Connection to Lebesgue Constants

In the special caseσ =τ this coupling allows for an interpretation in the language of finite elements. In this case the coupling just means that one considers isotropic elements. In the meshless context, there are two possibilities to achieve such a coupling, either by coupling σandτ, or by couplingΛandΛ. We may combine the estimates (2.1.3) and (2.1.5) to get˜ a stability estimate of the form

krk_W ≤2C h_Λ, q_Λ˜

kS_Λ(r)k^RN for allr ∈ R.

In this general form, stability estimates are crucial for all discretization processes defined via trial spacesR and a sampling operatorS_Λ. They imply invertibility of the sampling operator onRand guarantee that small errors in the sampled data imply small deviations in the norm on the trial space. The upshot of the above argument is that stability bounds follow from a sampling inequality and an inverse inequality.

Guideline:Sampling inequalities and inverse inequalities imply stability bounds.

2.1.4 Connection to Lebesgue Constants

Furthermore, sampling inequalities are closely related to Lebesgue constants. See [15] for more details in the setting of radial basis functions. Nevertheless, we shall briefly point out how Lebesgue constants are related to the notion of stability. Let us assume some interpolation spaceR, i.e., a space which allows unique interpolation, which we calltrial space for reasons that become apparent later. SinceRis an interpolation space, we can build the generalized cardinal interpolantsu_λi fromR, which fulfillλ_j(u_λi) =δ_i,j, where δ_i,j denotes the Kronecker symbol. Now we can directly form an interpolant to a function f, namelyI_Λ(f) (·) = P_N

j=1λ_j(f)u_λj(·). Then we can derive a stability estimate of the

form

whereL_R,Λis calledLebesgue constant.Evaluation stabilityis another concept of stability that is closely related to Lebesgue constants. Suppose the dataS_Λ(f)is corrupted by some relative errorsE= (ǫ1, . . . , ǫ_N)^T withmax_1≤j≤N|ǫj|=ǫ. Then, This shows that the evaluation of the interpolation process is very stable in the basis of generalized cardinal functions. In addition, this short detour indicates that many concepts of univariate polynomial interpolation can be carried over to kernel based methods [35].

Now we explain how sampling inequalities lead to bounds on the Lebesgue constants. If we measure the discrete term in theℓ_∞ R^N fulfilling the interpolation conditionλ_j(f_i) =δ_i,jas well, we get

ku_λik_W ≤Ch^σ_Λkf_ikS +C(h_Λ) .

This is well known in the kernel based interpolation case, see an example below. If we now assume that there is anf_i fulfilling the interpolation condition and satisfying the estimate kfikS ≤ C˜(h_Λ), we can deduceku_λik_W ≤C˜(h_Λ)C(h_Λ). Thus, the Lebesgue constant is bounded by

XN i=1

ku_λik_W ≤NC˜(h_Λ)C(h_Λ) .

We spell out all these constants in the special situation of [15]: The authors consider as trial spaceR = span{Φ(· −x_j) : x_j ∈ X ⊂ Ω}the translates of a single radial basis function with Fourier transform Φ(ω)ˆ ≈ (1 +kωk²2)^−τ. The functionals λ_j = δ_xj are simply point evaluations atX, whereXis a grid withN points. In this special case, they obtain: C˜(h_Λ) = N^τd and C(h_Λ) = N^−τd. This, together with the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, finally yieldsP_N

i=1ku_λik_W ≤C√ N.

2.1. BASIC PROPERTIES 11 2.1.5 Connection to Norming Sets

As these examples indicate, that sampling inequalities imply that the dataSΛ(p)contains already enough information aboutp ∈ P^S. This leads to the general concept ofnorming sets[26]. We shall briefly explain this concept, but we will be more precise in Chapter 3. Λ is called anorming setforP^S if the sampling operator

S_Λ|P^S : P^S →S_Λ|P^S (P^S)⊂R^N v 7→S_Λ|P^S (v) = (λ(v))_λ∈Λ

is injective. Then it is well-known (see Chapter 3) that we can introduce another norm on P^S bykS_Λ|P^S(·)kRN. Furthermore, by application of Theorem 3.4.2, we get a reproduction formula onP^S of the form

Ψ(p) = XN j=1

a_j(Ψ)λ_j(p) for allp∈ P^S and allΨ∈ P^S∗ , where we can bound the term

XN j=1

|a_j(λ)| ≤C ,

i.e., an inequality of the form (2.1.4). This explains the terminology norming set. This detour indicates that norming sets are crucial in the proofs of sampling inequalities.

2.1.6 Strong Sampling Inequalities

If we now setk·kS = k·k_Wp^k_(Ω)andk·k_W = k·k_Wq^m_(Ω), the condition (2.1.1) simply be-comes

W_q^k(Ω)֒→W_p^m(Ω) i.e., k≥m .

If the functions are regular enough to allow for point evaluation, i.e.,k > d/p, ork≥dfor d= 1, we can state a basic form of a sampling inequality, which can be found already in [67]. To do so, we define a sampling operator

S_X : W_p^k(Ω)→R^N

u 7→(u(x₁), . . . , u(x_N))^T

for some pointsX = {x₁, . . . , x_N} ⊂ Ω, i.e., λ_i = δ_xi. The discretization will be mea-sured in terms of thefill distance as given in equation (1.0.1). Because of the geometric interpretation we are interested in the limith_X,Ω→0. We get the bound

kukL2(Ω)≤Ch^τ_X,ΩkukW₂^τ(Ω)+CkS_Xkℓ_∞(X) ,

for allu∈W_p^k(Ω). We already see that the sampling rate depends only on the “smoothness difference“ of the two continuous norms involved.

Univariate Sampling Inequalities

As an easy example we consider the univariate case [44]. We assume a sufficiently smooth functionf on an interval[a, b]and a discrete ordered setX ={x₁, . . . , x_N} ⊂ [a, b]. We can easily compute for any pointx∈[a, b]and the closest pointx_j ∈X

f(x) = f(x_j) + Z _x

xj

f^′(t)dt

⇒ |f(x)| ≤ |f(x_j)|+q

|x−x_j| sZ x

xj

|f^′(t)|²dt , which yields a typical form of asampling inequality,

kfk_L∞[a,b]≤√

h|f|W₂¹[a,b]+kf|Xk_ℓ∞(X) .

Iff is the error-function of some discretized numerical process, we can conclude that the L_∞-error is small, provided that the discrete errors are small, and that the|·|W₂¹-seminorm of the error is bounded independent of the discretization. Now we will turn to the multi-variate case.

Multivariate Sampling Inequalities

Recently several sampling inequalities for general functions u ∈ W_p^k(Ω) from certain Sobolev spaces with1< p < ∞andk > d/p, orp = 1andk≥don a domainΩ⊂R^d were obtained. They usually take the following form [67].

Theorem 2.1.1 Letkbe a positive real number andα∈N^d

0a multi-index with⌊k− |α|⌋>

d

2. Then there exists a positive constantC > 0such that for all discrete setsX ⊂Ωwith sufficiently small fill distanceh:=h_X,Ω≤C_Ω⌊k−1⌋⁻²the inequality

kD^αukLq(Ω) ≤C

h^{k−|α|−max}

n d“

1 2−¹_q”

,0o

|u|W₂^k(Ω)+h^−|α|ku|Xkℓ_∞(X)

,

holds for allu ∈W₂^k(Ω), with1 ≤ q ≤ ∞, where the explicit expression forC_Ω can be found in equation (5.3.1).

In [31] there is an analogous result. In this case the estimate takes the form kukLp(Ω)≤C

h^k|u|W_p^k(Ω)+h^d/pku|Xkℓp(X)

for allu∈W_p^k(Ω). Other extensions both concerning the range of the smoothness param-eter and unbounded domains are done in [2, 3]. Here, the fill distanceh and the smooth-nesskhave to be coupled appropriately. As we saw above, these kinds of inequalities are closely related to Markov-Bernstein inequalities [9]. If we for instance insert a polynomial p∈π_k−1(Ω)in the first inequality withα= 0, we directly see

kpk_L∞(Ω) ≤Ckp|Xk_ℓ∞(X) .

2.1. BASIC PROPERTIES 13 In this case the inherent coupling ofhandkimplies thatπ_k−1(Ω)is a Haar space overX.

Hencesampling inequalitiesin Sobolev spaces always imply stable polynomial reproduc-tions.

In this thesis (Chapter 4) we shall derive sampling inequalities with exponential sampling order. These inequalities take for instance the form

kD^αuk_Lq(Ω) ≤e^{Clog(Ch)/√h}kuk_H(Ω)+Ch^−|α|ku|Xk_ℓ∞(X) ,

where the spaceH(Ω)consists of infinitely smooth functions. This means that for a fixed p∈[1,∞)and allk∈Nwe assume that there are embedding operatorsI_k^(p)and constants E(k)such that

I_k^(p):H(Ω)→W_p^k(Ω) with

I_k^(p)

{^{H(Ω)→Wpk(Ω)}} ≤E(k) for allk∈N₀. (2.1.6) The native Hilbert spaces of Gaussian kernels are important examples of such spaces.

2.1.7 Weak Sampling Inequalities

Now we will focus on weak sampling operators. We consider a set of functionals Λ_S ={λ₁, . . . , λ_Ns} ⊂(W₂^τ(Ω))^∗ .

These functionals define aweak sampling operator

S_Λ:=



 λ₁

... λ_NS



 .

We deal with the natural question whether a sampling inequality of the form kukL2(Ω)≤Ch^τ_X,Ω|u|W₂^τ(Ω)+CkS_Λukℓ_∞(RN)

holds. This can be true only if the functionalsλ_jcontain enough information on the function u. To be precise we can again insert a polynomial of degree less thanτ to derive

kpk_L2(Ω)≤CkS_Λpk_ℓ∞(RN) .

This shows that the functionalsΛhave to form a norming set (for a definition, see Section 3.4) for the polynomials of degree less than τ. We will present two examples of such functionals, which are of current research interest.

Weak Convolution-Type Data

Following [47] we consider weak convolution-type data of the form λ_j(u) =

Z

Ω

K(x−x_j)u(x)dx , (2.1.7)

whereX ={x₁, . . . , x_n} ⊂Ωis a discrete set of points, andK :R^d→Ris atest kernel.

Schaback investigates in [47] the case ofnon-stationary data, i.e., a fixed test kernel. In contrast, we shall usestationary data, i.e., the support of the test kernel shall be scaled with the fill distancehofXinΩ. This generalizes the recovery of functions under construction of local volume integrals, as needed infinite volume methods, introduced by Sonar (partly jointly with Iske) in a series of papers [25, 53, 54, 55], where the analytical background was provided by Wendland [64]. They consider the case where the kernelKis replaced by a characteristic function.

Our main result is a sampling inequality for the described convolution-type sampling. This is a crucial ingredient for the analysis of the unsymmetric meshless local Petrov-Galerkin schemes (MLPG) by Atluri and Zhu [6, 7, 4, 5], and it fits into the general framework of recent research on the theoretical background of these methods, as can be found in [47, 45, 46].

Galerkin Methods

In Chapter 8 we shall analyze another kind of weak data, which arises naturally in the study of partial differential equations. Namely, we consider a partial differential equation in its weak formulation

findu∈W : a(u, v) =F(v) for allv∈X , (2.1.8) whereW = W₂^m(Ω)is typically a Sobolev space, a : W ×W → Ris a bilinear form, andF ∈ W^∗ is a linear functional. To solve the problem (2.1.8) approximately we use a Ritz-Galerkin approach [11, (2.5.7)] and consider the finite dimensional problem

findu∈V_Φ,X : a(u, v) =F(v) for allv∈V_Φ,X , where

V_Φ,X :=span {Φ (· −x_j) : x_j ∈X}

with an orthonormal basis {φ_j}_j=1,...,N. Under weak assumptions on the bilinear form a(·,·), which are standard in the theory of finite element methods [11], we derive a sampling inequality of the form

kukL2(Ω)≤Ch^mkukW₂^m(Ω)+C_X XN j=1

a(u, φ_j)²

for allu∈W₂^m(Ω)and a specificm >0.

2.2 Reconstruction Problems

In this section we turn our attention to very general reconstruction problems, which provide one of the most important applications of sampling inequalities. We explain how sampling

2.2. RECONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 15 inequalities can be used to measure the quality of almost every numerical recovery process where we try to recover an unknown functionf ∈ F from its given data. Let

Λ_S={λ₁, . . . , λ_NS} ⊂ F^∗,

be a set of functionals, which will be used fortesting. These functionals define asampling operatorvia

S_ΛS :=



 λ₁

... λ_NS



 ,

which we need to define sampling inequalities. We consider data given by the sampling operator, namelyS_ΛS(f).

Now we have to choose a finite dimensional spaceR, from which we would like to pick a reconstruction. This space is calledtrial space. It is at the moment completely independent of the given data. We shall therefore carefully distinguish between thetest and the trial side. Thetestside consists of the given functionalsΛ_S. Thetrialside consists of a finite dimensionaltrial spaceR, which is used to generate an approximate solution to the fitting problem. The approximation properties of the reconstruction process depend only on the trial side. In this thesis, we will mainly restrict ourselves to kernel-based methods. This means that the trial functions are generated by a single kernelK(·,·), i.e.,

R:=span{K(x_j,·) :x_j ∈X_R} ,

where the setX_R := {x₁, . . . , x_NR} ⊂ Ωis called the set of trial points. Sampling in-equalities can be used to quantify the approximation quality ofR. Note that we useRfor the tRial side andSfor the theSt side.

The main application of the sampling inequalities are, however, on the test side. Sam-pling inequalities are used in this framework to show to what extent small discrete residuals kS_ΛS(R_Rf−f)k_ℓp(X), whereR_Rf ∈ Ris a reconstruction off, imply global small er-rors. This leads to conditions on the quantity of given data.

Up to now we have treated test and trial side completely independent of each other. To prove convergence results for recovery methods, both sides have to be coupled. However, there is some general guideline for error estimates, which we explain in the next sections.

2.2.1 Error Estimates for Reconstruction Problems

Sampling inequalities can be applied in various ways. We turn our main attention on deter-ministica priorierror bounds for numerical processesI. Suppose we want to reconstruct an unknown functionf ∈ F from its dataS_Λ(f). Then we need to find a functionIΛ(f)∈ R (called anapproximanttof) from a large trial spaceR ⊂ F, which fulfills the following two properties

kIΛ(f)kS ≤ CkfkS

kS_Λ(IΛ(f)−f)kRN ≤ g(f, N)^N−→^→∞0. (2.2.1)

These conditions are fulfilled in many kernel based methods as will be seen later. They can be seen asstabilityandconsistencyproperties which are the main ingredient of nearly any convergence proof in numerical analysis. If we have a sampling inequality of the form (2.1.2), and if the assumptions (2.2.1) are satisfied, we get an error estimate of the form

kf− IΛ(f)k_W ≤Ch^σ_ΛkfkS +C(hΛ)g(f, N) .

This means that the error is controlled easily, and convergence orders are obtained. Espe-cially important is the situation, where the residualC(h_Λ)g(f, N)is bounded by

C(hΛ)g(f, N)≤h^σ_Λ^˜kfkS. This yields

kf − IΛ(f)k_W ≤C h^σ_Λ+h^˜σ_Λ

kfkS .

2.3 Types of Reconstruction Methods

There are two major approaches to numerical reconstruction processes, namelysymmetric and unsymmetricmethods, which will be treated separately in the following. The main focus will be on the coupling of trial and test side which is the key difference between both methods. From a certain viewpoint one can say that theunsymmetricmethods generalize thesymmetricmethods.

We point out howsampling inequalitiescan be used in the analysis of both methods. For the sake of simplicity we will consider from now onsampling inequalitiesin Sobolev spaces on a bounded domainΩ⊂R^dinstead of sampling inequalities on general normed spaces.

For more details on Sobolev spaces we refer to Chapter 3.

2.3.1 Unsymmetric Methods

Suppose we try to recover an unknown functionf ∈W₂^τ(Ω)from its given data S_ΛS(f) :=





λ₁(f) ... λ_NS(f)



 .

The reconstruction is taken from the finite dimensional trial space R:=span{K(x_j,·) :x_j ∈X_R} .

There is a good but numerically unavailable candidateΠ_R(f), namely the best approxima-tion fromRtof ∈W₂^τ(Ω)(see [13] for details). Suppose we measure the reconstruction error in theL₂(Ω)-norm. Then we assume an approximation property of the form

kg−Π_R(g)k_L2(Ω)≤ǫ(h_R)kgk_W2^τ_(Ω) for anyg∈W₂^τ(Ω) ,

whereh_R:= h_XR,Ω denotes the fill distance or mesh norm of the set of nodesX_R associ-ated to the trial spaceRin the domainΩ. The approximation rateǫ(h_R)may be estimated by means of appropriate sampling inequalities. Provided that all assumptions are satisfied, we may apply a sampling inequality to the above situation and get

kg−Π_R(g)kL2(Ω)≤Ch^τ_RkgkW₂^τ(Ω)+Ckg−Π_R(g)kℓp(X_R) .

2.3. TYPES OF RECONSTRUCTION METHODS 17 IfΠ_Ris for instance an interpolation operator, we immediately getǫ(h_R) =Ch^τ_R.

Unfortunately, the function Π_R(f) is numerically unavailable because its computation might use infinitely many data. We therefore have to construct a reasonable approxima-tion from the trial space using the given data. We shall employ the technique of residual minimization. This means that we try to solve the system

SΛ_S(ur) =SΛ_S(f) (2.3.1)

for someur∈ Rto some accuracy. Let us first spell out the last equation,

S_ΛS(u_r)=





λ^x₁K(x, x₁) . . . λ^x₁K(x, x_NR)

... ... ...

λ^x_N

SK(x, x₁) . . . λ^x_N

SK(x, x_NR)







 α₁

... α_NR



=:A_ΛS,Rα .

This is an unsymmetric system, and it is not clear whether it is solvable at all. If it was solvable, there would be a good approximate solution because of

kS_ΛS(f −Π_R(f))k ≤ kS_ΛSk · kf−Π_R(f)k ≤ǫ(h_R)kS_ΛSk · kfk .

To show full rank ofA_ΛS,R, we need to couple the trial and the test discretization. To be precise, we have to assume aninverse estimateof the form

ku_rkW₂^τ(Ω)≤γ(h_R)ku_rkL2(Ω) for allu_r ∈ R. (2.3.2) In Chapter 6 we shall derive estimates of this kind under certain technical assumptions.

Now we may apply a sampling inequality based on the functionalsλiwithsampling order σ >0and defineβ(s) :=h^σ_s and a factorβ(s)˜ in front of the discrete term to the functions u_r ∈ R. This yields an estimate of the form

ku_rkL2(Ω)≤Cβ(s)ku_rkW₂^τ(Ω)+Cβ˜(s)kS_Λs(u_r)kℓp(RNs) . (2.3.3) Combining the inequalities (2.3.2) and (2.3.3) yields

ku_rkL2(Ω)≤C₁β(s)γ(h_R)kukL2(Ω)+C₂β˜(s)kS_Λs(u_r)kℓp(RNs) .

Now we have to couple the discretizations in test and trial side via the additional condition C1β(s)γ(hR)≤ 1

2 . (2.3.4)

This is always possible by making the test discretization S fine enough, i.e., N_s large enough. For practical applications we therefore need an explicit lower bound forN_s. Nev-ertheless, we end up with

ku_rk_L2(Ω)≤2C₂β˜(s)kS_Λs(u_r)k_ℓp(RNs) .

This inequality bounds a continuous norm via a discrete norm under the condition (2.3.4).

This assures the full rank of the system (2.3.1). This procedure indicates that sampling inequalities can be used to detect parameter choices, which guarantee good generalization properties of recovery processes.

2.3.2 Symmetric Methods

Insymmetric methodsthe test and trial side are essentially the same up to the Riesz isomor-phism between a linear space and its dual. In this case we also haveR =S, since they are finite dimensional spaces and dual to each other, so we may as well skip these parameters here. If we start with a set ofN test functionalsλ1, . . . , λN, the trial space is constructed as

R:=span

λ^x_jK(x,·) : 1≤j≤N ,

where the notationλ^x_jK(x,·)indicates that the functionalλ_jacts onK(x,·)with respect to the variablex. For the special case of point evaluation functionals

λ_j =δ_xj with x_j ∈X={x₁, . . . , x_N} this yields again the trial space

R:=span{K(x_j,·) :x_j ∈X} .

In the case that trial and test side discretization are equal, the error analysis is much simpler since the system (2.3.1) takes the form

S_ΛS(u_r) =

λ^x_iλ^y_jK(x, y)

=:A_Λ,Rα , (2.3.5)

where the matrixA_Λ,Ris symmetric and positive definite if the functionals are linear inde-pendent and if the kernelKis positive definite. Therefore we can skip the stability analysis.

Hence we can choose the operatorΠ_Ras a possibly approximate (generalized) interpola-tion operator, i.e.,λ_i(g) ≈λ_i(Π_R(g)). The error analysis is then provided by a sampling inequality of the form

kg−Π_R(g)kL2(Ω) ≤Ch^τ_rkgkW₂^τ(Ω)+Ckg−Π_R(g)kℓp(X_R) .

Although this approach is obviously less flexible than the unsymmetric case, it is never-theless quite popular in the context ofgeneralized interpolation[36, 69], and it has been used successfully in various applications, in particular for elliptic partial differential equa-tions (see, e.g., [18, 19, 20, 21, 66, 27, 28]). One advantage of these meshless collocation methods is for instance, that they provide more flexibility for adaptive methods, because no re-meshing is needed. In most applications, there is a boundary value problem of the form

Lu = f inΩ

Bu = g on∂Ω. (2.3.6)

HereLis a linear partial differential operator of ordermwith possibly variable coefficients, i.e.,

Lu(x) = X

|α|≤m

c_α(x)D^αu(x) ,

andBis a typical boundary operator, e.g.,B =Id in the case of Dirichlet boundary condi-tions. For the sake of simplicity we restrict ourselves here to the case of strong collocation.

2.4. REGULARIZATION 19 Hence the system of equations (2.3.6) is discretized by point evaluations in certain colloca-tion nodes.

In our example we could choose two sets of points X_Ω := {x₁, . . . , x_N1 :x_j ∈Ω}and X_∂Ω:={x_N1+1, . . . , x_N :x_j ∈∂Ω}and build up a set ofN test functionals

Λ := {λ1, . . . , λ_N} , where

λ_j = δ_xj◦L for1≤j ≤N₁ and λ_j = δ_xj◦B forN₁+ 1≤j≤N .

As introduced above, the setX_s :={x₁, . . . , x_N}is called theset of test points. Thistest part is the same for both, the symmetric and the unsymmetric methods. From this point on, we may continue as in the previous sections with symmetric or unsymmetric methods.

An example of how sampling inequalities can be used in the analysis of these methods can be found in [66]. We shall not repeat all arguments, but simply refer to the literature for details.

2.4 Regularization

General recovery processes can be split up in two categories, namelyinterpolationand ap-proximation. Interpolation intrinsically means that the error functionf −Rf between the functionf to be recovered and its approximation Rf vanishes at the given data, whereas an approximation process may produce small errors at the given data. While in some ap-plications interpolation is required, others, in particular those involving errors or noise in the given data, prefer approximation methods. Sometimes it is even useful to allow the accuracy to be a free parameter.

An important example of non-interpolatory recovery processes are regularized or appro-ximateinterpolation processes [67]. In this section we briefly outline how sampling in-equalities can be used to derive worst-case convergence rates for regularized reconstruction processes. We shall concentrate on regularization methods that avoid exact solving of the system (2.3.5). For the sake of simplicity we shall consider only the symmetric case. This is not a big restriction, since we are mostly interested in the approximation quality of the trial space. This concerns unsymmetric recovery methods in the same way.

Besides improving condition numbers, most regularization methods have several advan-tages, as will be pointed out in detail in Chapter 5, e.g., regularization is closely related to sparse approximation [23]. The crucial point for all regularized reconstruction processes Π^ν, whereνis a regularization parameter, is to show the following two properties.

kΠ^ν(f)k_W2^τ_(Ω) ≤ kfk_W2^τ_(Ω) and

1max≤j≤N|λj(f −Π^νf)| ≤ g(ν, f)kfk_W2^τ_(Ω) .

The functiong(ν, f) determines the approximation quality of Π^ν. These properties can again be seen asstabilityandconsistencyproperties.

Spline Smoothing

For the sake of simplicity we shall in the following concentrate on the simple case that is known asspline smoothingorℓ₂-spline-regression. A more detailed overview can be found in [58] and [65].

For a givenf ∈W₂^τ(Ω)and the functionalsλjfrom the previous sections we can formulate the smoothed optimal recovery problem

s∈Wmin₂^τ(Ω)

XN j=1

|λj(s−f)|²+νksk²_W2^τ_(Ω) , (2.4.1) where ν ≥ 0 is called thesmoothing parameter. For a more detailed discussion of the smoothing parameter see [58]. We simply note that the special caseν = 0corresponds to finding a generalized interpolant, i.e., a functions_f ∈W₂^τ(Ω)that satisfies the generalized interpolation conditions

λ_j(f) =λ_j(s_f) for allj= 1, . . . , N .

It is well known [65] that there always exists a solution to this relaxed interpolation problem (2.4.1) in the linear spaces^(ν)_f ∈spann

λ^x_jK(·, x) |1≤j≤No

. The coefficientsa∈R^N with respect to the basis{λ^x_jK(·, x)}can be found by solving the linear system

. The coefficientsa∈R^N with respect to the basis{λ^x_jK(·, x)}can be found by solving the linear system

Im Dokument Sampling Inequalities and Applications (Seite 13-0)