed thanks to Theorem \[th:assocnp\]. Here, ${\mathbb{V}}$ is endowed with a closed proper convex cone $\gamma$ with non-empty interior. Let $v \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^a)$ and consider the set $$B_v := (v+\gamma) \cap (-v+\gamma^a).$$ The set $B_v$ is a symmetric closed bounded convex subset of ${\mathbb{V}}$ such that $0 \in {\mathrm{Int}}B_v$. It follows that the gauge $$\label{eq:normcool} g_{B_v}(x)=\inf \lbrace \lambda > 0 \,\vert x \in \lambda B_v \rbrace$$ is a norm, the unit ball of which is $B_v$. We denote this norm by $\| \cdot \|_v$.From now on, we consider ${\mathbb{V}}$ equipped with this norm. Recall the map $$u: {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}, \quad (x,y) \mapsto x-y.$$ Consider $$\Theta=\{(x,y) \in {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}| x-y \in \gamma^a \}={u^{-1}}(\gamma^a).$$ and notice that $$\Delta_r = \{(x,y) \in {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}| \, \|x-y \|_v \leq r\}=u^{-1}(B_r)$$ where $B_r$ is the closed ball of center $0$ and radius $r$ in ${\mathbb{V}}$ for the norm $\| \cdot \|_v$. The following formulas follow from Lemma \[lem:convtocomp\]. $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathbf{k}}}_\Theta {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F. \label{eq:gamtheta}\\ {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}{{\mathbf{k}}}_\Theta \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r + \Theta}. \label{eq:lintheta}\end{aligned}$$ \[lem:assoboule\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. Then $$({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Theta}) {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Theta} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F).$$ Let $\pi \colon T^\ast {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}$ be the cotangent bundle of ${\mathbb{V}}$. We denote by $u_d$ the dual of the tangent morphism of $u$. It fits in the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ T^\ast ({\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}) \ar[rd]^{\pi} & ({\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}) \times_{{\mathbb{V}}} \times T^\ast {\mathbb{V}}\ar[l]_-{u_d} \ar[r]^-{u_\pi} \ar[d]^{\pi}& T^\ast {\mathbb{V}}\ar[d]^-{\pi} \\ & {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}\ar[r]^-{u} & {\mathbb{V}}. }$$ Since, we have the isomorphism ${{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} \simeq {u^{-1}} {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_r}$, it follows from @KS90 [Prop. 5.4.5] that ${\mathrm{SS}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r})=u_d \, {u_\pi^{-1}}({\mathrm{SS}}(B_r))$. A direct computation shows that $u_d \, {u_\pi^{-1}}(T^\ast {\mathbb{V}}) \cap T^\ast_{{\mathbb{V}}} {\mathbb{V}}\times T^\ast {\mathbb{V}}\subset T^\ast_{{\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}} ({\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}})$. Hence ${\mathrm{SS}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r}) \cap T^\ast_{{\mathbb{V}}} {\mathbb{V}}\times T^\ast {\mathbb{V}}\subset T^\ast_{{\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}}} ({\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{V}})$. Since ${{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r}$ is constructible and the properness assumption is clearly satisfied, we apply Theorem \[th:assocnp\] and get the desired isomorphism. Finally, there is also the following isomorphism $$\label{eq:isoboule} {{\mathbf{k}}}_{r \cdot v + \gamma^a} \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_r + \gamma^a}.$$ We now state and prove the sharpen version of @BP21 [Prop. 5.8]. \[thm:isomBP21\] Let $v \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^a)$, $r \in {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ and $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$. Then $F$ and $G$ are $r \cdot v$-interleaved if and only if they are $r$-isomorphic. Let $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$. Assume they are $r \cdot v$-interleaved. We set $w=r \cdot v$. Hence, we have the maps $$\begin{aligned} \alpha \colon \tau_{w \ast} F \to G && \beta \colon \tau_{w \ast} G \to F \end{aligned}$$ such that the below diagrams commute $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{\tau_{2w \ast} F \ar[r]^-{{{\tau_w}_*} \alpha} \ar@/_2pc/[rr]_{{\chi^\mu_{0,2w}}(F)} & {{\tau_{w}}_*} G \ar[r]^-{{{\tau_{w}}_*} \beta} & F && \tau_{2w \ast} G \ar[r]^-{{{\tau_w}_*} \beta} \ar@/_2pc/[rr]_{{\chi^\mu_{2w,0}}(G)} & {{\tau_{w}}_*} F \ar[r]^-{{{\tau_{w}}_*} \alpha} & G. \\ } \end{aligned}$$ Using @BG18 [Lem. 4.3], we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{{{\mathbf{k}}}_{2w+\gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \ar[rr]^-{{{\mathbf{k}}}_{2w+\gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}\alpha} \ar@/_2pc/[rrrr]_{{\chi_{2w,0}} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F} && {{\mathbf{k}}}_{w+\gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}G \ar[rr]^-{{{\mathbf{k}}}_{w+\gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}\beta} && F. } \end{aligned}$$ Moreover for every $r \geq 0$, we have the following isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathbf{k}}}_{r v + \gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F &\simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_r + \gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \quad \quad \textnormal{by Equation \eqref{eq:isoboule}}\\ & \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r + \Theta} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \quad \quad \textnormal{by Lemma \ref{lem:convtocomp} (i)}\\ &\simeq ({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Theta}) {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \quad \quad \textnormal{by Equation \eqref{eq:lintheta}}\\ &\simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Theta} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F) \quad \quad \textnormal{by Lemma \ref{lem:assoboule}}\\ & \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma^a} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F) \quad \quad \textnormal{by Equation \eqref{eq:gamtheta}}\\ &\simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\Delta_r} {\mathop{\circ}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \quad \quad \textnormal{by Proposition \ref{prop:gammaloc}}\\ &\simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_r} {\mathop{\star}\limits^{\rm np}\limits_{}}F \quad \quad \textnormal{by Lemma \ref{lem:convtocomp} (i)}\\ &\simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_r} \star F \quad \quad \textnormal{(compacity of $B_r$)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain the commutative diagram $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{{{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_{2c}} \star F \ar[rr]^-{{{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_c} \star \alpha} \ar@/_2pc/[rrrr]_{{\rho_{0,2c}} \star F} && {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_c} \star G \ar[rr]^-{\beta} && F }. \end{aligned}$$ Similarly we obtain the following commutative diagram $$\begin{aligned} \xymatrix{{{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_{2r}} \star G \ar[rr]^-{{{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_{r}} \star \beta} \ar@/_2pc/[rrrr]_{{\rho_{0,2r}} \star G} && {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_r} \star F \ar[rr]^-{\alpha} && G }. \end{aligned}$$Hence, $F$ and $G$ are $r$-isomorphic. A similar argument proves that if $F$ and $G$ are $r$-isomorphic then they are $r\cdot v$-interleaved. \[cor:gamconv\] Let $v \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^a)$, $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$. Then $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}^v(F,G)=d^v_{I^\mu}(F,G)$$ where ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}^v$ is the convolution distance associated with the norm $\|\cdot \|_v$ defined in equation . \[P:cohomologyinterleaving\] Let $v \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^a)$, $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$ and $c\in {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$. Assume that $F$ and $G$ are $c\cdot v$-interleaved. Then for all $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $\operatorname{H}^j(F)$ and $\operatorname{H}^j(G)$ are $c\cdot v$-interleaved. For all $w \in {\mathrm{Int}}{\gamma^a}$, the functor $\tau_{w \ast} : \operatorname{Mod}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}}) \to \operatorname{Mod}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ is exact. Therefore, applying the functor $\operatorname{H}^j$ to a $c\cdot v $-interleaving diagram between $F$ and $G$ produces a $c\cdot v $-interleaving diagram between $\operatorname{H}^j(F)$ and $\operatorname{H}^j(G)$. For $v \in {\mathrm{Int}}{\gamma^a}$ and $F, G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$, one has: 1. $\max_j d^v_{I^\mu}(\operatorname{H}^j(F),\operatorname{H}^j(G)) \leq d^v_{I^\mu}(F,G)$, 2. $\max_j {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}^v(\operatorname{H}^j(F),\operatorname{H}^j(G)) \leq {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}^v(F,G)$. The first inequality is a direct consequence of Proposition \[P:cohomologyinterleaving\]. The second one is a consequence of the first one, together with Corollary \[cor:gamconv\]. The dimension one case ---------------------- When ${\mathbb{V}}$ is a one-dimensional real vector space, the category ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ enjoys a structure theorem which ensures the existence of a graded-barcode for its objects, and allow to derive explicit computations for the convolution distance. This was studied in detail in @KS18 [@BG18]. These results extends the key theorem of Crawley-Boevey @CB14 to constructible sheaves on the real line. In this section, we recall the main results that will be useful in the following of the article. \[<span>@KS18 [Thm 1.17]</span>\]\[T:Decomposition\] Let $F \in \operatorname{Mod}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}})$, then there exists a unique locally finite multi-set of intervals of ${\mathbb{R}}$ noted $\mathbb{B}(F)$ such that $$F \simeq \bigoplus_{I \in \mathbb{B}(F)} {{\mathbf{k}}}_{I}.$$ Moreover, this decomposition is unique up to isomorphism. Since for $I$ and $J$ some intervals of ${\mathbb{R}}$, one has $\text{Ext}^j({{\mathbf{k}}}_I,{{\mathbf{k}}}_J) \simeq 0$ for all $j > 1$, theorem \[T:Decomposition\] has the useful following corollary. \[C:structure\] Let $F\in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}})$. Then there exists an isomorphism in ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}})$: $$F \simeq \bigoplus_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{H}^j(F)[-j],$$ where $\operatorname{H}^j(F)$ is seen as a complex concentrated in degree $0$. \[<span>@BG18 [Definiton 2.13]</span>\] \[D:GradedBarcodes\] Let $F\in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}})$, we define its *graded-barcode* ${\mathbb{B}}(F)$ as the collection $(\mathbb{B}^j(F))_{j\in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ where ${\mathbb{B}}^j(F) := {\mathbb{B}}(\text{H}^j(F))$. Furthermore, to indicate that an interval $I\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ appears in degree $j\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ in the graded-barcode of $F$, we will write $I^j \in {\mathbb{B}}(F)$. The element $I^j$ is called a graded-interval. We recall here the construction of the category $\textbf{Barcode}$ of @BG18, which is an explicit skeleton of ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}})$. Let $\text{Int}({\mathbb{R}})$ be the set of intervals of ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $p_1$, $p_2$ be the two first coordinate projections of $\text{Int}({\mathbb{R}}) \times {\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$. Let $\mathbb{B}$ be a subset of $ \text{Int}({\mathbb{R}}) \times {\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$. Then $\mathbb{B}$ is said to be - *locally finite* if $p_1(\mathbb{B})\cap K$ is finite for all compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$; - *bounded* if $p_2(\mathbb{B}) \subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ is bounded; - *well-defined* if the fibers of the projection $(p_1,p_2)$ have cardinality at most $1$. In a triple $(I,j,n) \in\mathbb{B}$, the first integer will stand for the degree on which the interval $I$ is seen and the second non-negative integer $n$ stands for its multiplicity. \[<span>@BG18 [Definition 6.11]</span>\]\[D:CatBarcode\] The category $\textbf{Barcode}$ has objects the set $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{Ob}(\textbf{Barcode}) &=\{\mathbb{B} \subset \text{Int}({\mathbb{R}}) \times {\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}, \mathbb{B} ~\text{is bounded, locally} \\ &\hspace{0.7cm}\text{finite and well-defined} \}.\end{aligned}$$ For any $\mathbb{B}$ and $\mathbb{B}' \in \textbf{Barcode}$, the set of their morphisms is $${\mathrm{Hom}_{\raise1.5ex\hbox to.1em{}\textbf{Barcode}}}(\mathbb{B},\mathbb{B}') = \prod_{\substack{(I,j,n)\in \mathbb{B} \\ (I',j',n') \in \mathbb{B}'}} {\mathrm{Hom}_{\raise1.5ex\hbox to.1em{}{{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}})}} \left ({{\mathbf{k}}}_I^n[-j] , {{\mathbf{k}}}_{I'}^{n'}[-j'] \right ).$$ We define the composition in **Barcode** so that the mapping : $$\iota : \operatorname{Ob}(\textbf{Barcode})\ni \mathbb{B} \mapsto \bigoplus_{(I,j,n)\in \mathbb{B}} {{\mathbf{k}}}_I^n[-j] \in \operatorname{Ob}({{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}}))$$ becomes a fully faithful functor : $$\iota : \textbf{Barcode} \longrightarrow {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}}).$$ Note that this is possible only because the objects of $\textbf{Barcode}$ are locally finite (hence products and co-products coincide). Theorems \[T:Decomposition\] and \[C:structure\] assert that $\iota$ is essentially surjective, therefore is an equivalence. We also deduce from these theorems that $\textbf{Barcode}$ is a skeletal category: it satisfies for any $\mathbb{B}_1,\mathbb{B}_2 \in \textbf{Barcode}$, $$\mathbb{B}_1 \simeq \mathbb{B}_2 \text{~if and only if~} \mathbb{B}_1 = \mathbb{B}_2.$$ Since $\iota$ is an equivalence, let us denote by $\mathbb{B}$ a quasi-inverse of $\iota$. In @BG18, the authors define a matching distance between the objects of **Barcode** called the bottleneck distance, and denoted $d_B$. They prove the following isometry theorem, where ${\mathbb{R}}$ is endowed with the usual absolute value norm $| \cdot |$, and denote by ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{R}}$ the associated convolution distance on ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}})$. \[<span>@BG18 [Thm. 5.10]</span>\] The functor $$\mathbb{B} : ({{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}}), \text{dist}_{\mathbb{R}}) \longrightarrow (\textbf{Barcode}, d_B)$$is an isometric equivalence. In this article, we will mostly be interested in $\gamma$-sheaves, since they are the sheaf theoretic analogue of persistence modules in a precise sense @BP21. Therefore, we unwrap the derived isometry theorem of @BG18 in the simpler setting of $\gamma$-sheaves that will be useful for us in the following of the article. For the rest of this section, we set $\gamma = (-\infty, 0]$. Note that all results translate readily for the cone $\gamma' = [0, +\infty)$. We recall that, given two sets $X$ and $Y$, a partial matching between $X$ and $Y$ is the data $(\sigma, \mathcal{X}, \mathcal{Y})$ of two subsets $\mathcal{X} \subset X$ and $\mathcal{Y}\subset Y$, together with a bijection $\sigma : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$. In this situation, we use the notation $(\sigma, \mathcal{X}, \mathcal{Y}) : X \to Y$. \[D:matching\] Let $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}},\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}})$, and $\varepsilon \geq 0$. A *$\varepsilon$-matching* between ${\mathbb{B}}(F)$ and ${\mathbb{B}}(G)$ is the data of a collection of partial matchings $(\sigma^j, \mathcal{X}^j, \mathcal{Y}^j): {\mathbb{B}}^j(F) \to {\mathbb{B}}^j(G)$, satisfying the following, for all $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$: 1. for all $I \in \mathcal{X}^j$ such that $I = [a,b)$ with $a$ and $b$ in ${\mathbb{R}}\cup \{\pm \infty\}$, then $\sigma^j(I) = [a',b')$ with $a'$ and $b'$ in ${\mathbb{R}}\cup \{\pm \infty\}$, and[^3] $|a-a'| \leq \varepsilon $ and $|b-b'| \leq \varepsilon$, 2. for all $I =[a,b) \in {\mathbb{B}}^j(F) \backslash \mathcal{X}^j \cup {\mathbb{B}}^j(G) \backslash \mathcal{Y}^j $, then $|a-b| \leq 2 \varepsilon$. For $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}},\gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}})$, their bottleneck distance is defined by: $$d_B(F,G) = \inf \{\varepsilon\geq 0 \mid ~\mathbb{B}(F) ~ \text{and} ~ \mathbb{B}(G) ~\text{are $\varepsilon$-matched} \}.$$ The matchings between graded barcodes of $\gamma$-sheaves are defined in the same way as between barcodes of persistence modules. Therefore, one can compute the bottleneck distance between barcodes of $\gamma$-sheaves using already existing software @gudhi:urm [@tauzin2021giottotda]. It is nevertheless far from being true when removing the $\gamma$ assumption on $F$ and $G$. \[<span>@BG18 [Thm 5.10]</span>\]\[T:Isometry\] Let $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}, \gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}})$, then the following are equivalent, for all $\varepsilon \geq 0$: (i) $F$ and $G$ are $\varepsilon$-isomorphic; (ii) there exists a $\varepsilon$-matching between ${\mathbb{B}}(F)$ and ${\mathbb{B}}(G)$; (iii) for all $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $\operatorname{H}^j(F)$ and $\operatorname{H}^j(G)$ are $\varepsilon$-isormophic. \[C:gradedDistance\] Let $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}, \gamma^{\circ,\,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}})$, then $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{R}}(F,G) &= \max_{j\in {\mathbb{Z}}} {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{R}}(\operatorname{H}^j(F),\operatorname{H}^j(G)) \\ &= \max_{j\in {\mathbb{Z}}} d_B (\mathbb{B}(\operatorname{H}^j(F)), \mathbb{B}(\operatorname{H}^j(F))). \end{aligned}$$ Note that Corollary \[C:gradedDistance\] is false if one only assumes $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}})$. One consequence of the derived isometry theorem is the following closedness property of the convolution distance, which we recall in full generality here. \[<span>@BG18 [Thm 6.3]</span>\] \[thm:closedis\] Let $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{R}})$, then the following are equivalent, for all $\varepsilon \geq 0$: (i) ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{R}}(F,G) \leq \varepsilon$; (ii) $F$ and $G$ are $\varepsilon$-isomorphic. In particular, ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{R}}(F,0) = 0$ iff $F \simeq 0$. Fibered barcodes ---------------- ### Fibered Barcode {#S:fiberedbarcode} One of the challenges of multi-parameter persistence is to provide a meaningful notion of distance between persistence modules which can be computed in a reasonable time complexity. Indeed, it has been shown that the usual interleaving distance between persistence modules is NP-hard to compute in the muti-parameter case @bjerkevik2019computing. To overcome this issue, the authors of @Cer13 introduced the matching distance between multiparameter persistence modules, which is by now popular in the TDA community, thanks to the software RIVET @lesnick2015interactive. We review this notion below, but formulate it in the language of $\gamma$-sheaves. In this section, we assume that ${\mathbb{V}}= {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and define the cone $\gamma = (-\infty, 0 ] ^n$. Let $v = (1,...,1)^t \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^a)$ and $\|\cdot \|_v$ is defined as in equation (\[eq:normcool\]). Then, $$\|(x_1,...,x_n)\|_v = \max \{|x_1|, ... , |x_n|\}.$$ Let us define $\Lambda := \{h \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^a) , \|h\|_v = 1\}$. Given $h \in \Lambda$, we denote by $\mathcal{L}_h$ the one dimensional subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ spanned by $h$. Recall that $\gamma$ induces on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ the standard product order $\leq$ given by: $$(x_1,...,x_n) \leq (y_1,...,y_n) \iff x_i \leq y_i ~~~\text{for all }i.$$ The poset $(\mathcal{L}_h,\leq)$ is isomorphic to $({\mathbb{R}},\leq)$. Therefore, it has the least upper bound property. Following @lesnick2015interactive, we define the push function $p_{\mathcal{L}_h} : {\mathbb{V}}\to \mathcal{L}_h$ by $$p_{\mathcal{L}_h}(x) = \inf \{y \in \mathcal{L}_h\mid x \leq y \} = \inf \{y \in \mathcal{L}_h\mid x \in y + \gamma \}.$$ One can prove that we have the following formula, for $x=( x_1,...,x_n) \in {\mathbb{V}}$ and $h = (h_1,...,h_n) \in \Lambda$: $$\label{eq:formulaP} p_{\mathcal{L}_h}(x) = \left ( \max_i \frac{x_i}{h_i} \right ) \cdot h.$$ In particular, one has for $y \in \mathcal{L}_h$: $$\label{eq:fiberP} p_{\mathcal{L}_h}^{-1}(\{y\}) = y + \partial \gamma.$$ For $h = (h_1,...,h_n)\in \Lambda$, the map $p_{\mathcal{L}_h}$ is $\frac{1}{\min_i h_i}$-Lipschitz with respect to $\| \cdot \|_v$, and this coefficient is optimal. Let $x, x^\prime \in {\mathbb{V}}$, since $h_i >0$ for all $i$, one has: $$p_{\mathcal{L}_h}(x) = \max_i \frac{x_i}{h_i} \cdot h \in \mathcal{L}_h.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \|p_{\mathcal{L}_h}(x) - p_{\mathcal{L}_h}(x^\prime) \|_v &= | \max_i \frac{x_i}{h_i} - \max_i \frac{x^\prime_i}{h_i} | \\ &\leq \max_i |\frac{x_i}{h_i} - \frac{x^\prime_i}{h_i} | \\ &\leq \frac{1}{\min_i h_i} \| x - x^\prime \|_v.\end{aligned}$$ The above inequality becomes an equality when $i_0\in \{1,...n\}$ is such that $h_{i_0} = \min_i h_i$, $x$ is the $i_0$-th element of the canonical basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and $x^\prime = 0$. Let us define $i_{\mathcal{L}_h}(t) = t \cdot h$, which is an isometric linear map $ i_{\mathcal{L}_h} : ({\mathbb{R}}, |\cdot |) \to ({\mathbb{V}}, \|\cdot\|_v)$ whose image is $\mathcal{L}_h$. For $c \in {\mathbb{V}}$, we set $\tau_c \colon {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{V}}$, $x \mapsto x-c$ the translation map. \[@Cer13\] For $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}, \gamma^{\circ, a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$, its fibered barcode is the collection of graded-barcodes $(\mathbb{B}({i_{\mathcal{L}_h}^{-1}} {\tau_{c}^{-1}}F) )_{(h,c) \in \Lambda \times {\mathbb{V}}}$. \[@Cer13\] For $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}, \gamma^{\circ, a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$, their matching distance is the possibly infinite quantity: $$d_m (F,G) = \sup_{(h,c) \in \Lambda \times {\mathbb{V}}} {\min_i h_i} \cdot d_B (\mathbb{B}(i_{\mathcal{L}_h}^{-1} {\tau_{c}^{-1}} F), \mathbb{B}(i_{\mathcal{L}_h}^{-1} {\tau_{c}^{-1}} G)).$$ Recall that we denote by ${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}^v$ the convolution distance associated with the norm $\|\cdot\|_v$ on ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. Then one has the following stability result: \[@Cer13 [@Landi2018]\] Let $F,G \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{{{\mathbb{R}}\rm{c}}}, \gamma^{\circ, a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$, then: $$d_m(F,G) \leq {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}^v(F,G)$$ Therefore, the matching distance is stable with respect to the convolution distance. Under some finiteness assumptions on $F,G$, it can be computed in polynomial time (in the number of generators and relations of a finite free presentation of $F$ and $G$ seen as persistence modules). In particular, the software RIVET @lesnick2015interactive allows for an efficient computation of the matching distance when ${\mathbb{V}}$ is of dimension $2$, and gives an interactive visualization of the fibered barcode. Linear dimensionality reduction =============================== In this section, we study direct images of sheaves on a finite dimensional vector space by linear forms. We examine in detailed the case of $\gamma$-sheaves and sub-level sets persistence modules. We obtain several vanishing results and a formula allowing to compute explicitly the pushforward by a linear form of a sub-level sets multi-parameter persistence module. Let $({\mathbb{V}}, {\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert})$ be a real vector space of dimension $n$ endowed with a norm. Recall that we denote by ${\mathbb{P}}$ the projectivisation of ${\mathbb{V}}$. That is, we consider the $n$ dimensional projective space ${\mathbb{P}}({\mathbb{V}}\oplus {\mathbb{R}})$. We also write ${\mathbb{P}}^\ast$ for the projectivization of ${\mathbb{V}}^\ast$. We have the open immersion $$\begin{aligned} j \colon {\mathbb{V}}\to {\mathbb{P}}, \quad x \mapsto [x,1].\end{aligned}$$ Linear direct image of sheaves ------------------------------ We need the following straightforward generalization of the stability inequality. This is a version with support of the usual stability inequality, as proved in @KS18. \[lem:stabsupport\] Let $X$ be a good topological space and $({\mathbb{V}}, {\left\lVert\cdot\right\rVert})$ be a real finite dimensional normed vector space. Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_X)$ and let $S$ be a closed subset containing $\operatorname{Supp}(F)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_!}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_!}F) \leq {\left\lVertf_1|_S-f_2|_S\right\rVert}_\infty && {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_*}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_*}F) \leq {\left\lVertf_1|_S-f_2|_S\right\rVert}_\infty. \end{aligned}$$ We only prove the first inequality, the proof of the second one being similar. Remark that $F \simeq {{i_S}_!} {i_S^{-1}}F$. Hence, $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_!}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_!}F)={{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_!}{{i_S}_!} {i_S^{-1}}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_!}{{i_S}_!} {i_S^{-1}}F).$$ It follows from the stability theorem that $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_!}{{i_S}_!} {i_S^{-1}}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_!}{{i_S}_!} {i_S^{-1}}F) \leq {\left\lVertf_1|_S-f_2|_S\right\rVert}_\infty.$$ Thus, $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{V}}({{\mathrm{R}}{f_1}_!}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{f_2}_!}F) \leq {\left\lVertf_1|_S-f_2|_S\right\rVert}_\infty.$$ Let $S$ be a subset of ${\mathbb{V}}$. We set ${\left\lVertS\right\rVert}=\sup_{x \in S} {\left\lVertx\right\rVert}$. \[lem:continuitylin\_projbar\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{{\mathrm{comp}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{V}}})$, $u,v \in {\mathbb{V}}^\ast$ and set $S=\operatorname{Supp}(F)$. Then, $${{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{R}}({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{v}_!}F) \leq {\left\lVertS\right\rVert} {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u-v \right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_\infty$$ It follows from Lemma \[lem:stabsupport\] that $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathrm{dist}}}_{\mathbb{R}}({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F,{{\mathrm{R}}{v}_!}F) & \leq {\left\lVertu|_S-v|_S\right\rVert}_\infty \end{aligned}$$ and for every $x \in S$ $$\begin{aligned} |u(x)-v(x)| & \leq {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u-v \right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_\infty {\left\lVertx\right\rVert}_\infty\\ & \leq {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u-v \right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_\infty {\left\lVertS\right\rVert}_\infty .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, ${\left\lVert\tilde{u}|_S-\tilde{v}|_S\right\rVert}_\infty \leq {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u-v \right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_\infty {\left\lVertS\right\rVert}_\infty$. Recall the following integral transform $$\Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}\colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}(\mathbb{P}^n) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}(\mathbb{P}^{\ast n}), \; F \mapsto {{\mathbf{k}}}_A \circ F$$ where the set $A$ is defined by equation . We wish to extract information regarding $F$ from the data of pushforwards of $F$ by linear forms. For that purpose, we will use projective duality as it allows to construct a sheaf on ${\mathbb{P}}^\ast$, via $\Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}$, the stalks of which are the ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F_t$ where $u$ is a linear form and $t$ an element of ${\mathbb{V}}$. \[lem:stalkprojduality\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ and let $[u;t] \in {\mathbb{P}}^\ast$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}({{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)_{[u;t]}& \simeq ({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F)_t.\end{aligned}$$ Let $[u;t] \in {\mathbb{P}}^\ast$ and set $$B_{[u;t]}= \{ [x,y] \in {\mathbb{P}}| \, u(x)=-ty \}.$$ There is the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ {\mathbb{V}}\ar[r]^-{j} \ar[d]_-{{\mathrm{id}}_{\mathbb{V}}\times [u;t]} & {\mathbb{P}}\ar[d]^{{\mathrm{id}}_{\mathbb{P}}\times [u;t]} \\ {\mathbb{V}}\times {\mathbb{P}}^\ast \ar[r]^-{j \times {\mathrm{id}}} \ar[d]_-{q_1}& {\mathbb{P}}\times {\mathbb{P}}^\ast \ar[d]^{p_1}\\ {\mathbb{V}}\ar[r]^-{j}& {\mathbb{P}}. }$$ $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}({{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)_{[u;t]}& \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{P}}\times [u;t]; ({{\mathbf{k}}}_A \otimes {p_1^{-1}}{{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)|_{{\mathbb{P}}\times [u;t]})\\ & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{P}}\times [u;t]; ({{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_{[u;t]}\times [u;t]} \otimes {(p_1 ({\mathrm{id}}_{\mathbb{P}}\times [u;t]))^{-1}}{{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)\\ & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{P}}; {{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_{[u;t]}} \otimes {{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)\\ & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{P}}; {{\mathrm{R}}{j }_!}({j ^{-1}}{{\mathbf{k}}}_{B_{[u;t]}} \otimes F))\\ & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{P}}; {{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{{u^{-1}}(t)} \otimes F))\\ & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{V}}; {{\mathbf{k}}}_{{u^{-1}}(t)} \otimes F)\\ &\simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({u^{-1}}(t);F|_{{u^{-1}}(t)})\\ &\simeq ({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F)_t\end{aligned}$$ \[prop:vanishproj\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ such that for all $u \in {\mathbb{V}}^\ast$, ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F \simeq 0$. Then, $F \simeq 0$. Let $[u;t] \in {\mathbb{P}}^\ast$. Then, it follows from Lemma \[lem:stalkprojduality\] that $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}({{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)_{[u;t]}& \simeq ({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F)_t.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}({{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F) \simeq 0$ and $$\Phi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}_A}\colon {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({\mathbb{P}}, \dot{T}^\ast {\mathbb{P}}) \to {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({\mathbb{P}}^\ast,\dot{T}^\ast {\mathbb{P}}^\ast)$$ is an equivalence of categories. This implies that ${{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F \simeq 0$ in ${{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}({\mathbb{P}}, \dot{T}^\ast {\mathbb{P}})$. Thus ${\mathrm{SS}}(F) \subset T^\ast_{\mathbb{V}}{\mathbb{V}}$. It follows from @KS90 [Prop. 8.4.1] that ${{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F$ is either a non-zero local system or the zero sheaf on ${\mathbb{P}}$. Now, let $[x,0] \in {\mathbb{P}}$. Then $$({{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)_{[x;0]} \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({j^{-1}}([x;0]),F |_{{j^{-1}}([x;0])}) \; \textnormal{and} \; {j^{-1}}([x;0])=\emptyset.$$ Thus, ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({j^{-1}}([x;0]),F |_{{j^{-1}}([x;0])})\simeq 0$ and $ ({{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F)_{[x;0]} \simeq 0$. This implies that ${{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F$ is not a non-zero local system. Hence, ${{\mathrm{R}}{j}_!}F \simeq 0$, which leads to $F \simeq 0$. Linear direct image of gamma-sheaves ------------------------------------ In this subsection, we study direct images and direct images with proper supports of $\gamma$-sheaves by linear forms. \[prop:oimgamma\] Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ and $ u \in {\mathbb{V}}^\ast$. (i) If $u \in \gamma^{\circ,a}$ (resp. $\gamma^{\circ}$), then ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\lambda^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$ with $\lambda={\mathbb{R}}_-$ (resp. $\lambda={\mathbb{R}}_+$). The same result holds for ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} F$ replaced with ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*} F$. (ii) If $u \notin \gamma^\circ \cup \gamma^{\circ,a}$, then ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} F$ is a constant sheaf. If furthermore $F$ has a compact support, then ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} F \simeq 0$. The same result holds for ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} F$ replaced with ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*} F$. \(i) Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$, $u \in {\mathbb{V}}^\ast$ and $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}^\ast} \colon {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^\ast \to {\mathbb{R}}^\ast$. Then @GS14 [Corollary 1.17] asserts that $$\label{eq:microprojlin} {\mathrm{SS}}({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F) \subset {\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}^\ast}^{-1}} {(u^t)^{-1}}(\gamma^{\circ,a}).$$ Moreover, $$\label{eq:microestim} {(u^t)^{-1}}(\gamma^{\circ,a})=\{\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^\ast | \xi(1) u \in \gamma^{\circ,a} \}.$$ Assume that $u \in \gamma^{\circ, a} \setminus \{0 \}$ and let $\xi \in {(u^t)^{-1}}(\gamma^{\circ,a})$. Since the interior of $\gamma$ is non-empty, there exists $x_0 \in \gamma$ such that $u(x_0)<0$ and $\xi(1)u(x_0) \leq 0$. Thus $\xi(1) \geq 0$ which is equivalent to $\xi \in \lambda^{\circ, a}$ with $\lambda={\mathbb{R}}_{-}$. Equation becomes $${\mathrm{SS}}({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F) \subset {\mathbb{R}}\times \lambda^{\circ, a}$$ which proves the claim. The case where $u \in \gamma^\circ$ is treated in a similar way. \(ii) Since $u \notin \gamma^\circ \cup \gamma^{\circ,a}$, there exist $x,y \in \gamma$ such that $u(x)<0$ and $u(y)>0$. Hence, ${\pi_{\mathbb{R}}^{-1}} {(u^t)^{-1}}(\gamma^{\circ,a})={\mathbb{R}}\times \{0\}$. It follows from @KS90 [Prop. 8.4.1] that ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F$ (resp. ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*}F)$ is a constant sheaf (possibly equal to zero) as ${\mathbb{V}}$ is contractible. If the support of $F$ is compact, then the support of ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!}F$ is different from ${\mathbb{R}}$ and thus ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} F \simeq 0$. Let $F \in {{\mathsf{D}^{\mathrm{b}}}}_{\gamma^{\circ,a},{\mathrm{comp}}}({{\mathbf{k}}}_{\mathbb{V}})$. Then ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}({\mathbb{V}};F) \simeq 0$. Let $u \notin \gamma^\circ \cup \gamma^{\circ,a}$. Then, by Proposition \[prop:oimgamma\], ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*}F \simeq 0$ and $${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}({\mathbb{V}};F) \simeq {{\mathrm{R}}{a_{\mathbb{R}}}_*}{{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*} F \simeq 0$$ where $a_{\mathbb{R}}$ is the constant map ${\mathbb{V}}\to \{ {\mathrm{pt}}\}$. \[lem:polarpropre\] Let $K \subset {\mathbb{V}}$ be a compact and $u \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^\circ)$. Then $u|_{K + \gamma}$ is proper. Since the interior of $\gamma$ is nonempty, $K$ is compact and $u$ is linear, we can assume without loss of generality that $K \subset \gamma$. Therefore, we are left to prove that for any two real numbers $a<b$, the set $\Sigma := u^{-1}([a,b]) \cap \gamma$ is compact. Since $u \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^\circ)$, it follows that for every $x \in \gamma \setminus \{0\}$, $u(x)>0$, which shows that $\ker(u) \cap \gamma = \{0\}$. We set $v \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma) $ such that $u(v) = 1$. Consequently, one has the direct sum decomposition ${\mathbb{V}}= {\mathbb{R}}v \oplus \ker(u)$, and one has : $$\Sigma = \{t \cdot v + h \mid t \in [a,b], h \in \ker(u)\} \cap \gamma.$$ Since $\gamma$ is closed and convex, so is $\Sigma$. Therefore, $\Sigma$ is unbounded if and only if there exists $x \in \Sigma $ and $y \in {\mathbb{V}}\setminus \{0\}$ such that for all $t \geq 0$, $x + t\cdot y \in \Sigma$. Let assume that there exists such $x$ and $y$. Then, for all $t\geq 0$, $u(x + t\cdot y) \in [a,b]$, which implies that $y \in \ker(u)$. Moreover, for all $t> 0$, $$\frac{1}{t} \cdot \left ( x + t\cdot y \right ) = \frac{x}{t} + y \in \gamma.$$ Since $\gamma$ is closed, we obtain making $t$ going to $+\infty$ that $y \in \gamma \cap \ker(u) = \{0\}.$ This is absurd by hypothesis, so $\Sigma$ is bounded. Since ${\mathbb{V}}$ is finite dimensional, it is compact. \[lem:oimcone\] Let $u \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^\circ)$ (resp. ${\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^{\circ, a})$). Then ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*} {{\mathbf{k}}}_\gamma \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}_+}$ (resp. ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*} {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma} \simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}_-}$). Since $u \in \gamma^\circ$, it follows that $\gamma \subset {u^{-1}}({\mathbb{R}}_+)$ and these two sets are closed. Hence, there is a canonical map ${u^{-1}} {{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}_+}\simeq{{\mathbf{k}}}_{{u^{-1}}({\mathbb{R}}_+)} \to {{\mathbf{k}}}_\gamma$. By adjunction, this provide a map $\alpha \colon {{\mathbf{k}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}_+} \to {{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*} {{\mathbf{k}}}_\gamma$. We compute the stalks of this map. Since $u \in {\mathrm{Int}}(\gamma^\circ)$, it is proper on $\gamma$. It follows that for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$ $({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_*} {{\mathbf{k}}}_\gamma)_x \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({u^{-1}}(x),{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma \cap {u^{-1}}(x)})$. - If $x \notin {\mathbb{R}}_+$, then ${u^{-1}}(x) \cap \gamma = \emptyset$. Thus ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({u^{-1}}(x),{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma \cap {u^{-1}}(x)}) \simeq 0$ and $\alpha_x$ is an isomorphism. - If $x \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, then ${u^{-1}}(x) \cap \gamma$ is non-empty and it is a compact convex subset of ${u^{-1}}(x)$. This implies that ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({u^{-1}}(x),{{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma \cap {u^{-1}}(x)})\simeq {{\mathbf{k}}}$ and $\alpha_x$ is again an isomorphism. We recall the notion of characteristic cone following @Klee55 [@Stoker40]. Let $C$ be a closed convex subset of ${\mathbb{V}}$ and let $p \in {\mathbb{V}}$. Consider the set $$C_p=\{x \in {\mathbb{V}}\mid \forall \lambda \geq 0, \lambda (x-p)+p \in C \}.$$ Hence $C_p$ is the union of half-lines contained in $C$ emanating from $p$. The set $C_p$ is an affine convex cone and if $q \in C$ then $C_p=C_q + (p-q)$. The cone $C_p$ is called a characteristic cone of $C$. \[lem:cohomubdconv\] Let ${\mathbb{V}}$ be a finite dimensional real vector space and let $C$ be a closed convex set such that a characteristic cone of $C$ is not an affine subspace of ${\mathbb{V}}$. Then $${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{V}},{{\mathbf{k}}}_C) \simeq 0.$$ We first establish the lemma when ${\mathbb{V}}={\mathbb{R}}$ and $C=[0,+\infty[$. Using a stereographic projection from the north pole N of $\mathbb{S}^1 \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$, we notice that ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ is homeomorphic to a half-circle minus the north pole that is to $[0,1[$. We consider the following exact triangle $${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1];{{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,1[}) \to {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1]; {{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,1]}) \to {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1]; {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\{1\}}) \stackrel{+1}{\to}.$$ Since, the morphism ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1]; {{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,1]}) \to {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1]; {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\{1\}})$ is an isomorphism, it follows that ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1];{{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,1[}) \simeq 0$. Thus ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{R}},{{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,+\infty[}) \simeq 0$. Now, assume that ${\mathbb{V}}$ is a real vector space of dimension $n$ and $C$ is closed convex set of ${\mathbb{V}}$ such that a characteristic cone of $C$ is not an affine subspace of ${\mathbb{V}}$. By @Klee55 [§5], it follows that $C$ is homeomorphic to $[0,1]^d \times [0,+\infty[$ for some $0 \leq d \leq n-1$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({\mathbb{V}},{{\mathbf{k}}}_C) & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c(C,{{\mathbf{k}}}_C)\\ & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1]^d \times [0,+\infty[,{{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,1]^d \times [0,+\infty[})\\ & \simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c([0,1]^d,{{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,1]^d}) \otimes {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c( [0,+\infty[,{{\mathbf{k}}}_{[0,+\infty[})\\ & \simeq 0.\end{aligned}$$ \[lem:affsubcone\] Let ${\mathbb{V}}$ be a vector space. A closed proper cone $\gamma$ of ${\mathbb{V}}$ does not contain any non-trivial affine subspace of ${\mathbb{V}}$. Let $E$ be an affine subspace of ${\mathbb{V}}$ contained in $\gamma$ and let $p \in E$ and $v \in {\mathbb{V}}$. The set $L=\{x \in {\mathbb{V}}| x=p+ \lambda v, \lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is an affine subspace of $E$. Since $\gamma$ is a cone, for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}^\ast$, the points $q_n=\frac{1}{n} (p+ n v)$ and $r_n=\frac{1}{n} (p- n v)$ belongs to $\gamma$. Since $\gamma$ is closed, the limits $\lim_{n \to \infty} p_n = v$ and $\lim_{n \to \infty} r_n = -v$ belongs again to $\gamma$ which is proper. Hence, $v=0$ and $L=\{p\}$. This implies that $E$ is trivial. \[prop:boundvanish\] Let $u \in \partial \gamma^\circ \cup \partial \gamma^{\circ, \, a}$. Then ${{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} {{\mathbf{k}}}_\gamma \simeq 0$. Let $y \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Then $$\begin{aligned} ({{\mathrm{R}}{u}_!} {{\mathbf{k}}}_\gamma)_y &\simeq {\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({u^{-1}}(y); {{\mathbf{k}}}_{\gamma \cap {u^{-1}}(y)}).\end{aligned}$$ We set $C=\gamma \cap {u^{-1}}(y)$. Then, either $C=\emptyset$ and ${\mathrm{R}\Gamma}_c({u^{-1}}(y); {{\mathbf{k}}}_{C})\simeq 0$ or $C \neq
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2206'}