Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Shift-invariant spaces, bandlimited spaces and reproducing kernel spaces with shift-invariant kernels on undirected finite graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that shift-invariance, bandlimitedness, and single-generator structure coincide for graph signals.

desk verdict Solid theoretical equivalence under a distinct-spectrum assumption, but the paper's own circulant simulations violate that assumption and are not covered by the main theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12900 v1 pith:OUPTTVHR submitted 2024-12-17 eess.SP cs.ITmath.IT

Seok-Young Chung , Qiyu Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITmath.IT MSC 94A1294A2005C50
keywords graphshift-invariantspacesbandlimitedsignalsprincipalreproducingkernelHilbertkernelssamplingandreconstructionKrylovsubspacesFouriertransform
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

On an undirected finite graph, this paper tries to collapse three seemingly different notions of a simple signal space into one. It introduces graph shift-invariant spaces (GSISs), linear spaces of graph signals closed under graph shifts, and proves that, under a distinct-joint-spectrum assumption on the shifts, a space is shift-invariant if and only if it is bandlimited, and every such space is generated by a single signal and a single shift as a Krylov subspace. It then shows that every GSIS with the standard Euclidean inner product is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with a shift-invariant kernel, and that every such RKHS inner product is a diagonal weighting in the graph Fourier domain. The payoff is practical: because every bandlimited space has this one-generator nested Krylov structure, the paper gives a finite-step sampling and reconstruction algorithm and tests it on circulant graphs and US airport delay data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simultaneous diagonalization of the commutative graph shifts together with the polynomial filters built from them. Because Assumption II.1 makes the joint spectrum distinct, the paper can interpolate: for each frequency point there is a polynomial p_n with p_n evaluated at the joint spectrum equal to the Kronecker delta, so p_n of the shifts is the orthogonal projector onto the n-th graph Fourier basis vector. That same interpolation toolkit produces a scalar shift T as a linear combination of the graph shifts whose eigenvalues are distinct on the frequency set $\Omega$, turning the bandlimited space into the Krylov space span{T^m phi0 : m = 0, ..., #$\Omega$ - 1}. The nested Krylov spaces H_n(Phi) = span{S^$\alpha$ phi : |$\alpha$| <= n} then serve as the spatial-domain ladder on which the finite-step sampling and reconstruction algorithm operates.

What would settle it

On the 4-cycle with the adjacency matrix as the only graph shift, the eigenvalues are 2, 0, -2, 0, so the joint spectrum is not distinct. Take the two indices with eigenvalue 0 as $\Omega$ and let phi0 = u_1 + u_3, the sum of the two corresponding Fourier basis vectors; then T^m phi0 = 0^m phi0 for every m, so the Krylov span has dimension 1, not #$\Omega$ = 2. This calculation shows the distinctness condition is necessary; if a symmetric regular graph with repeated eigenvalues nevertheless satisfies the one-generator representation by grouping equal eigenvalues, the theorem's scope could be extended, and if not, the unqualified statement about undirected finite graphs would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under Assumption II.1, real symmetric commuting graph shifts whose joint spectrum has N distinct points, the paper's Theorem III.1 establishes that four classes of subspaces of RN are the same: bandlimited spaces B_Omega, shift-invariant spaces, finitely generated shift-invariant spaces, and principal shift-invariant spaces. The implication from shift-invariance to bandlimitedness is proved by polynomial interpolation: for each frequency n there is a polynomial p_n in the shifts whose Fourier multiplier is the diagonal projector onto that frequency, so a shift-invariant space splits into frequency axes and equals B_Omega with $\Omega$ the union of the Fourier supports and #$\Omega$ equal to the dimension. Theorem III.2 sharpens this: every bandlimited space equals span{T^m phi0 : 0 <= m <= #$\Omega$ - 1}, where phi0 has nonzero Fourier coefficients exactly on $\Omega$ and T is a linear combination of the graph shifts whose eigenvalues are distinct on $\Omega$; the generator phi0 can be chosen as the inverse graph Fourier transform of the characteristic function of $\Omega$, the graph analogue of the sinc function. The paper also proves that every GSIS with the Euclidean inner product is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with a shift-invariant kernel, and that every such RKHS inner product is a diagonal Fourier-domain dot product.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the graph shifts sharing a complete set of eigenvectors and on no two frequency labels carrying the same list of eigenvalues, so that polynomial interpolation can separate individual frequencies; when eigenvalues repeat, the proofs of the equivalences and of the one-generator representation are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every linear space of graph signals closed under the graph shifts is a bandlimited space, so bandlimited sampling, projection, and reconstruction methods apply to every shift-invariant subspace without further assumptions.
  • Every bandlimited space has a one-generator description, so a space of dimension d can be represented by a generator and its first d shifts instead of by an arbitrary basis.
  • Shift-invariant spaces with the Euclidean inner product are reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces with shift-invariant kernels, and conversely every shift-invariant RKHS inner product is a diagonal weighting in the graph Fourier domain, connecting GSISs to kernel-based learning on graphs.
  • The Krylov nesting gives a finite-step algorithm that reconstructs a signal in a finitely generated GSIS from noisy samples, stops when the residual meets a threshold, and reaches the least-squares fit when the full space is reached.
  • The numerical experiments indicate that low Krylov levels suffice for well-localized signals on circulant graphs, and that US airport flight-delay data is better modeled by a GSIS with adaptively chosen generators than by a low-frequency bandlimited space.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The one-generator representation suggests a graph analogue of the classical sinc function, which could be used to derive explicit interpolation formulas and sampling theorems for bandlimited graph signals beyond the algorithmic reconstruction treated in the paper.
  • Because every GSIS is an RKHS with a diagonal Fourier-domain inner product, kernel selection on graphs can be reinterpreted as choosing both a bandlimited subspace and a diagonal weight, a viewpoint that may simplify comparisons between diffusion, regularization, and spline kernels.
  • The flight-delay experiment suggests a practical rule: when signal energy is spatially localized at a few hub vertices, a shift-invariant model with a small Krylov level may outperform low-frequency bandlimited modeling; this rule could be tested on other transportation or social networks.
  • A natural next step is to investigate whether the equivalence survives when repeated joint spectrum points are grouped into eigenspaces, since the polynomial interpolation argument would then need block projectors instead of individual frequency projectors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces graph shift-invariant spaces (GSISs) for undirected finite graphs and, under Assumption II.1 (real symmetric commutative graph shifts with distinct joint spectrum), proves that a linear space is bandlimited iff it is shift-invariant iff it is finitely generated iff it is principal (Theorem III.1). Theorem III.2 gives an explicit single generator and a Krylov representation for each bandlimited space. The paper further characterizes shift-invariant reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (Theorems IV.1 and IV.2), and proposes a finite-step Krylov sampling and reconstruction algorithm (Algorithm V.1), with numerical experiments on circulant graphs and a US flight-delay dataset.

Significance. If the results are evaluated under Assumption II.1, the paper gives a clean and useful unification of three notions common in graph signal processing. The proofs are elementary and transparent, and the constructive parts (explicit generator, Vandermonde-based Riesz bounds, nested Krylov structure, finite-step reconstruction) are valuable. The main weakness is that the abstract and introduction state the results for general undirected finite graphs, while the theorems require a distinct joint spectrum; moreover the circulant-graph numerical experiment in Section VI-A is not covered by that assumption. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Theorem III.1] The unqualified claim that every GSIS is bandlimited and every bandlimited space is principal is false without Assumption II.1. For example, take N=2, S1=diag(1,1), U=I, and H=span{(1,1)^T}; H is invariant under S1 but is not B_Omega for any subset Omega of {1,2}. The proof of (ii) implies (i) in Theorem III.1 uses the interpolating polynomials in (VII.1)-(VII.2), which require the joint-spectrum points in Assumption II.1 to be distinct. The abstract and introduction should either state this restriction explicitly or the theory must be extended to repeated joint-spectrum values.
  2. [Section VI-A and Remark III.6] The circulant-graph numerical experiment violates Assumption II.1. For the shifts defined in Remark III.6, the eigenvalue relation lambda_l(N-k)=lambda_l(k) holds for every k, so the joint spectrum has at most floor(N/2)+1 distinct points; in particular, for N=100 and Q={1,3}, Assumption II.1 fails. Since the identification H(Phi)=B_Omega and the least-squares formula (V.6) rely on Theorem III.1, the numerical results in Section VI-A are not justified by the paper's theorems. The authors should either run the experiment on graphs satisfying Assumption II.1 or provide a separate analysis for the repeated-eigenvalue case.
  3. [Section II-C] The definition of the graph Fourier transform via (II.5) is only well-defined up to sign under Assumption II.1. With repeated eigenvalues, the orthogonal matrix U in (II.2) is not unique up to sign, so the spaces B_Omega in (III.3) depend on the choice of eigenvectors. This is another reason why the distinct-joint-spectrum assumption is load-bearing for the paper's central equivalence, and it should be stated as a hypothesis in every theorem and in the abstract rather than only in Assumption II.1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The arrows in the proof of Theorem III.1 appear as corrupted symbols such as '/Leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne⇒'; these should be replaced with proper LaTeX arrows.
  2. [Section VI-A, text after Figure 1] In the sentence 'For the noiseless scenario shown in the middle row of Figure 1...', the phrase 'the relative maximal sampling error RE(n, P)' should read 'SE(n, P)' to be consistent with the definition.
  3. [Algorithm V.1] The output field 'efinal = ∥y−Axout∥' is described as a scalar error, but in the pseudocode the variable 'e' is a residual vector and the output statement writes 'efinal = e'. Please clarify whether the output is the residual vector or its norm.
  4. [Section VI-B] The caption of Figure 2 mentions '29 August 2024' but the dataset is described as July-September 2014 and 2015; the year appears to be a typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central equivalence theorems are proved directly from Assumption II.1 by polynomial interpolation and standard linear algebra; self-citations are non-load-bearing. The circulant simulation lies outside the assumption, but that is a scope limitation, not circularity.

full rationale

The central claims are derived, not assumed. Theorem III.1 is proved by constructing interpolation polynomials p_n satisfying p_n(\Lambda_m)=\delta_{nm} under the distinct-joint-spectrum assumption (VII.1)-(VII.2), then showing each p_n(S)H is either {0} or span{u_n}; this yields H=B_\Omega directly. Theorem III.2 constructs a linear combination T of the shifts with distinct induced eigenvalues and a generator \phi_0 with full Fourier support on \Omega, then uses univariate interpolation polynomials q_n to prove B_\Omega = span{T^m \phi_0}. No fitted parameter or renamed prediction enters these proofs. The RKHS theorems similarly define kernels and inner products explicitly from the simultaneous diagonalization and the bandlimited set \Omega; Theorem IV.2 uses the commutant-polynomial-filter result only to diagonalize the shift-invariant kernel. The self-citations to [24] and [34] supply standard simultaneous diagonalization and a published polynomial-filter commutant theorem, not the target equivalence, so they are not load-bearing circularity. One genuine limitation should be flagged separately: Assumption II.1 requires distinct joint-spectrum vectors, but the circulant shifts in Remark III.6 and Section VI-A have paired eigenvalues \lambda_l(k)=\lambda_l(N-k), so the numerical demonstration does not satisfy the theorem's hypothesis. That is a correctness/scope concern for the simulations, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core theorems introduce no fitted constants or new physical entities. The only data-dependent choices are in the numerical demonstration; the main mathematical claims are parameter-free. The assumption of distinct joint spectrum is the most significant structural input.

free parameters (1)
  • Adaptive GSIS generators (per-day top-3 delay airports) = indices of the three airports with largest average delay on each of the 184 days
    Selected from the same flight-delay dataset used to compute approximation errors in Section VI-B, so the reported advantage of the adaptive GSIS over bandlimited spaces is an in-sample fit, not an independently calibrated model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption II.1: graph shifts are real, symmetric, and commutative, and the joint spectrum elements are distinct.
    Used in Theorem III.1 and III.2; distinct spectrum makes the eigenbasis unique up to sign and permits polynomial interpolation at the spectral points. Repeated eigenvalues are excluded.
  • standard math Simultaneous diagonalization of commuting symmetric matrices.
    Invoked via (II.2) to define the joint spectrum and graph Fourier transform.
  • standard math Cayley-Hamilton theorem.
    Used in Section III to truncate the generating family to shifts of degree at most N-1.
  • domain assumption Theorem A.3 of [34]: any shift-commuting filter is a polynomial filter.
    Used in Proposition II.2 and Theorem IV.2; a published result by the same research group, not re-derived here.
  • standard math Polynomial interpolation at distinct points (Vandermonde invertibility).
    Used in the proof of Theorem III.2 to construct the generator phi0 and in Theorem III.1 to construct projection polynomials.
  • domain assumption Graph uncertainty principle from [44] in the form #(supp x) times #(supp hat x) >= (||U||*_infty)^-2.
    Used only in Proposition III.5 to relate support and dimension of a principal GSIS.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shift-invariant spaces, bandlimited spaces and reproducing kernel spaces with shift-invariant kernels on undirected finite graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUPTTVHR

@misc{pith2026241212900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shift-invariant spaces, bandlimited spaces and reproducing kernel spaces with shift-invariant kernels on undirected finite graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUPTTVHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12900}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce the concept of graph shift-invariant space (GSIS) on an undirected finite graph, which is the linear space of graph signals being invariant under graph shifts, and we study its bandlimiting, kernel reproducing and sampling properties. Graph bandlimited spaces have been widely applied where large datasets on networks need to be handled efficiently. In this paper, we show that every GSIS is a bandlimited space, and every bandlimited space is a principal GSIS. Functions in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with shift-invariant kernel could be learnt with significantly low computational cost. In this paper, we demonstrate that every GSIS is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with a shift-invariant kernel. Based on the nested Krylov structure of GSISs in the spatial domain, we propose a novel sampling and reconstruction algorithm with finite steps, with its performance tested for well-localized signals on circulant graphs and flight delay dataset of the 50 busiest airports in the USA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12900 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plotted on the top are the damped cosine wave signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plotted on the top are the flight delay data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Daubechies, Ten Lectures on Wavelets, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992

    I. Daubechies, Ten Lectures on Wavelets, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing , Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1998

    S. Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing , Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Sampling-50 years after Shannon,

    M. Unser, “Sampling-50 years after Shannon,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 569–587, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Grochenig, Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis, Birkhauser, Boston, 2001

    K. Grochenig, Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis, Birkhauser, Boston, 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Nonuniform sampling and reconstruction in shift-invariant spaces,

    A. Aldroubi and K. Grochenig, “Nonuniform sampling and reconstruction in shift-invariant spaces,” SIAM Review, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 585–620. 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    p-frames and shift invariant spaces of Lp,

    A. Aldroubi, Q. Sun, and W. S. Tang, “ p-frames and shift invariant spaces of Lp,” J. Fourier Anal. Appl. , vol. 7, pp. 1–21, 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Convolution, average sampling, and a Calderon resolution of the identity for shift-invariant spaces,

    A. Aldroubi, Q. Sun, and W.-S. Tang, “Convolution, average sampling, and a Calderon resolution of the identity for shift-invariant spaces,” J. Fourier Anal. Appl. , vol. 11, pp. 215–244, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    The emerging field of signal processing on graphs: Extending high-dimensional data analysis to networks and other irregular domains,

    D. I. Shuman, S. K. Narang, P. Frossard, A. Ortega, and P. Vandergheynst, “The emerging field of signal processing on graphs: Extending high-dimensional data analysis to networks and other irregular domains,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 30, pp. 83–98, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Graph signal processing: Overview, challenges, and applications,

    A. Ortega, P. Frossard, Kovacevic, J. M. F. Moura, and P. Vandergheynst, “Graph signal processing: Overview, challenges, and applications,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 808–828, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Introduction to Graph Signal Processing,

    L. Stankovic, M. Dakovic, and E. Sejdic, “Introduction to Graph Signal Processing,” Vertex-Frequency Analysis of Graph Signals , Springer Cham, pp. 3–108, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Graph signal processing for machine learning: A review and new perspectives,

    X. Dong, D. Thanou, L. Toni, M. Bronstein, and P. Frossard, “Graph signal processing for machine learning: A review and new perspectives,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 37, pp. 117–127, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Ortega, Introduction to Graph Signal Processing , Cambridge University Press, 2022

    A. Ortega, Introduction to Graph Signal Processing , Cambridge University Press, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Graph filters for signal processing and machine learning on graphs,

    E. Isufi, F. Gama, D. I. Shuman, and S. Segarra, “Graph filters for signal processing and machine learning on graphs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 32 pp., 2024, DOI: 10.1109/TSP.2024.3349788

    2024

  6. [14]

    Sampling in Paley-Wiener spaces on combinatorial graphs,

    I Pesenson, “Sampling in Paley-Wiener spaces on combinatorial graphs,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , vol. 360, no. 10, pp. 5603–5627, 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    Variational splines and Paley–Wiener spaces on combinatorial graphs,

    I. Pesenson, “Variational splines and Paley–Wiener spaces on combinatorial graphs,” Constr. Approx., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1-21, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    Discrete signal processing on graphs: sampling theory,

    S. Chen, R. Varma, A. Sandryhaila, and J. Kovaevi, “Discrete signal processing on graphs: sampling theory,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 24, pp. 6510–6523, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Efficient sampling set selection for bandlimited graph signals using graph spectral proxies,

    A. Anis, A. Gadde, and A. Ortega, “Efficient sampling set selection for bandlimited graph signals using graph spectral proxies,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 14, pp. 3775–3789, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Random sampling of bandlimited signals on graphs,

    G. Puy, N. Tremblay, R. Gribonval, and P. Vandergheynst, “Random sampling of bandlimited signals on graphs,” Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 446–475, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Reconstruction of bandlimited graph signals from measurements,

    C. Huang, Q. Zhang, J. Huang, and L. Yang, “Reconstruction of bandlimited graph signals from measurements,” Digit. Signal Process., vol. 101, article no. 102728, 13 pp., 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Scholkopf and A

    B. Scholkopf and A. J. Smola, Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond , MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002

    2002

  13. [21]

    Reproducing kernel Banach spaces for machine learning,

    H. Zhang, Y . Xu, and J. Zhang, “Reproducing kernel Banach spaces for machine learning,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. , vol. 10, pp. 2741–2775, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Shalev-Shwartz and S

    S. Shalev-Shwartz and S. Ben-David, Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms , Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Graph kernels: a survey,

    G. Nikolentzos, G. Siglidis, and M. Vazirgiannis, “Graph kernels: a survey,” J. Artif. Intell. Res. , vol. 72, pp. 943–1027, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Barron space for graph convolution neural networks,

    S. Y . Chung and Q. Sun, “Barron space for graph convolution neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02838, 37 pp., 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Diffusion kernels on graphs and other discrete structures,

    R. S. Kondor and J. Lafferty, “Diffusion kernels on graphs and other discrete structures,” Proc. ICML, vol. 2, 8 pp. 2002

    2002

  18. [26]

    Kernels and regularization on graphs,

    A. J. Smola and R. Kondor, “Kernels and regularization on graphs,” Learning Theory and Kernel Machines, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2777, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 15 pp., 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    A regularization framework for learning from graph data,

    D. Zhou and B. Scholkopf, “A regularization framework for learning from graph data,” Proc. ICML Workshop Statist. Relational Learn. Connections Other Fields , Banff, Canada, Jul. 2004, vol. 15, pp. 67–68

    2004

  20. [28]

    Manifold regularization: a geometric framework for learning from labeled and unlabeled examples,

    M. Belkin, P. Niyogi, and V . Sindhwani, “Manifold regularization: a geometric framework for learning from labeled and unlabeled examples,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. , vol. 7, pp. 2399–2434, 2006

    2006

  21. [29]

    Gram matrices of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces over graphs,

    M. Seto, S. Suda, and T. Taniguchic, “Gram matrices of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces over graphs,” Linear Algebra Appl., volume 445, pp. 56–68, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Prediction of partially observed dynamical processes over networks via dictionary learning,

    P. A. Forero, K. Rajawat, and G. B. Giannakis, “Prediction of partially observed dynamical processes over networks via dictionary learning,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 62, no. 13, pp. 3305–3320, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    M. S. Kotzagiannidis and P. L. Dragotti, ”Sampling and reconstruction of sparse signals on circulant graphs — an introduction to graph-FRI”, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. , vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 539–565, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kernel-based reconstruction of graph signals,

    D. Romero, M. Ma, and G. B. Giannakis, “Kernel-based reconstruction of graph signals,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 764–778, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Interpolating splines on graphs for data science applications,

    J. P. Ward, F. J. Narcowich, and J. D. Ward, “Interpolating splines on graphs for data science applications,” Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 540–557, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Polynomial graph filters of multiple shifts and distributed implementation of inverse filtering,

    N. Emirov, C. Cheng, J. Jiang, and Q. Sun, “Polynomial graph filters of multiple shifts and distributed implementation of inverse filtering,” Sampl. Theory Signal Process. Data Anal. , vol. 20, article no. 2, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Kernel ridge regression for generalized graph signal processing,

    X. Jian and W. P. Tay, “Kernel ridge regression for generalized graph signal processing,” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Rhodes Island, Greece, June 2023, pp. 1-5

    2023

  28. [36]

    Sampling and reconstruction of signals in a reproducing kernel subspace of Lp(Rd),

    M. Z. Nashed and Q. Sun, “Sampling and reconstruction of signals in a reproducing kernel subspace of Lp(Rd),” J. Funct. Anal. , vol. 258, pp. 2422–2452, 2010. 18

    2010

  29. [37]

    Discrete signal processing on graphs,

    A. Sandryhaila, and J. M. F. Moura, “Discrete signal processing on graphs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 61, pp. 1644–1656, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Discrete signal processing on graphs: Frequency analysis,

    A. Sandryhaila, and J. M. F. Moura, “Discrete signal processing on graphs: Frequency analysis,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 62, pp. 3042–3054, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Nonsubsampled graph filter banks: theory and distributed algorithms,

    J. Jiang, C. Cheng and Q. Sun, “Nonsubsampled graph filter banks: theory and distributed algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 67, pp. 3938–3953, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    F. R. K. Chung, Spectral Graph Theory , CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, No. 92. Providence, RI, Amer. Math. Soc., 1997

    1997

  33. [41]

    Fourier could be a data scientist: from graph Fourier transform to signal processing on graphs,

    B. Ricaud, P. Borgnat, N. Tremblay, P. Goncalves, and P. Vandergheynst, “Fourier could be a data scientist: from graph Fourier transform to signal processing on graphs,” C. R. Phys. , vol. 20, pp. 474–488, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Graph Fourier transform based on singular value decomposition of directed Laplacian,

    Y . Chen, C. Cheng, and Q. Sun, “Graph Fourier transform based on singular value decomposition of directed Laplacian,” Sampl. Theory Signal Process. Data Anal. , vol. 21, article no. 24, 28 pp., 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    SVD-based graph Fourier transforms on directed product graphs,

    C. Cheng, Y . Chen, Y . J. Lee, and Q. Sun, “SVD-based graph Fourier transforms on directed product graphs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Inf. Process. Netw., vol. 9, pp. 531–541, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    On graph uncertainty principle and eigenvector delocalization,

    E. Rebrova, and P. Salanevich, “On graph uncertainty principle and eigenvector delocalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15810 , 13 pp., 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Uncertainty principles and signal recovery,

    D. L. Donoho and P. B. Stark, “Uncertainty principles and signal recovery,” SIAM J. Math. Anal. , vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 906–931, 1989

    1989

  38. [46]

    Uncertainty principles and sparse eigenvectors of graphs,

    O. Teke and P. P. Vaidyanathan. “Uncertainty principles and sparse eigenvectors of graphs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 20, pp. 5406–5420, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Dynamical sampling: Time–space trade-off,

    A. Aldroubi, J. Davis, and I. Krishtal, “Dynamical sampling: Time–space trade-off,” Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 495–503, 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    Sampling of graph signals with successive local aggregations,

    A. G. Marques, S. Segarra, G. Leus, and A. Ribeiro, “Sampling of graph signals with successive local aggregations,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1832–1843, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Dynamical sampling,

    A. Aldroubi, C. Cabrelli, U. Molter, and S. Tang, “Dynamical sampling,” Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. , vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 378–401, 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Robust recovery of bandlimited graph signals via randomized dynamical sampling,

    L. Huang, D. Needell, and S. Tang, “Robust recovery of bandlimited graph signals via randomized dynamical sampling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.14079, 34 pp., 2021

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Airline On-Time Performance Data collected by Bureau of Transportation Statistics, http://www.transtats.bts.gov/

  44. [52]

    E. W. Cheney and W. A. Light, A Course in Approximation Theory , Graduate Studies in Mathematics 101, Amer. Math. Soc., 2000

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.