Random graph embeddings with general edge potentials

We observe that in our bases, \partial^*(X_{ik}) = \sum_{j=1}^\mathbf{e} \operatorname{ht}_{kj} W_{ij}, where

It follows that \partial^*(X)(e_j) = X(\operatorname{head}(e_j) - \operatorname{tail}(e_j)) = \operatorname{disp}(X)(e_j).

Using Proposition 81, \ker \partial^* is the annihilator (\operatorname{im} \partial)^0 of \operatorname{im} \partial. In other words, if X \in \ker \partial^*, then 0 = X(\partial e_i) = X(\operatorname{head} e_i) - X(\operatorname{tail} e_i), so X(\operatorname{head} e_i) = X(\operatorname{tail} e_i). Since \mathbf{G} is connected, this implies that X(v_i) is the same for all vertices v_i. Similarly, \operatorname{im} \partial^* = (\ker \partial)^0, which completes the proof.

Since \partial^T = \partial^* if d=1, Proposition 11 tells us that \ker \partial^T is spanned by the constant chains \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times 1} \in \operatorname{VC}, which are the image of \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} = \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times 1} \mathbf{1}_{1 \times \mathbf{v}}. Since \ker \partial^T \subset \ker L, this tells us that \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} \subset \ker L. Similarly, if \partial^T \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times 1} = 0, then \mathbf{1}_{1 \times \mathbf{v}} \partial = 0, or \operatorname{im} L \subset \ker \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}.

But \operatorname{im} \partial^T = \star \operatorname{im} \partial^* = \star (\ker \partial)^0 only intersects \ker \partial at the origin. Thus \ker L = \ker \partial^T is one-dimensional. It follows that \operatorname{im} L is \mathbf{v} - 1 dimensional. Since \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} is one-dimensional, \ker \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} is \mathbf{v} - 1 dimensional. The result now follows from the inclusions above.

Since L is symmetric, it is self-adjoint in the standard \left< -, - \right> inner product on \operatorname{VC} and, by Lemma 84, \operatorname{VC} = \ker L \oplus \operatorname{im} L is an orthogonal decomposition of \operatorname{VC}. Using Proposition 13, this means that any x \in \operatorname{VC} can be written as x = \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} y + \partial z. Further,

Since L \partial z and \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} y are in the orthogonal subspaces \operatorname{im} L and \ker L, we can first conclude that \tilde{L}x = 0 if and only if x=0. Further, if x \in \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}, then z = 0, and \tilde{L}x = \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} y \in \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} while if x \in \operatorname{im} \partial, then y = 0 and \tilde{L}x = L \partial z \in \operatorname{im} L = \operatorname{im} \partial. Thus \tilde{L}(\operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}) \subset \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} and \tilde{L}(\operatorname{im} \partial) \subset \operatorname{im} \partial. Counting dimensions yields the reverse inclusions immediately.

Since the first two Moore–Penrose properties F^+ F F^+ = F^+ and F F^+ F = F don’t refer to an inner product, pseudoinverses computed with respect to any inner product obey these conditions.

To see that \partial has the same Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse with respect to both the \left< -, - \right>_{\tilde{L}^{-1}} and \left< -, - \right> inner products on \operatorname{VC}, it suffices to check that if \partial^+ \partial and \partial \partial^+ are symmetric (that is, they are self-adjoint in \left< -, - \right> on both \operatorname{VC} and \operatorname{EC}), then \partial \partial^+ and \partial^+ \partial are self-adjoint (in \left( \operatorname{VC}, \left< -, - \right>_{\tilde{L}^{-1}} \right) and \left( \operatorname{EC}, \left< -, - \right> \right)). Since the inner product on \left( \operatorname{EC}, \left< -, - \right> \right) is standard, (\partial^+ \partial)^\dag = (\partial^+ \partial)^T = \partial^+ \partial immediately. So suppose we have computed \partial^+ with respect to \left< -, - \right> on both \operatorname{VC} and \operatorname{EC}. It’s known ([Ghosh2008, eq. 7]) that if L^+ is computed with respect to \left< -, - \right> on \operatorname{VC}, then

Thus, using Lemma 87,

Proposition 13 tells us that \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} \partial = 0 since \operatorname{im} \partial = \ker \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}. Thus, we can simplify the right hand side above and get

where we used \partial \partial^+ = (\partial \partial^+)^T = \partial^{T+} \partial^T. Again, Proposition 13 tells us that \partial^T \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} = 0 since \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} = \ker \partial^T. So we can simplify the right-hand side above and get

where we used \partial^{T} \partial^{T+} = (\partial^+ \partial)^T = \partial^+ \partial and (\partial^+ \partial)(\partial^+ \partial) = \partial^+ \partial. This proves that \partial^+ does not depend on whether we compute in \left( \operatorname{VC}, \left< -, - \right>_{\tilde{L}^{-1}} \right) or (\operatorname{VC},\left< -, - \right>).

To prove the second part, assume that (\partial^T)^+ has been computed with respect to \left< -, - \right>, so that \partial^{T+} \partial^T and \partial^T \partial^{T+} are symmetric. We must show that \partial^{T+} \partial^T and \partial^T \partial^{T+} are self-adjoint. But \partial^{T+} \partial^T = (\partial \partial^+)^T = \partial \partial^+, which we just proved is self-adjoint in \left( \operatorname{VC}, \left< -, - \right>_{\tilde{L}^{-1}} \right), and \partial^T \partial^{T+} = (\partial^+ \partial)^T = \partial^+ \partial, which is symmetric and hence self-adjoint in \left( \operatorname{EC}, \left< -, - \right> \right).

Last, if we assume that L^+ has been computed with respect to \left< -, - \right>, we know that LL^+ and L^+L are symmetric and need to show they are self-adjoint. We note first that L L^+ = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} L} (in \left< -, - \right>) and L^+ L = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} L^T} = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} L} since L = L^T. Thus L L^+ = L^+ L. Now this proof goes exactly along the lines of the first one. As above,

where we used L^T = L. But \operatorname{im} L = \ker \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}, so this simplifies to

where we’ve used L L^{T+} = L^T L^{T+} = (L^+ L)^T = L^+ L. Since \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} = \ker L, we have

which completes the proof.

We know from Proposition 91 that in the inner products on \operatorname{Hom}(\operatorname{VC},\mathbb{R}^d) and \operatorname{Hom}(\operatorname{EC},\mathbb{R}^d) induced by inner products on \operatorname{VC}, \operatorname{EC}, and \mathbb{R}^d, (\partial^*)^+ = (\partial^+)^* = \partial^{*+}. Since we just proved that \partial^+ is the same operator in either inner product on \operatorname{VC}, this implies that \partial^{*+} is as well.

The proof is a computation. Using Proposition 18 and (?) we have

On the far right \left< \partial u, \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} \partial w \right> = \left< u, \partial^T \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} \partial w \right> = 0, since \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} = \ker \partial^T by Proposition 13. Again using Proposition 18, we are left with

Thus if u, w are in the intial space \operatorname{im} \partial^+, we have \left< \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} \partial^+} u, \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} \partial^+} w \right> = \left< u, w \right>. Note that \left< -, - \right> is our inner product on \left( \operatorname{EC}, \left< -, - \right> \right), so we have completed the proof.

Suppose X,Y \in \operatorname{VP}. Now \tilde{L} = \partial\partial^T + \frac{1}{\mathbf{v}}\mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}, so \tilde{L}^* = (\partial^{T*})(\partial^*) + \frac{1}{\mathbf{v}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}^* and

Suppose X, Y are in the initial space \operatorname{im} (\partial^*)^\dag. Since \operatorname{im} (\partial^*)^\dag = \operatorname{im} (\partial^*)^T, we know Y = (\partial^{*T})W for some W \in \operatorname{ED}. Then the second term in (Proof) is equal to

since \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} = \ker \partial^T.

We know from Proposition 11 that \dim \operatorname{im} \partial^* = d(\mathbf{v} - 1). Therefore

We know that \operatorname{ID} \oplus \operatorname{im} \partial^* is an orthogonal decomposition of \operatorname{ED}, so every W \in \operatorname{ED} can be written as W = W_{\operatorname{ID}} + W_{\operatorname{im} \partial^*}. But (\operatorname{im} \partial^*) = (\ker \partial)^0, so W(\ell) = W_{\operatorname{ID}}(\ell), as required. The last claim follows immediately from (\operatorname{im} \partial^*) = (\ker \partial)^0 as well.

As in the proof of Proposition 29 we need only show that each

is positive and continuous in a neighborhood of 0 in \operatorname{ID}.

To see that m_W is positive for small enough W, observe that S(W) := \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}^{-1}(W) is an affine subspace of \operatorname{ED} whose closest point is \left\| W \right\| from 0. Therefore, by choosing W small enough, we can guarantee that S(W) intersects any open neighborhood of 0 in \operatorname{ED} in a set of positive measure.

Now we know that

It’s an exercise to show that

In particular, since we’ve assumed that each p_i is positive in a neighborhood of 0, there is some B>0 so that all p_i(\left\| Z(e_i) \right\|) are positive for \left\| Z(e_i) \right\| \leq \left\| Z \right\| \leq B. Thus for any W with \left\| W \right\| < B, p(Z) is positive on subset of S(W) with positive measure. This establishes that these m_W are positive.

Since the p_i are all bounded, without loss of generality they are all bounded by a common B>0. It follows from (?) that for each Z there is some i so that

Since each p_i(\left\| x \right\|) is in o(\left\| x \right\|^{n}) (and there are a fixed number of p_i), this implies that p(Z) is in o(\left\| Z \right\|^{n}). The remainder of the argument follows as in the proof of Proposition 29.

Proving this requires us to introduce Tjur’s idea of a decomposition of a measure with respect to a map, which is like a disintegration (cf.  [Chang1997]) but somewhat stronger:

Conditional distributions are connected to decompositions very tightly by the following:

By Theorem Proof, \mu is compatible with \mathbf{G} \iff the \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} and \mu_{\operatorname{ID}} are a decomposition of \mu with respect to \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}. This implies first that each \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} is concentrated on \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}^{-1}(W).

Because \mu is \mathbf{G}-compatible, it is admissible, and therefore O(d)-invariant: for any Q \in O(d), Q_\sharp \mu = \mu. We now show that this implies that Q_\sharp \mu_{\operatorname{ID}} = \mu_{\operatorname{ID}}. The action of Q on \operatorname{ED} is multiplication by the d\mathbf{e} \times d\mathbf{e} matrix Q \otimes I_{\mathbf{e}}. As a matrix, \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} = I - \partial^* \partial^{*+} = I_d \otimes (I_\mathbf{e} - \partial^{T} \partial^{T+}). It follows that

where we used Lemma 78 in the middle steps. Now we know that

We now prove \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} = Q_\sharp \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}}, following the lines of Example 7 in [Chang1997]. Fix some Q \in O(d). By Theorem Proof, it suffices to show that \mu^{Q(W)}_{\mathbf{G}} and Q_\sharp \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} are both decompositions of \mu with respect to Q^{-1} \circ \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}.

We start with the \mu^{Q(W)}_{\mathbf{G}}. We already know that W \mapsto \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} is (weak^*) continuous in W, so Q(W) \mapsto \mu^{Q(W)}_{\mathbf{G}} is as well. Since W \mapsto Q(W) is also continuous, the composition W \mapsto \mu^{Q(W)}_{\mathbf{G}} is continuous.

Since each of the measures \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} is concentrated on \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}^{-1}(W), the measure \mu^{Q(W)}_{\mathbf{G}} is concentrated on \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}^{-1}(Q(W)) = (Q^{-1} \circ \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}})^{-1}(W).

Now suppose we have some f \in \mathcal{K}(\operatorname{ED}). We have

We have now established that the \mu^{Q(W)}_{\mathbf{G}} are a Q^{-1} \circ \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}-decomposition of \mu.

We now show the same for the Q_\sharp \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}}, but it will help to prove this as a Lemma about decompositions in general, because we’ll repeat similar arguments later.

Now if we let Q \colon \operatorname{ED} \rightarrow \operatorname{ED} and \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} \colon \operatorname{ED} \rightarrow \operatorname{ID}, we see that Q^{-1} \circ \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} has the property that Q \circ (Q^{-1} \circ \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}) = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}, and so by  Lemma ?, the Q_\# \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} are a decomposition of \mu with respect to (Q^{-1} \circ \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}), as desired.

The computation of the pushforward density and the expression as a \operatorname{sinc} integral can be traced back to Rayleigh [Rayleigh:1919do]. The existence of the conditional probabilities is more or less standard, but we outline the argument in order to connect it to decompositions explicitly.

We start by defining a singular set \Delta \subset (S^2)^\mathbf{e} as the set of all configurations where x_i = \pm x_j for all i, j \in 1, \dots, \mathbf{e}. This is a finite union of submanifolds of dimension 2 inside (S^2)^\mathbf{e} and so we note that \operatorname{\mathcal{H}}^{k}(\Delta) = 0 for any k > 2.

We now restrict our attention to (S^2)^\mathbf{e} - \Delta. The map (z,\theta) \mapsto (\sqrt{1 - z^2} \cos \theta, \sqrt{1 - z^2} \sin \theta, z) writing S^2 in cylindrical coordinates is area-preserving and so pushes forward Lebesgue measure \lambda^2(dz d\theta) to the area measure on S^2. These particular coordinates don’t cover the north and south poles (0,0,\pm 1), but employing similar constructions with respect to x and y and a partition of unity, we may construct a finite number of coordinate patches \operatorname{cyl}_k \colon Z_k \rightarrow X_k where the Z_k are an open cover of (-1,1)^\mathbf{e} \times (0,2\pi)^\mathbf{e}, the X_k are an open cover of (S^2)^\mathbf{e}, the \operatorname{cyl}_k are surjective, and each patch comes with a smooth, positive density function \alpha_k so \sum (\operatorname{cyl}_k)_\sharp \alpha_k \lambda^{2 \mathbf{e}} = \mu. We define \Delta_k := (\operatorname{cyl}_k)^{-1}(\Delta), and note that \Delta_k is some dimension 2 submanifold of Z_k.

We now consider the maps \operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl}_k \colon Z_k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3. Since \operatorname{cyl}_k is a diffeomorphism, its differential is always invertible. But the differential of \operatorname{ftc} at x is not invertible if and only if all the x_i are colinear: exactly when x \in \Delta. Combining these, we see that the differential of \operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl}_k is surjective on Z_k - \Delta_k. The normal Jacobian J_3(\operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl}_k) = \det( D\operatorname{ftc} D\operatorname{cyl}_k D\operatorname{cyl}_k^T D\operatorname{ftc}^T )^{1/2} is therefore positive on Z_k - \Delta_k.

By Theorem 8.1 of [Tjur1975], we can construct decompositions \alpha_k^y of each \alpha_k \lambda^{2\mathbf{e}} with respect to \operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl}_k on the open sets Z_k - \Delta_k, where

and(Here the notation \nu \lefthalfcup U means the restriction of the measure \nu to the subset U.)

and the pushforward measure (\operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl}_k)_\sharp \alpha_k \lambda^{2\mathbf{e}} has density q_k(y) with respect to \lambda^{3} as long as the q_k(y) are continuous and positive in y. The q_k are integrals of positive quantities and hence positive; to see that they are finite recall that \sum_k (\operatorname{cyl}_k)_\sharp \alpha_k \lambda^{2\mathbf{e}} = \mu, so \sum_k (\operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl}_k)_\# \alpha_k \lambda^{2\mathbf{e}} = \operatorname{ftc}_\# \mu, which is given by the finite positive density in (37).

We now want to assemble our work. We can define a map \operatorname{cyl} \colon \bigsqcup_k (Z_k - \Delta_k) \rightarrow (S^2)^\mathbf{e} - \Delta by letting the restriction of \operatorname{cyl} to Z_k - \Delta_k be \operatorname{cyl}_k and a measure \alpha on \bigsqcup_k (Z_k - \Delta) whose restriction to Z_k - \Delta_k is \alpha_k \lambda^{2\mathbf{e}}. If we also define \alpha^y on \bigsqcup_k (Z_k - \Delta) by letting its restriction on Z_k - \Delta be \alpha_k^y, it then follows that the \alpha^y are a decomposition of \alpha with respect to \operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl}. Now we have noted above that \operatorname{\mathcal{H}}^{\alpha}(Z_k) = 0 for any \alpha > 2. Since \mathbf{e} \geq 3, we see that \operatorname{\mathcal{H}}^{2\mathbf{e}-3}(Z_k) = 0 and we may rewrite our decomposition as

and

without changing it, as long as (by convention) we replace the integrand by 1 where it is not defined. Therefore the \alpha^y are also a decomposition of \alpha with respect to \operatorname{ftc} \circ \operatorname{cyl} \colon \bigsqcup_k Z_k \rightarrow (S^2)^\mathbf{e}. We would like to call attention to this step because it is the only one in the proof which is nonstandard– in a generic situation, one would know from Sard’s theorem that the singular set Z had \operatorname{\mathcal{H}}^{2\mathbf{e}}-measure zero, so it could be ignored when computing expectations over all of (S^2)^\mathbf{e} with respect to \mu, but one would not then be able to conclude that you could ignore the singular set when computing expectations with respect to conditional probabilities, which are integrals over lower-dimensional spaces.

We know that \mu = \sum (\operatorname{cyl}_k)_\sharp \alpha_k \lambda^{2 \mathbf{e}} = \operatorname{cyl}_\sharp \alpha. We define \mu^y = \operatorname{cyl}_\sharp \alpha^y. It follows from Lemma ? that the \mu^y are a decomposition of \mu with respect to \operatorname{ftc} \colon (\mathbb{R}^3)^\mathbf{e} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3.

We note that the fact that \mu has finite mass and finite first moment follows directly from the fact that \mu has compact support.

If X is centered, Definition 39 tells us that X(y) = 0 for every y \in \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}. Using Proposition 81, the centered embeddings are then (\operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}})^0 = \ker \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}}^*. Since \operatorname{im} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}} = \ker \partial^T by Proposition 13, they are also (\ker \partial^T)^0 = \operatorname{im} \partial^{T*} = \operatorname{im} \partial^{*+} .

Since the centered configurations are \operatorname{im} \partial^{*+}, the map \partial^{*+} \partial^* = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} \partial^{*+}} fixes the centered configurations. Since \nu_{\mathbf{G}} is concentrated on the centered configurations, this means that

Set \mu_{\mathbf{G}} = \partial^*_\sharp \nu_{\mathbf{G}}. Since \mu_{\mathbf{G}} is the pushforward of an O(d)-invariant measure by the O(d)-equivariant function \partial^* (see Lemma 76), it is O(d)-invariant.

Suppose we have a d \times d matrix Q \in O(d). The action of Q on \operatorname{VP} is multiplication by the d\mathbf{v} \times d\mathbf{v} matrix Q \otimes I_\mathbf{v}. Since \nu is O(d)-invariant, we know (Q \otimes I_\mathbf{v})_\sharp \nu = \nu. But then

This is true for all Q \in O(d) only if \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu}\! \left(X\right) = 0. The proof for \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu}\! \left(W\right) is the same.

As above,

But if \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu}\! \left(X X^T\right) is invariant under conjugation by Q \otimes I_\mathbf{v}, as a d \times d matrix of \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v} blocks, it must be(To expand on this point, first consider the diagonal matrix Q \in O(d) with (-1,1,\dots,1) on the diagonal. Conjugation by this Q reverses the sign of all the blocks in the first column and first row except the block on the diagonal. Thus all these blocks (and by extension, all the off-diagonal blocks) must be zero matrices. Now consider the permutation matrix Q \in O(d) which swaps i and j. Conjugation by this matrix swaps the i-th and j-th diagonal blocks (and the ij and ji off-diagonal blocks) so the diagonal blocks must be equal.) blockwise a d \times d scalar matrix, as scalar matrices are the only d \times d matrices fixed by O(d).

Since \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu}\! \left(XX^T\right) is an average of symmetric positive semidefinite matrices XX^T, it is symmetric and positive semidefinite. Therefore, the \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v} diagonal block \Sigma_\mathbf{v} is symmetric and positive semidefinite as well.

Suppose X, Y are centered in \operatorname{VP}. We begin by computing

since \mu_{\mathbf{G}} is concentrated on \operatorname{im} \partial^*. Therefore, since \mu_{\mathbf{G}} = (\partial^*)_\sharp \nu_{\mathbf{G}}, this integral is equal to

Here we have used the fact that \nu_{\mathbf{G}} is supported on the centered configurations (\ker \partial^*)^\perp in the second equality, and Proposition 22 in the third.

The second half of the proof follows from the fact that \nu_{\mathbf{G}} and \mu_{\mathbf{G}} are concentrated on (\ker \partial^*)^\perp and \operatorname{im} \partial^*. In general, if we have a random vector x chosen according to a probability measure \rho which is concentrated on a subspace S of \left( V, \left< -, - \right>_{V} \right), then for any u \in S^\perp,

because we know that \left< u, x \right>_{V} = 0 since x \in S and u \in S^\perp.

Suppose U, V \in \operatorname{VP} are centered. Then \operatorname{cov}_{\nu_{\mathbf{G}}}\left( U, V \right) = \operatorname{cov}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\left( \partial^* U, \partial^* V \right). Using (?),

Using Proposition 40 and \tilde{L}^* = L^* + (\frac{1}{\mathbf{v}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{v}})^*, we have \tilde{L}^*U = L^* U and \tilde{L}^* V = L^* V. So

On the other hand, using (?) and the fact that the dot product on \left( \operatorname{ED}, \left< -, - \right> \right) is standard,

We now have two matrices \partial^* \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu}\! \left(XX^T\right) \partial^{*T} and \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu}\! \left(WW^T\right). The kernel of each matrix contains the loop space \ker \partial^{*T} = (\operatorname{im} \partial^*)^\perp in \operatorname{ED}. The image of each matrix is contained in \operatorname{im} \partial^*. Combining (?) and (?) and using the shared kernel, we have for all Z \in \operatorname{im} \partial^* and P \in \operatorname{ED} that

Thus we can conclude that \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(WW^T\right) P = \partial^* \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(XX^T\right) \partial^{*T} P for all P \in \operatorname{ED} and hence that the two matrices are equal. This proves the first part.

Multiplying this identity on the left by \partial^{*+} and on the right by \partial^{*T+},

But \partial^{*+} \partial^* = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} \partial^{*+}} = \operatorname{proj}_{(\ker \partial^*)^\perp} is orthogonal projection onto the centered configurations. Since \nu is already supported on the centered configurations, \operatorname{im} \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(XX^T\right) \subset (\ker \partial^*)^\perp and composing \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(XX^T\right) with this matrix has no effect.

Similarly, \partial^{*T} \partial^{*T+} = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} \partial^{*T}} = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{im} \partial^{*+}} = \operatorname{proj}_{(\ker \partial^*)^\perp} is the same projection. Again, \ker \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(XX^T\right) \supset \ker \partial^*, so projecting to the orthogonal complement of this kernel before applying \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(XX^T\right) has no effect. This proves that \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\nu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(XX^T\right) = \partial^{*+} \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(WW^T\right) \partial^{*T+}, as desired.

We only have to combine (48) with Proposition ? to see the first line. The second line follows directly from Corollary 47.

We showed in Corollary 31 that \mu is admissible and compatible with \mathbf{G}, so \mu_{\mathbf{G}} is well-defined. Further, by Proposition 33, \mu_{\mathbf{G}} has O(d)-invariance and concentration on \operatorname{im} \partial^* so Theorem 49 applies. It is easy to see that \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(WW^T\right) is orthogonal projection onto \operatorname{im} \partial^*. It follows from Proposition ? that \Sigma_\mathbf{e} is the orthogonal projection \partial^T \partial^{T+} to \operatorname{im} \partial^T. Thus

as claimed.

It is clear that \mu is an O(d)-invariant probability distribution as it’s the joint distribution of O(d)-invariant random variables. Thus \mu is admissible. Further, \mu is permutation invariant on edges since the individual distributions are independent and identical.

We have assumed that \mu is compatible with \mathbf{G}, so \mu_{\mathbf{G}} is well-defined. Permutation invariance of the conditional distribution \mu_{\mathbf{G}} can be proved by uniqueness of decompositions as we did in the proof of O(d)-invariance in Proposition 33.

Using this permutation symmetry, all of the off-diagonal elements of the \mathbf{e} \times \mathbf{e} matrix \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(W^T W\right) of edge covariances are equal, and all of the on-diagonal elements are equal as well. Since the loop space of the cycle graph \ker \partial \in \operatorname{EC} is one-dimensional and spanned by 1_{\mathbf{e} \times 1}, we know 1_{\mathbf{e} \times 1} spans \ker \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(W^T W\right) and the sum of each row and column is zero. Thus

where the diagonal element \lambda is the expected squared norm of a single edge in \mu_{\mathbf{G}}.

We have \mathbf{v} = \mathbf{e} and \partial is a (square) circulant matrix with first row -1, 0, \dotsc, 0, 1. It follows that \partial^T \partial is a symmetric circulant matrix; its first row is 2, -1, \dots, 0, -1. Since the row and column sums of \partial^T \partial vanish, the row and column sums of (\partial^T \partial)^+ vanish as well and \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{e} \times \mathbf{e}} (\partial^T \partial)^+ = 0. Further, the trace of \partial^T \partial is(Eigenvalues of a circulant are well-known; to sum them use \sum_{j=1}^{v-1} \csc^2 (\pi j)=(1/3)(v^2-1) [Prudnikov:1986vp, 4.4.6.5, p. 644].) \frac{1}{12} (\mathbf{e}^2-1).

Now we are ready to compute. Since \mu_{\mathbf{G}} is (by construction) O(d)-invariant and concentrated on \operatorname{im} \partial^*, Theorem 49 applies. Rearranging it and using d \Sigma_\mathbf{e} = \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(W^T W\right),

Admissibility and compatibility were established above in Corollary 38, so there is a well-defined conditional probability \mu_{\mathbf{G}} = \mu^0_{\mathbf{G}} with \lambda = \operatorname{\mathcal{E}}_{\mu_{\mathbf{G}}}\! \left(\left\| W(e_i) \right\|^2\right) = 1. Applying Proposition 51 completes the proof.

In Corollary 50, we showed that this \mu is compatible with any \mathbf{G}, along with the fact that \mu_{\mathbf{G}} = \mu^0_{\mathbf{G}} was a standard Gaussian on \operatorname{im} \partial^*. The computation of \lambda = (\mathbf{e}-1)/\mathbf{e} can be done very easily by the method of Proposition 71 below.

Let \mathbf{G}' be the graph with two vertices v'_1 and v'_2, r loop edges e'_1, \dots, e'_r joining v_1 \rightarrow v_1, and a single edge e'_{r+1} joining v'_1 \rightarrow v'_2.

Now define chain maps f_0 and f_1 by f_0(v'_1) = v_j and f_0(v'_2) = v_i, while f_1(e'_i) = \ell_i and f_1(e'_{r+1}) = p. It is easy to verify that f_0 \partial' = \partial f_1, as \partial f_1 (e'_i) = \partial \ell_i = 0 and \partial f_1(e'_{r+1}) = v_i - v_j = f_0 \partial'(e'_{r+1}). An example of this construction is shown in Figure ? where \mathbf{G} is a subdivision of the \alpha-graph (which has cycle rank 3).

Since \mu has covariance matrix I_d \otimes I_\mathbf{e} on \operatorname{ED}, the pushforward (f_1^*)_\sharp \mu has covariance matrix

It follows from our definition of f_1 that f_1^T f_1 is a 2 \times 2 block matrix with

The d \times d covariance matrix of ((f_1^*)_\sharp \mu)_\mathbf{G} is the conditional variance of W(e_{r+1}) conditioned on W(e_1), \dotsc, W(e_r) = 0.

So far, everything we have said is true for an arbitrary \mu on \operatorname{ED} with covariance matrix I_{d\mathbf{e}}. For an arbitrary \mu, we would need more information to continue, because the covariance matrix does not determine the conditional variance in general.

However, since we also know that (f_1^*)_\sharp \mu is a Gaussian distribution in this special case, the conditional covariance matrix, which is the covariance matrix of ((f_1^*)_\sharp \mu)_\mathbf{G}, can be computed by taking the Schur complement of (f_1^T f_1)_{22} inside f_1^T f_1:

Now the expectation of \left\| W(v_i) - W(v_j) \right\| = \left\| W'(v_2) - W'(v_1) \right\| is given by

as claimed.

We are going to construct the conditional probabilities (\mu_n)_{\mathbf{G}_n}^{W_n} by constructing a decomposition of \mu_n with respect to \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}_n} and the measure (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}_n})_\sharp \mu_n, keeping in mind that W_n is a member of \operatorname{ED}_n = ((\mathbb{R}^d)^n)^\mathbf{e}. We do this in several stages. We know that we have maps

We first note that \mu_n is the joint distribution of independent vectors in (\mathbb{R}^d)^n chosen from the distributions \rho_1, \dots, \rho_e. Now as a d \times dn matrix, \operatorname{ftc} = I_d \otimes \mathbf{1}_{1 \times n}. Further, we can compute

Therefore, the pushforward \mu = (f_1^*) \mu_n is the joint distribution of \operatorname{ftc}_\sharp \rho_1, \dots, \operatorname{ftc}_\sharp \rho_\mathbf{e} on \operatorname{ED} = (\mathbb{R}^d)^n. We have assumed that the \rho_i have decompositions with respect to \operatorname{ftc}, so we may construct a family of (\mu_n)^Z decomposing \mu_n with respect to f_1^* by defining (\mu_n)^Z as the joint distribution of the decomposing distributions \rho_1^{Z(e_1)}, \dots, \rho_{\mathbf{e}}^{Z(e_\mathbf{e})}. Further, we have assumed that \mu is compatible with \mathbf{G}, so there are \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} decomposing \mu with respect to \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}.

Suppose we have some g_n \in \mathcal{K}(\operatorname{ED}_n). We can define a new function g by taking g(Z) = (\mu_n)^Z(g_n). Since the \mu_n^Z are weak^*-continuous in Z as measures on \operatorname{ED}, their values on the fixed function g_n are also a continuous function of Z. Further, since g_n has compact support on \operatorname{ED}_n, the new function g has compact support on \operatorname{ED}, and g \in \mathcal{K}(\operatorname{ED}).

We can then define a measure (\mu_n)^W on \operatorname{ED}_n by (\mu_n)^W(g_n) = \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}}(g) for each W in U where \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} is defined. We claim that these (\mu_n)^W and the measure (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} \circ f_1^*)_\# \mu_n are a decomposition of \mu_n with respect to \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} \circ f_1^*

Continuity of (\mu_n)^W in W follows from continuity of \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} in W. To show that (\mu_n)^{W} is concentrated on (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^*)^{-1}(W), we argue as follows. Suppose A is an open set in \operatorname{ED}_n which is disjoint from (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^*)^{-1}(W) and \chi_A(Z_n) is its characteristic function. The corresponding function g(W) = (\mu_n)^W(\chi_A) is supported on (f_1^*)(A), but by hypothesis, f_1^*(A) is disjoint from \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}^{-1}(W). Since \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}} is concentrated on \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}}^{-1} W, this means that \mu^W_{\mathbf{G}}(g) = 0.

We last have to check the averaging property. This is a computation:

Now it is clear from the definition of the canonical chain maps that they have no kernel. Therefore they are injective. One can give a sophisticated proof that \xi(\mathbf{G}) = \xi(\mathbf{G}_n) because the two spaces are homotopy equivalent and \xi is the first Betti number. However, it is easier to compute

Therefore the hypotheses of Proposition 57 hold. We’ve already proved in Claim ? of the proof of that Proposition that \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^* is a linear isomorphism from \operatorname{ID}_n to \operatorname{ID}. Therefore, there is an inverse map (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^*)^{-1} \colon \operatorname{ID} \rightarrow \operatorname{ID}_n. Further, we saw in Claim ? that \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^* = \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^* \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}_n}. Pushing our measure (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^*)_\# \mu_n on \operatorname{ID} forward by (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^*)^{-1} to \operatorname{ID}_n, we see that

Thus we can define measures (\mu_n)_{\mathbf{G}_n}^{W_n} := (\mu_n)^{(\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}} f_1^*)^{-1}(W_n)} which decompose \mu_n with respect to the map \operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}_n} and the measure (\operatorname{proj}_{\operatorname{ID}_n})_\sharp \mu_n. By Theorem Proof, this shows that \mu_n is compatible with \mathbf{G}_n.

This is a combination of our existing results. \mu is compatible with \mathbf{G} by Proposition 29 because it has a continuous density given by the product of the density of \rho(x) which is positive in a neighborhood of the origin. By Proposition 37, \rho has a decomposition with respect to \operatorname{ftc} and \operatorname{ftc}_\sharp \rho, so we can apply Proposition 72 to show that \mu_n is compatible with \mathbf{G}_n. Now we can apply Theorem 65 to complete the result.

By definition, for any X \in \operatorname{Hom}(V,W), H \in GL(W), and u \in U,

so F^*HX = HF^*X.

By definition of the adjoint,

for any v \in V and w \in W. In turn, the left hand side is equal to

and the right hand side is equal to

Equating these two and recalling that equation (Proof) must hold for all v and w, we conclude that A^T H = F A^\dag or, since F is invertible,

Suppose A,B \in \operatorname{Hom}(V,W). Then, by definition,

where A^\dag is the adjoint of A with respect to the \left< -, - \right>_{V,F} and \left< -, - \right>_{W,H} inner products. Hence, Lemma 87 implies that

by the cyclic invariance of trace.

The proof is an exercise in checking that (F^+)^* satisfies the Moore–Penrose conditions for a pseudoinverse of F^* \colon \operatorname{Hom}(V,W) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}(U,W).

Referring to Definition 85 for the Frobenius inner product, and using standard properties of \dag and *(Here we’ve used several properties of \dag and \star: (FG)^\dag = G^\dag F^\dag in the second equality; F^{*\dag} = F^{\dag*} and (F^+F)^\dag = F^+ F in the third, and (FG)^* = G^* F^* in the last one. )

so (F^* (F^+)^*)^\dag = (F^* (F^+)^*). Similarly,

so ((F^+)^* F^*)^\dag = (F^+)^* F^*.