arxiv: v1 [math.fa] 9 Jun 2014

Transcription

1 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY XUEMEI CHE, GITTA KUTYIOK, KASSO A. OKOUDJOU, FRIEDRICH PHILIPP, AD ROGROG WAG arxiv: v1 [math.fa] 9 Jun 014 Abstract. Scalable frames are frames with the property that the frame vectors can be rescaled resulting in tight frames. However, if a frame is not scalable, one has to aim for an approximate procedure. For this, in this paper we introduce three novel quantitative measures of the closeness to scalability for frames in finite dimensional real Euclidean spaces. Besides the natural measure of scalability given by the distance of a frame to the set of scalable frames, another measure is obtained by optimizing a quadratic functional, while the third is given by the volume of the ellipsoid of minimal volume containing the symmetrized frame. After proving that these measures are equivalent in a certain sense, we establish bounds on the probability of a randomly selected frame to be scalable. In the process, we also derive new necessary and sufficient conditions for a frame to be scalable. 1. Introduction During the last years, frames have had a tremendous impact on applications due to their unique ability to deliver redundant, yet stable expansions. The redundancy of a frame is typically utilized by applications which either require robustness of the frame coefficients to noise, erasures, quantization, etc. or require sparse expansions in the frame. More precisely, letting = {ϕ i } M R be a frame, either decompositions into a sequence of frame coefficients of a signal x R, which is the image of x under the analysis operator T : R R M, x x, ϕ i ) M, are exploited by applications such as telecommunications and imaging sciences, or expansions in terms of the frame, i.e., x = M c iϕ i with suitable choice of coefficients c i ) M, are required by applications such as efficient PDE solvers. Intriguingly, the novel area of compressed sensing is based on the fact that typically signals exhibit a sparse expansion in a frame, which is nowadays considered the standard paradigm in data processing. Some compressed sensing applications also hope that the sequence of frame coefficients itself is sparse; a connection deeply studied in a series of papers on cosparsity cf. [18]). The discussed applications certainly require stability, numerically as well as theoretically. For instance, notice that most results in compressed sensing are stated for tight frames, i.e., for optimal stability. It is known that such frames in the case of normalized vectors can be characterized by the frame potential see, e.g., [, 6, 11]) and construction methods have been derived cf. [5] and [1] for an algebro-geometric Date: July, Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 4C15; Secondary 5A0, 5B11. Key words and phrases. Convex Geometry, Quality Measures, Parseval frame, Scalable frame. 1

2 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG point of view). However, a crucial question remains: Given a frame with desirable properties, can we turn it into a tight frame? The immediate answer is yes, since it can easily be shown that applying S 1/ to each frame element, S : R R denoting the frame operator Sx = M x, ϕ i ϕ i, produces a Parseval frame. Thinking further one however realizes a serious problem with this seemingly elegant approach; it typically completely destroys any properties of the frame for which it was carefully designed before. Thus, unless we are merely interested in theoretical considerations, this approach is unacceptable. Trying to be as careful as possible, the most noninvasive approach seems to merely scale each frame vector, i.e., multiply it by a scalar. And, indeed, almost all frame properties one can think of such as erasure resilience or sparse expansions are left untouched by this modification. In fact, this approach is currently extensively studied under the theme of scalable frames Scalability of Frames. The notion of a scalable frame was first introduced in [17] as a frame whose frame vectors can be rescaled to yield a tight frame. Recall that a sequence = {ϕ i } M R forms a frame provided that A x x, ϕ i B x for all x R, where A and B are called the frame bounds. One often also writes for the M matrix whose ith column is the vector ϕ i. When A = B, the frame is called a tight frame. Furthermore, A = B = 1 produces a Parseval frame. In the sequel, the set of frames with M vectors in R will be denoted by FM, ). We refer to [9] for an introduction to frame theory and to [7] for an overview of the current research in the field. A frame = {ϕ i } M for R is called strictly) scalable if there exist nonnegative positive, respectively) scalars {s i } M such that {s i ϕ i } M is a tight frame for R. The set of strictly) scalable frames is denoted by SCM, ) SC + M, ), respectively). This definition obviously allows one to restrict the study to the class of unit norm frames F u M, ) := { {ϕ i } M FM, ) : ϕ i = 1 for i = 1,..., M }, and further to substitute tight frame by Parseval frame in the above definition. Therefore a frame = {ϕ i } M is scalable if and only if there exist non-negative scalars {c i } M such that 1.1) C T = c i ϕ 1 ϕ T i = I, where C = diagc i ). In [17], characterizations of SCM, ) and SC + M, ), both of functional analytic and geometric type were derived in the infinite as well as finite dimensional setting. As a sequel, using topological considerations, it was proved in [16] that the set of scalable frames, SCM, ), is a small subset of FM, ) when M is relatively small and a yet different characterization using a particular mapping was derived. This last

3 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 3 mapping is closely related to the so-called diagram vectors/mapping in [10]. In [4], arbitrary scalars in C were allowed, and it was shown that in this case most frames are either not scalable or scalable in a unique way and, if uniqueness is not given, the set of all possible sequences of scalars is studied. 1.. How Scalable is a Frame? However, in the applied world, scalability seems too idealistic, in particular, if our frame at hand is not scalable. This calls for a measure of closeness to being scalable. It is though not obvious how to define such a measure, and one can easily justify different points of view of what closeness shall mean. Let us discuss the following three viewpoints: Distance to SCM, ). Maybe the most straightforward approach is to measure the distance of a frame F u M, ) to the set of scalable frames: d := inf Ψ F. Ψ SCM,) This notion seems natural if we anticipate efficient algorithmic approaches for computing the closest scalable frame by projections onto SCM, ). Conical Viewpoint. Inspired by 1.1), we observe that is scalable if and only if the identity operator I lies in the cone generated by the vectors ϕ i ϕ T i, i = 1,..., M, which is { M c iϕ i ϕ T i : c i 0}. Thus the distance of I to this cone seems to be another suitable measure for scalability of F u M, ), and we define D := min C T I F, C 0 diagonal where F denotes the Frobenius norm. ote that the minimum is attained because this polyhedral cone is closed. This conical viewpoint leads to a computationally efficient algorithm, since we can recast the problem as a quadratic program see Section 3.). Ellipsoidal Viewpoint. Finally, one can consider the ellipsoid of minimal volume also known as the Löwner ellipsoid) circumscribing the convex hull of the symmetrized frame of F u M, ): Sym := {ϕ i } M { ϕ i } M, which in the sequel we denote by E and refer to as the minimal ellipsoid of. Its normalized volume is defined by V := VolE ) ω, where ω is the volume of the unit ball in R. By definition, we have V 1, and we will later show Theorem.11) that V = 1 holds if and only if the frame is scalable. Hence, yet another conceivably useful measure for scalability is the closeness of V to 1. This ellipsoidal viewpoint establishes a novel link to convex geometry. Moreover, it will turn out that this measure is of particular use when estimating the probability of a random frame being scalable.

4 4 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG Each notion seems justified from a different perspective, and hence there is no general truth for what the best measure is Our Contributions. Our contributions are three-fold: First, we introduce the scalability measures d, D, and V, derive estimates for their values, and study their relations in Theorems 3.3 and 3.4. Second, with Theorems.11 and 4.1 we provide new necessary and sufficient conditions for scalability based on the ellipsoidal viewpoint. And, third, we estimate the probability of a frame being scalable when each frame vector is drawn independently and uniformly from the unit sphere see Theorem 4.9) Expected Impact. We anticipate our results to have the following impacts: Constructions of Scalable Frames: One construction procedure which is a byproduct of our analysis is to consider random frames with the probability of scalability being explicitly given. However, certainly, there is the need for more sophisticated efficient algorithmic approaches. But with the measures provided in our work, the groundwork is laid for analyzing their accuracy. Extensions of Scalability: One might also imagine other methodological approaches to modify a frame to become tight. If sparse approximation properties is what one seeks, another possibility is to be allowed to take linear combinations of few frame vectors in the spirit of the double sparsity approach in [0]. The introduced three quality measures provide an understanding of scalability which we hope might allow an attack on analyzing those approaches as well. ɛ-scalability: One key question even more important to applications than scalability is that of what is typically loosely coined ɛ-scalability, meaning a frame which is scalable up to an ɛ, but which was not precisely defined before. The scalability measures now immediately provide even three definitions of ɛ-scalability in a very natural way, opening three doors to approaching this problem. Convex Geometry: The ellipsoidal viewpoint of scalability provides a very interesting link between frame theory and convex geometry. Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.9 are results about frames using convex geometry tools; Theorem.13 is a result about minimal ellipsoids exploiting frame theory. We strongly expect the link established in this paper to bear further fruits in frame theory, in particular the approach of regarding frames from a convex geometric viewpoint by analyzing the convex hull of a symmetrized) frame Outline. This paper is organized as follows. In Section,, the three measures of closeness of a given frame to be scalable are introduced in three respective subsections and some basic properties are studied. This is followed by a comparison of the measures both theoretically and numerically Section 3). Finally, in Section 4 we exploit those results to analyze the probability of a frame to be scalable. Interestingly, along the way we derive necessary and sufficient deterministic) conditions for a frame to be scalable see Subsection 4.1).

5 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 5. Properties of the measures of Scalability In this section, we explore some basic properties of the three measures of scalibility which we introduced in the previous section. As mentioned before, we consider only unit norm frames..1. Distance to the Set of Scalable Frames. Recall that the measure d was defined as the distance of to the set of scalable frames:.1) d = inf Ψ SCM,) Ψ F. Since the set SCM, ) is not closed choose SCM, ), then 1 n ) n is a sequence in SCM, ) which converges to the zero matrix), it is not clear whether the infimum in.1) is attained. The following proposition, however, shows that this is the case if d < 1. Proposition.1. If F u M, ) such that d < 1 then there exists ˆ SCM, ) such that ˆ F = d. Proof. Let ε = 1 d, and { n } n SCM, ) be a sequence of scalable frames such that n F d + ε/n. The sequence { n } n is bounded as n F F + n F M + d + 1 d, so without loss of generality, we assume that { n } n converges to some ˆ R M. It remains to prove that ˆ is scalable. For this, denote by ϕ i,n the i-th column of n. Then ϕ i,n ϕ i ϕ i ϕ i,n 1 d ε = ε for all n 0 and all i {1,..., M}. Let C n = diagc 1,n,..., c M,n ) be a non-negative diagonal matrix such that n C n T n = I. ow, for each j {1,..., M} and each n 0 we have M ) = TrI) = Tr c i,n ϕ i,n ϕ T i,n = c i,n ϕ i,n ε c j,n. Therefore, each sequence c i,n ) n is bounded. Thus, we find an index sequence n k ) k such that c i := lim c i,nk k exists for each i {1,..., M}. ow, it is easy to see that nk C nk T n k converges to ˆC ˆ T as k, where C := diagc 1,..., c m ). Hence, ˆC ˆ T = I, and ˆ is a scalable frame. Remark.. The proof of Proposition.1 also yields that the frame vectors of any minimizer of.1) are non-zero if d < 1. Lemma.3. Assume that d < 1, and let ˆ = { ˆϕ i } M be a minimizer of.1). Then for every i = 1,..., M, i) ϕ i, ˆϕ i = ˆϕ i.

6 6 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG ii) ˆϕ i 1, and equality holds if and only if ˆϕ i = ϕ i. iii) ˆ F = M d. Proof. i). Fix j {1,..., M} and α R \ {0} be arbitrary. Define the frame Ψ = {ψ i } M as { ˆϕ i if i j ψ i = α ˆϕ j if i = j, which is scalable. Hence, we have ˆ F Ψ F = ϕ i ψ i = This implies = ϕ i ˆϕ i + ϕ j α ˆϕ j i j ϕ i ˆϕ i + ) ϕ j α ˆϕ j ϕ j ˆϕ j = ˆ F + ϕ j α ˆϕ j ϕ j ˆϕ j ). or, equivalently, ϕ j α ˆϕ j ϕ j ˆϕ j.) α ϕ j, ˆϕ j + α ˆϕ j ϕ j, ˆϕ j + ˆϕ j for all α R \ {0} and all j {1,..., M}. Putting α = ϕ j, ˆϕ j ˆϕ j which is equivalent to which leads to the conclusion. ii). By i) we have ϕ j, ˆϕ j ˆϕ j 0 ϕ j, ˆϕ j + ˆϕ j, ) ϕj, ˆϕ j ˆϕ j, ˆϕ j ˆϕ j = ϕ j, ˆϕ j ϕ j ˆϕ j = ˆϕ j in.) gives This proves ˆϕ j 1 and that ˆϕ j = 1 holds if and only if ˆϕ j = λϕ j for some λ R. In the latter case, as both vectors are normalized, we have λ = ±1. But ˆϕ j = ϕ j is impossible due to i). Thus, ϕ j = ˆϕ j follows. iii). By i), M d = M ˆ F = M ϕ i ˆϕ i = M This proves the claim. M 1 ϕi, ˆϕ i + ˆϕ i ) = ˆϕ i = ˆ F.

7 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 7 Since we do not yet have a complete understanding of the set SCM, ), we do not have an algorithm for calculating the infimum d in.1). For this reason, we introduce two other measures of scalability in the remainder of this section which are more accessible in practice. We will relate these measures to each other and to d in Section 3... Distance of the Identity to a Cone. As mentioned in the introduction, the measure D for the scalability of F u M, ) is the distance of the identity operator on R to the cone generated by {ϕ i ϕ T i }. Let us recall its definition:.3) D := min c i 0 c i ϕ i ϕ T i I = F min C 0 diagonal C T I F. For the following, it is convenient to represent the function to be minimized in.3) in another form: M ) c i ϕ i ϕ T i I = Tr c i c j ϕ i ϕ T i ϕ j ϕ T j c i ϕ i ϕ T i + I.4) F = i,j=1 i,j=1 c i c j ϕ i, ϕ j c i +. If we now put 1 := 1,..., 1) T R M, f ij := ϕ i, ϕ j, i, j = 1,..., M, F := f ij ) M i,j=1, and c := c 1,..., c m ) T, we obtain.5) gc) := c i ϕ i ϕ T i I = c T F c 1 T c +. First of all, we can associate D with the frame potential see, e.g., []): FP) := By plugging in α1 into g with α > 0: So, F ϕ i, ϕ j. i,j=1 gα1) = α FP) Mα +. D min α 0 gα1) = M FP). We summarize the above discussion in a proposition. Proposition.4. For F u M, ) we have.6) D M FP).

8 8 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG Remark.5. Since FP) < M, the inequality.6) implies that D < 1. It is worth noting that this upper bound is sharp in the sense that for each ε > 0 there exists F u M, ) such that D > 1 ε. This can be proved by essentially choosing the frame vectors of very close to each other. The following proposition can be thought of as an analog to Lemma.3 iii). Proposition.6. Let the non-negative diagonal matrix Ĉ = diagĉ 1,..., ĉ M ) R M M be a minimizer of.3). Then.7) TrĈT ) = ĉ i = D. Proof. The first equality in.7) is due to the fact that the ϕ i s are normalized. Define fα) := gαĉ) = α ĉ T F ĉ α1 T ĉ +. for α > 0. The function fα) has a local minimum at α = 1, therefore df = 0 = ĉ T F ĉ = 1 T c. dα α=1 So, D = f1) = ĉ T F ĉ 1 T ĉ + = 1 T ĉ = ĉ i, which proves the proposition..3. Volume of the Smallest Ellipsoid Enclosing the Symmetrized Frame. In the following, we shall examine the properties of the measure V. We will have to recall a few facts from convex geometry, especially results dealing with the ellipsoid of a convex polytope first. An -dimensional ellipsoid centered at c is defined as EX, c) := c + X 1/ B) = {v : Xv c), v c) 1}, where X is an positive definite matrix, and B is the unit ball in R. It is easy to see that.8) VolEX, c)) = detx 1/ )ω. Here, as already mentioned in the introduction, ω denotes the volume of the unit ball in R. A convex body in R is a nonempty compact convex subset of R. It is well-known that for any convex body K in R with nonempty interior there is a unique ellipsoid of minimal volume containing K and a unique ellipsoid of maximal volume contained in K; see, e.g., [, Chapter 3]. We refer to [1, 1, ] for more on these extremal ellipsoids. In what follows, we only consider the ellipsoid of minimal volume that encloses a given convex body, and this ellipsoid will be called the minimal ellipsoid of that convex body. The following theorem is a generalization of John s ellipsoid theorem [13], which will be referred as John s theorem in this paper.

9 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 9 Theorem.7. [1, Theorem 1.9] Let K R be a convex body and let X be an positive definite matrix. Then the following are equivalent: i) EX, c) is the minimal ellipsoid of K. ii) K EX, c), and there exist positive multipliers {λ i } k, and contact points {u i } k in K such that k.9) X 1 = λ i u i c)u i c) T,.10) 0 = k λ i u i c),.11) u i K EX, c), i = 1,..., k. Given a frame = {ϕ i } M F u M, ), we will apply John s theorem to the convex hull of the symmetrized frame Sym = {ϕ i } M { ϕ i } M. By E we will denote the minimal ellipsoid of the convex hull of Sym. We shall also call this ellipsoid the minimal ellipsoid of. This is not in conflict with the notion of the minimal ellipsoid of a convex body since the finite set is not a convex body. The next lemma says that the center of E is always 0. Lemma.8. Let K be a convex body which is symmetric about the origin. Then the center of the minimal ellipsoid of K is 0. Proof. Let EX, c) denote the minimal ellipsoid of K. By definition, if u K we also have u K, which implies Xu c), u c 1 and X u c), u c 1. Adding those inequalities, we obtain Xu, u + Xc, c. Since X R is positive definite, the above equation implies Xu, u 1 or, equivalently, u EX, 0). This proves K EX, 0). And as EX, 0) has the same volume as EX, c), it follows from the uniqueness of minimal ellipsoids that c = 0. In the following, we write EX) instead of EX, 0). For completeness, we now state a version of Theorem.7 that is specifically taylored to our situation. Corollary.9. Let = {ϕ i } M F u M, ), and let X be an positive definite matrix. Then the following are equivalent: i) EX) is the minimal ellipsoid of. ii) There exist nonnegative scalars {ρ i } M such that.1) X 1 = ρ i ϕ i ϕ T i,.13) Xϕ i, ϕ i 1 for all i = 1,,..., M,

10 10 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG.14) Xϕ i, ϕ i = 1 if ρ i > 0. Proof. i) ii). By John s theorem, the contact points must be points in the set Sym. Since ϕ i ϕ T i = ϕ i ) ϕ i ) T, equation.9) with the center c = 0 implies that there exists I {1,..., M} such that X 1 = i I λ i ϕ i ϕ T i. Setting ρ i = λ i for i I and ρ i = 0 for i / I, we get.1). Equation.13) follows from the fact that ϕ i EX) for each i = 1,..., M, and equation.14) is implied by.11). ii) i). Let I = {i : ρ i > 0}. Then the assumptions imply conditions.9) and.11) with {u i } i I = {ϕ i } i I, and {λ i } i I = {ρ i } i I. We just need to slightly modify {u i }, {λ i } to make it satisfy.10) as well. Indeed, we replace u i by the pair ±u i each with half the weight of the original λ i. Finally,.13) implies that the convex hull of Sym is contained in EX). ow, i) follows from the application of John s theorem. Remark.10. It is convenient to view.1) as saying that {X 1/ ϕ i } M is scalable with scalars { ρ i } M. Therefore by [16, Remark 3.1] see also [4, Corollary 3.4], since the dimension of span{ϕ i ϕ i } M is at most +1) ), we can always pick a set of ρ i s as in ii) above such that the number of non-zero i.e., positive) ρ i s does not exceed +1). Recall that in the introduction we defined a third measure of scalability V as follows:.15) V = VolE ) ω = det X 1/). The second equality is due to.8). Let us now see how V relates to scalability of. If F u M, ) is scalable then.1).14) hold with X = I. Therefore, E = EI) is the unit ball which implies V = 1. Conversely, if V = 1 then E must be the unit ball since the ellipsoid of minimal volume is unique. Hence, E = EI), and.1) implies that is scalable. This quickly provides another characterization of scalability. Theorem.11. A frame F u M, ) is scalable if and only if its minimal ellipsoid is the -dimensional unit ball, in which case V = 1. We can now prove an important property of the minimal ellipsoid E of a unit norm frame. Lemma.1. Given F u M, ), let EX) be the minimal ellipsoid of where X 1 = M ρ iϕ i ϕ T i, and let {λ i } be the eigenvalues of X 1. Then.16) V = λ 1/ i,

11 .17) MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 11 Tr X 1) = ρ i = λ i =. Proof. The relation.16) immediately follows from.15). To prove.17), we set u i = X 1/ ϕ i. Then M ).18) I = X 1/ X 1 X 1/ = X 1/ ρ i ϕ i ϕ T i X 1/ = ρ i u i u T i. In addition, we know that whenever ρ i > 0, we have ϕ i, Xϕ i = 1, or equivalently u i = 1. Using this fact as well as.18), we deduce ρ i = M ) ρ i Tru i u T i ) = Tr ρ i u i u T i = TrI) =. ρ i >0 The lemma is proved. Given a frame with minimal ellipsoid E = EX), we have shown in.17) that the trace of X 1 is always fixed. This naturally raises the question whether any ellipsoid EX) with TrX 1 ) = is necessarily the minimal ellipsoid of some unit norm frame. The next theorem answers this question in the affirmative. Theorem.13. Every ellipsoid EX) with TrX 1 ) = is the minimal ellipsoid of some frame F u M, ). Proof. Given any invertible positive definite matrix X 1 whose trace is, there exists = {ϕ i } F u, ) such that.19) X 1 = ϕ i ϕ T i. This is a direct result of Corollary 3.1 in [8]. ext, we show that Xϕ i, ϕ i = 1 for all i = 1,...,. For this, fix j {1,..., } and choose x {ϕ i : i j} with x, ϕ j = 1. Then 1 = x, ϕ j = Xϕ i ϕ T i x, ϕ j = Xϕ j ϕ T j x, ϕ j = Xϕ j, ϕ j. ow, it follows from Corollary.9 that EX) is the minimal ellipsoid of. Construct F u M, ) by adding M unit norm vectors inside EX) to. Then EX) is also the minimal ellipsoid of since.19) still holds with replaced by M and ρ i = 0 for i = + 1,..., M. Remark.14. It is possible using the geometric characterization of scalable frames by V to define an equivalence relation on F u M, ). Indeed,, Ψ F u M, ) can be defined to be equivalent if V = V Ψ. We denote each equivalence class by the unique volume for all its members. Specifically, for any 0 < a 1, the class P [M,, a]

12 1 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG consists of all F u M, ) with V = a. Then, SCM, ) = P [M,, 1]. This also allows a parametrization of F u M, ): F u M, ) = P [M,, a]. a 0,1] 3. Comparison of the Measures In this section, we relate the three measures d, D, and V of scalability to each other. Hereby, we will frequently make use of the standard inequalities in the following lemma, in particular the arithmetic geometric means inequality. Lemma 3.1. Given a i > 0, i = 1,...,, we have 3.1) a 1 i a i a 1, i 3.) a i a j i<j 1) a i. The inequality 3.) is a special case of the right hand side inequality of 3.1) Comparison of D and V. Given a frame F u M, ), by definition V 1. Moreover, by Theorem.11, we have V = 1 if and only if the frame is scalable. Intuitively, when a frame is scalable, the frame vectors spread out in the space, which makes its minimal ellipsoid to be the unit ball. But when a frame gets more and more non-scalable, the frame vectors tend to bundle in one place, and thus produce a very flat ellipsoid with small volume. In this section, we formalize this intuition, and establish that V is just as suitable as D in quantifying how scalable a frame is. We first consider the -dimensional case, where there is a straightforward characterization of scalability: = {ϕ i } M is a scalable frame of R if and only if the smallest double cone with apex at origin) containing all the frame vectors of Sym has an apex angle greater than or equal to π/. This is essentially proved in [17, Corollary 3.8]; See also Remark 4. b). Example 3.. Given F u M, ), suppose ϕ 1, ϕ Sym generate the smallest cone containing Sym. Without loss of generality, we assume ϕ 1 = cos θ, sin θ) and ϕ = cos θ, sin θ), where θ is the apex angle. We have E = E {ϕ1,ϕ }, and this ellipsoid is determined by the solution of the following problem: min ab s.t. cos θ + sin θ = 1. a,b a b The solution is a = cos θ, b = sin θ. So in this case, ) cos X 1 = θ 0 0 sin = ϕ θ 1 ϕ T 1 + ϕ ϕ T,

13 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 13 and V = detx 1/ ) = sin θ. ow let us calculate D. Since all vectors of Sym are contained in the cone {±aϕ 1 + bϕ ), a, b 0}, any ϕ i can be represented as ϕ i = cϕ 1 + dϕ with cd 0. Thus ϕ i ϕ T i = c ϕ 1 ϕ T 1 + d ϕ ϕ T + cdϕ 1 ϕ T + ϕ ϕ T 1 ). Therefore, the Frobenius norm minimization problem becomes min aϕ1 ϕ T 1 + bϕ ϕ T + cϕ 1 ϕ T + ϕ ϕ T 1 ) I F. a,b,c 0 The solution of this problem is a = b =, c = 0, and thus 3+cos 4θ D = a =. V So, as V is approaching 1, D is approaching 0, and vice versa. In Example 3. it is shown that in the -dimensional case, V is a function of D. However, in general V is no longer uniquely determined by D but falls into a range defined by D as the following theorem indicates. But the key point here is that it still remains true that D approaches zero if and only if the volume ratio tends to one. Theorem 3.3. Let = {ϕ i } M F u M, ), then 3.3) 1 D ) D V 4/ 1 D ) 1) D ) 1, where the leftmost inequality requires D < 1. Consequently, V 1 is equivalent to D 0. Proof. The rightmost inequality is clear. Let us prove the upper bound on V 4/ in 3.3). For this, let E = EX) be the minimal ellipsoid of, and let {λ i } be the eigenvalues of X 1 = M ρ iϕ i ϕ T i. For any α > 0, we have D αρ i ϕ i ϕ T i I = αx 1 I F = αλ i 1) = α λ i α λ i +. Therefore, by.17), 3.4) D min α>0 F α λ i α ) λ i + =. λ i We use.16) and 3.) to estimate λ i : ) λ i = λ i λ i λ j = λ i λ j i<j i<j 3.5) 1) λ / i = 1)V 4/. Plugging 3.5) in 3.4) and solving it for V 4/ yields the upper bound in 3.3).

14 14 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG For the lower bound, let Ĉ = diag{c i} M be a minimizer of.3). Then D = ĈT I F. Moreover, TrĈT X) = c i ϕ T i Xϕ i c i. The last inequality holds due to.13). Therefore, TrX) = TrĈT X) TrĈT I)X) = TrĈT X) TrĈT I) TrĈT I)X I)) M ) c i c i TrĈT I)X I)) 3.6) + ĈT I F X I F = + D λ 1 i 1 ) = + D λ 1 i ) i<j λ 1 i λ 1 j λ 1 i + + D Tr X) 1)V 4/ TrX) +, where the last inequality is due to 3.) with a i = λ 1 i, and.16). By 3.1), 3.7) TrX) = λ 1 i λ 1/ i = V /. ow, we subtract on both sides of 3.6), square both sides, and obtain ) TrX) ) D Tr X) TrX) + 1)V 4/. The latter inequality is equivalent to TrX) ) D D 1) ) D 1 D 1 D ) 1 D)V 4/. This proves that D 1 D )V 4/ 0, which is equivalent to the leftmost inequality in 3.3).

15 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY Algorithms and umerical Experiments. The computation in.4) shows that D can be computed via Quadratic Programming QP). As is well known, this problem can be solved by many well developed methods, e.g., Active-Set, Conjugate Gradient, Interior point. The minimal ellipsoid problem has been studied for half a century. For a given convex body K and a small quantity η > 0, a fast algorithm to compute an ellipsoid E K with VolE) 1 + η) VolMinimal ellipsoidk)) is the Khachiyan s barycentric coordinate descent algorithm [14], which needs a total of OM 3.5 lnmη 1 )) operations. For the case M, Kumar and Yildirim [15] improved this algorithm using core sets and reduced the complexity to OM 3 η 1 ). For all numerical simulations in this paper, we use Khachiyan s method to compute minimal ellipsoids and the active set method to solve the quadratic programming in.3). As expected, we have observed a much faster computational speed of the latter, especially when the problem grows large in size. Figure 1 shows the values of D and V for randomly generated frames in F u M, 4) with M = 6, 11, 15, and 0. In each plot, we generated 1000 frames, where each column of the frame is chosen uniformly at random from the unit sphere, and calculated both V and D. As expected, for a fixed D, we see a range of V. For a direct comparison, we plotted the two bounds from 3.3). The lower bound from 3.3) is quite optimal based on the figure. On the other hand, as M increases, we observe a change of concentration of the points from scattering around to being heavily distributed around D = 0: the scalable region. Indeed, as shown by Theorem 4.9 in Section 4, the threshold for having positive probability of scalable frames in dimension = 4 is +1)/ = 10. Therefore, we have considerably many points achieving D = 0 for M = 11, 15, 0. In fact, about 60% of these 1000 frames in F4, 0) are scalable up to a machine error). This suggests that the two measures of scalability, the distance between D and 0 and the distance between V and 1, though closely related, are indeed different in the sense that there is no one-to-one correspondence between them. An advantage of using D to measure scalability lies in the fact it is more naturally related to the notion of m scalability defined in [16]) and is more efficient to compute. By contrast, V is a more intuitive measure of scalability from a geometric point of view Comparison of the Measures D and V with d. The distance of a frame F u M, ) to the set of scalable frames is the most intuitive and natural measure of scalability. The next theorem shows that the practically more accessible measures D and V are equivalent to d in the sense that d tends to zero if and only if the same holds for D or 1 V.

16 16 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG 1 Frames of size Frames of size V 0.5 V D D 1 Frames of size Frames of size V 0.5 V D D Figure 1. Relation between V and D for F u M, 4) with M = 6, 11, 15, 0. The solid line indicates the upper bound in 3.3), while the dash line indicates the lower bound. Theorem 3.4. Let F u M, ) and assume that d < 1. Then with K := min{m, +1) } and ω := D + K we have 3.8) D ω + ω D d K 1 V / Consequently, with the help of Theorem 3.3, we can bound d below and above by expressions of D or expressions of V. Proof. Following the same notation as in the proof of Theorem 3.3, let λ 1,..., λ be the eigenvalues of X 1 = M ρ iϕ i ϕ T i. Furthermore, let J = {i : ρ i > 0}. By Remark.10, J K. Define a frame = { ϕ i } M by { V 1/ X 1/ ϕ i if i J 3.9) ϕ i := ϕ i if i / J. ote that is scalable, and, moreover, X 1/ ϕ i = 1 for i J by.14). So, ).

17 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 17 F = i J ϕ i V 1/ X 1/ ϕ i = X 1/ V 1/ I)X 1/ ϕ i i J 3.10) X 1/ V 1/ I F = K = K K X 1/ ϕ i K i J + V / V 1/ 1 + V / V 1/ 1 + V / V / j=1 λ 1/ j ) ) 1 λ 1/ j j=1 ) = K j=1 1 V / ) λ 1/ j V 1/ ). As d F, this proves the right-hand side of 3.8). Let ˆ be a minimizer of.1) which exists due to Proposition.1 and has non-zero columns by Remark.). Since ˆ is scalable, there exists a non-negative diagonal matrix S = diags i ) M such that ˆS ˆ T = I. Again by Remark.10, we may assume that at most K of the s i are non-zero. We then have S T I = S T ˆS ˆ [ ] T = s i ϕi ϕ T i ˆϕ T i ) + ϕ i ˆϕ i ) ˆϕ T i, and therefore, as ˆϕ i 1 see Lemma.3 ii)), D S T I F ) s i ϕi ˆϕ i + ϕ i ˆϕ i ˆϕ i M s i ϕ i ˆϕ i K max i ow, for each i {1,..., M} we have s i = ˆϕ i T s i ˆϕ i ˆϕ it ˆϕ i ˆϕ i 4 s i k=1 s i ) 1/ M ϕ i ˆϕ i ) 1/ ˆ F = ) K max s i d i ˆϕ T i s k ˆϕ k ˆϕ T k ˆϕ i ˆϕ i 4 = ˆϕT i ˆS ˆ T ˆϕ i ˆϕ i 4 = 1 ˆϕ i ) 1/ where the last inequality follows from the triangle inequality. This gives 1 1 d ), 3.11) D Kd 1 d ). Solving for d in the last inequality leads to the left hand side of 3.8).

18 18 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG We conclude this section by a theorem on approximating unit norm frames by scalable frames. Theorem 3.5 Approximation by scalable frames). Let F u M, ) and assume that d 11 + K) 1. Let ˆ be a minimizer of.1), and let E = EX) be the minimal ellipsoid of, where X 1 = M ρ iϕ i ϕ T i. Then the scalable frame = { ϕ i } M defined in 3.9) is a good approximation to in the following sense: 3.1) F K where K = min{m, +1) }. 1 1 d ) 4 4Kd 1 d ) 4 4Kd ) 1/ = K Od ), Proof. We extend the estimate 3.10) with the help of the leftmost inequality of 3.3): ) 3.13) F K 1 1 D D Since the right-hand side of 3.13) is an increasing function of D on [0, 1], we substitute 3.11) into 3.13) and obtain the left hand side of 3.1), where we need the requirement on d so that D < Probability of having scalable frames This section aims to estimate the probability P M, of unit norm frames to be scalable when the frame vectors are drawn independently and uniformly from the unit sphere S 1 R. This is in a sense equivalent to estimating the size of SCM, ) in F u M, ). The basic idea is to use the characterization of scalability in terms of the minimum volume ellipsoids through John s theorem, see Theorem.11. From this geometric point of view, we derive new and relatively simple conditions for scalability and nonscalability Theorem 4.1). These conditions are the key tools we use to estimate the probability P M, ecessary and Sufficient Conditions for Scalability. The following theorem plays a crucial role in the proof of our main theorem on the probability of having scalable frames in Subsection 4.. However, it is also of independent interest. Theorem 4.1. Let F u M, ). Then the following hold: a) A necessary condition for scalability ) If is scalable, then 4.1) min max d, ϕ i 1. d =1 i

19 b) A sufficient condition for scalability ) If 4.) min d =1 then is scalable. MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 19 max d, ϕ i i 1, Proof. a). We will use the following fact: if E K is the minimal ellipsoid of a convex body K R which is symmetric about the origin, then 1 E K K, see [1, Theorem 1.11]. If is scalable, then the unit ball is the minimal ellipsoid of the 1 convex hull co Sym ) of Sym. Therefore, B co Sym ). And as a continuous convex function on a compact convex set attains its maximum at an extreme point of this set see, e.g., [19, Theorem 3.4.7]), we conclude that for each d S 1 we have 1 = max d, x x 1 B max x co Sym ) d, x max d, ϕ i. i b). Let E = EX) be the minimal ellipsoid of. With a unitary transformation, we can assume X 1/ = diaga i ). Towards a contradiction, suppose that 4.) holds, but that is not scalable. Then, by Theorem.11, a 1 a... a with a 1 < a. Take any frame vector ϕ = x 1, x,..., x ) T from. It satisfies x i a i = Xϕ, ϕ 1 and x i = 1, which implies 1 1 x i 1 ) a i a 1 1. a Hence, setting ρ = 1 1 )/ 1 1 ), we have x a a 1 a 1 ρ. We claim that 4.3) ρ < 1. Then we choose d = 1, 0,..., 0) T and find that d, ϕ = x 1 < ϕ which contradicts the assumption. Proving 4.3) is equivalent to proving a a 1 1 a + 1 a 1 1 a i > a i 1 >, which is true because =, for each where we have used.17) and 3.1) in which equality holds if and only if a 1 =... = a ). Remark 4.. a) Another necessary condition for scalability was proved in [10, Theorem 3.1]. We wish to point out that this necessary condition is unrelated to the one given in part a) of the previous theorem in the sense that neither of these conditions implies the other. b) When the dimension =, Theorem 4.1 gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a frame to be scalable. This condition can be easily interpreted in terms of cones as already mentioned before: {ϕ i } M is a scalable frame for R if and

20 0 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG only if every double cone with apex at origin and containing Sym has an apex angle greater than or equal to π/. c) For a general, the gap between these two conditions is large. However, this gap cannot be improved. Theorem 4.1a) is tight in the sense that we cannot replace 1/ by a bigger constant. This is because an orthonormal basis reaches this constant. The sufficient condition is also optimal in the sense that 1)/ cannot be replaced by a smaller number. This requires some more analysis as shown below. Proposition 4.3. For any small ε > 0 and any, there exists a unit norm frame for R, such that 1 min max d, ϕ i d =1 i ε, but is not scalable. Proof. Pick an ellipsoid EX) with X 1 = diaga 1, a,..., a 1, a ), where a 1 = a =... = a 1 = 1 ε, and 1 a = 1 + ε. By Theorem.13, there exists a non-scalable) frame F u M, ) whose minimal ellipsoid is EX). Then for any x EX) S 1, we have 1 1 x i a i + x a = 1)1 x ) 1 ε + x 1 + ε, which implies that x 1 + ε. ow for any d = d 1, d,..., d ) S 1, if d < 1+ε, then let x 0 = ε ) d 1 + ε d + signd ) 0, 0,..., 0,, where d = d 1, d,..., d 1, 0). It is easy to verify that x 0 EX) S 1 and 1 ε that x 0, d. If d 1+ε, then let x 0 = d. It is again easy to check x 0 EX) S 1 and x 0, d = 1. In summary, for any d S 1, there exists an x 0 EX) S 1 1 ε, such that x 0, d. We add vectors from the set EX) S 1 to such that the frame vectors are dense enough to form an ε-ball of EX) S 1, i.e., for any x EX) S 1, there exists a ϕ i EX) S 1, such that ϕ i x ε. otice this new frame has the same minimal ellipsoid. With this construction, for any d S 1, we can find a 1 ε 1 frame vector ϕ i such that ϕ i, d = x, d + ϕ i x, d ε ε provided that ε is small enough. In Remark 4.b), we mentioned that 4.1) is necessary and sufficient for scalability if =. In the following, we shall show that the same holds if M = :

21 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 1 Theorem 4.4. For F u, ), the following statements are equivalent. i) is scalable. ii) is unitary. iii) min d =1 max i d, ϕ i 1. In order to prove Theorem 4.4, we need the following lemma. Lemma 4.5. Let R be a non-unitary invertible matrix with unit norm columns. Then there exists a vector d R with d > 1 and a vector a R with a i = 1/ for all i = 1,...,, such that T d = a. Proof. Let {b i } be a sequence with each entry being a Bernoulli random variable, Ψ = diagb i ), and g = 1 1,..., 1) T. Suppose d Ψ is the solution to 4.4) T d Ψ = Ψg. Let T = UΣV T be the singular value decomposition of T, where Σ = diagσ i ). Observe that = F = Σ F = σi. Hence, from 3.1) we obtain σ i σ i On the other hand, from 4.4) we have V T d Ψ = Σ 1 U T Ψg. =. ext, we calculate the expectation E d Ψ. If it is greater than 1, then there must exist one instance of d Ψ with norm greater than 1, which makes the lemma hold. As Eb i b j ) = δ ij, we obtain E d Ψ = E V T d Ψ = E Σ 1 U T Ψg = 1 E ) σ i u ji b j i j = 1 σ i E u ji + ) u ji u ki b j b k i j j k,k j = 1 σ i u ji = 1 σ i 1, i j while for the last inequality, equality holds only when all σ i are equal, i.e., is unitary, which is ruled out by our assumption. Therefore the last inequality is strict. i

22 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG Proof of Theorem 4.4. The equivalence i) ii) is easy to see and follows from, e.g., [17, Corollary.8]. Moreover, i) iii) is a direct consequence of Theorem 4.1a). It remains to prove that iii) implies i). For this, we prove the contraposition. Suppose that is not scalable. Then is not unitary, and Lemma 4.5 implies the existence of d R, d > 1, such that d, ϕ i = 1/ for all i = 1,...,. Hence, with d = d / d we have d, ϕ i = d ) 1 < 1/ for all i = 1,...,. That is, iii) does not hold, and the theorem is proved. 4.. Estimation of the probability. With the help of Theorem 4.1, we now estimate the probability for a frame to be scalable when its vectors are drawn independently and uniformly from S 1. First of all, it is easy to see the probability strictly increases as M increases. Secondly, ϕ i ϕ T i Sym, where Sym := { A R : A = A T }, which is a vector space of dimension +1). By 1.1), being scalable requires I to be in the positive cone generated by {ϕ i ϕ T i } M. If M < +1), then this set cannot be a basis of Sym, so the chance for any symmetric matrix to be in the span of {ϕ i ϕ T i } M is minimal, which makes it even more difficult for I to be in positive cone generated by this set. Therefore we expect the probability to be 0 when M < +1). Finally, as M, we expect the probability of frames to be scalable to approach 1. Let us first consider the case = for which the probability P,M can be explicitly computed. Example 4.6. If vectors ϕ 1,..., ϕ M are drawn independently and uniformly from S 1, then the probability of {ϕ i } M to be a scalable frame in F u M, ) is given by P M, = 1 M, M. M 1 Proof. First of all, define the angle of a vector v as the angle between v and positive x-axis, counterclockwise. Among all the double cones that cover all the vectors in Sym, let P be the one with the smallest apex angle α. It is known that is scalable if and only if α π/. Let ϕ be the right boundary of P. To be rigorous, Let ϕ be the vector with angle β 0 [0, π) such that for β in some neighborhood of β 0 we have cos β, sin β) T P if β > β 0 and cos β, sin β) T / P if β < β 0. For fixed i {1,..., M} we then have Pr not scalable and ϕ = ±ϕ i ) = 1 π = 1 π π 0 π 0 Pr not scalable and ϕ = ±ϕ i ϕ i = β) dβ 1 1 dβ = M 1. M 1 ow, it follows that Pr is not scalable) = i Pr not scalable and ϕ = ±ϕ i ) = M/ M 1.

23 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 3 We can see in R, as the number of frame vectors increases, the probability P M, increases as well, starting from zero and eventually approaching 1. The critical point where the probability turns from zero to positive is M = 3 = +1), which meets our expectation. We will show that this is true for arbitrary dimension, and provide an estimate for the probability of frames being scalable. The following lemma completes the series of preparatory statements for the proof of our main theorem. Lemma 4.7. If = {ϕ i } M is a strictly scalable frame for R and {ϕ i ϕ T i } M is a frame for Sym, then there exists ε > 0 such that any frame Ψ satisfying Ψ F < ε is strictly scalable. Proof. Let A be the lower frame bound of {ϕ i ϕ T i } M, where Sym is endowed with the Frobenius norm. Moreover, by F : Diag M Sym denote the synthesis operator of {ϕ i ϕ T i } M, where Diag M denotes the space of all diagonal matrices in Sym M. Then F D = D T, D Diag M. Since is strictly scalable, there exists a positive definite D Diag M such that F D = I. Let δ > 0 be so small that whenever Diag M with F δ, we have that D + remains positive definite. Moreover, let ε > 0 be so small that { } A τ := ε + F )ε max, δa. A + F op ) D F ow, let Ψ = {ψ i } M R be such that Ψ F < ε. By G : Diag M Sym denote the synthesis operator of {ψ i ψ T i } M. We can see that F G op τ, since for any diagonal matrix C, F C GC F = C T ΨCΨ T F C T Ψ T ) F + Ψ)CΨ T F Hence, for X Sym we have ɛ F + Ψ F ) C F ɛɛ + F ) C F. G X F F X F F G) X F A τ) X F A/) X F. In particular, this implies that {ψ i ψ T i } M is a frame for Sym, and GG X, X F = G X F A/4) X F yields GG ) 1 op 4/A. ow, we define := G GG ) 1 F G)D Diag M. Then GD + ) = GD + F G)D = F D = I. Moreover, F G op GG ) 1 op F G op D F A/) + F op )4/A)τ D F δ, so that D + is positive definite. Consequently, Ψ is strictly scalable. Remark 4.8. We mention that Lemma 4.7 implies that the set { SC + M, ) : {ϕ i ϕ T i } M is a frame} is open. The statement and proof of the main theorem use the notion of spherical caps. We define R a C) to be the spherical cap in S with angular radius a, centered at C, i.e. R a C) = { x S : x, C cosa) }.

24 4 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG C a By A a we denote the relative area of R a C) ratio of area of R a C) and area of S ). Theorem 4.9. Given = {ϕ i } M R, where each vector ϕ i is drawn independently and uniformly from S 1, let P M, denote the probability that is scalable. Then the following holds: i) When M < +1), P M, = 0 ii) When M +1), P M, > 0 and where C 1 A 1 α ) M 1 PM, ) 1 A 1 M, α = 1 1 arccos, a = arccos 1, and where C is the number of caps with angular radius α needed to cover S 1. Consequently, lim M P M, = 1. Proof. By µ u we denote the uniform measure on S 1 and by µ G the Gaussian measure on R. Furthermore, on S 1 ) M and R ) M define the product measures µ k u := k µ u and µ k G := j=1 a k µ G, respectively. For a set B S 1 ) k, k, we define { ) B := x 1,..., x k ) R \ {0}) k x1 x k :,..., x 1 x k Since µ u A) = µ G A ) for any A S 1, we have 4.5) µ k ub) = µ k GB ) for any B S 1 ) k. j=1 } B. i). Set K = + 1)/. It suffices to show P M, = 0 only for M = K 1. For this, let Then B := { ϕ 1,..., ϕ M ) S 1 ) M : {ϕ 1 ϕ T 1,..., ϕ M ϕ T M, I} is linearly dependent }. B = { ϕ 1,..., ϕ M ) R \ {0}) M : {ϕ 1 ϕ T 1,..., ϕ M ϕ T M, I} is linearly dependent }. This set, seen as a subset of R M, is contained in the zero locus of a polynomial in the entries of the ϕ i s. Therefore, the Lebesgue measure of B is zero. But this shows

25 MEASURES OF SCALABILITY 5 that µ M G B ) = 0 since µ M G is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Consequently, we obtain P M, = µ M u { F u M, ) : scalable}) µ M u B) = µ M G B ) = 0. ii). With Lemma 4.7, we only need to prove the existence of a strictly scalable unit norm frame such that {ϕ i ϕ T i } M spans Sym. For this, we note that by [4, Theorem.1], there exists a frame V = {v i } M such that {v i vi T } M spans Sym. Let S be its frame operator, and ϕ i = S 1/ v i. Therefore = {ϕ i } is a tight frame, thus strictly scalable. It is also easy to check that the linear map T : Sym Sym, defined by T A) := S 1/ AS 1/, A Sym, is invertible and maps v i vi T to ϕ i ϕ T i. Therefore, {ϕ i ϕ T i } M also spans Sym. Finally, we normalize to attain the desired frame. For the estimate on 1 P M,, we first prove the right hand side inequality. For this, we put Ψ := {ϕ i } and Υ := {ϕ i } M i=+1. If Ψ is not unitary, by Theorem 4.4 there exists d Ψ S 1 such that d Ψ, ϕ i < 1/ and hence ϕ i / Ra 1 d Ψ ) for i = 1,...,. Therefore, if Ψ is not unitary and ϕ +1,..., ϕ M / Ra 1 d Ψ ) then is not scalable by Theorem 4.1a). This yields { 1 P M, µ M u : Ψ / SC, ), ϕ Υ : ϕ / R 1 a d Ψ ) }) { = µ u M Υ S 1 ) M : ϕ Υ : ϕ / Ra 1 d Ψ ) }) dµ u Ψ) = SC,) c SC,) c = 1 A 1 a = 1 A 1 a µ M u [R 1 a d Ψ ) ] c) M ) dµ u Ψ) ) M SC,) c dµ u Ψ) ) M 1 µ u SC, )) ). But µ u SC, )) = 0 by i), and hence the inequality follows. For the left hand side inequality, let {R j } C j=1 be a cover of S 1 with spherical caps of angular radius α. Define the event E := { j {1,,, C} i such that ϕ i R j }. If event E holds, whenever d S 1, there exists j such that d R j. Thus, there also 1 exists i such that d and ϕ i are in the same spherical cap, which means d, ϕ i. Therefore, Theorem 4.1b) yields that is scalable. So, we have P M, PrE) = 1 Pr ) j i : ϕ i Rj c ) = 1 Pr { i : ϕ i R c j} 1 j j Pr { i : ϕ i R c j} )

26 6 X. CHE, G. KUTYIOK, K. A. OKOUDJOU, F. PHILIPP, R. WAG = 1 j 1 A 1 α ) M ) = 1 C 1 A 1 M α. This finishes the proof of the theorem. Remark An upper bound on C can be found in [3, Theorem 1.] as C ) 1 + 1) cosa)a 1 a ). A 1 a 5. Acknowledgments G. Kutyniok acknowledges support by the Einstein Foundation Berlin, by the Einstein Center for Mathematics Berlin ECMath), by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG) Grant KU 1446/14, by the DFG Collaborative Research Center SFB/TRR 109 Discretization in Geometry and Dynamics, and by the DFG Research Center Matheon Mathematics for key technologies in Berlin. Also F. Philipp thanks the Matheon for their support. K. A. Okoudjou was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation. He would also like to express his gratitude to the Institute of Mathematics at the Technische Universität Berlin for its hospitality while part of this work was completed. R. Wang was supported by CRD Grant DOISE and by the industrial sponsors of the Seismic Laboratory for Imaging and Modelling: BG Group, BGP, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, Petrobras, PGS, Total SA, and WesternGeco. Furthermore, the authors thank Anton Kolleck TU Berlin) for valuable discussions. References [1] K. Ball, An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry, Flavors of geometry, 1 58, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 31, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, [] J. J. Benedetto and M. Fickus, Finite ormalized Tight Frames, Adv. Comput. Math., ), [3] P. Bürgisser, F. Cucker, and M. Lotz, Coverage processes on spheres and condition numbers for linear programming, The Annals of Probability, ): [4] J. Cahill and X. Chen, A note on scalable frames, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications, pp [5] J. Cahill, M. Fickus, D. G. Mixon, M. J. Poteet, and. Strawn, Constructing finite frames of a given spectrum and set of lengths, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., ), no. 1, [6] P. G. Casazza, M. Fickus, and D. G. Mixon, Auto-tuning unit norm frames, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 3 01), no. 1, [7] P. G. Casazza and G. Kutyniok, Finite Frame Theory, Eds., Birkhäuser, Boston 01). [8] P. G. Casazza and M. Leon. Existence and construction of finite frames with a given frame operator. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math, ), [9] O. Christensen, An introduction to frames and Riesz bases, Applied and umerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 003. [10] M. S. Copenhaver, Y. H. Kim, C. Logan, K. Mayfield, S. K. arayan, and J. Sheperd, Diagram vectors and tight frame scaling in finite dimensions, Operators and Matrices, 8, no.1 014), [11] M. Fickus, B. D. Johnson, K. Kornelson, and K. A. Okoudjou, Convolutional frames and the frame potential, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., ),