The above are necessary conditions for φ(t)φ(t) to exist and the
following are sufficient. There are many forms these could and do take
but we present the following as examples and give references for more
detail
[5], [21], [13], [15], [14], [19], [4], [18], [17], [16].
Theorem 9 If ∑nh(n)=2∑nh(n)=2 and h(n)h(n) has finite support or
decays fast enough so that ∑|h(n)|(1+|n|)ϵ<∞∑|h(n)|(1+|n|)ϵ<∞ for some
ϵ>0ϵ>0, then a unique (within a scalar multiple)
φ(t)φ(t) (perhaps a distribution) exists that satisfies Equation 1 and whose
distributional Fourier transform satisfies Equation 5.
This [5], [13], [12] can be obtained in the frequency domain
by considering the convergence of Equation 5. It has recently been
obtained using a much more powerful approach in the time domain by Lawton
[16].
Because this theorem uses the weakest possible condition, the results are
weak. The scaling function obtained from only requiring
∑nh(n)=2∑nh(n)=2 may be so poorly behaved as to be impossible to
calculate or use. The worst cases will not support a multiresolution
analysis or provide a useful expansion system.
Theorem 10 If ∑nh(2n)=∑nh(2n+1)=1/2∑nh(2n)=∑nh(2n+1)=1/2 and h(n)h(n) has finite
support or decays fast enough so that ∑|h(n)|(1+|n|)ϵ<∞∑|h(n)|(1+|n|)ϵ<∞ for some ϵ>0ϵ>0, then a φ(t)φ(t) (perhaps a
distribution) that satisfies Equation 1 exists, is unique, and is
well-defined on the dyadic rationals. In addition, the distributional sum
∑
k
φ
(
t
-
k
)
=
1
∑
k
φ
(
t
-
k
)
=
1
(23)holds.
This condition, called the fundamental condition [29], [18],
gives a slightly tighter result than Theorem Paragraph 54. While the
scaling function still may be a distribution not in L1L1 or L2L2, it is
better behaved than required by Theorem Paragraph 54 in being defined on the
dense set of dyadic rationals. This theorem is equivalent to requiring
H(π)=0H(π)=0 which from the product formula Equation 5 gives a better
behaved Φ(ω)Φ(ω). It also guarantees a unity eigenvalue for MM
and TT but not that other eigenvalues do not exist with magnitudes
larger than one.
The next several theorems use the transition matrix TT defined in
Equation 9 which is a down-sampled autocorrelation matrix.
Theorem 11 If the transition matrix TT has eigenvalues on or in the unit circle of
the complex plane and if any on the unit circle are multiple, they have a
complete set of eigenvectors, then φ(t)∈L2φ(t)∈L2.
If TT has unity magnitude eigenvalues, the successive approximation
algorithm (cascade algorithm) Equation 71 converges weakly to φ(t)∈L2φ(t)∈L2[12].
Theorem 12 If the transition matrix TT has a simple unity eigenvalue with all other
eigenvalues having magnitude less than one, then φ(t)∈L2φ(t)∈L2.
Here the successive approximation algorithm (cascade algorithm) converges
strongly to φ(t)∈L2φ(t)∈L2. This is developed in [29].
If in addition to requiring Equation 10, we require the quadratic coefficient
conditions Equation 14, a tighter result occurs which
gives φ(t)∈L2(R)φ(t)∈L2(R) and a multiresolution tight frame
system.
Theorem 13 (Lawton)
If h(n)h(n) has finite support or decays fast enough and if
∑nh(n)=2∑nh(n)=2 and
if ∑nh(n)h(n-2k)=δ(k)∑nh(n)h(n-2k)=δ(k), then
φ(t)∈L2(R)φ(t)∈L2(R) exists, and generates
a wavelet system that is a tight frame in L2L2.
This important result from Lawton [13], [15] gives the
sufficient conditions for φ(t)φ(t) to exist and generate wavelet tight
frames. The proof uses an iteration of the basic recursion equation
Equation 1 as a successive approximation similar to Picard's method for
differential equations. Indeed, this method is used to calculate
φ(t)φ(t) in Section 22. It is interesting to note that the
scaling function may be very rough, even “fractal" in nature. This may
be desirable if the signal being analyzed is also rough.
Although this theorem guarantees that φ(t)φ(t) generates a tight
frame, in most practical
situations, the resulting system is an orthonormal basis [15].
The conditions in the following theorems are generally satisfied.
Theorem 14 (Lawton)
If h(n) has compact support, ∑nh(n)=2∑nh(n)=2, and ∑nh(n)h(n-2k)=δ(k)∑nh(n)h(n-2k)=δ(k), then φ(t-k)φ(t-k) forms an orthogonal set if
and only if the transition matrix TT has a simple unity eigenvalue.
This powerful result allows a simple evaluation of h(n)h(n) to see if
it can support a wavelet expansion system [13], [15], [14].
An equivalent result using the frequency response of the FIR digital
filter formed from h(n)h(n) was given by Cohen.
Theorem 15 (Cohen)
If H(ω)H(ω) is the DTFT of h(n)h(n) with compact support and ∑nh(n)=2∑nh(n)=2 with ∑nh(n)h(n-2k)=δ(k)∑nh(n)h(n-2k)=δ(k),and if H(ω)≠0H(ω)≠0
for -π/3≤ω≤π/3-π/3≤ω≤π/3, then the φ(t-k)φ(t-k)
satisfying Equation 1 generate an orthonormal basis in L2L2.
A slightly weaker version of this frequency domain sufficient condition is
easier to prove [21], [20] and to extend to the
M-band case for the case of no zeros
allowed in -π/2≤ω≤π/2-π/2≤ω≤π/2[4]. There are other
sufficient conditions that, together with those in Theorem Paragraph 66, will
guarantee an orthonormal basis. Daubechies' vanishing moments will guarantee
an orthogonal basis.
Theorems (Reference), (Reference), and (Reference) show that
h(n)h(n) has the characteristics of a lowpass FIR digital filter. We will
later see that the FIR filter made up of the wavelet coefficients is a
high pass filter and the filter bank view developed in Chapter: Filter Banks and the Discrete Wavelet Transform
and Section: Multiplicity-M (M-Band) Scaling Functions and Wavelets further explains this view.
Theorem 16 If h(n)h(n) has finite support and if φ(t)∈L1φ(t)∈L1, then φ(t)φ(t)
has finite support [12].
If φ(t)φ(t) is not restricted to L1L1, it may have infinite support
even if h(n)h(n) has finite support.
These theorems give a good picture of the relationship between the
recursive equation coefficients h(n)h(n) and the scaling function
φ(t)φ(t) as a solution of Equation 1. More properties and
characteristics are presented in Section 15.
One of the main purposes for presenting the rather theoretical results of
this chapter is to set up the conditions for designing wavelet systems.
One approach is to require the minimum sufficient conditions as
constraints in an optimization or approximation,
then use the remaining
degrees of freedom to choose h(n)h(n) that will give the best signal
representation, decomposition, or compression. In some cases, the
sufficient conditions are overly restrictive and it is worthwhile to use
the necessary conditions and then check the design to see if it is
satisfactory. In many cases, wavelet systems are designed by a frequency
domain design of H(ω)H(ω) using digital filter design techniques with
wavelet based constraints.