Group Cross-Correlations with Faintly Constrained Filters

Benedikt Fluhr

Abstract

Group convolutional layers with respect to some group $G$ are modeled by convolutions or cross-correlations with a filter, and they provide the fundamental building block for group convolutional neural networks. For entirely unconstrained filters and $G$ a non-abelian group, any hidden layer of such a network requires as many nodes as vertices in a fine enough discretization of $G$ . In order to reduce the necessary number of nodes, certain constraints on filters were proposed in the literature. We propose weaker constraints retaining this benefit while also resolving an incompatibility previous constraints have for group actions with non-compact stabilizers. Moreover, we generalize previous results to group actions that are not necessarily transitive, and we weaken the common assumption that $G$ is unimodular.

1 Introduction

Group convolutional neural networks with respect to some group $G$ were introduced by Cohen and Welling (2016). The distinguishing feature of such a neural network is that some of its layers are modeled by cross-correlations of functions with some filter henceforth denoted by $\omega$ (or $\omega^{\prime}$ ). Initially, Cohen and Welling (2016) impose no constraints on the filter $\omega$ (there denoted by $\psi$ ) and as a result, within any hidden layer feature vectors are modeled by functions defined on the entire group $G$ rather than a quotient of $G$ when $G$ is non-abelian. Kondor and Trivedi (2018, Definition 5) resolved this limitation by imposing a constraint on $\omega$ (there denoted by $\chi$ ), which can be paraphrased as bi-invariance. Cohen et al. (2019) generalized cross-correlations from transformations of vector-valued functions to transformations of sections to $G$ -equivariant vector bundles. In order to accommodate the $G$ -action on total spaces, the bi-invariance constraint of (Kondor and Trivedi, 2018, Definition 5) is generalized to their constraint of bi-equivariance. As we will see in Section 4.1.2, this constraint of bi-equivariance (or bi-invariance) is too strict, when stabilizers are not compact. In the present paper we propose a weaker constraint on $\omega$ with (24) that also works for non-compact stabilizers. Thinking of bi-equivariance as having both left-equivariance and right-equivariance, our constraint can be paraphrased as “equivariance with respect to conjugation”, which is implied by bi-equivariance.

Other than the compactness of stabilizers, a common assumption is that the considered $G$ -action should be transitive. In our Definition 2.4 of a cross-correlation, transitivity is not imposed. We also weaken the assumption that $G$ is unimodular. Otherwise, we adopt the setting and the generality by Cohen et al. (2019). In order to accommodate non-transitive $G$ -actions when comparing cross-correlations to integral transforms, we introduce orbitwise integral transforms in Section 3 and we recover the widely known correspondence between $G$ -equivariant integral transforms and $G$ -equivariant kernels henceforth denoted by $\kappa$ . Finally, we establish a close relation between $G$ -equivariant orbitwise integral transforms and cross-correlations in Section 4.

2 Group Cross-Correlations

We start with a concrete example which will then be generalized so as to obtain a rather broad notion of a cross-correlation with Definition 2.4. As a group we consider the real numbers $\mathbb{R}$ with addition and as an $\mathbb{R}$ -space we consider the unit circle ${S^{1}\subset\mathbb{C}}$ endowed with the $\mathbb{R}$ -action

\_.\_\colon\mathbb{R}\times S^{1}\rightarrow S^{1},\,(t,p)\mapsto t.p\coloneqq e^{ti}p.

(1)

Now suppose we meant to design a neural network layer having continuous functions ${S^{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ as inputs and as outputs. As inputs such functions could for example describe temperatures measured in each point or velocities in counter-clockwise direction of a fluid constrained to the circle. Moreover, suppose that the receptive field of each point should be limited to a small neighborhood. Such a transformation of a function ${f\colon S^{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ can be obtained as a cross-correlation with a filter ${\omega^{\prime}\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ supported on a small neighborhood of ${0\in\mathbb{R}}$ :

\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\colon S^{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,p\mapsto\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(t)f(t.p)dt.

(2)

Here we added the hat to the $\star$ -operator as we will use the unaltered $\star$ -operator to denote the general form of cross-correlations provided by Definition 2.4.

The action (1) also induces an $\mathbb{R}$ -action on functions

\_.\_\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{S^{1}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{S^{1}},\,(t,f)\mapsto t.f

where $t.f$ is the rotation of $f$ (as its graph) by $t$ in counter-clockwise direction, i.e. we have

(t.f)(p)\coloneqq f\big(e^{-ti}p\big)=f((-t).p)

(3)

for all ${t\in\mathbb{R}}$ , ${f\colon S^{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , and ${p\in S^{1}}$ . Note that in the present paper function application takes precedence over the binary operator “ $\_.\_$ ” denoting group actions. Moreover, the operation

\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}-\,\colon f\mapsto\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f

is $\mathbb{R}$ -equivariant, i.e. for any ${t\in\mathbb{R}}$ , continuous ${f\colon S^{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , and ${p\in S^{1}}$ we have the equation

\begin{split}\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}t.f\big)(p)&\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorrHat}}}{{=}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(s)(t.f)(s.p)ds\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:actionOnFunctionsOnCircle}}}{{=}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(s)f((-t).s.p)ds\\ &\,=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(s)f((s-t).p)ds\\ &\,=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(s)f(s.(-t).p)ds\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorrHat}}}{{=}}\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)((-t).p)\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:actionOnFunctionsOnCircle}}}{{=}}\big(t.\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)\big)(p)\end{split}

(4)

or equivalently

\begin{split}\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}t.f\big)(t.p)&\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:equivarianceCircle}}}{{=}}\big(t.\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)\big)(t.p)\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:actionOnFunctionsOnCircle}}}{{=}}\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)((-t).t.p)\\ &\,=\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)((t-t).p)\\ &\,=\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)(p).\end{split}

(5)

2.1 Generalization to Non-Abelian Groups

Now let $G$ be a Hausdorff topological group with $e$ its neutral element and let $B$ be a Hausdorff $G$ -space throughout, i.e. we have a continuous $G$ -action

\_.\_\colon G\times B\rightarrow B,\,(g,b)\mapsto g.b.

(We use the letter “ $B$ ” as it will also serve as a base space for vector bundles from Section 2.2 onward.) We now consider the not necessarily abelian group $G$ acting on $B$ in place of the additive group $\mathbb{R}$ acting on $S^{1}$ in order to see where we get stuck, when we try to obtain a counterpart to equation (5) or equivalently $G$ -equivariance.

In analogy to the above example we assume we have a continuous compactly supported function ${\omega^{\prime}\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ and we also adapt the $\mathbin{\hat{\star}}$ -operator from (2) by setting

\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)(b)\coloneqq\int_{G}\omega^{\prime}(h)f(h.b)d\mu^{\prime}(h)

(6)

for all continuous ${f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ and ${b\in B}$ , where ${\mu^{\prime}\colon\mathcal{B}(B)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ is some locally finite Borel measure on $B$ . We now examine where the operation

\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}-\,\colon f\mapsto\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f

fails to be $G$ -equivariant. The $G$ -action on functions is defined completely analogously as

\_.\_\colon G\times\mathbb{R}^{B}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{B},\,(g,f)\mapsto g.f

where

g.f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,b\mapsto(g.f)(b)\coloneqq f\big(g^{-1}.b\big).

Now let ${g\in G}$ , ${f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , and ${b\in B}$ . Then a counterpart to the left-hand side of (5) simplifies as

\begin{split}\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}g.f\big)(g.b)&=\int_{G}\omega^{\prime}(h)(g.f)(hg.b)d\mu^{\prime}(h)\\ &=\int_{G}\omega^{\prime}(h)f\big(g^{-1}hg.b\big)d\mu^{\prime}(h).\end{split}

(7)

If $G$ was abelian (or if $g$ was in the center of $G$ ), then we could use ${g^{-1}hg=h}$ to continue with a simplification similar to (4) ending in (6). In order to get rid of the conjugation by $g^{-1}$ in the last term of (7), we make both the measure for integration $\mu^{\prime}$ and the filter $\omega^{\prime}$ dependent on the argument provided to cross-correlations, here $b$ in (6) and $g.b$ in (7).

So for the remainder of this paper excluding appendices we assume we have a family

\{\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}

of locally finite Borel measures that is compatible with the group action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ in the sense that

\mu_{g.b}=c_{g*}\mu_{b}

(8)

for any ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , where ${c_{g*}\mu_{b}}$ is the pushforward measure of $\mu_{b}$ along the conjugation ${c_{g}\colon G\rightarrow G,\,h\mapsto ghg^{-1}}$ . For now, we also assume we have a continuous function

\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}

so as to provide a filter ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ for any ${b\in B}$ subject to the constraint

\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)=\omega(h,b)

(9)

for all ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . Moreover, in order to obtain well-defined cross-correlations, we assume each of the partially applied (filter) functions ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ for ${b\in B}$ to be compactly supported. Then for a continuous function ${f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , we define a cross-correlation by

\omega\mathbin{\check{\star}}f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,b\mapsto\int_{G}\omega(h,b)f(h.b)d\mu_{b}(h).

(10)

Indeed, as a counterpart to (5) we obtain the equation

\begin{split}(\omega\mathbin{\check{\star}}g.f)(g.b)&\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorrCheck}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\omega(h,g.b)(g.f)(hg.b)d\mu_{g.b}(h)\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:muInv}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\omega(h,g.b)f\big(g^{-1}hg.b\big)dc_{g*}\mu_{b}(h)\\ &\,=\int_{G}\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)f(h.b)d\mu_{b}(h)\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaConstraintSimple}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\omega(h,b)f(h.b)d\mu_{b}(h)\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorrCheck}}}{{=}}(\omega\mathbin{\check{\star}}f)(b)\end{split}

(11)

for all ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . Here the third equality follows from the change of variables formula for the pushforward measure $c_{g*}\mu_{b}$ .

2.1.1 Continuity of Cross-Correlations

In order for the function defined in (10) to be continuous, we also assume the family $\{\mu_{b}\}_{b\in B}$ to be continuous in the sense that

B\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,b\mapsto\int_{G}f^{\prime}(h)d\mu_{b}(h)

is a continuous function for any compactly supported continuous ${f^{\prime}\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ . Here the support of $f^{\prime}$ – denoted by ${\supp f^{\prime}}$ – refers to the closure of the set ${\{g\in G\mid f^{\prime}(g)\neq 0\}}$ and by saying that $f^{\prime}$ is compactly supported we mean that its support is compact. In the Appendix A.1 and specifically Theorem A.6 we show how such a family of measures can be constructed in a natural way.

2.1.2 Constraints as Stabilizer Invariances

Even though the filter $\omega$ now depends on a point ${b\in B}$ as a second argument, the constraint (9) entails that the partially applied function ${\omega(-,g.b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ is fully determined by ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ for any ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . In particular, if $G$ acts transitively on $B$ , then providing a filter as ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ is the same as to provide just one of the partially applied functions ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ for some ${b\in B}$ satisfying the constraint

\omega\big(ghg^{-1},b\big)=\omega(h,b)

(12)

for all ${g\in G_{b}}$ and ${h\in G}$ . Here $G_{b}$ denotes the stabilizer of $G$ at $b$ .

If the group $G$ is abelian, then each partially applied function ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ for ${b\in B}$ is entirely unconstrained and we have ${\omega(-,b)=\omega(-,b^{\prime})}$ for any two ${b,b^{\prime}\in B}$ in the same orbit of the action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ . In this case, it comes down to a design choice, whether we use a filter as $\omega$ that is effectively parametrized by the orbits of ${G\curvearrowright B}$ (which are points of the quotient space ${G\backslash B}$ ) or if we reuse the same weights provided by a single unconstrained filter ${\omega^{\prime}\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ across all orbits with the cross-correlation specified by (6).

In particular, if $G$ is abelian and it acts transitively on $B$ , then a cross-correlation as specified by (10) reduces to a cross-correlation as in (6) with a single unconstrained filter ${\omega^{\prime}\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ . This is in stark contrast with the previous approach to group convolutions, where there is a non-trivial constraint on filters as soon as there are non-trivial stabilizers, see for example (Kondor and Trivedi, 2018, Definition 5), (Cohen et al., 2019, Theorem 3.2), or (Gerken et al., 2023, Section 3.2).

In general, we may choose some fundamental domain ${D\subset B}$ so the filter $\omega$ is fully described by the family

\{\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\}_{b\in D}

of partially applied functions, each satisfying the constraint (12) for all ${g\in G_{b}}$ and ${h\in G}$ .

Similarly, the measure $\mu_{b}$ for ${b\in B}$ is invariant under conjugation by any element in the stabilizer $G_{b}$ . So if $G$ acts transitively on $B$ , then it suffices to provide a single locally finite Borel measure $\mu_{b}$ that is invariant under conjugation by $G_{b}$ for some choice of basepoint ${b\in B}$ . (In this case we set ${\mu_{g.b}\coloneqq c_{g*}\mu_{b}}$ for each ${g\in G}$ , which is not an overdetermined definition by our $G_{b}$ -invariance constraint on $\mu_{b}$ .)

This will be a recurring theme throughout the present paper. Oftentimes we will have some entity parametrized by $B$ in a $G$ -equivariant way entailing a $G_{b}$ -invariance (or later $G_{b}$ -equivariance) constraint for the single entity associated to any ${b\in B}$ . The benefit of working with such parametrized entities is that it eliminates the need to check the independence of constructions from some choice of fundamental domain (or basepoint for transitive actions), which can be viewed as an implementation detail.

2.1.3 Generalization to Vector-Valued Functions

We also note that the cross-correlation defined in (10) readily generalizes to a transformation of vector-valued functions via matrix-valued filters. More specifically, for ${m,n\in\mathbb{N}}$ , for a continuous vector-valued function ${f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ , and for a matrix-valued compactly supported filter ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}}$ satisfying the constraint (9) for all ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , we obtain a cross-correlation ${\omega\mathbin{\check{\star}}f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}}$ in much the same way. In particular, the proof of $G$ -equivariance is provided by the same calculation (11). In the remainder of this Section 2, we generalize this form of a cross-correlation to $G$ -equivariant vector bundles.

2.2 Mackey Sections

First of all, recall from Section 2.1 that $G$ is a Hausdorff topological group and $B$ a Hausdorff $G$ -space. In order to reduce cross-correlations transforming sections of vector bundles to cross-correlations transforming vector-valued functions, Cohen et al. (2019, Section 2.3.1) proposed the use of Mackey functions. In this Section 2.2 we generalize or adapt this notion to the case of a not necessarily transitive $G$ -action.

To this end, let ${E\rightarrow B}$ be a $G$ -equivariant real vector bundle over $B$ . Roughly speaking, this amounts to $E$ being a $G$ -space, the bundle projection ${E\rightarrow B}$ being $G$ -equivariant, and each fiber $E_{b}$ above some ${b\in B}$ (with respect to the projection ${E\rightarrow B}$ ) carries the structure of a real vector space. A continuous map ${f\colon B\rightarrow E}$ with ${f(b)\in E_{b}}$ for all ${b\in B}$ is henceforth referred to as a continuous section of the bundle ${E\rightarrow B}$ , and we denote the real vector space of such continuous sections by ${\Gamma(E)}$ .

Now let ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ be a continuous section. In order to transform $f$ by forming a cross-correlation, it will be convenient to express the value ${f(h.b)\in E_{h.b}}$ for some ${h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ as a vector in $E_{b}$ . To this end, we define the map

\tilde{f}\colon G\times B\rightarrow E,\,(h,b)\mapsto h^{-1}.f(h.b)

(13)

making the diagram

(14)

commute. Moreover, $\tilde{f}$ satisfies the two equations

	$\displaystyle\tilde{f}(h,g.b)$	$\displaystyle=g.\tilde{f}(hg,b)\quad\text{and}$		(15)
	$\displaystyle\tilde{f}(e,b)$	$\displaystyle=f(b)$		(16)

for all ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ .

Remark 2.1.

The map ${\tilde{f}\colon G\times B\rightarrow E}$ is completely determined by the equations (15) and (16). In order to see this, let ${h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . Then we reobtain the defining formula for $\tilde{f}(h,b)$ provided in (13) only using the equations (15) and (16):

	$\displaystyle\tilde{f}(h,b)$	$\displaystyle=h^{-1}.h.\tilde{f}(eh,b)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:periodicity}}}{{=}}h^{-1}.\tilde{f}(e,h.b)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:mackeyToSection}}}{{=}}h^{-1}.f(h.b).$

Definition 2.2 (Mackey Sections).

We name a lift $\tilde{f}$ as in diagram (14) satisfying equation (15) a Mackey section and we say that $\tilde{f}$ is the Mackey section associated to the section ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ . We denote the real vector space of Mackey sections of $E$ by $M(E)$ .

If $G$ acts transitively on $B$ , then $\tilde{f}$ (and hence $f$ ) is uniquely determined by the partially applied function ${\tilde{f}(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow E_{b}\cong\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ for any choice of basepoint ${b\in B}$ . Moreover, the equation (15) provides the $G_{b}$ -equivariance constraint

\tilde{f}(h,b)=g.\tilde{f}(hg,b)

for any ${g\in G_{b}}$ and ${h\in G}$ . This is the type of function ${G\rightarrow E_{b}\cong\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ that Cohen et al. (2019, Section 2.3.1) refer to as a Mackey function, i.e. a function ${G\rightarrow E_{b}\cong\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ is a Mackey function (and hence determines a section of $E$ ) iff it satisfies such $G_{b}$ -equivariance constraint. So the Mackey section ${\tilde{f}\in M(E)}$ can also be thought of as the family ${\big\{\tilde{f}(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow E_{b}\big\}_{b\in B}}$ of Mackey functions with respect to any basepoint in $B$ associated to the section ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ .

2.2.1 Group Actions on (Mackey) Sections

We now define compatible $G$ -actions on sections and Mackey sections of the vector bundle ${E\rightarrow B}$ . The associated $G$ -action on ordinary sections can be seen as a form of conjugation:

\_.\_\colon G\times\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(E),\,(g,f)\mapsto g.f,

where

(g.f)(b)\coloneqq g.f\big(g^{-1}.b\big)

(17)

for all ${b\in B}$ . As already noted above, in the present paper function application takes precedence over the binary operator “ $\_.\_$ ” denoting group actions. The corresponding $G$ -action on Mackey sections is more simple:

\_.\_\colon G\times M(E)\rightarrow M(E),\,\big(g,\tilde{f}\big)\mapsto g.\tilde{f},

where

\big(g.\tilde{f}\big)(h,b)\coloneqq\tilde{f}\big(g^{-1}h,b\big)

(18)

for all ${h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ .

Proposition 2.3.

The map

\Gamma(E)\rightarrow M(E),\,f\mapsto\tilde{f}

(19)

sending a section ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ to its associated Mackey section ${\tilde{f}\in M(E)}$ is an $\mathbb{R}$ -linear $G$ -equivariant bijection with inverse

M(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(E),\,\tilde{f}\mapsto\tilde{f}(e,-).

(20)

Proof.

Let ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ and let ${\tilde{f}\in M(E)}$ be the associated Mackey section. By the equation (16), the partial evaluation at the neutral element (20) is a left inverse to the map (19). As (15) is the defining equation of the Definition 2.2 of Mackey sections and as $\tilde{f}$ is completely determined by equations (15) and (16) considering Remark 2.1, the map (20) is a right inverse as well. For the proof of $G$ -equivariance let ${g,h\in G}$ , and ${b\in B}$ . Then we have

	$\displaystyle\big(\widetilde{g.f}\big)(h,b)$	$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:definitionMackeySection}}}{{=}}h^{-1}.(g.f)(h.b)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:conjAction}}}{{=}}h^{-1}.g.f\big(g^{-1}.h.b\big)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\big(g^{-1}h\big)^{-1}.f\big(g^{-1}h.b\big)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:definitionMackeySection}}}{{=}}\tilde{f}\big(g^{-1}h,b\big)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:mackeyAction}}}{{=}}g.\tilde{f}(h,b).\qed$

2.3 Cross-Correlations with a Filter

First of all, recall from Section 2.1 that

\{\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}

is a continuous family of locally finite Borel measures such that

\mu_{g.b}=c_{g*}\mu_{b}

(8 revisited)

for any ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , where ${c_{g*}\mu_{b}}$ is the pushforward measure of $\mu_{b}$ along the conjugation

c_{g}\colon G\rightarrow G,\,h\mapsto ghg^{-1}.

Now suppose we have $G$ -equivariant real vector bundles ${E\rightarrow B}$ and ${F\rightarrow B}$ . We aim to transform a section ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ to a section of ${F\rightarrow B}$ . So for each point ${b\in B}$ we need to give a vector in $F_{b}$ in terms of $f$ . When doing this by a cross-correlation generalizing (10), we obtain such a vector in $F_{b}$ as a weighted sum or integral over the vector-values of the “Mackey function”

\tilde{f}(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow E_{b},\,h\mapsto h^{-1}.f(h.b).

More specifically, the filter $\omega$ gives a linear map

\omega(h,b)\colon E_{b}\rightarrow F_{b}

(21)

for each ${b\in B}$ and ${h\in G}$ so a value in $F_{b}$ can be obtained as an integral

\int_{G}\omega(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)\in F_{b}.

(22)

In order to formalize the idea that $\omega$ is continuous as an assignment of linear maps (21), we use the homomorphism bundle ${\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)\rightarrow B}$ whose fiber above ${b\in B}$ is the vector space of linear maps ${E_{b}\rightarrow F_{b}}$ . So formally, we assume that $\omega$ is a continuous lift in the commutative diagram

(23)

Now in order for the integral (22) to be well-defined we impose that ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E_{b},F_{b})}$ has compact support for any ${b\in B}$ and in order for the map ${\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(F)}$ defined by $\omega$ to be $G$ -equivariant, we impose the constraint

\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)=g.\omega(h,b)(v)

(24)

for all ${g,h\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ . Thus, if ${D\subseteq B}$ is some fundamental domain, then the filter $\omega$ is fully determined by all partially applied maps

\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E_{b},F_{b})\cong\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}

for ${b\in D}$ (where ${m,n\in\mathbb{N}}$ ). Moreover, for any one such partially applied map the equation (24) yields the constraint

\omega\big(ghg^{-1},b\big)(g.v)=g.\omega(h,b)(v)

for all ${g\in G_{b}}$ , ${h\in G}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ .

Now in light of Proposition 2.3, to describe a linear $G$ -equivariant map ${\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(F)}$ using $\omega$ we may as well describe a linear $G$ -equivariant map ${M(E)\rightarrow M(F)}$ . This appears to be a sensible choice, considering the use of $\tilde{f}$ in the integral (22).

Definition 2.4 (Group Cross-Correlations).

For a Mackey section ${\tilde{f}\in M(E)}$ we define the cross-correlation ${\omega\star\tilde{f}\in M(F)}$ by

\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(h,b)\coloneqq\int_{G}\omega(k,b)\big(\tilde{f}(hk,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)

(25)

for all ${h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ .

Theorem 2.5 (Well-Defined Cross-Correlations).

For ${\tilde{f}\in M(E)}$ the cross-correlation ${\omega\star\tilde{f}}$ is indeed a Mackey section in the sense of Definition 2.2.

Proof.

By construction of ${\omega\star\tilde{f}}$ we have the commutative diagram

Now let ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . In order to complete our proof, we have to show the equation (15) with ${\omega\star\tilde{f}}$ substituted for ${\tilde{f}}$ . And indeed we have

	$\displaystyle\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(h,g.b)$	$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorr}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\omega(k,g.b)\big(\tilde{f}(hk,g.b)\big)d\mu_{g.b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:periodicity}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\omega(k,g.b)\big(g.\tilde{f}(hkg,b)\big)d\mu_{g.b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle\,\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:muInv}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\omega(k,g.b)\big(g.\tilde{f}(hkg,b)\big)dc_{g*}\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\int_{G}\omega\big(gkg^{-1},g.b\big)\big(g.\tilde{f}(hgk,g.b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaConstraint}}}{{=}}\int_{G}g.\omega(k,b)\big(\tilde{f}(hgk,g.b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =g.\int_{G}\omega(k,b)\big(\tilde{f}(hgk,g.b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorr}}}{{=}}g.\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(hg,b).$

Here the fourth equality follows from the change of variables formula for the pushforward measure $c_{g*}\mu_{b}$ . ∎

Remark 2.6.

If the measure ${\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ is left-invariant for all ${b\in B}$ , then we may write the cross-correlation (25) also as

\begin{split}\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(h,b)&=\int_{G}\omega(k,b)\big(\tilde{f}(hk,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)\\ &=\int_{G}\omega\big(h^{-1}k,b\big)\big(\tilde{f}(k,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)\end{split}

(26)

for all ${h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , which is an adaptation of the formula provided by (Cohen et al., 2019, Equation 7) and (Gerken et al., 2023, Definition 3.8) to the case of a not necessarily transitive group action. By defining

\omega^{\prime}\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F),\,(h,b)\mapsto\omega\big(h^{-1},b\big)

we may then also write the cross-correlation (25) as a convolution:

\big(\omega^{\prime}\ast\tilde{f}\big)(h,b)\coloneqq\int_{G}\omega^{\prime}\big(k^{-1}h,b\big)\big(\tilde{f}(k,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)

for ${h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . Note the subtle difference in notation with $\ast$ substituted for $\star$ . Indeed, we have

	$\displaystyle\big(\omega^{\prime}\ast\tilde{f}\big)(h,b)$	$\displaystyle=\int_{G}\omega^{\prime}\big(k^{-1}h,b\big)\big(\tilde{f}(k,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G}\omega\big(h^{-1}k,b\big)\big(\tilde{f}(k,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorrLeftInv}}}{{=}}\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(h,b).$

However, as this can only be done for left-invariant measures, we stick with Definition 2.4 albeit the clumsy wording.

As we defined this general notion of a cross-correlation as a transformation outputting Mackey sections, the proof of $G$ -equivariance is a straightforward calculation.

Lemma 2.7 (Equivariance of Cross-Correlations).

The map

\omega\star-\colon M(E)\rightarrow M(F),\,\tilde{f}\mapsto\omega\star\tilde{f}

is $G$ -equivariant.

Proof.

For ${\tilde{f}\in M(E)}$ , ${g,h\in G}$ , and ${b\in B}$ we have

	$\displaystyle\big(\omega\star g.\tilde{f}\big)(h,b)$	$\displaystyle=\int_{G}\omega(k,b)\big((g.\tilde{f})(hk,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G}\omega(k,b)\big(\tilde{f}\big(g^{-1}hk,b\big)\big)d\mu_{b}(k)$
		$\displaystyle=\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)\big(g^{-1}h,b\big)$
		$\displaystyle=\big(g.\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)\big)(h,b).\qed$

3 Orbitwise Integral Transforms

In the previous Section 2.3 we introduced a form of cross-correlation transforming sections of some $G$ -equivariant real vector bundle ${E\rightarrow B}$ to sections of another such vector bundle ${F\rightarrow B}$ . In the remainder of this paper, we compare this notion of a cross-correlation to that of an integral transform of sections ${T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(F)}$ for some kernel $\kappa$ . Informally, a kernel $\kappa$ is an assignment of a linear map

\kappa(c,b)\colon E_{c}\rightarrow F_{b}

(27)

to any ${b\in B}$ and any $c$ within the receptive field of $b$ ; so the value of the integral transform ${T_{\kappa}(f)}$ of a section ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ at ${b\in B}$ can be written as

T_{\kappa}(f)(b)=\int\kappa(c,b)(f(c))dc\in F_{b}

(28)

with the domain of integration and its measure to be determined.

Now suppose ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ is a section of $E$ and that ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ is a filter as in the previous Section 2.3. Then the value of the resulting section ${\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,-)\in\Gamma(F)}$ at some point ${b\in B}$ can be written as

\int_{G}\omega(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)\in F_{b}.

(22 revisited)

Moreover, as the Mackey function ${\tilde{f}(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow E_{b}}$ only sees values of $f$ at points that are in the same orbit as $b$ , the receptive field of $b$ is constrained to its orbit ${G.b\subseteq B}$ . So in order to obtain an integral transform $T_{\kappa}$ comparable to cross-correlations in the sense of Definition 2.4, we assume $G.b$ to be the domain of integration in (28) and the kernel $\kappa$ to be defined on

\{(c,b)\in B\times B\mid c\in G.b\}=\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b,

where the right-hand side denotes the disjoint union as a set endowed with the subspace topology of ${B\times B}$ . Then in order to use $G.b$ as a domain of integration in (28), we also need a locally finite Borel measure ${\bar{\mu}_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G.b)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ . So we also assume that we have a family

\{\bar{\mu}_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G.b)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}

of locally finite Borel measures. As the scope of this paper is confined to $G$ -equivariant integral transforms, we further impose the equation

\bar{\mu}_{g.b}=(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b}

(29)

for all ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , where ${(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b}}$ is the pushforward measure of $\bar{\mu}_{b}$ along the self-homeomorphism

g.\_\colon B\rightarrow B,\,b\mapsto g.b.

In particular, the measure $\bar{\mu}_{b}$ is $G_{b}$ -invariant for any ${b\in B}$ . For an in depth discussion on how such families of measures satisfying even more restrictive constraints such as $G$ -invariance can be obtained in a natural way, consider the Appendix A.2.

Now in order to formalize the idea that $\kappa$ is continuous as an assignment of linear maps (27), we view the natural surjections ${E\times B\rightarrow B\times B}$ and ${B\times F\rightarrow B\times B}$ as vector bundles over ${B\times B}$ and we assume that $\kappa$ is a continuous lift in the commutative diagram

with each partially applied lift ${\kappa(-,b)\colon G.b\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{b})}$ for ${b\in B}$ compactly supported. The associated orbitwise integral transform ${T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F),\,f\mapsto T_{\kappa}(f)}$ is then defined by

T_{\kappa}(f)\colon B\rightarrow F,\,b\mapsto\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c),

(30)

where $\Gamma^{\prime}(F)$ denotes the vector space of all not necessarily continuous sections of the vector bundle ${F\rightarrow B}$ . As we did not impose any relation or compatibility on the measures $\bar{\mu}_{b}$ and $\bar{\mu}_{c}$ for ${G.b\neq G.c}$ , we cannot guarantee continuity for sections obtained as the output of $T_{\kappa}$ . However, if we can write ${T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F)}$ using cross-correlations, as we will discuss in Section 4, then the continuity of the sections it outputs follows a posteriori.

3.1 Equivariance of Orbitwise Integral Transforms

In the context of $G$ -invariant measures on the base space $B$ , constraints on kernels entailing their integral transforms be $G$ -equivariant have been widely studied. In the following we show that essentially the same constraint as provided by (Gerken et al., 2023, Section 4.2) is sufficient and under suitable tameness assumptions also necessary for an orbitwise integral transform as defined by (30) to be $G$ -equivariant. More specifically, this constraint on a kernel $\kappa$ as above is that we have the equation

g.\kappa(c,b)(v)=\kappa(g.c,g.b)(g.v)

(31)

for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in G.b}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ .

Lemma 3.1.

If we have equation (31) for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in G.b}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ , then the integral transform ${T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F)}$ is $G$ -equivariant.

Proof.

For ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ , ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ let ${b^{\prime}\coloneqq g^{-1}.b}$ . Then we have

	$\displaystyle T_{\kappa}(g.f)(b)$	$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,b)((g.f)(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,b)\big(g.f\big(g^{-1}.c\big)\big)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\kappa\big(gg^{-1}.c,gg^{-1}.b\big)\big(g.f\big(g^{-1}.c\big)\big)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:kappaConstraint}}}{{=}}\int_{G.b}g.\kappa\big(g^{-1}.c,g^{-1}.b\big)\big(f\big(g^{-1}.c\big)\big)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle=g.\int_{G.b}\kappa\big(g^{-1}.c,b^{\prime}\big)\big(f\big(g^{-1}.c\big)\big)d\bar{\mu}_{g.b^{\prime}}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:muBarInv}}}{{=}}g.\int_{G.b}\kappa\big(g^{-1}.c,b^{\prime}\big)\big(f\big(g^{-1}.c\big)\big)d(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b^{\prime}}(c)$
		$\displaystyle=g.\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,b^{\prime})(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b^{\prime}}(c)$
		$\displaystyle=g.T_{\kappa}(f)(b^{\prime})$
		$\displaystyle=g.T_{\kappa}(f)\big(g^{-1}.b\big)$
		$\displaystyle=\big(g.T_{\kappa}(f)\big)(b).\qed$

Proposition 3.2.

Suppose that the integral transform ${T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F)}$ is $G$ -equivariant. Moreover, for any ${b\in B}$ we assume that the measure ${\bar{\mu}_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G.b)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ is strictly positive, that $G.b$ is paracompact, and that any compactly supported continuous section of the restricted vector bundle ${E|_{G.b}\rightarrow G.b}$ has a continuous extension to a section of ${E\rightarrow B}$ , where ${E|_{G.b}\coloneqq\bigcup_{c\in G.b}E_{c}}$ . Then we have the equation (31) for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in G.b}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ .

Proof.

Let ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${g\in G}$ . Then we have

\begin{split}\int_{G.b}g.\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)&=g.\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)\\ &=g.T_{\kappa}(f)(b)\\ &=\big(g.T_{\kappa}(f)\big)(g.b)\\ &=T_{\kappa}(g.f)(g.b)\\ &=\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,g.b)((g.f)(c))d\bar{\mu}_{g.b}(c)\\ &\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:muBarInv}}}{{=}}\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,g.b)\big(g.f\big(g^{-1}.c\big)\big)d(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)\\ &=\int_{G.b}\kappa(g.c,g.b)(g.f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c).\end{split}

(32)

Now for ${c\in G.b}$ let

\xi(c)\colon E_{c}\rightarrow F_{g.b},\,v\mapsto\xi(c)(v)\coloneqq g.\kappa(c,b)(v)-\kappa(g.c,g.b)(g.v).

By the previous equation (32) we have

\int_{G.b}\xi(c)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)=0

(33)

for all sections ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ and we have to show that ${\xi(c)(v)=0}$ for all ${c\in B}$ and ${v\in E_{c}}$ . To this end, it suffices to show that

(\alpha\circ\xi(c))(v)=0

for all linear forms ${\alpha\colon F_{g.b}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , ${c\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ . Now let ${\alpha\colon F_{g.b}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ be a linear form and let ${\sigma\in\Gamma_{c}(E^{*}|_{G.b})}$ be defined by

\sigma(v)\coloneqq(\alpha\circ\xi(c))(v)

for all ${c\in G.b}$ and ${v\in E_{c}}$ , where ${E^{*}|_{G.b}\coloneqq\bigcup_{c\in G.b}E_{c}^{*}}$ is the restricted bundle of dual spaces. Moreover, suppose we have a compactly supported continuous section ${f\in\Gamma_{c}(E|_{G.b})}$ of the restricted vector bundle ${E|_{G.b}\rightarrow G.b}$ . By assumption there is a continuous extension ${\hat{f}\in\Gamma(E)}$ of $f$ to a section defined on all of $B$ . Furthermore, we have

	$\displaystyle 0$	$\displaystyle=\alpha(0)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xiVanishing}}}{{=}}\alpha\left(\int_{G.b}\xi(c)\big(\hat{f}(c)\big)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)\right)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}(\alpha\circ\xi(c))\big(\hat{f}(c)\big)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\sigma(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c).$

Thus, we conclude from Lemma B.1 that ${\sigma=0}$ and hence

(\alpha\circ\xi(c))(v)=\sigma(v)=0

for all ${c\in B}$ and ${v\in E_{c}}$ . ∎

Corollary 3.3.

Suppose the action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ is transitive, that $B$ is paracompact, and that ${\bar{\mu}_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(B)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ is strictly positive for some (hence any) ${b\in B}$ . If ${T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F)}$ is $G$ -equivariant, then we have the equation (31) for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in G.b}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ .

4 Integral Transforms as Cross-Correlations

In this Section 4 we establish a close relationship between orbitwise integral transforms and cross-correlations. In particular, we will provide a construction for writing a $G$ -equivariant orbitwise integral transform associated to a kernel $\kappa$ as a cross-correlation with a filter $\omega$ . As it turns out, such a filter $\omega$ may not be fully determined by $\kappa$ . So in general, lifting an integral transform to a cross-correlation requires some choices to be made. Before we discuss this in full generality, we demonstrate at a simple example how this may require some trade-offs.

4.1 Example with Real Numbers and Integers

Let ${B\coloneqq\mathbb{R}}$ and let ${G\coloneqq\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{Z}}$ . We define a $G$ -action on $B$ by setting

g.b\coloneqq g_{1}+g_{2}+b

for all ${g=(g_{1},g_{2})\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${b\in\mathbb{R}}$ . Moreover, we assume we have identical trivial vector bundles

E\coloneqq B\times\mathbb{R}\eqqcolon F\rightarrow B,\,(b,v)\mapsto b;

so we also identify their sections with continuous functions ${B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ . Furthermore, the action on ${E=F}$ is confined to the first component:

g.(b,v)\coloneqq(g.b,v)

for ${g\in G}$ and ${(b,v)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}=E}$ . So for a function ${f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ as a section of $E$ its associated Mackey section can be identified with the function

\tilde{f}\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,(g,b)\mapsto f(g.b).

For ${b,c\in B}$ the kernel $\kappa$ provides a linear map ${\kappa(c,b)\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , which we identify with the corresponding scalar coefficient making the kernel a continuous function ${\kappa\colon B\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ . Similarly, we view any filter $\omega$ as a function ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ .

Now let ${\bar{\mu}\colon\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ to be the Lebesgue measure and let ${\mu\colon\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ be the product measure of the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}$ and the counting measure on $\mathbb{Z}$ . As the Lebesgue measure also is a Haar measure and as such translation invariant, the constant family of measures ${\{\bar{\mu}_{b}\coloneqq\bar{\mu}\}_{b\in B}}$ satisfies the required constraint (29). Moreover, as $G$ is abelian the constant family of measures ${\{\mu_{b}\coloneqq\mu\}_{b\in B}}$ satisfies the constraint (8).

Now if we had a filter ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ with the desired properties, then in particular the equation

\begin{split}\int_{G}\omega(h,b)f(h.b)d\mu(h)&=\int_{G}\omega(h,b)\tilde{f}(h,b)d\mu(h)\\ &=\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b)\\ &=T_{\kappa}(f)(b)\\ &=\int_{B}\kappa(c,b)f(c)d\bar{\mu}(c)\end{split}

(34)

would be satisfied for all continuous functions ${f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ and all ${b\in B}$ . So in order to find a filter $\omega$ satisfying (34), we may continuously choose for each pair ${(c,b)\in\supp\kappa}$ an element ${\theta(c,b)\in G}$ with

c=\theta(c,b).b

(35)

and set

\omega(\theta(c,b),b)\coloneqq\kappa(c,b)

(36)

with all other values of $\omega$ set to $0$ . To this end, we could define the continuous map

\theta\colon B\times B\rightarrow G,\,(c,b)\mapsto(c-b,0),

(37)

which works for any kernel ${\kappa\colon B\times B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ irrespective of its support.

4.1.1 Special Support of Kernel

Now let

S_{i}\coloneqq\{(c,b)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\mid|c-b-i|\leq\varepsilon\}

for ${i=-1,0,1}$ and some small ${0<\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2}}$ and suppose we have

\supp\kappa\subseteq R\coloneqq S_{-1}\cup S_{0}\cup S_{1}

as pictured in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: The region

R

containing the support of

\kappa

shaded in red.

In this case we may choose for $\theta$ the continuous map

\theta\colon R\rightarrow G,\,(c,b)\mapsto\begin{cases}(c-b-1,1)&(c,b)\in S_{1}\\ (c-b,0)&(c,b)\in S_{0}\\ (c-b+1,-1)&(c,b)\in S_{-1}.\end{cases}

(38)

As $G$ is abelian and as the action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ is transitive, we have ${\omega(-,b)=\omega(-,b^{\prime})}$ by the constraint (24) for all ${b,b^{\prime}\in B}$ , see also Section 2.1.2. Now let ${\omega^{\prime}\coloneqq\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ for some (hence any) ${b\in B}$ . We consider the support of the filter $\omega^{\prime}$ depending on our choice for $\theta$ . If we use $\theta$ as specified in (37) to define $\omega$ using equation (36), then we have

\supp\omega^{\prime}\subseteq\bigcup_{i=-1,0,1}[i-\varepsilon,i+\varepsilon]\times\{0\}

(39)

whereas if we use $\theta$ as specified in (38), then we have

\supp\omega^{\prime}\subseteq[-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]\times\{-1,0,1\}.

(40)

In case we have (40) for the support, then any discretization of $\omega^{\prime}$ can be represented by a fully populated 2D array, which is untrue for (39).

So clearly, there is a trade-off to be made here. On the one hand, we have the construction using (37) that works irrespective of the support of $\kappa$ , and on the other hand there is the construction using (38) that only works for ${\supp\kappa\subseteq R}$ but it has the benefit that $\omega^{\prime}$ can be discretized by a fully populated 2D array. For this reason, our general construction of the filter $\omega$ will not only depend on the kernel $\kappa$ itself but also on a choice as we had it here with $\theta$ .

4.1.2 Comparison to “Bi-Equivariant Kernels”

Before we proceed with the construction of filters from kernels, we use the above example, to compare the present notion of a group cross-correlation to the approach by Cohen et al. (2019), which is also surveyed in (Gerken et al., 2023, Section 3.2). In their terminology the function ${\omega^{\prime}\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ is a “one-argument kernel” and their constraint on $\omega^{\prime}$ (which in their notation is $\kappa$ for both, their one- and their two-argument kernel) is bi-equivariance with respect to the stabilizer of the group action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ ; this is (Cohen et al., 2019, Theorem 3.2). Specialized to the present example of the abelian group $G$ and trivial vector bundles over $B$ , bi-equivariance amounts to invariance with respect to addition of elements in the stabilizer ${\{(k,-k)\}_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\subset G}$ , i.e.

\omega^{\prime}(g_{1},g_{2})\stackrel{{\scriptstyle!}}{{=}}\omega^{\prime}(g_{1}+k,g_{2}-k)

(41)

for all ${g_{1}\in\mathbb{R}}$ and ${g_{2},k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ . Now independent of our choice for the map ${\theta\colon\supp\kappa\rightarrow G}$ , any filter ${\omega^{\prime}\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ obtained by the above construction will not satisfy this equation (41).

Now suppose that by some other means we obtained some continuous function ${\omega^{\prime}\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying the equation (41) for all ${g_{1}\in\mathbb{R}}$ and ${g_{2},k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ . As $G$ is an abelian group acting transitively on ${B=\mathbb{R}}$ we now use the simplified form of a cross-correlation provided by (6) with respect to the measure ${\mu^{\prime}\coloneqq\mu}$ . Moreover, let ${f\colon B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ be a continuous function and let ${b\in B}$ . Then as far as the first integral of the following calculation is finite, Fubini’s theorem implies

	$\displaystyle\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)(b)$	$\displaystyle=\int_{G}\omega^{\prime}(g)f(g.b)d\mu^{\prime}(g)$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{g_{2}\in\mathbb{Z}\penalty\ }\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(g_{1},g_{2})f(g_{1}+g_{2}+b)dg_{1}$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:stabilizerInvariance}}}{{=}}\sum_{g_{2}\in\mathbb{Z}\penalty\ }\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(g_{1}+g_{2},g_{2}-g_{2})f(g_{1}+g_{2}+b)dg_{1}$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{g_{2}\in\mathbb{Z}\penalty\ }\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(g_{1}+g_{2},0)f(g_{1}+g_{2}+b)dg_{1}$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{g_{2}\in\mathbb{Z}\penalty\ }\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\omega^{\prime}(g_{1},0)f(g_{1}+b)dg_{1}$

and hence ${\big(\omega^{\prime}\mathbin{\hat{\star}}f\big)(b)=0}$ . So for the group action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ , bi-equivariance of the filter/“one-argument kernel” $\omega^{\prime}$ results in vanishing, degenerate, or ill-defined cross-correlations. With that said, the present example is ruled out when assuming compact stabilizers as in (Gerken et al., 2023, Remark 3.2).

In summary, the constraint (24) on the filter $\omega$ , which specializes to no constraint on $\omega^{\prime}$ for the present example, is lenient enough to accommodate non-compact stabilizers. Moreover, while this additional flexibility also results in more than one filter providing the same integral transform, it allows the description as a cross-correlation to inform the shape of the tensor holding the trainable parameters of the filter $\omega^{\prime}$ (or $\omega$ in more general settings).

4.2 Compatible Measures

When defining cross-correlations in Definition 2.4, we used a family of measures ${\{\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}}$ defined on the group $G$ and for integral transforms we use a family of measures ${\{\bar{\mu}_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G.b)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}}$ defined on the orbits of the action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ . In order to link these two families of measures, we assume there is a third family

\{\nu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G_{b})\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}

of left-invariant locally finite Borel measures on the stabilizers of the action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ with the following two properties. Closely analogous to our constraints on the family ${\{\mu_{b}\}_{b\in B}}$ we require that we have

\nu_{g.b}=c_{g*}\nu_{b}

for all ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , where ${c_{g*}\nu_{b}}$ is the pushforward measure of $\nu_{b}$ along the conjugation

c_{g}\colon G_{b}\rightarrow G_{g.b},\,h\mapsto ghg^{-1}

here as a map between stabilizers. Secondly, relating the three families of measures, we assume we have the equation

\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{b}(h)=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}f(kh)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)

(42)

for all ${b\in B}$ and compactly supported continuous functions ${f\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ . In this equation (42) we view $k.b$ as a pattern being matched against all $c$ within the domain of integration $G.b$ . More specifically, as we integrate over ${c\in G.b}$ the free variable $k$ is bound to some ${k\in G}$ such that ${c=k.b}$ . As the measure $\nu_{b}$ is left-invariant, the value of the inner integral

\int_{G_{b}}f(kh)d\nu_{b}(h)

is independent of the particular choice of $k$ satisfying the equation ${c=k.b}$ .

Now in order to construct a filter $\omega$ from a kernel $\kappa$ we will also need a way of associating to a real number ${r\in\mathbb{R}}$ a function ${f\colon G_{b}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ (where ${b\in B}$ ) whose integral ${\int_{G_{b}}f(h)d\nu_{b}(h)}$ evaluates to $r$ . If $G_{b}$ is compact, then we may define $f$ to be the constant function evaluating to ${r/\nu_{b}(G_{b})}$ . However, this construction only works when ${\nu_{b}(G_{b})}$ is finite and even then, we might prefer to concentrate the distribution of values towards the neutral element ${e\in G_{b}}$ in order to limit the support of the resulting filter $\omega$ . To this end, we further assume we have a continuous function

\delta\colon\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G_{b}\rightarrow[0,\infty),

where $\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G_{b}=\{(h,b)\in G\times B\mid h\in G_{b}\}}$ inherits the subspace topology from ${G\times B}$ , with the following properties. For each ${b\in B}$ the partially applied function ${\delta(-,b)\colon G_{b}\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ is compactly supported and normed with respect to $\nu_{b}$ :

\int_{G_{b}}\delta(h,b)d\nu_{b}(h)=1.

(43)

Moreover, we assume we have the constraint

\delta\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)=\delta(h,b)

(44)

for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${h\in G_{b}}$ .

In most situations, we may well prefer to choose ${\delta}$ in such a way that integration of each partially applied function ${\delta(-,b)\colon G_{b}\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ with ${b\in B}$ over any Borel set of ${G_{b}}$ provides an approximation of the dirac measure on $G_{b}$ , which sends Borel sets containing the neutral element $e$ to $1$ and all other Borel sets to $0$ .

Examples 4.1.

In support of these assumptions, we provide the following two examples.

1.

In the example discussed in the previous Section 4.1, the stabilizer of any ${b\in B=\mathbb{R}}$ is the discrete additive subgroup

$G_{b}=\{(g_{1},g_{2})\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{Z}\mid g_{1}-g_{2}=0\}\eqcolon H\cong\mathbb{Z}.$

So we may choose ${\nu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G_{b})\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ to be the counting measure on ${G_{b}=H}$ for all ${b\in B}$ . With $\{\mu_{b}\}_{b\in B}$ and $\{\bar{\mu}_{b}\}_{b\in B}$ defined as in Section 4.1, we also have the equation (42) for all ${b\in B}$ and compactly support continuous ${f\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ . Finally, we may define

$\delta\colon H\times B\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,h\mapsto\begin{cases}1&h=(0,0)\\ 0&\text{otherwise,}\end{cases}$

which is easily seen to satisfy the equations (43) and (44). Using these choices with the general construction that follows in Section 4.4, we recover the filter $\omega$ we described in Section 4.1 (for the corresponding choice of $\theta$ ).
2.

For a more generic example, we assume the action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ satisfies the Assumption A.7. In this case, which is a generalization of (i), the Theorem A.9 provides families of measures $\{\mu_{b}\}_{b\in B}$ , $\{\bar{\mu}_{b}\}_{b\in B}$ , and $\{\nu_{b}\}_{b\in B}$ satisfying all of the above constraints (and more) as well as a function

$\psi\colon G\times B\rightarrow[0,\infty)$

with ${\psi(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ compactly supported for each ${b\in B}$ , with

$\psi(h,b)=\psi\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)$ (62 anticipated)

for all ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , and with

$\int_{G_{b}}\psi(h,b)d\nu_{b}(h)=1$ (45)

for all ${b\in B}$ . Using the function ${\psi\colon G\times B\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ we define the function

$\delta\colon\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G_{b}\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,(h,b)\mapsto\psi(h,b)$

as its restriction to ${\{(h,b)\in G\times B\mid h\in G_{b}\}}$ . As ${\psi(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ is compactly supported for each ${b\in B}$ , corresponding partially applied functions ${\delta(-,b)\colon G_{b}\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ are compactly supported as well. Moreover, the equations (43) and (44) follow directly from the equations (45) and (62) respectively.

4.3 Projection of Filters to Kernels

Before we get to lifting kernels to filters for cross-correlations, we provide a construction of the converse: How an integral transform can be obtained from a filter for cross-correlations. To this end, suppose we have $G$ -equivariant real vector bundles ${E\rightarrow B}$ and ${F\rightarrow B}$ and let ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ be a filter as in Section 2.3. Then we define the kernel

\kappa\colon\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E\times B,B\times F)

\kappa(k.b,b)(v)\coloneqq\int_{G_{b}}\omega(kh,b)\big(h^{-1}k^{-1}.v\big)d\nu_{b}(h)

(46)

for all ${b\in B}$ , ${k\in G}$ , and ${v\in E_{k.b}}$ . As the Borel measure ${\nu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G_{b})\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ is left-invariant for any ${b\in B}$ , the kernel $\kappa$ is not overdetermined by these assignments (46).

Lemma 4.2.

Let ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in G.b}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ . Then we have the equation

g.\kappa(c,b)(v)=\kappa(g.c,g.b)(g.v).

(31 revisited)

Proof.

Let ${k\in G}$ with ${c=k.b}$ . Then we have

	$\displaystyle g.\kappa(c,b)(v)$	$\displaystyle=g.\kappa(k.b,b)(v)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:projectionToKernel}}}{{=}}g.\int_{G_{b}}\omega(kh,b)\big(h^{-1}k^{-1}.v\big)d\nu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G_{b}}g.\omega(kh,b)\big(h^{-1}k^{-1}.v\big)d\nu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaConstraint}}}{{=}}\int_{G_{b}}\omega\big(gkhg^{-1},g.b\big)\big(gh^{-1}k^{-1}.v\big)d\nu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G_{b}}\omega\big(gkg^{-1}ghg^{-1},g.b\big)\big(gh^{-1}g^{-1}gk^{-1}.v\big)d\nu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G_{b}}\omega\big(gkg^{-1}h,g.b\big)\big(h^{-1}gk^{-1}.v\big)dc_{g*}\nu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G_{b}}\omega\big(gkg^{-1}h,g.b\big)\big(h^{-1}gk^{-1}g^{-1}g.v\big)d\nu_{g.b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:projectionToKernel}}}{{=}}\kappa\big(gkg^{-1}g.b,g.b\big)(g.v)$
		$\displaystyle=\kappa(gk.b,g.b)(g.v)$
		$\displaystyle=\kappa(g.c,g.b)(g.v).\qed$

We also note that, as the map ${G\rightarrow B,\,k\mapsto k.b}$ is continuous and as ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E_{b},F_{b})}$ has compact support, the support of the partially applied map ${\kappa(-,b)\colon G.b\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{b})}$ is compact as well for all ${b\in B}$ .

Theorem 4.3.

For any continuous section ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ and any ${b\in B}$ we have

T_{\kappa}(f)(b)=\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b),

where ${\tilde{f}\colon G\times B\rightarrow E}$ is the Mackey section associated to $f$ in the sense of Definition 2.2.

Proof.

We have

	$\displaystyle T_{\kappa}(f)(b)$	$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\kappa(k.b,b)(f(k.b))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:projectionToKernel}}}{{=}}\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}\omega(kh,b)\big(h^{-1}k^{-1}.f(k.b)\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}\omega(kh,b)\big((kh)^{-1}.f(kh.b)\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)$
		$\displaystyle\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:definitionMackeySection}}}{{=}}\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}\omega(kh,b)\big(\tilde{f}(kh,b)\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G}\omega(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b).\qed$

4.4 Lifting Kernels to Filters

We now provide a converse to the construction of the previous Section 4.3. To this end, suppose we have $G$ -equivariant real vector bundles ${E\rightarrow B}$ and ${F\rightarrow B}$ and let

\kappa\colon\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E\times B,B\times F)

be a kernel as in Section 3. As a partially applied cross-correlation ${\omega\star-\colon M(E)\rightarrow M(F)}$ is $G$ -equivariant by Lemma 2.7 for a filter $\omega$ satisfying the constraint (24), the orbitwise integral transform ${T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F)}$ is necessarily $G$ -equivariant if it can be written in terms of such cross-correlations. Moreover, under the mild tameness assumptions of Proposition 3.2, the integral transform $T_{\kappa}$ is $G$ -equivariant iff its kernel $\kappa$ satisfies the constraint

g.\kappa(c,b)(v)=\kappa(g.c,g.b)(g.v)

(31 revisited)

for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in G.b}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ , which we assume to be satisfied from this point forward.

As we have seen already with the example of Section 4.1, lifting a kernel $\kappa$ to a filter $\omega$ depends on a choice of the following. We need some closed subset ${R\subseteq\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}}G.b}$ that contains the support of ${\kappa}$ and that is $G$ -invariant with respect to the diagonal action ${G\curvearrowright B\times B}$ . Moreover, we need to choose some continuous map

\theta\colon R\rightarrow G

subject to the constraint

c=\theta(c,b).b

(35 revisited)

for all ${(c,b)\in R}$ . Now in order for our construction to promote the given constraint (31) for the kernel $\kappa$ to the constraint (24), which we require from the filter $\omega$ , we need to impose an additional constraint on $\theta$ . More specifically, for any ${g\in G}$ and ${(c,b)\in R}$ we impose the equation

g\theta(c,b)=\theta(g.c,g.b)g.

(47)

While we make no use of the so called category of elements associated to the group action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ (as a set-valued functor on $G$ ), it does provide the illustration

of this additional constraint (47).

Remark 4.4.

We add some comments related to the map ${\theta\colon R\rightarrow G}$ .

1.

The additional constraint (47) is equivalent to the map ${\theta\colon R\rightarrow G}$ being $G$ -equivariant with respect to the diagonal action on ${R\subseteq B\times B}$ and the action by conjugation on $G$ .

Let ${b\in B}$ , ${S\coloneqq\{c\in G.b\mid(c,b)\in R\}}$ , and let ${E|_{S}\coloneqq\bigcup_{c\in S}E_{c}}$ be the restriction of $E$ to $S$ . Then the partially applied map ${\theta(-,b)\colon S\rightarrow G}$ provides the trivialization

of the restricted vector bundle ${E|_{S}\rightarrow S}$ . As we require the support of the partially applied kernel ${\kappa(-,b)}$ to be contained in $S$ , the present construction can only be applied when the vector bundle ${E\rightarrow B}$ is trivializable above the receptive field of $b$ . In order to circumvent this limitation, we generalize the present construction in Section 4.4.1.

As we collected all the necessary ingredients, we now define the filter ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ by setting

\omega(h,b)(v)\coloneqq\begin{cases}\delta\big(\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}h,b\big)\kappa(h.b,b)(h.v)&(h.b,b)\in R\\ 0&(h.b,b)\notin R\end{cases}

(48)

for all ${h\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ .

Lemma 4.5.

For ${b\in B}$ the partially applied map ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E_{b},F_{b})}$ has compact support.

Proof.

Let ${b\in B}$ , let ${S\coloneqq\{c\in G.b\mid(c,b)\in R\}}$ , let

\varphi\colon S\times G_{b}\rightarrow G,\,(c,h)\mapsto\theta(c,b)h,

and let

C\coloneqq(\supp\kappa(-,b))\times(\supp\delta(-,b))\subseteq S\times G_{b}.

As $C$ is compact by our assumptions on the kernel $\kappa$ and the function $\delta$ and as $\varphi$ is continuous, it suffices to show the inclusion ${\supp\omega(-,b)\subseteq\varphi(C)}$ . To this end, let ${h\in\supp\omega(-,b)}$ . Then we have ${(h.b,b)\in\supp\kappa(-,b)}$ and ${k\coloneqq\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}h\in\supp\delta(-,b)}$ . As a result, we have ${(h.b,k)\in C}$ and

h=\theta(h.b,b)\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}h=\theta(h.b,b)k=\varphi(h.b,k)\in\varphi(C).\qed

Lemma 4.6.

Let ${g,h\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ . Then we have the equation

\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)=g.\omega(h,b)(v).

(24 revisited)

Proof.

As the subset $\displaystyle{R\subseteq\bigsqcup_{b^{\prime}\in B}G.b^{\prime}}$ is assumed or chosen to be $G$ -invariant with respect to the diagonal action ${G\curvearrowright B\times B}$ , we have ${(h.b,b)\in R}$ iff we have ${\big(ghg^{-1}g.b,g.b\big)=(gh.b,g.b)\in R}$ . Thus, if ${(h.b,b)\in R}$ , then we obtain the equation

	$\displaystyle\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)$	$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaDefinition}}}{{=}}\delta\big(\theta(gh.b,g.b)^{-1}ghg^{-1},g.b\big)\kappa(gh.b,g.b)(gh.v)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:kappaConstraint}}}{{=}}\delta\big(\theta(gh.b,g.b)^{-1}ghg^{-1},g.b\big)g.\kappa(h.b,b)(h.v)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:thetaConstraint}}}{{=}}\delta\big(g\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}hg^{-1},g.b\big)g.\kappa(h.b,b)(h.v)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:deltaConstraint}}}{{=}}\delta\big(\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}h,b\big)g.\kappa(h.b,b)(h.v)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\,g.\big(\delta\big(\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}h,b\big)\kappa(h.b,b)(h.v)\big)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaDefinition}}}{{=}}g.\omega(h,b)(v)$

and if ${(h.b,b)\notin R}$ , then we have

\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)=0=g.\omega(h,b)(v).\qed

In view of the preceding Lemmas 4.5 and 4.6, the map ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ can now be used as a filter in cross-correlations in the sense of Definition 2.4.

Theorem 4.7.

Let ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ be a continuous section and let

\tilde{f}\colon G\times B\rightarrow E,\,(h,b)\mapsto h^{-1}.f(h.b)

be the corresponding Mackey section in the sense of Definition 2.2. Then we have

\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b)=T_{\kappa}(f)(b)

for any ${b\in B}$ .

Proof.

Let ${b\in B}$ , ${S\coloneqq\{c\in G.b\mid(c,b)\in R\}}$ , and ${\tilde{S}\coloneqq\{h\in G\mid h.b\in S\}}$ . For any ${h\in\tilde{S}}$ we have

\begin{split}\omega(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)&\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaDefinition}}}{{=}}\delta\big(\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}h,b\big)\kappa(h.b,b)\big(hh^{-1}.f(h.b)\big)\\ &\penalty\ =\delta\big(\theta(h.b,b)^{-1}h,b\big)\kappa(h.b,b)(f(h.b)).\end{split}

(49)

Hence, for any ${c\in S}$ and ${h\in G_{b}}$ we obtain the equation

\begin{split}\omega(\theta(c,b)h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(\theta(c,b)h,b)\big)\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:hCanceling}}}{{=}}\delta\big(\theta(\theta(c,b)h.b,b)^{-1}\theta(c,b)h,b\big)\kappa(\theta(c,b)h.b,b)(f(\theta(c,b)h.b))\\ &\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:thetaLift}}}{{=}}\delta\big(\theta(c,b)^{-1}\theta(c,b)h,b\big)\kappa(c,b)(f(c))\\ &\penalty\ =\,\delta(h,b)\kappa(c,b)(f(c)).\end{split}

(50)

As an end result we obtain

	$\displaystyle\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b)$	$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\,\int_{G}\omega(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\,\int_{\tilde{S}}\omega(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:fubini}}}{{=}}\int_{S}\int_{G_{b}}\omega(kh,b)\big(\tilde{f}(kh,b)\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:thetaLift}}}{{=}}\int_{S}\int_{G_{b}}\omega(\theta(c,b)h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(\theta(c,b)h,b)\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omega_delta}}}{{=}}\int_{S}\int_{G_{b}}\delta(h,b)\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\,\int_{S}\int_{G_{b}}\delta(h,b)d\nu_{b}(h)\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:deltaNormed}}}{{=}}\int_{S}\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\,T_{\kappa}(f)(b).\qed$

Corollary 4.8.

For any continuous section ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ the section ${T_{\kappa}(f)\in\Gamma^{\prime}(F)}$ is continuous as well and hence a posteriori a vector in $\Gamma(F)$ .

Proof.

Let ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ . By the preceding Theorem 4.7 we have ${T_{\kappa}(f)=\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,-)}$ , which is continuous. ∎

In the case of a transitive action with compact stabilizers by a unimodular group $G$ , Aronsson (2022) has shown that any $G$ -equivariant transformation of vector bundle sections satisfying some additional tameness assumption can be obtained from cross-correlations. His construction is more abstract than the above construction of $\omega$ from $\kappa$ and $\theta$ , and it is not clear whether the resulting filter (there referred to as a kernel and denoted by $\kappa$ ) satisfies any particular constraints (such as bi-equivariance or a constraint similar to ours).

4.4.1 Generalization to Large Receptive Fields

The preceding construction lifting the filter $\kappa$ to a filter $\omega$ depended on the choice of a $G$ -invariant subset ${R\subseteq\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}}G.b}$ supporting the kernel $\kappa$ and a continuous map ${\theta\colon R\rightarrow G}$ subject to the constraint

c=\theta(c,b).b

(35 revisited)

for all ${(c,b)\in R}$ , which is also reasonable considering the example of Section 4.1. However, in view of Remark 4.4.(ii), the existence of such a map ${\theta\colon R\rightarrow G}$ also entails that the vector bundle ${E\rightarrow B}$ is trivializable above the receptive field of any ${b\in B}$ . For most applications, this is likely no serious limitation, as the concept of a convolutional neural network is also informed by the idea that the receptive field of each node will be localized around this node. So it is not a far stretch to assume that the receptive field of each ${b\in B}$ will be sufficiently local for ${E\rightarrow B}$ to be trivializable above the receptive field of $b$ . With that said, it is still a reasonable question, whether the concept of a group convolutional layer can be pushed beyond vector bundles that are trivializable above each receptive field. And indeed, as with many other local constructions, such can be done using a sufficiently fine partition of unity.

We now assume there is a locally finite partition of unity

\{\varphi_{i}\colon\textstyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}}G.b\rightarrow[0,1]\}_{i\in I}

on $\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b}$ that is $G$ -invariant with respect to the diagonal action ${G\curvearrowright B\times B}$ . Moreover, let ${U_{i}\coloneqq\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]}$ for ${i\in I}$ and suppose we have a family

\{\theta_{i}\colon\overline{U}_{i}\rightarrow G\}_{i\in I}

of continuous maps subject to the constraints

	$\displaystyle c$	$\displaystyle=\theta_{i}(c,b).b$		(51)
	$\displaystyle\text{and}\quad g\theta_{i}(c,b)$	$\displaystyle=\theta_{i}(g.c,g.b)g$		(52)

for all ${g\in G}$ , ${i\in I}$ , and ${(c,b)\in\overline{U}_{i}}$ , where $\overline{U}_{i}$ is the closure of $U_{i}$ in $\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b}$ .

Also note, while our previous choice of a supporting region $R$ and a map ${\theta\colon R\rightarrow G}$ had to take the support of the kernel $\kappa$ into consideration, the partition of unity ${\{\varphi_{i}\}_{i\in I}}$ and the family of maps ${\{\theta_{i}\}_{i\in I}}$ can be chosen independently from the kernel $\kappa$ .

Now let ${i\in I}$ and

\kappa_{i}\colon\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E\times B,B\times F),\,(c,b)\mapsto\varphi_{i}(c,b)\kappa(c,b).

(53)

As ${\varphi_{i}\colon\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b}\rightarrow[0,1]}$ is $G$ -invariant with respect to the diagonal action ${G\curvearrowright B\times B}$ , the constraint (31) on the kernel $\kappa$ is inherited by this new kernel $\kappa_{i}$ , i.e. we have

g.\kappa_{i}(c,b)(v)=\kappa_{i}(g.c,g.b)(g.v)

(54)

for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in G.b}$ , and ${v\in E_{c}}$ . Thus, we have the $G$ -equivariant integral transform

T_{i}\coloneqq T_{\kappa_{i}}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F),\,f\mapsto T_{\kappa_{i}}(f)

by Lemma 3.1. As we have ${\supp\kappa_{i}\subseteq\overline{U}_{i}}$ by construction of $\kappa_{i}$ and as we have the map ${\theta_{i}\colon\overline{U}_{i}\rightarrow G}$ as well as the constraints (54), (51), and (52), we are now back in the special case, where we can lift the kernel $\kappa_{i}$ to a filter ${\omega_{i}\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ by setting

\omega_{i}(h,b)(v)\coloneqq\begin{cases}\delta\big(\theta_{i}(h.b,b)^{-1}h,b\big)\kappa_{i}(h.b,b)(h.v)&(h.b,b)\in\overline{U}_{i}\\ 0&(h.b,b)\notin\overline{U}_{i}\end{cases}

(55)

for all ${h\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ in close analogy to (48).

Lemma 4.9.

For ${i\in I}$ and ${b\in B}$ the partially applied map ${\omega_{i}(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E_{b},F_{b})}$ has compact support.

Lemma 4.10.

Let ${i\in I}$ , ${g,h\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ . Then we have the equation

\omega_{i}\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)=g.\omega_{i}(h,b)(v).

(56)

Proof of Lemmas 4.9 and 4.10.

These are Lemmas 4.5 and 4.6 now just reformulated for the herein defined filter ${\omega_{i}\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ . ∎

In view of the preceding Lemmas 4.9 and 4.10, the map ${\omega_{i}\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ can now be used as a filter in cross-correlations in the sense of Definition 2.4 for each ${i\in I}$ .

Theorem 4.11.

Let ${i\in I}$ , let ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ be a continuous section, and let

\tilde{f}\colon G\times B\rightarrow E,\,(h,b)\mapsto h^{-1}.f(h.b)

be the corresponding Mackey section in the sense of Definition 2.2. Then we have

\big(\omega_{i}\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b)=T_{i}(f)(b)

(57)

for any ${b\in B}$ .

Proof.

This is Theorem 4.7 now just reformulated for the kernel $\kappa_{i}$ , the integral transform ${T_{i}=T_{\kappa_{i}}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma^{\prime}(F)}$ , and the filter ${\omega_{i}\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ . ∎

With the preceding Theorem 4.11 we now managed to lift each localized kernel $\kappa_{i}$ to a filter $\omega_{i}$ for ${i\in I}$ . In order to lift the kernel $\kappa$ itself, we intend to use the sum of the family of filters ${\{\omega_{i}\}_{i\in I}}$ :

\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F),\,(h,b)\mapsto\sum_{i\in I}\omega_{i}(h,b).

(58)

Note however, as the indexing set $I$ may be infinite, the sum (58) may not be well-defined a priori. In order to prove that (58) is well-defined and also in order to show that it does indeed lift the kernel $\kappa$ , we now use the locally finite open cover ${\{U_{i}\}_{i\in I}}$ of $\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{b\in B}G.b}$ , to obtain a locally finite open cover of the orbit ${G.b}$ for each ${b\in B}$ as follows. Let

U^{b}_{i}\coloneqq\{c\in G.b\mid(c,b)\in U_{i}\}

for each ${i\in I}$ and ${b\in B}$ . Then the family ${\{U^{b}_{i}\}_{i\in I}}$ is a locally finite open cover of $G.b$ for each ${b\in B}$ .

Lemma 4.12.

For each ${b\in B}$ the set

I_{b}\coloneqq\{i\in I\mid U^{b}_{i}\cap\supp\kappa(-,b)\neq\emptyset\}

is finite.

Proof.

This follows from Lemma C.1 and our assumption that the partially applied kernel ${\kappa(-,b)\colon G.b\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{b})}$ is compactly supported. ∎

Now let ${b\in B}$ . For ${i\in I}$ the partially applied filter ${\omega_{i}(-,b)}$ vanishes iff the partially applied kernel ${\kappa_{i}(-,b)\colon G.b\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{b})}$ vanishes. Thus, by the preceding Lemma 4.12 there are only finitely many ${i\in I}$ with ${\omega_{i}(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ non-vanishing. As a result

\omega(-,b)=\sum_{i\in I}\omega_{i}(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)

is a finite sum of compactly supported maps ${G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ , which implies the following.

Lemma 4.13.

For ${b\in B}$ the partially applied map ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E_{b},F_{b})}$ has compact support.

Lemma 4.14.

Let ${g,h\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ . Then we have the equation

\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)=g.\omega(h,b)(v).

(24 revisited)

Proof.

We have

	$\displaystyle\omega\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)$	$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaSum}}}{{=}}\sum_{i\in I}\omega_{i}\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)(g.v)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaFamConstraint}}}{{=}}\sum_{i\in I}g.\omega_{i}(h,b)(v)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =g.\big(\textstyle{\sum_{i\in I}}\omega_{i}(h,b)(v)\big)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaSum}}}{{=}}g.\omega(h,b)(v).\qed$

In view of the preceding Lemmas 4.13 and 4.14, the map ${\omega\colon G\times B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F)}$ can now be used as a filter in cross-correlations in the sense of Definition 2.4.

Theorem 4.15.

Let ${f\in\Gamma(E)}$ be a continuous section and let

\tilde{f}\colon G\times B\rightarrow E,\,(h,b)\mapsto h^{-1}.f(h.b)

be the corresponding Mackey section in the sense of Definition 2.2. Then we have

\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b)=T_{\kappa}(f)(b)

for any ${b\in B}$ .

Proof.

Let ${b\in B}$ . Then we have

	$\displaystyle\big(\omega\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b)$	$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorr}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\omega(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaSum}}}{{=}}\int_{G}\sum_{i\in I}\omega_{i}(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\sum_{i\in I}\int_{G}\omega_{i}(h,b)\big(\tilde{f}(h,b)\big)d\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:xcorr}}}{{=}}\sum_{i\in I}\big(\omega_{i}\star\tilde{f}\big)(e,b)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:omegaFamIsLift}}}{{=}}\sum_{i\in I}T_{i}(f)(b)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:orbitwiseIntegralTrafo}}}{{=}}\sum_{i\in I}\int_{G.b}\kappa_{i}(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\int_{G.b}\sum_{i\in I}\kappa_{i}(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:localizedKernel}}}{{=}}\int_{G.b}\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(c,b)\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\penalty\ =\int_{G.b}\kappa(c,b)(f(c))d\bar{\mu}_{b}(c)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:orbitwiseIntegralTrafo}}}{{=}}T_{\kappa}(f)(b).$

Here the second but last equality follows from the family ${\{\varphi_{i}\}_{i\in I}}$ being a partition of unity. ∎

5 Other Integral Transforms

In the previous Section 4 we related cross-correlations to orbitwise integral transforms. Yet, in the literature more general integral transforms are considered as layers of group convolutional neural networks as well. In this Section 5 we discuss the trade-offs between group cross correlations in the sense of Definition 2.4 and more general integral transforms.

To this end, let $B$ and $C$ be Hausdorff $G$ -spaces with $B$ paracompact and let ${E\rightarrow B}$ and ${F\rightarrow C}$ be $G$ -equivariant vector bundles. Moreover, suppose we have a continuous compactly supported section ${\kappa\in\Gamma_{c}(\mathrm{Hom}(E\times C,B\times F))}$ of the homomorphism bundle ${\mathrm{Hom}(E\times C,B\times F)\rightarrow B\times C}$ as well as a $G$ -invariant locally finite strictly positive Borel measure ${\bar{\mu}\colon\mathcal{B}(B)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ . By reasoning similar to Section 3.1, we obtain that the associated integral transform

T_{\kappa}\colon\Gamma(E)\rightarrow\Gamma(F),\,f\mapsto T_{\kappa}(f),

where

T_{\kappa}(f)\colon C\rightarrow F,\,c\mapsto\int_{B}\kappa(b,c)(f(b))d\bar{\mu}(b),

is $G$ -equivariant iff we have

g.\kappa(b,c)(v)=\kappa(g.b,g.c)(g.v)

(59)

for all ${g\in G}$ , ${b\in B}$ , ${c\in C}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ ; see also (Gerken et al., 2023, Section 4.2).

For similar reasons as provided in Section 2.1.2, the kernel $\kappa$ is fully determined by the family of partially applied maps

\{\kappa(-,c)\colon B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{c})\}_{c\in D}

for some fundamental domain ${D\subseteq C}$ (and similarly for a fundamental domain of $B$ ). For each ${c\in D}$ the partially applied map ${\kappa(-,c)\colon B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{c})}$ is then subject to the constraint

g.\kappa(b,c)(v)=\kappa(g.b,c)(g.v)

for all ${g\in G_{c}}$ , ${b\in B}$ , and ${v\in E_{b}}$ . Now in some literature (in particular when ${G\curvearrowright C}$ is transitive so a single point suffices for a fundamental domain) an integral transform is also considered a convolution when expressed in terms of such partially applied maps; see for example (Gerken et al., 2023, Section 4.3).

There is a fundamental difference however. The partially applied map ${\kappa(-,c)\colon B\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{c})}$ for each ${c\in D}$ still is a section to the potentially twisted vector bundle ${\mathrm{Hom}(E,F_{c})\rightarrow B}$ . Whereas in the setting of Section 2.3, the partially applied map ${\omega(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathrm{Hom}(E_{b},F_{b})}$ for some ${b\in B}$ is just a vector-valued function. This is also illustrated by the diagram (23) where $\omega$ is pictured as a lift to a vector bundle over $B$ , while $\kappa$ is a section to a vector bundle over the product ${B\times C}$ . So in the generality considered in this paper, there are equivariant integral transforms that cannot be expressed in terms of cross correlations with the same benefits as Definition 2.4.

Funding

This research has been supported by EPSRC grant EP/Y028872/1, Mathematical Foundations of Intelligence: An “Erlangen Programme” for AI.

References

Aronsson (2022) J. Aronsson Homogeneous vector bundles and g-equivariant convolutional neural networks. Sampl. Theory Signal Process. Data Anal. 20 (2) (en). Cited by: §4.4.
Bronstein et al. (2021) M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, and P. Veličković Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges. Note: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13478 External Links: 2104.13478 Cited by: Appendix C.
Cohen et al. (2019) T. S. Cohen, M. Geiger, and M. Weiler A general theory of equivariant cnns on homogeneous spaces. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Cited by: §1, §1, §2.1.2, §2.2, §2.2, Remark 2.6, §4.1.2, §4.1.2.
Cohen and Welling (2016) T. Cohen and M. Welling Group equivariant convolutional networks. In Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, M. F. Balcan and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 48, New York, New York, USA, pp. 2990–2999. External Links: Link Cited by: §1.
Gerken et al. (2023) J. E. Gerken, J. Aronsson, O. Carlsson, H. Linander, F. Ohlsson, C. Petersson, and D. Persson Geometric deep learning and equivariant neural networks. Artif. Intell. Rev. 56 (12), pp. 14605–14662 (en). Cited by: §2.1.2, Remark 2.6, §3.1, §4.1.2, §4.1.2, §5, §5.
Hatcher (2003) A. Hatcher Vector bundles and k-theory. Note: https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/VBKT/VBpage.html Cited by: Appendix B.
Kondor and Trivedi (2018) R. Kondor and S. Trivedi On the generalization of equivariance and convolution in neural networks to the action of compact groups. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, J. Dy and A. Krause (Eds.), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 80, pp. 2747–2755. External Links: Link Cited by: §1, §1, §2.1.2.
Tornier (2020) S. Tornier Haar Measures. Note: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10956 External Links: 2006.10956 Cited by: §A.2, Assumption A.3.

Appendix A Constructing Families of Measures

In this Appendix A we show how one can construct families of measures as used in this paper in a natural way leaving as little to choice as possible. We start by providing the following notion.

Definition A.1.

We say that a $G$ -space $X$ is free, if there is a topological space $M$ and a $G$ -equivariant homeomorphism

X\cong M\times G.

Remark A.2.

Note that the $G$ -action associated to any free $G$ -space is necessarily fixed-point free. However, there are non-free $G$ -spaces with fixed-point free actions as for example $\mathbb{R}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$ -space under addition.

A.1 Families of Haar Measures

In order to provide a natural construction of a family of measures

\{\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B},

we impose the following.

Assumption A.3.

We assume that $G$ is locally compact and that for any ${b\in B}$ we have ${G_{b}\subseteq N}$ for the corresponding stabilizer, where ${N\coloneqq\ker\Delta=\Delta^{-1}(1)}$ is the kernel of the modular function ${\Delta\colon G\rightarrow(0,\infty)}$ , see for example (Tornier, 2020, Section 3). Moreover, we assume that ${N\backslash B}$ has a ${G/N}$ -invariant locally finite partition of unity such that each induced open is a free ${G/N}$ -space in the sense of Definition A.1.

Examples A.4.

We provide the following two cases, where the Assumption A.3 is satisfied.

1.

If $G$ is unimodular, then ${N=\Delta^{-1}(1)=G}$ and

$N\backslash B=G\backslash B\cong G\backslash B\times G/G.$

So we may choose the single constant function

$\varphi\colon G\backslash B\rightarrow[0,1],\,G.b\mapsto 1$

for a partition of unity $\{\varphi\}$ .
2.

If $G$ acts transitively on $B$ , then ${G/N}$ acts freely and transitively on ${N\backslash B}$ . So any choice of an $N$ -orbit $N.b$ yields an isomorphism

$G/N\rightarrow N\backslash B,\,gN=Ng\mapsto Ng.b.$

Thus, we may again choose the constant function

$\varphi\colon N\backslash B\rightarrow[0,1],\,N.b\mapsto 1$

for a partition of unity $\{\varphi\}$ .

Lemma A.5.

Under the Assumption A.3 there is a continuous function ${\lambda\colon B\rightarrow(0,\infty)}$ such that ${\lambda(g.b)=\Delta(g)\lambda(b)}$ for all ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ .

Proof.

It suffices to provide a continuous function ${\bar{\lambda}\colon N\backslash B\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ such that

\bar{\lambda}(Ng.b)=\log\Delta(g)+\bar{\lambda}(N.b)

for all ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ as is easily seen considering the diagram

To this end, let

\{\varphi_{i}\colon N\backslash B\rightarrow[0,1]\}_{i\in I}

be a locally finite ${G/N}$ -invariant partition of unity such that ${\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]}$ is a free ${G/N}$ -space for all ${i\in I}$ . Moreover, we choose ${G/N}$ -equivariant homeomorphisms

\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]\cong U_{i}\times G/N

(60)

for ${i\in I}$ . By precomposing each of the functions

U_{i}\times G/N\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,(p,gN)\mapsto\log\Delta(g)\quad\text{where ${i\in I}$}

with the corresponding homeomorphism from (60) we obtain functions ${\bar{\lambda}_{i}\colon\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ such that

\bar{\lambda}_{i}(gN.b)=\log\Delta(g)+\bar{\lambda}_{i}(N.b)

(61)

for all ${i\in I}$ , ${g\in G}$ , and ${b\in\bigcup_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]}$ . Then we define

\bar{\lambda}\colon N\backslash B\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,p\mapsto\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(p)\bar{\lambda}_{i}(p).

Now let ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . Then we have

	$\displaystyle\bar{\lambda}(Ng.b)$	$\displaystyle=\bar{\lambda}(gN.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(gN.b)\bar{\lambda}_{i}(gN.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(N.b)\bar{\lambda}_{i}(gN.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{\mathclap{\begin{subarray}{c}i\in I\\ \varphi_{i}(N.b)\neq 0\end{subarray}}}\varphi_{i}(N.b)\bar{\lambda}_{i}(gN.b)$
		$\displaystyle\!\!\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:localCoeffAdditive}}}{{=}}\sum_{\mathclap{\begin{subarray}{c}i\in I\\ \varphi_{i}(N.b)\neq 0\end{subarray}}}\varphi_{i}(N.b)\big(\log\Delta(g)+\bar{\lambda}_{i}(N.b)\big)$
		$\displaystyle=\log\Delta(g)+\sum_{\mathclap{\begin{subarray}{c}i\in I\\ \varphi_{i}(N.b)\neq 0\end{subarray}}}\varphi_{i}(N.b)\bar{\lambda}_{i}(N.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\log\Delta(g)+\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(N.b)\bar{\lambda}_{i}(N.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\log\Delta(g)+\bar{\lambda}(N.b).$

Here the third equality follows from the ${G/N}$ -invariance of the partition of unity $\{\varphi_{i}\}_{i\in I}$ and the sixth equality from

\sum_{\mathclap{\begin{subarray}{c}i\in I\\ \varphi_{i}(N.b)\neq 0\end{subarray}}}\varphi_{i}(N.b)=1.\qed

Theorem A.6.

Under the Assumption A.3 there is a continuous family

\{\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}

of Haar measures on $G$ such that

\mu_{g.b}=c_{g*}\mu_{b}

(8 revisited)

for all ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , where ${c_{g*}\mu_{b}}$ is the pushforward measure of $\mu_{b}$ along the conjugation

c_{g}\colon G\rightarrow G,\,h\mapsto ghg^{-1}.

Proof.

Let ${\mu_{0}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ be some Haar measure on $G$ and let ${\lambda\colon B\rightarrow(0,\infty)}$ be as in the previous lemma. We set ${\mu_{b}\coloneqq\lambda_{b}\mu_{0}}$ . Now let ${A\subseteq G}$ be some Borel set. Then we have

	$\displaystyle\mu_{g.b}(A)$	$\displaystyle=\lambda(g.b)\mu_{0}(A)$
		$\displaystyle=\Delta(g)\lambda(b)\mu_{0}(A)$
		$\displaystyle=\Delta(g)\mu_{b}(A)$
		$\displaystyle=\mu_{b}(Ag)$
		$\displaystyle=\mu_{b}\big(g^{-1}Ag\big)$
		$\displaystyle=\mu_{b}\big(c_{g}^{-1}(A)\big)$
		$\displaystyle=c_{g*}\mu_{b}(A).$

Finally, let ${f\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ be continuous and compactly supported. Then we have

\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{b}(h)=\int_{G}\lambda(b)f(h)d\mu_{0}(h)=\lambda(b)\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{0}(h).

Thus, the function

B\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,b\mapsto\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{b}(h)

is continuous. ∎

A.2 Families of Group Invariant Measures

In addition to a family of Haar measures $\{\mu_{b}\}_{b\in B}$ as in the previous Section A.1, we now describe the construction of compatible $G$ -invariant measures on the orbits of the action ${G\curvearrowright B}$ as well as Haar measures on the stabilizers.

Assumption A.7.

We impose the Assumption A.3 and moreover, we assume

•

we have a non-vanishing compactly supported continuous function

$\psi_{0}\colon G\rightarrow[0,\infty)$

invariant under conjugation by elements of $N$
•

and for any ${b\in B}$ the stabilizer $G_{b}$ is unimodular and the map

$\_.b\colon G\rightarrow G.b\subseteq B,\,g\mapsto g.b$

is a quotient map.

Lemma A.8.

Under the Assumption A.7 there is a continuous function

\psi\colon G\times B\rightarrow[0,\infty)

such that

\psi(h,b)=\psi\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)

(62)

for all ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ and each partially applied function ${\psi(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ (where ${b\in B}$ ) is a convex combination of functions of the form

G\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,h\mapsto\psi_{0}\big(ghg^{-1}\big)

with ${g\in G}$ .

Proof.

It suffices to construct a continuous function

\bar{\psi}\colon G\times(N\backslash B)\rightarrow[0,\infty)

such that

\bar{\psi}(h,N.b)=\bar{\psi}\big(ghg^{-1},Ng.b\big)

for all ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ and each partially applied function ${\bar{\psi}(-,N.b)\colon G\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ (where ${b\in B}$ ) is a convex combination of functions of the form

G\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,h\mapsto\psi_{0}\big(ghg^{-1}\big)

with ${g\in G}$ . To this end, let

\{\varphi_{i}\colon N\backslash B\rightarrow[0,1]\}_{i\in I}

be a locally finite ${G/N}$ -invariant partition of unity such that ${\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]}$ is a free ${G/N}$ -space for all ${i\in I}$ . Moreover, we choose ${G/N}$ -equivariant homeomorphisms

\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]\cong U_{i}\times G/N

(63)

for ${i\in I}$ . By combining the homeomorphisms (63) with the functions

G\times U_{i}\times G/N\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,(h,p,gN)\mapsto\psi_{0}\big(ghg^{-1}\big)

we obtain functions

\bar{\psi}_{i}\colon G\times\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]\rightarrow[0,\infty)

such that

\bar{\psi}_{i}(h,N.b)=\psi_{0}\big(ghg^{-1}\big)\quad\text{for some ${g\in G}$}

and for all ${i\in I}$ and ${b\in\bigcup_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]}$ and such that

\bar{\psi}_{i}(h,N.b)=\bar{\psi}_{i}\big(ghg^{-1},Ng.b\big)

(64)

for all ${i\in I}$ , ${g,h\in G}$ , and ${b\in\bigcup_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]}$ . Then we define

\bar{\psi}\colon G\times N\backslash B\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,(h,N.b)\mapsto\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(N.b)\bar{\psi}_{i}(h,N.b).

As ${\varphi_{i}(p)=0}$ for ${i\in I}$ and ${p\in(N\backslash B)\setminus\varphi_{i}^{-1}(0,1]}$ and as the partition of unity $\{\varphi_{i}\}_{i\in I}$ is locally finite, the function $\bar{\psi}$ is well-defined, continuous, and each partially applied function ${\bar{\psi}(-,N.b)}$ (where ${b\in B}$ ) is a convex combination of functions of the form

G\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,h\mapsto\psi_{0}\big(ghg^{-1}\big)

with ${g\in G}$ . Now let ${g,h\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . Then we have

	$\displaystyle\bar{\psi}(h,N.b)$	$\displaystyle=\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(N.b)\bar{\psi}_{i}(h,N.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(gN.b)\bar{\psi}_{i}\big(ghg^{-1},Ng.b\big)$
		$\displaystyle=\sum_{i\in I}\varphi_{i}(Ng.b)\bar{\psi}_{i}\big(ghg^{-1},Ng.b\big)$
		$\displaystyle=\bar{\psi}\big(ghg^{-1},Ng.b\big)$

Here the second equality follows from (64) and ${G/N}$ -invariance of the partition of unity $\{\varphi_{i}\}_{i\in I}$ . ∎

Theorem A.9.

Under the Assumption A.7 there is a family

\{\bar{\mu}_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G.b)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}

of $G$ -invariant Radon measures, there are families

\{\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}\quad\text{and}\quad\{\nu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G_{b})\rightarrow[0,\infty]\}_{b\in B}

of Haar measures, and there is a function ${\psi\colon G\times B\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ as in the previous Lemma A.8 such that

\int_{G}\psi(h,b)d\mu_{b}(h)=1=\int_{G_{b}}\psi(h,b)d\nu_{b}(h)

for all ${b\in B}$ , such that

\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{b}(h)=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}f(kh)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)

(42 revisited)

for all ${b\in B}$ and compactly supported continuous ${f\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , and such that

$\displaystyle\bar{\mu}_{g.b}$	$\displaystyle=(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b},$	(65)
$\displaystyle\mu_{g.b}$	$\displaystyle=c_{g*}\mu_{b},$
$\displaystyle\text{and}\quad\nu_{g.b}$	$\displaystyle=c_{g*}\nu_{b}$

for all ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ , where $c_{g}$ denotes the corresponding of the two vertical conjugation maps in

Moreover, the family ${\{\mu_{b}\}_{b\in B}}$ is continuous and the partially applied function ${\psi(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ is compactly supported for each ${b\in B}$ .

Remark A.10.

We note that as $\bar{\mu}_{b}$ is stated to be $G$ -invariant for any ${b\in B}$ in Theorem A.9, we could have stated equation (65) as ${\bar{\mu}_{g.b}=\bar{\mu}_{b}}$ instead. However, (65) is the equation that we will need and it is also more elementary to prove, i.e. without directly invoking $G$ -invariance.

Proof.

Let ${\psi\colon G\times B\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ be as in the previous Lemma A.8 and suppose we have some ${b\in B}$ . Let

\mu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]\quad\text{and}\quad\nu_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G_{b})\rightarrow[0,\infty]

be the unique Haar measures such that

\int_{G}\psi(h,b)d\mu_{b}(h)=1=\int_{G_{b}}\psi(h,b)d\nu_{b}(h).

It is well known there is a unique $G$ -invariant Radon measure

\bar{\mu}_{b}\colon\mathcal{B}(G.b)\rightarrow[0,\infty)

such that

\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{b}(h)=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}f(kh)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)

(42 revisited)

for any compactly supported continuous function ${f\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ , see for example (Tornier, 2020, Theorem 4.2). Now let ${g\in G}$ and ${b\in B}$ . In order to show ${\nu_{g.b}=c_{g*}\nu_{b}}$ it suffices to test ${c_{g*}\nu_{b}}$ on the partially applied function ${\psi(-,g.b)|_{G_{b}}\colon G_{g.b}\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ as here

\int_{G_{g.b}}\psi(h,g.b)dc_{g*}\nu_{b}(h)=\int_{G_{b}}\psi\big(ghg^{-1},g.b\big)d\nu_{b}(h)=\int_{G_{b}}\psi(h,b)d\nu_{b}(h)=1.

Completely analogously we obtain ${\mu_{g.b}=c_{g*}\mu_{b}}$ . Now let ${f\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ be continuous and compactly supported. Then we have

	$\displaystyle\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{g.b}}f(kh)d\nu_{g.b}(h)d(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b}(kg.b)\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{g.b}}f(kh)dc_{g}\nu_{b}(h)d(g.\_)_{}\bar{\mu}_{b}(kg.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}f\big(kghg^{-1}\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b}(kg.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}f\big(khg^{-1}\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G.b}\int_{G_{b}}f\big(gkhg^{-1}\big)d\nu_{b}(h)d\bar{\mu}_{b}(k.b)$
		$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\eqref{eq:fubini}}}{{=}}\int_{G}f\big(ghg^{-1}\big)d\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G}f(h)dc_{g*}\mu_{b}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G}f(h)\mu_{g.b}(h).$

As we defined ${\bar{\mu}_{g.b}}$ as the unique $G$ -invariant Radon measure satisfying (42) with $g.b$ substituted for $b$ , we get ${(g.\_)_{*}\bar{\mu}_{b}=\bar{\mu}_{g.b}}$ . Moreover, the partially applied function ${\psi(-,b)\colon G\rightarrow[0,\infty)}$ is compactly supported as it is a convex combination of functions of the form

G\rightarrow[0,\infty),\,h\mapsto\psi_{0}\big(ghg^{-1}\big)

with ${g\in G}$ , and its integral ${\int_{G}\psi(h,b)d\mu_{0}(h)}$ is non-zero for the same reason.

Finally, let ${f\colon G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}}$ be continuous and compactly supported as before and let ${\mu_{0}\colon\mathcal{B}(G)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ be some Haar measure on $G$ . Then we have

	$\displaystyle\int_{G}\psi(h,b)d\mu_{0}(h)\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{b}(h)$	$\displaystyle=\int_{G}\psi(h,b)d\mu_{b}(h)\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{0}(h)$
		$\displaystyle=\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{0}(h)$

for all ${b\in B}$ . As the integral ${\int_{G}\psi(h,b)d\mu_{0}(h)}$ is non-zero and continuous in ${b\in B}$ , the integral ${\int_{G}f(h)d\mu_{b}(h)}$ is continuous in ${b\in B}$ as well. ∎

Appendix B Vanishing Dual Sections

Let $B$ be a paracompact space, let ${E\rightarrow B}$ be a real vector bundle over $B$ , and let ${\mu\colon\mathcal{B}(B)\rightarrow[0,\infty]}$ be some strictly positive locally finite Borel measure on $B$ . Moreover, let ${\sigma\in\Gamma_{c}(E^{*})}$ be a compactly supported continuous section of the dual bundle ${E^{*}\rightarrow B}$ associated to $E$ . (We use $c$ as a subscript to $\Gamma$ to denote compactly supported sections.)

Lemma B.1.

If we have

\int_{B}\sigma(f(b))d\mu(b)=0

for all compactly supported continuous sections ${f\in\Gamma_{c}(E)}$ , then ${\sigma=0}$ .

Proof.

By (Hatcher, 2003, Proposition 1.2) there is an inner product

\langle\_,\_\rangle\colon E\oplus E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}

on $E$ . Let ${f\coloneqq\sigma^{\sharp}\in\Gamma_{c}(E)}$ be the section corresponding to $\sigma$ under the musical isomorphism induced by the inner product ${\langle\_,\_\rangle}$ . Then we have

\sigma(f(b))=\langle f(b),f(b)\rangle\geq 0

for all ${b\in B}$ and moreover,

\int_{B}\langle f(b),f(b)\rangle d\mu(b)=\int_{B}\sigma(f(b))d\mu(b)=0,

hence ${f(b)=0}$ for all ${b\in B}$ . Applying the musical isomorphism once more we obtain ${\sigma=f^{\flat}=0}$ . ∎

Appendix C Locally Finite Covers and Compact Subsets

Let $X$ be a topological space, let ${\{U_{i}\subseteq X\}_{i\in I}}$ be a locally finite cover of $X$ , and let ${C\subseteq X}$ be a compact subset. (In our application of the following Lemma C.1, each subset ${U_{i}\subseteq X}$ is open in $X$ . In order to prove Lemma C.1, this assumption is not needed however.)

Lemma C.1.

The set ${\{i\in I\mid U_{i}\cap X\neq\emptyset\}}$ is finite.

Proof.

For each ${x\in X}$ we choose an open neighbourhood ${V_{x}\subseteq X}$ of $x$ such that ${U_{i}\cap V_{x}\neq\emptyset}$ for only a finite number of ${i\in I}$ . Then we have the open cover ${\{V_{x}\cap C\}_{x\in X}}$ of ${C}$ . Moreover, as ${C}$ is compact, there is a finite subset ${J\subseteq X}$ with

C\subseteq\bigcup_{j\in J}V_{j}.

Now let ${i\in I}$ . Then there is some

y\in U_{i}\cap C\subseteq\bigcup_{j\in J}V_{j}.

Thus, there is some ${j_{i}\in J}$ with ${y\in V_{j_{i}}}$ and hence

U_{i}\cap V_{j_{i}}\neq\emptyset.

(66)

Now let ${P\coloneqq\{(i,j)\in I\times J\mid U_{i}\cap V_{j}\neq\emptyset\}.}$ Then we have the map

I\rightarrow P,\,i\mapsto(i,j_{i}),

(67)

which is well-defined by (66) and injective by construction. Moreover, the set $P$ is finite by construction of the family $\{V_{x}\}_{x\in X}$ and the finiteness of $J$ . In conjunction with the injectivity of the map (67), the set $I$ is finite as well. ∎