1: 

2: \documentclass[12pt,reqno]{amsart}

3: 

4: \usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, amsfonts, amsbsy, amsthm, latexsym, graphicx}

5: 

6: \oddsidemargin  0.0in

7: \evensidemargin 0.0in

8: \setlength{\topmargin}{.0in}

9: \setlength{\textheight}{8.60 true in}

10: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5 true in}

11: 

12: \theoremstyle{definition}

13: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem} [section]

14: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

15: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

16: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

17: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

18: \newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}

19: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

20: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

21: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

22: 

23: 

24: \newcommand{\EQ}{\; = \;}

25: \newcommand{\GE}{\; \ge \;}

26: \newcommand{\GT}{\; > \;}

27: \newcommand{\IN}{\; \in \;}

28: \newcommand{\LE}{\; \le \;}

29: \newcommand{\LT}{\; < \;}

30: \newcommand{\SUBSET}{\; \subset \;}

31: \newcommand{\plus}{\; + \;}

32: \newcommand{\minus}{\; - \;}

33: \newcommand{\Bc}{{\mathcal{B}}}

34: \newcommand{\BD}{D_B}

35: \newcommand{\bigabs}[1]{{\bigl|#1\bigr|}}

36: \newcommand{\Bigabs}[1]{{\Bigl|#1\Bigr|}}

37: \newcommand{\biggabs}[1]{{\biggl|#1\biggr|}}

38: \newcommand{\bigbracket}[1]{\bigl[#1\bigr]}

39: \newcommand{\biggbracket}[1]{\biggl[#1\biggr]}

40: \newcommand{\C}{\mathbf{C}}

41: \newcommand{\Cc}{{\mathcal{C}}}

42: \newcommand{\CHI}{\hbox{\raise .4ex \hbox{$\chi$}}}

43: \newcommand{\clspan}{{\overline{\mbox{\rm span}}}}

44: \newcommand{\comp}{{\mathrm{C}}}

45: \newcommand{\Dim}{{\mathrm{dim}}}

46: \newcommand{\dist}{{\mathrm{dist}}}

47: \newcommand{\Ec}{{\mathcal{E}}}

48: \newcommand{\tEc}{{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}

49: \newcommand{\te}{{\tilde{e}}}

50: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}

51: \newcommand{\Fc}{{\mathcal{F}}}

52: \newcommand{\tFc}{{\tilde{\mathcal{F}}}}

53: \newcommand{\tf}{{\tilde{f}}}

54: \newcommand{\Frac}{{\mathrm{Frac}}}

55: \newcommand{\Gc}{{\mathcal{G}}}

56: \newcommand{\tGc}{{\tilde{\mathcal{G}}}}

57: \newcommand{\tg}{{\tilde{g}}}

58: \newcommand{\ip}[2]{\langle#1,#2\rangle}

59: \newcommand{\bigip}[2]{\bigl\langle #1, \, #2 \bigr\rangle}

60: \newcommand{\Bigip}[2]{\Bigl\langle #1, \, #2 \Bigr\rangle}

61: \newcommand{\biggip}[2]{\biggl\langle #1, \, #2 \biggr\rangle}

62: \newcommand{\Int}{{\mathrm{Int}}}

63: \newcommand{\cM}{{\mathcal{M}}}

64: \newcommand{\one}{\mathbf{1}}

65: \newcommand{\N}{\mathbf{N}}

66: \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\|#1\|}

67: \newcommand{\bignorm}[1]{\bigl\|#1\bigr\|}

68: \newcommand{\Bignorm}[1]{\Bigl\|#1\Bigr\|}

69: \newcommand{\biggnorm}[1]{\biggl\|#1\biggr\|}

70: \newcommand{\bomega}{{\bar{\omega}}}

71: \newcommand{\tomega}{{\tilde{\omega}}}

72: \newcommand{\Pb}{\mathbf{P}}

73: \newcommand{\bigparen}[1]{\bigl(#1\bigr)}

74: \newcommand{\Bigparen}[1]{\Bigl(#1\Bigr)}

75: \newcommand{\biggparen}[1]{\biggl(#1\biggr)}

76: \newcommand{\plim}{\operatornamewithlimits{\mbox{$p$}-\mathrm{lim}}}

77: \newcommand{\Q}{\mathbf{Q}}

78: \newcommand{\Qc}{{\mathcal{Q}}}

79: \newcommand{\qeddeff}{{\qquad\qed}}

80: \newcommand{\qlim}{\operatornamewithlimits{\mbox{$q$}-\mathrm{lim}}}

81: \newcommand{\R}{\mathbf{R}}

82: \newcommand{\range}{{\mathrm{range}}}

83: \newcommand{\rank}{{\mathrm{rank}}}

84: \newcommand{\Sc}{{\mathcal{S}}}

85: \newcommand{\set}[1]{\{#1\}}

86: \newcommand{\bigset}[1]{\bigl\{#1\bigr\}}

87: \newcommand{\Bigset}[1]{\Bigl\{#1\Bigr\}}

88: \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}

89: \newcommand{\spectrum}{\mathrm{Sp}}

90: \newcommand{\T}{\mathbf{T}}

91: \newcommand{\trace}{{\mathrm{trace}}}

92: \newcommand{\bx}{{\bar{x}}}

93: \newcommand{\tx}{{\tilde{x}}}

94: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbf{Z}}

95: 

96: 

97: \begin{document}

98: 

99: \title[Density, Overcompleteness, and Localization of Frames, II]

100: {Density, Overcompleteness, and \\ Localization of Frames. \\

101: II. Gabor Systems}

102: 

103: \author[R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau]

104: {Radu~Balan, Peter~G.~Casazza, Christopher~Heil, and Zeph~Landau}

105: 

106: \address{\textrm{(R.~Balan)}

107: Siemens Corporate Research, 

108: 755 College Road East, 

109: Princeton, New Jersey 08540 USA}

110: \email{radu.balan@siemens.com}

111: 

112: \address{\textrm{(P.~G.~Casazza)}

113: Department of Mathematics,

114: University of Missouri,

115: Columbia, Missouri 65211 USA}

116: \email{pete@math.missouri.edu}

117: 

118: \address{\textrm{(C.~Heil)}

119: School of Mathematics,

120: Georgia Institute of Technology,

121: Atlanta, Georgia 30332 USA}

122: \email{heil@math.gatech.edu}

123: 

124: \address{\textrm{(Z.~Landau)}

125: Department of Mathematics R8133,

126: The City College of New York,

127: Convent Ave at 138th Street,

128: New York, New York 10031 USA}

129: \email{landau@sci.ccny.cuny.edu}

130: 

131: \date{June 14, 2005}

132: 

133: \keywords{

134: Density, excess, frames, Gabor systems, modulation spaces, overcompleteness,

135: Riesz bases, wavelets, Weyl--Heisenberg systems.

136: }

137: 

138: \subjclass[2000]{Primary 42C15; Secondary 46C99}

139: 

140: \thanks{

141: The second author was partially supported by NSF Grants

142: DMS-0102686 and DMS-0405376.

143: The third author was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-0139261.

144: Some of the results of this paper will be announced, without proofs,

145: in the research announcement \cite{BCHL05b}.}

146: 

147: \begin{abstract}

148: This work developes a quantitative framework for

149: describing the overcompleteness of a large class of frames.

150: A previous paper introduced notions of localization and approximation between

151: two frames

152: $\mathcal{F} = \{f_i\}_{i \in I}$ and

153: $\mathcal{E} = \{e_j\}_{j \in G}$ ($G$ a discrete abelian group),

154: relating the decay of the expansion of the elements of~$\mathcal{F}$

155: in terms of the elements of $\mathcal{E}$ via a map $a \colon I \to G$. 

156: This paper shows that those abstract results yield an array of new

157: implications for irregular Gabor frames.

158: Additionally, various Nyquist density results for Gabor frames are

159: recovered as special cases, and in the process both their meaning

160: and implications are clarified.

161: New results are obtained on the excess and overcompleteness of Gabor frames,

162: on the relationship between frame bounds and density,

163: and on the structure of the dual frame of an irregular Gabor frame.

164: More generally, these results apply both to Gabor frames and to systems

165: of Gabor molecules, whose elements share only a common envelope of

166: concentration in the time-frequency plane.

167: 

168: The notions of localization and related approximation properties

169: are a spectrum of ideas that quantify the degree to which elements

170: of one frame can be approximated by elements of another frame.

171: In this paper, a comprehensive examination of the interrelations among

172: these localization and approximation concepts is made, with most implications

173: shown to be sharp.

174: \end{abstract}

175: 

176: \copyrightinfo{}{}

177: 

178: \maketitle

179: 

180: 

181: \section{Introduction}

182: 

183: The fundamental structural feature of frames that are not Riesz bases is

184: the overcompleteness of its elements.

185: To date, even partial understanding of this overcompleteness has been

186: restricted to limited examples, such as finite-dimensional frames

187: or highly structured (``lattice'') frames of windowed exponentials or

188: of time-frequency shifts (Gabor systems).

189: Together, the ideas and results presented in this paper and

190: in \cite{BCHL05a} provide a quantitative framework for describing the

191: overcompleteness of a large class of frames.

192: The consequences of these ideas are:

193: (a)~an array of fundamental new results for frames that hold in a

194: general setting,

195: (b)~significant new results for the case of Gabor frames,

196: as well as a new framing of existing results that clarifies their meaning,

197: and (c)~the presentation of a novel and fruitful point of view for

198: future research.

199: 

200: Our approach begins with two frames $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and

201: $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$, where $G$ is a discrete abelian group;

202: we then introduce a notion of the localization of $\Fc$ with respect to $\Ec$.

203: The idea of localization is that it describes the decay of the coefficients

204: of the expansion of elements of~$\Fc$ in terms of the elements of $\Ec$.

205: To make this notion of decay meaningful, a map $a$ from the index set $I$ into

206: the index set $G$ is introduced.

207: With this setup, we establish a remarkable

208: equality between three seemingly unrelated quantities: certain averages

209: of $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i}$ and $\ip{e_j}{\te_j}$

210: of frame elements with corresponding canonical dual frame elements,

211: which we refer to as \emph{relative measures},

212: and the density of the set $a(I)$ in $G$ \cite[Thm.~3.4]{BCHL05a}.

213: This equality between density and relative measure is striking since

214: the relative measure is a function of the frame elements,

215: while the density is solely determined by the index set~$I$ and

216: the mapping $a \colon I \to G$.

217: 

218: Due to the length of this work, it is natural to present it in two parts.

219: The first part, containing the theoretical and structural results that have

220: driven the research, appeared in \cite{BCHL05a}

221: (hereafter referred to as ``Part~I'').

222: In this paper (the second part) we accomplish the following two

223: main goals.

224: 

225: \medskip

226: (1) We apply the theoretical results to the case of Gabor systems

227: $$\Gc(g,\Lambda)

228: \EQ \set{M_\omega T_x g}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda}

229: \EQ \set{e^{2\pi i \omega \cdot t} g(t-x)}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda},$$

230: which yields a collection of new results that can be summarized as follows.

231: 

232: \medskip

233: \begin{enumerate}

234: \item[\textup{(a)}]

235: \emph{Functions with time-frequency concentration generate localized

236: Gabor frames} (Theorem~\ref{M1local}).

237: We show how the degree of localization of a Gabor frame

238: is tied to the time-frequency concentration of the generating window function

239: or ``atom''~$g$.

240: This alone yields a significant improvement over what was previously known

241: about the approximation properties of irregular Gabor frames.

242: We extend these results to more general systems of \emph{Gabor molecules}

243: whose elements are not required to be simple time-frequency shifts of each

244: other, but instead need only share a common envelope of concentration about

245: points in the time-frequency plane.

246: 

247: \medskip

248: \item[\textup{(b)}]

249: \emph{Characterization of the dual frame of a Gabor frame}

250: (Theorem~\ref{dualgaborlocalization}).

251: We prove that if an irregular Gabor frame is generated by a function $g$

252: which is sufficiently concentrated in the time-frequency plane

253: (specifically, $g$ lies in the modulation space $M^1$),

254: then the elements of the dual frame also lie in $M^1$.

255: We further prove that the dual frame forms a set of Gabor molecules,

256: and thus, while it need not form a Gabor frame, the elements do share

257: a common envelope of concentration in the time-frequency plane.

258: Moreover, this same result applies if the original frame was only

259: itself a frame of Gabor molecules.

260: This greatly extends a recent result of Gr\"ochenig and Leinert \cite{GL04}

261: which covered only the case of lattice Gabor frames.

262: 

263: \medskip

264: \item[\textup{(c)}]

265: \emph{A relationship between density of time-frequency shifts and

266: inner products of frame elements}

267: (Theorems~\ref{gabordensity}, \ref{gaborbounds}).

268: We apply the core abstract result of Part~I,

269: the Density--Relative Measure Theorem \cite[Thm.~3.4]{BCHL05a}.

270: This implies a remarkable equality between seemingly unrelated quantities:

271: the density of the time-frequency shifts of a Gabor frame and certain

272: averages of inner products between Gabor frame elements and the

273: canonical dual frame elements.

274: As a consequence we obtain new relationships between the density of the

275: index set, the frame bounds, and the norm of the window of the Gabor frame.

276: 

277: \medskip

278: \item[\textup{(d)}]

279: \emph{The excess of Gabor frames}

280: (Theorem~\ref{gaborremoval}).

281: We show that in any overcomplete Gabor frame or set of Gabor molecules,

282: a set of frame elements with \emph{positive density} can be removed yet

283: still leave a frame.

284: 

285: \end{enumerate}

286: 

287: \medskip

288: (2) We provide a comprehensive examination of the interrelations among the

289: suite of localization localization and approximation concepts introduced in

290: Part~I, and in most cases provided counterexamples showing that these

291: implications are sharp.

292: 

293: 

294: 

295: 

296: \smallskip

297: \subsection{Outline}

298: We briefly review some results known for irregular Gabor frames

299: that are related to the themes of this paper and then discuss our new

300: contributions.

301: 

302: There is an extensive literature available for

303: ``lattice'' Gabor systems of the form

304: $\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$ or

305: $\Gc(g,A(\Z^d))$, where $A$ is an invertible $d \times d$ matrix.

306: However, until only recently, very few results were available for

307: irregular Gabor systems $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ where $\Lambda$ is an

308: arbitrary subset of $\R^{2d}$.

309: Some previous papers on irregular Gabor frames are

310: \cite{Gro93},

311: \cite{Lan93},

312: \cite{RS95},

313: \cite{Jan98},

314: \cite{CDH99},

315: \cite{DH00},

316: \cite{CFZ01},

317: \cite{HW01},

318: \cite{SZ02},

319: \cite{BCHL03b},

320: \cite{LW03},

321: \cite{SZ03},

322: \cite{Gro04}.

323: We note that many basic questions remain open even for lattice

324: Gabor frames.

325: For example, until \cite{BCHL03a}, it was not known if every overcomplete

326: lattice Gabor frame $\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$ that was not a Riesz

327: basis contained an infinite subset that could be removed yet leave a frame.

328: 

329: In \cite{RS95},

330: Ramanathan and Steger proved a Nyquist density result for certain

331: irregular Gabor frames.

332: Together with the extensions from \cite{CDH99},

333: this can be stated as follows

334: (compare also \cite{Lan93}, \cite{GR96}, \cite{Jan98}):

335: 

336: 

337: 

338: \smallskip

339: \begin{enumerate}

340: \item[(a)]

341: If $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$, then

342: $1 \le \BD^-(\Lambda) \le \BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$;

343: 

344: \smallskip

345: \item[(b)]

346: If $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Riesz basis for $L^2(\R^d)$,

347: then $\BD^-(\Lambda) = \BD^+(\Lambda) = 1$.

348: \end{enumerate}

349: 

350: \smallskip\noindent

351: Here $\BD^\pm(\Lambda)$ are the lower and upper Beurling densities of

352: $\Lambda$, which are defined precisely in Example~\ref{gabordensityrel}.

353: In the case that $\Lambda$ is a rectangular lattice of the form

354: $\Lambda = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$,

355: several alternative proofs of these facts are known, see

356: \cite{Rie81},

357: \cite{Bag90},

358: \cite{Dau90},

359: \cite{Jan94},

360: \cite{DLL95},

361: \cite{BR03}.

362: For additional history and references see the exposition in

363: \cite{Dau92}, \cite{BHW95}, \cite{Gro01}.

364: Note that a lattice $\Lambda = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ has uniform

365: Beurling densities

366: $\BD^+(\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)

367: = \BD^-(\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)

368: = 1/(\alpha\beta)^d$.

369: 

370: 

371: Ramanathan and Steger's results showed that it is not the algebraic structure

372: of the lattice as such that is essential, but rather the fact that

373: Gabor frames satisfy a certain Homogeneous Approximation Property

374: (essentially the weak HAP presented in this paper, using

375: as a reference system a Gabor frame with a Gaussian generating function).

376: For a Gabor frame, the HAP essentially states that the rate of approximation

377: of a given function by Gabor frame elements is invariant under time-frequency

378: shifts of the function.

379: This is remarkable in the case of irregular Gabor frames, since there is no

380: structure to relate the specific frame elements used in the approximation

381: of one time-frequency shift $M_q T_p f$ to those in an approximation of

382: another time-frequency shift of $f$.

383: The HAP is a fundamental property of Gabor frames, yet very few papers

384: subsequent to \cite{RS95} have made use of it.

385: 

386: We investigate the localization properties of irregular Gabor frames

387: in Section~\ref{gaborsec}.

388: Following the introduction of some notation in Section~\ref{gaborprelims},

389: we show in Section~\ref{boxlocalsec} that every Gabor system has at least a

390: weak amount of localization ($\ell^2$-row decay) with respect to the

391: Gabor orthonormal basis generated by the box function, and as a consequence,

392: we recover the fact that every Gabor Bessel sequence has finite density.

393: 

394: In Section~\ref{M1localsec} we show that much stronger localization is

395: obtained if the reference Gabor system is generated by a function that is

396: well-concentrated in the time-frequency plane.

397: The degree of concentration is quantified by the modulation spaces, which

398: are the natural function spaces associated with Gabor analysis.

399: In particular, we show that if $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is an arbitrary Gabor

400: system such that $g$ lies in the modulation space $M^p$ ($1 \le p \le 2$),

401: and $\Gc(\phi,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$ is a reference Gabor system

402: whose generator $\phi$ lies in the modulation space $M^1$, then

403: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d))$

404: is $\ell^p$-localized.

405: Additionally,

406: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized if $p=1$.

407: In particular, by the implications established in Theorem~\ref{relations},

408: $\ell^2$-localization for a frame

409: implies both the Strong HAP and the Strong Dual HAP, so these

410: results greatly improve the Homogeneous Approximation Property

411: previously established for Gabor frames in \cite{RS95}, \cite{CDH99}.

412: 

413: In Section~\ref{newresults} we use this extended knowledge of the

414: localization properties of Gabor systems to derive new implications

415: for irregular Gabor frames.

416: In Section~\ref{gabordensitysec} we recover the density results for

417: Gabor frames given above, and furthermore we extend the meaning of density by

418: showing that the Beurling densities of $\Lambda$ are related to the measures

419: of the Gabor frame.

420: We show that the upper and lower measures of a Gabor frame satisfy

421: $\cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) = 1/\BD^\mp(\Lambda)$.

422: This gives a new interpretation of the density of a Gabor frame,

423: and as a consequence we obtain new relations among the density of the

424: index set, the frame bounds, and the norm of the generator.

425: In particular, we show that if $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a tight frame then

426: the index set $\Lambda$ must have uniform Beurling density, i.e.,

427: $\BD^-(\Lambda) = \BD^+(\Lambda)$.

428: Thus tight Gabor frames require a certain amount of uniformity in the

429: index set.

430: 

431: In Section~\ref{gaborremovalsec},

432: we show that if $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Gabor frame whose generator

433: $g$ lies in $M^1$, then whenever $\BD^-(\Lambda) > 1$, there is

434: not merely an infinite subset but a subset with positive density which

435: may be removed from the frame yet still leave a frame.

436: 

437: In Section~\ref{gabordualsec} we address the fundamental question of the

438: structure of the canonical dual frame of an irregular Gabor frame.

439: As is well-known, the canonical dual frame of a lattice Gabor frame is again

440: a lattice Gabor frame, indexed by the same lattice.

441: This need not be the case for an irregular Gabor frame

442: $\Gc(g,\Lambda)

443: = \set{e^{2\pi i \omega \cdot t} g(t-x)}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda}$

444: with an arbitrary index set~$\Lambda$.

445: A canonical dual frame $\tGc = \set{\tg_{x,\omega}}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda}$

446: will exist, but to date essentially nothing has been known about this

447: dual beyond the fact that each dual frame element $\tg_{x,\omega}$

448: is some function in $L^2(\R^d)$.

449: We prove that if $g$ possesses sufficient time-frequency concentration,

450: namely that $g \in M^1$, then each $\tg_{x,\omega}$ possesses the same

451: concentration, i.e., $\tg_{x,\omega} \in M^1$.

452: For the case of lattice systems ($\Lambda = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$),

453: this result was previously obtained by Gr\"ochenig and Leinert \cite{GL04}.

454: However, in addition to extending to the completely irregular setting,

455: we also prove that the dual frame $\tGc$ is Gabor-like.

456: Namely, even though $\tGc$ need not itself be a Gabor frame, we show that

457: it will form a set of \emph{Gabor molecules},

458: meaning that each function $\tg_{x,\omega}$

459: is concentrated in the time-frequency plane about the point $(x,\omega)$

460: with a common envelope of concentration for each $(x,\omega) \in \Lambda$.

461: In fact, this result holds even if the original frame was only itself

462: a frame of Gabor molecules.

463: 

464: We conclude the Gabor portion of the paper in Section~\ref{molecules} where we observe that most of the results

465: obtained for Gabor frames carry over with minor changes to the case of

466: Gabor molecules.

467: 

468: For simplicity of presentation, most of our results will be stated for the

469: case of Gabor frames for all of $L^2(\R^d)$, but many of them can be

470: extended to the case of Gabor frame sequences, or to Gabor frames with

471: multiple generators, by making use of the machinery developed in Part~I

472: and this paper.

473: Results analogous to the ones formulated for Gabor systems could also be

474: formulated for the case of windowed exponentials.

475: 

476: Finally, in Section~\ref{relationsec} we carefully examine the interrelations between the range of localization properties and approximation concepts that have been used to develop the theory.

477:  A set of approximation properties for abstract frames introduced in

478: Part~I is given in Definition~\ref{approxdef}.

479: These are defined in terms of how well the elements

480: of the reference system are approximated by finite linear combinations

481: of frame elements, or vice versa, and provide an abstraction for

482: general frames of the essential features of the Homogeneous Approximation

483: Property (HAP) that is known to hold for Gabor frames or windowed exponentials

484: (see \cite{RS95}, \cite{GR96}, \cite{CDH99}).

485:  Theorem ~\ref{relations} establishes

486: an extensive list of implications that hold among

487: the localization and approximation properties,

488: and additionally in most cases we provide examples which show that

489: these implications are sharp.

490: In particular, there is an equivalence between

491: $\ell^2$-column decay and the HAP, and between

492: $\ell^2$-row decay and a dual HAP.

493: 

494: We believe that localization is a powerful and useful new concept.

495: As evidence of this fact, we note that Gr\"ochenig has independently

496: introduced a concept of localized frames, for a completely different

497: purpose, in \cite{Gro04}.

498: We learned of Gr\"ochenig's results shortly after completion of our own

499: major results.

500: The definitions of localizations presented here and in \cite{Gro04}

501: differ, but the fact that this single concept has independently arisen

502: for two very distinct applications shows its utility.

503: In his elegant paper, Gr\"ochenig has shown that frames which are sufficiently

504: localized in his sense provide frame expansions not only for the Hilbert

505: space~$H$ but for an entire family of associated Banach function spaces.

506: Gr\"ochenig further showed that if a frame is sufficiently localized

507: in his sense (a~polynomial or exponential localization) then the dual frame

508: is similarly localized.

509: 

510: 

511: \smallskip

512: \subsection{General Notation} \label{prelimsec}

513: 

514: 

515: We use the notation from Part~I, which we briefly review here.

516: $H$~will refer to a separable Hilbert space.

517: The frame or system of interest will be indexed by a countable index set $I$.

518: The reference frame or system will be indexed by an additive discrete

519: group $G$ of the form

520: $$G \EQ \prod_{i=1}^d a_i \Z \, \times \, \prod_{j=1}^e \Z_{n_j}.$$

521: We define a metric on $G$ as follows.

522: If $m_j \in \Z_{n_j}$, set $\delta(m_j) = 0$ if $m_j =0$, otherwise

523: $\delta(m_j) = 1$.

524: Then given $g = (a_1 n_1, \dots, a_d n_d, m_1, \dots, m_e) \in G$, set

525: $$|g|

526: \EQ \sup\bigset{|a_1n_1|, \, \dots,\, |a_d n_d|, \,

527:                 \delta(m_1), \, \dots, \, \delta(m_e)}.$$

528: The metric is $d(g,h) = |g-h|$ for $g$, $h \in G$.

529: The reader can simply take $G = \Z^d$ without much loss of insight

530: on a first reading (the metric in this case is simply the $\ell^\infty$

531: metric on $\R^d$ restricted to $\Z^d$).

532: 

533: We implicitly assume that there exists a map $a \colon I \to G$

534: associated with $I$ and~$G$.

535: This map will often not be injective.

536: For each integer $N > 0$ we let

537: $$S_N(j)

538: \EQ \Bigset{k \in G : |k-j| \le \frac{N}2}$$

539: denote a discrete ``cube'' or ``box'' in $G$ centered at $j \in G$.

540: The cardinality of $S_N(j)$ is independent of $j$.

541: For example, if $G = \Z^d$ then

542: $|S_{2N}(j)| = |S_{2N+1}(j)| = (2N+1)^d$.

543: We let $I_N(j)$ denote the inverse image of $S_N(j)$ under $a$, i.e.,

544: $$I_N(j) \EQ a^{-1}(S_N(j))

545: \EQ \set{i \in I : a(i) \in S_N(j)}.$$

546: 

547: 

548: \smallskip

549: \subsection{Notation for Frames and Riesz Bases}

550: 

551: We use standard notations for frames and Riesz bases as found in the texts

552: \cite{Chr03}, \cite{Dau92}, \cite{Gro01}, \cite{You01}

553: or the research-tutorials \cite{Cas00}, \cite{HW89}.

554: 

555: A sequence $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is a \emph{frame} for $H$ if there

556: exist \emph{frame bounds} $A$, $B > 0$ such that

557: $A \, \norm{f}^2 \le \sum_{i \in I} |\ip{f}{f_i}|^2 \le B \, \norm{f}^2$

558: for all $f \in H$.

559: The \emph{analysis operator} $T \colon H \to \ell^2(I)$ is

560: $Tf = \set{\ip{f}{f_i}}_{i \in I}$, and its adjoint

561: $T^* c = \sum_{i \in I} c_i \, f_i$

562: is the \emph{synthesis operator}.

563: The \emph{Gram matrix} is

564: $T T^* = [\ip{f_i}{f_j}]_{i,j \in I}$.

565: The \emph{frame operator}

566: $Sf = T^* T f = \sum_{i \in I} \ip{f}{f_i} \, f_i$

567: is a bounded, positive, and invertible mapping of $H$ onto itself.

568: The \emph{canonical dual frame} is

569: $\tFc = S^{-1}(\Fc) = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$

570: where $\tf_i = S^{-1} f_i$.

571: We call $\Fc$ a \emph{tight frame} if we can take $A=B$, and

572: a \emph{Parseval frame} if we can take $A=B=1$.

573: If $\Fc$ is any frame, then $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ is the

574: \emph{canonical Parseval frame} associated to $\Fc$.

575: We call $\Fc$ a \emph{uniform norm frame} if all the frame elements have

576: identical norms, i.e., if $\norm{f_i} = const.$ for all $i \in I$.

577: A frame is \emph{norm-bounded below} if $\inf_i \norm{f_i} > 0$.

578: 

579: A sequence which satisfies the upper frame bound estimate,

580: but not necessarily the lower estimate, is called

581: a \emph{Bessel sequence} and $B$ is a \emph{Bessel bound}.

582: 

583: A sequence $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$

584: that is a frame for its closed linear span in $H$

585: is called a \emph{frame sequence}.

586: In this case $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ will denote its

587: canonical dual frame within $\clspan(F)$, and

588: $P_\Fc$ will denote the orthogonal projection of $H$ onto $\clspan(\Fc)$.

589: 

590: A frame is a basis if and only if it is a Riesz basis.

591: A \emph{Riesz sequence} is a sequence that forms a

592: Riesz basis for its closed linear span in~$H$.

593: 

594: 

595: \smallskip

596: \section{Density, Localization, HAP, and Relative Measure} \label{section2}

597: 

598: In this section we recall basic definitions from Part~I,

599: and show how they are implemented for the case of Gabor systems.

600: In Theorem~\ref{relations} we will derive an extended set of implications

601: that hold among these properties, and provide examples in

602: Section~\ref{relationappend} showing that most of those implications

603: are sharp.

604: 

605: 

606: \smallskip

607: \subsection{Density} \label{densitysec}

608: 

609: Given an index set $I$ and a map $a \colon I \to G$, we define

610: the density of $I$ by computing the Beurling density of its image $a(I)$

611: as a subset of $G$.

612: Note that we regard $I$ as a sequence, and hence repetitions of images

613: count in determining the density.

614: 

615: \begin{definition}[Density] \label{densitydef}

616: The \emph{lower and upper densities of $I$ with respect to $a$} are

617: \begin{equation} \label{lowerdensity}

618: D^-(I,a)

619: \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \inf_{j \in G} \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|},

620: \qquad

621: D^+(I,a)

622: \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{j \in G} \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|},

623: \end{equation}

624: respectively.

625: These quantities could be zero or infinite,

626: $0 \le D^-(I,a) \le D^+(I,a) \le \infty$.

627: When $D^-(I,a) = D^+(I,a) = D$ we say $I$ has \emph{uniform density}~$D$.

628: ~\qed

629: \end{definition}

630: 

631: These lower and upper densities are only the extremes of the

632: possible densities that we could naturally assign to $I$ with respect to $a$.

633: In particular, instead of taking the infimum or supremum over all possible

634: centers in \eqref{lowerdensity} we could choose one

635: specific sequence of centers, and instead of computing the liminf or limsup

636: we could consider the limit with respect to some ultrafilter

637: (some background on ultrafilters is provided in Appendix~\ref{ultraappend}).

638: The different possible choices of ultrafilters and sequences of centers

639: gives us the following natural collection of definitions of density.

640: 

641: \begin{definition}

642: Let $p$ be a free ultrafilter, and let $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ be any

643: sequence of centers $c_N \in G$.

644: Then the \emph{density of $I$ with respect to $a$, $p$, and $c$} is

645: $$D(p,c)

646: \EQ D(p,c;I,a)

647: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|}.

648: \qeddeff$$

649: \end{definition}

650: 

651: \begin{example}

652: If $I=G$ and $a$ is the identity map, then $I_N(j) = S_N(j)$ for every $N$

653: and~$j$, and hence $D(p,c) = D^-(I,a) = D^+(I,a) = 1$

654: for every choice of free ultrafilter $p$ and sequence of centers~$c$.

655: \qed

656: \end{example}

657: 

658: It follows from basic properties of ultrafilters that we always have

659: $D^-(I,a) \le D(p,c) \le D^+(I,a)$.

660: It is shown in \cite[Lem.~2.5]{BCHL05a} that

661: there exist free ultrafilters $p^-$, $p^+$ and sequence of centers

662: $c^- = (c_N^-)_{N \in \N}$, $c^+ = (c_N^+)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$ such that

663: $D^-(I,a) = D(p^-,c^-)$

664: and

665: $D^+(I,a) = D(p^+,c^+)$.

666: 

667: \begin{example}[Gabor Systems] \label{gabordensityrel}

668: Consider an arbitrary Gabor system $\Fc = \Gc(g,\Lambda)$

669: and a reference lattice Gabor system

670: $\Ec = \Gc(\phi,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$.

671: The index set $I = \Lambda$ is a countable sequence of points in $\R^{2d}$,

672: and the reference group is $G = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$.

673: A natural map $a \colon \Lambda \to G$,

674: that we will employ whenever dealing with Gabor systems,

675: is rounding to a near element of~$G$, i.e.,

676: \begin{equation} \label{adef1}

677: a(x,\omega)

678: \EQ \bigparen{\alpha \, \Int\bigparen{\tfrac{x}{\alpha}},

679:               \beta \, \Int\bigparen{\tfrac{\omega}{\beta}}},

680: \qquad (x,\omega) \in \Lambda,

681: \end{equation}

682: where $\Int(x) = (\lfloor x_1 \rfloor, \dots, \lfloor x_d \rfloor)$.

683: With this setup, $S_N(j)$ is the intersection of

684: $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ with the cube $Q_N(j)$ in $\R^{2d}$

685: centered at $j$ with side lengths $N$.

686: Such a cube contains approximately $N^{2d}/(\alpha\beta)^d$ points of

687: $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$; precisely,

688: $$\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{|S_N(j)|}{N^{2d}} \EQ \frac1{(\alpha\beta)^d}.$$

689: Likewise, because $a$ is a bounded perturbation of the identity map,

690: the number of points in $I_N(j)$ is asymptotically the cardinality of

691: $\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)$.

692: Consequently, the standard definition of the upper Beurling density

693: $\BD^+(\Lambda)$ of $\Lambda$ is related to our definition of the

694: upper density of $\Lambda$ with respect to $a$ as follows:

695: \begin{align}

696: \BD^+(\Lambda)

697: & \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{j \in \R^{2d}}

698:       \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)|}{N^{2d}} \notag \\[1 \jot]

699: & \EQ \frac1{(\alpha\beta)^d} \, \limsup_{N \to \infty}

700:       \sup_{j \in \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d}

701:       \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|}

702: \EQ \frac1{(\alpha\beta)^d} \, D^+(\Lambda,a). \label{beurlingdef}

703: \end{align}

704: Similarly the lower Beurling density of $\Lambda$ is

705: $\BD^-(\Lambda) = (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, D^-(\Lambda,a)$.

706: In particular, when $\alpha\beta = 1$ (the ``critical density'' case),

707: our definition coincides with Beurling density, but in general the extra

708: factor of $(\alpha\beta)^d$ must be taken into account.

709: 

710: The map $a$ given in \eqref{adef1} is the one we will use when dealing with

711: Gabor systems, but any bounded perturbation of $a$ would serve just as well.

712: That is, given $\delta > 0$, we could map $(x,\omega)$ to any point in

713: $G = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ that is within a distance $\delta$ of

714: $(\alpha \, \Int(\tfrac{x}{\alpha}), \beta \, \Int(\tfrac{\omega}{\beta}))$

715: without any change in the results.

716: \qed

717: \end{example}

718: 

719: 

720: \smallskip

721: \subsection{The Localization Properties} \label{localizationsec}

722: 

723: 

724: The words ``column'' and ``row'' in the following definition

725: refer to the $I \times G$ cross-Grammian matrix

726: $[\ip{f_i}{e_j}]_{i \in I, j \in G}$.

727: We think of the elements in locations $(i,a(i))$ as corresponding to the

728: main diagonal of this matrix.

729: 

730: \begin{definition}[Localization] \label{localizationdef}

731: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and

732: $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be sequences in $H$

733: and $a \colon I \to G$ an associated map.

734: 

735: \smallskip

736: \begin{enumerate}

737: \item[(a)]

738: We say $\Fc$ is \emph{$\ell^p$-localized} with respect to the

739: reference sequence $\Ec$ and the map $a$,

740: or simply that \emph{$(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is $\ell^p$-localized}, if

741: $$\sum_{j \in G} \, \sup_{i \in I} \, |\ip{f_i}{e_{j+a(i)}}|^p

742: \LT \infty.$$

743: Equivalently, there must exist an $r \in \ell^p(G)$ such that

744: $$\forall\, i \in I, \quad

745: \forall\, j \in G, \quad

746: |\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \LE r_{a(i)-j}.$$

747: 

748: \medskip

749: \item[(b)]

750: We say that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has \emph{$\ell^p$-column decay} if for every

751: $\eps > 0$ there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$ so that

752: $$\forall\, j \in G, \quad

753: \sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps}(j)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^p \LT \eps.$$

754: 

755: \medskip

756: \item[(c)]

757: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has \emph{$\ell^p$-row decay} if for every

758: $\eps > 0$ there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$ so that

759: $$\forall\, i \in I, \quad

760: \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}({a(i)})} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^p \LT \eps.

761: \qeddeff$$

762: \end{enumerate}

763: \end{definition}

764: 

765: Note that given a sequence $\Fc$, the definition of localization is dependent 

766: upon both the choice of reference sequence $\Ec$ and the map $a$.

767: 

768: \begin{example}[Gabor Systems] \label{gaborexample}

769: For motivation, consider the especially simple case of Gabor systems both

770: indexed by $\Z^{2d}$, i.e.,

771: $\Fc = \Gc(g,\Z^{2d}) = \set{M_n T_k g}_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d}}$

772: and

773: $\Ec = \Gc(\phi,\Z^{2d}) = \set{M_n T_k \phi}_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d}}$.

774: The map $a \colon \Z^{2d} \to \Z^{2d}$ given by \eqref{adef1} is

775: the identity map, and

776: the $\Z^{2d} \times \Z^{2d}$ cross-Grammian matrix

777: $$\bigbracket{\ip{M_m T_j g}{M_n T_k \phi}}

778:     _{(j,m) \in \Z^{2d}, \, (k,n) \in \Z^{2d}}

779: \EQ \bigbracket{\ip{g} {M_{n-m} T_{k-j} \phi}}

780:     _{(j,m) \in \Z^{2d}, \, (k,n) \in \Z^{2d}}$$

781: is Toeplitz.

782: Set $r_{k,n} = |\ip{g}{M_n T_k \phi}|$.

783: If $\Ec = \Gc(\phi,\Z^{2d})$ is a Bessel sequence with Bessel bound~$B$, then 

784: $$\sum_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d}} r_{k,n}^2

785: \EQ \sum_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d}} |\ip{g}{M_n T_k \phi}|^2

786: \LE B \, \norm{g}_2^2

787: \LT \infty,$$

788: so $r \in \ell^2(\Z^{2d})$, and hence

789: $(\Gc(g,\Z^{2d}), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi,\Z^{2d}))$ is $\ell^2$-localized.

790: 

791: Unfortunately, Gabor frames indexed by $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$

792: with $\alpha\beta=1$ are not very useful in practice.

793: It can easily be shown via Zak transform techniques that if such a system is

794: a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$ then it will be a Riesz basis.

795: However, the \emph{Balian--Low Theorem} (BLT) states that the generator $g$

796: of such a Gabor Riesz basis cannot be simultaneously well-concentrated in both

797: time and frequency.

798: For exposition and references on the BLT see the survey \cite{BHW95}.

799: Some recent results on the BLT in higher dimensions

800: are in \cite{BCGP02}, \cite{GHHK02}.

801: 

802: Therefore, consider an arbitrary Gabor system

803: $\Fc = \Gc(g,\Lambda) = \set{M_\omega T_x g}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda}$,

804: where $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$.

805: For a reference system take a lattice Gabor system of the form

806: $\Ec = \Gc(\phi, \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)

807: = \set{M_\eta T_u \phi}_{(u,\eta) \in \alpha\Z^d\times\beta\Z^d}$,

808: where $\alpha$, $\beta > 0$.

809: We regard $\Ec$ as being indexed by

810: $G = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$

811: and use the natural map $a \colon \Lambda \to G$ given in \eqref{adef1}

812: that sends an element of $\Lambda$ to a near element of~$G$.

813: It is no longer the case that the cross-Grammian matrix

814: $\bigbracket{\ip{M_\omega T_x g}{M_\eta T_u \phi}}

815:  _{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda, \, (u,\eta) \in G}$

816: is Toeplitz, but we will show in Theorem~\ref{M1local} that if $\Lambda$

817: has finite density and $\phi$ possesses a certain amount of joint

818: concentration in time and frequency then

819: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d))$

820: is $\ell^2$-localized.

821: The specific requirement on $\phi$ is that it must lie in the modulation

822: space $M^1(\R^d)$, which is defined precisely in Section~\ref{M1localsec}.

823: Moreover, the localization can be improved by also imposing a time-frequency

824: concentration condition on $g$.

825: Specifically, we show in Theorem~\ref{M1local} that if

826: $g \in M^p(\R^d)$ and $\phi \in M^1(\R^d)$,

827: then $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d))$

828: is $\ell^p$-localized.

829: ~\qed

830: \end{example}

831: 

832: \begin{remark}

833: For comparison, let us give Gr\"ochenig's notion of localization from

834: \cite{Gro04}.

835: Let $I$ and $J$ be countable index sets in $\R^d$ that are separated,

836: i.e., $\inf_{i \ne j \in I} |i-j| > 0$ and similarly for $J$.

837: Then $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is \emph{$s$-polynomially localized}

838: with respect to a Riesz basis $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in J}$ if

839: for every $i \in I$ and $j \in J$ we have

840: $$|\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \LE C \, (1 + |i-j|)^{-s}

841: \qquad\text{and}\qquad

842: |\ip{f_i}{\te_j}| \LE C \, (1 + |i-j|)^{-s},$$

843: where $\set{\te_j}_{j \in J}$ is the dual basis to 

844: $\set{e_j}_{j \in J}$.

845: Likewise $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is \emph{exponentially localized}

846: with respect to a Riesz basis $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in J}$ if

847: for some $\alpha > 0$ we have for every $i \in I$ and $j \in J$ that

848: $$|\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \LE C \, e^{-\alpha |i-j|}

849: \qquad\text{and}\qquad

850: |\ip{f_i}{\te_j}| \LE C \, e^{-\alpha |i-j|}.

851: \qeddeff$$

852: \end{remark}

853: 

854: 

855: \smallskip

856: \subsection{The Approximation Properties} \label{approxsec}

857: 

858: The following approximation properties extract the essence of the

859: Homogeneous Approximation Property that is satisfied by Gabor frames,

860: but without reference to the exact structure of Gabor frames.

861: 

862: \begin{definition}[Homogeneous Approximation Properties] \label{approxdef}

863: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for~$H$ with

864: canonical dual $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$, and

865: let $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be a sequence in $H$.

866: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.

867: 

868: \smallskip

869: \begin{enumerate}

870: \item[(a)]

871: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{weak HAP}

872: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$

873: so that for every $j \in G$ we have

874: $\dist\bigparen{e_j, \,\,

875: \clspan\bigset{\tf_i : i \in I_{N_\eps}(j)}}

876: < \eps$.

877: Equivalently, there must exist scalars $c_{i,j}$, with only finitely many

878: nonzero, such that

879: \begin{equation} \label{weakHAPdef}

880: \Bignorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in I_{N_\eps}(j)} c_{i,j} \, \tf_i}

881: \LT \eps.

882: \end{equation}

883: 

884: \medskip

885: \item[(b)]

886: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{strong HAP}

887: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$

888: so that for every $j \in G$ we have

889: $$\Bignorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in I_{N_\eps}(j)} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}

890: \LT \eps. \qeddeff$$

891: \end{enumerate}

892: \end{definition}

893: 

894: 

895: \begin{definition}[Dual Homogeneous Approximation Properties]

896: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a sequence in $H$, and

897: let $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be a frame for $H$ with

898: canonical dual $\tEc = \set{\te_j}_{j \in G}$.

899: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.

900: 

901: \smallskip

902: \begin{enumerate}

903: \item[(a)]

904: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{weak dual HAP}

905: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$

906: so that for every $i \in I$ we have

907: $\dist\bigparen{f_i, \,\,

908: \clspan\bigset{\te_j : j \in S_{N_\eps}(a(i))}}

909: < \eps$.

910: 

911: \medskip

912: \item[(b)]

913: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{strong dual HAP}

914: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$

915: so that for every $i \in I$ we have

916: $\bignorm{f_i - \sum_{j \in S_{N_\eps}(a(i))} \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \te_j}

917: < \eps$.

918: ~\qed

919: \end{enumerate}

920: \end{definition}

921: 

922: 

923: \smallskip

924: \subsection{Self-Localization} \label{selflocsec}

925: 

926: It is also useful to consider localizations where the system

927: $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is compared to itself or to its canonical

928: dual frame instead of to a reference system~$\Ec$.

929: An analogous polynomial or exponential ``intrinsic localization'' was

930: independently introduced by Gr\"ochenig in \cite{Gro03};

931: see also \cite{For03}, \cite{GF04}.

932: Although there is no reference system, we still require a mapping

933: $a \colon I \to G$ associating $I$ with a group $G$.

934: 

935: \begin{definition}[Self-localization]

936: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a sequence in $H$, and

937: let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.

938: 

939: \smallskip

940: \begin{enumerate}

941: \item[(a)]

942: We say that $(\Fc,a)$ is \emph{$\ell^p$-self-localized} if there exists

943: $r \in \ell^p(G)$ such that

944: $$\forall\, i, j \in I, \quad

945: |\ip{f_i}{f_j}| \LE r_{a(i) - a(j)}.$$

946: 

947: \medskip

948: \item[(b)]

949: If $\Fc$ is a frame sequence, then we say that $(\Fc,a)$ is

950: \emph{$\ell^p$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame sequence}

951: $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ if there exists $r \in \ell^p(G)$ such that

952: $$\forall\, i, j \in I, \quad

953: |\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}| \LE r_{a(i) - a(j)}. \qeddeff$$

954: \end{enumerate}

955: \end{definition}

956: 

957: \medskip

958: \begin{remark} \label{selfremark}

959: If $I = G$ and $a$ is the identity map, then $(\Fc,a)$ is

960: $\ell^1$-self-localized if and only if $(\Fc,a,\Fc)$ is $\ell^1$-localized.

961: However, if $a$ is not the identity map, then this need not be the case.

962: For example, every orthonormal basis is $\ell^1$-self-localized regardless

963: of which map~$a$ is chosen, but in Example~\ref{selflocexample} we construct

964: an orthonormal basis $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in \Z}$

965: and a map $a \colon \Z \to \Z$ such that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is not

966: $\ell^1$-localized for any Riesz basis $\Ec$; in fact,

967: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ cannot even possess both $\ell^2$-column decay and

968: $\ell^2$-row decay for any Riesz basis $\Ec$.

969: \qed

970: \end{remark}

971: 

972: We show in Example~\ref{selfexample} that $\ell^1$-localization with 

973: respect to the dual frame does not imply $\ell^1$-self-localization.

974: However, the following result proved in Part~I

975: states that the converse is true.

976: This result will play a key role in Section~\ref{gabordualsec}

977: for determining the properties of the

978: canonical dual frame of an irregular Gabor frame.

979: 

980: 

981: \begin{theorem} \label{selflocthm}

982: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for $H$, and let

983: $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map such that $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.

984: Let $\tFc$ be the canonical dual frame and

985: $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ the canonical Parseval frame.

986: If $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized, then:

987: 

988: \begin{enumerate}

989: \item[(a)]

990: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its

991: canonical dual frame $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$,

992: 

993: \smallskip

994: \item[(b)]

995: $(\tFc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized, and

996: 

997: \smallskip

998: \item[(c)]

999: ($S^{-1/2}(\Fc),a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.

1000: \end{enumerate}

1001: \end{theorem}

1002: 

1003: 

1004: 

1005: \smallskip

1006: \subsection{Relative Measure} \label{relativemeasure}

1007: 

1008: \begin{definition} \label{redundancydef}

1009: (a) Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$

1010: be frame sequences in $H$, and let 

1011: $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.

1012: Let $P_\Fc$, $P_\Ec$ denote the orthogonal projections of $H$ onto

1013: $\clspan(\Fc)$ and $\clspan(\Ec)$, respectively.

1014: Then given a free ultrafilter $p$ and a sequence of centers

1015: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$, we define the

1016: \emph{relative measure of $\Fc$ with respect to $\Ec$, $p$, and $c$} to be

1017: $$\cM_\Ec(\Fc; p, c)

1018: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)}

1019:     \ip{P_\Ec f_i}{\tf_i}.$$

1020: The \emph{relative measure of $\Ec$ with respect to $\Fc$, $p$, and $c$} is

1021: $$\cM_\Fc(\Ec; p, c)

1022: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)}

1023:       \ip{P_\Fc \te_j}{e_j}.

1024: $$

1025: 

1026: \smallskip

1027: (b) If $\clspan(\Ec) \supset \clspan(\Fc)$ then $P_\Ec$ is the identity map

1028: and $\Ec$ plays no role in determining the value of $\cM_\Ec(\Fc;p,e)$.

1029: Therefore, in this case we define the

1030: \emph{measure of $\Fc$ with respect to $p$ and $c$} to be

1031: $$\cM(\Fc; p, c)

1032: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)}

1033:     \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}.$$

1034: Since $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i} = \norm{S^{-1/2}f_i}^2$, we have that

1035: $\cM(\Fc; p, c)$ is real.

1036: Additionally, since $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ is a Parseval frame, we have

1037: $0 \le \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \le 1$ for all $i$, and therefore

1038: $$0 \LE \cM(\Fc;p,c) \LE 1.$$

1039: For this case we further define the 

1040: \emph{lower and upper measures of $\Fc$} by

1041: \begin{align*}

1042: \cM^-(\Fc)

1043: & \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \, \inf_{j \in G} \,

1044:       \frac1{|I_N(j)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(j)}

1045:       \ip{f_i}{\tf_i},

1046:       \\[1 \jot]

1047: \cM^+(\Fc)

1048: & \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \, \sup_{j \in G} \,

1049:       \frac1{|I_N(j)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(j)}

1050:       \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}.

1051: \end{align*}

1052: It can be seen that there exist free ultrafilters

1053: $p^-$, $p^+$ and sequences of centers $c^-$, $c^+$ such that

1054: $\cM^-(\Fc) = \cM(\Fc;p^-,c^-)$ and

1055: $\cM^+(\Fc) = \cM(\Ec;p^+,c^+)$.

1056: 

1057: \medskip

1058: (c) When $\clspan(\Fc) \supset \clspan(\Ec)$, we define the measures

1059: $\cM(\Ec; p, c)$ and $\cM^\pm(\Ec)$ in an analogous manner.

1060: ~\qed

1061: \end{definition}

1062: 

1063: \begin{example} \label{specialcases}

1064: The following special cases show that the measure of a Riesz basis is~$1$.

1065: 

1066: \smallskip

1067: \begin{enumerate}

1068: \item[(a)] If $\clspan(\Ec) \supset \clspan(\Fc)$ and

1069: $\Fc$ is a Riesz sequence then

1070: $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i} = 1$ for every $i \in I$, so

1071: $\cM(\Fc;p,c) = \cM^+(\Fc) = \cM^-(\Fc) = 1$.

1072: 

1073: \medskip

1074: \item[(b)] If $\clspan(\Fc) \supset \clspan(\Ec)$ and

1075: $\Ec$ is a Riesz sequence then

1076: $\ip{\te_j}{e_j} = 1$ for every $j \in G$, so

1077: $\cM(\Ec;p,c) = \cM^+(\Ec) = \cM^-(\Ec) = 1$.

1078: ~\qed

1079: \end{enumerate}

1080: \end{example}

1081: 

1082: 

1083: \begin{example}[Lattice Gabor Systems] \label{latticegabor}

1084: Consider a lattice Gabor frame, i.e., a frame of the form

1085: $\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$.

1086: The canonical dual frame is a lattice Gabor frame of the form

1087: $\Gc(\tg,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$ for some $\tg \in L^2(\R^d)$.

1088: By the Wexler--Raz relations, we have $\ip{g}{\tg} = (\alpha\beta)^d$

1089: (we also derive this fact directly from our results in

1090: Theorem~\ref{gabordensity}).

1091: Since for all $k$, $n$ we have

1092: $\ip{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} g}{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} \tg}

1093: = \ip{g}{\tg}$,

1094: it follows that for any free ultrafilter $p$ and sequence of centers

1095: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$,

1096: $$\cM(\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d);p,c)

1097: \EQ \cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d))

1098: \EQ \ip{g}{\tg}

1099: \EQ (\alpha\beta)^d.$$

1100: Since we also have

1101: $\BD^\pm(\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d) = (\alpha\beta)^{-d}$,

1102: we conclude that

1103: \begin{equation} \label{alphabeta}

1104: \cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d))

1105: \EQ \frac1{\BD^\mp(\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)}. \quad\qed

1106: \end{equation}

1107: \end{example}

1108: 

1109: Equation~\eqref{alphabeta} is essentially a special case of the

1110: Density--Relative Measure Theorem of Part~I,

1111: which states that if $\Fc$, $\Ec$ are frame sequences such that

1112: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column and row decay and $D^+(I,a) < \infty$,

1113: then

1114: $$\cM_\Fc(\Ec;p,c) \EQ D(p,c) \cdot \cM_\Ec(\Fc;p,c)$$

1115: for every free ultrafilter $p$ and choice of centers

1116: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$.

1117: We apply this general result to irregular Gabor frames

1118: in Section~\ref{gabordensitysec}.

1119: 

1120: 

1121: \smallskip

1122: \section{Localization of Gabor Systems} \label{gaborsec}

1123: 

1124: In this section we will determinine the localization properties of

1125: Gabor systems.

1126: 

1127: \smallskip

1128: \subsection{Notation and Preliminary Observations for Gabor Systems}

1129: \label{gaborprelims}

1130: 

1131: \subsubsection{Gabor systems and the reference system}

1132: A generic Gabor system generated by a function $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ and a

1133: sequence $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$

1134: will be written in any of the following forms:

1135: $$\Gc(g,\Lambda)

1136: \EQ \set{M_\omega T_x g}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda}

1137: \EQ \set{e^{2\pi i \omega \cdot t} g(t-x)}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda}

1138: \EQ \set{g_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}.$$

1139: In the case that $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a frame sequence we let

1140: $$\tGc \EQ \set{\tg_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$$

1141: denote the canonical dual frame sequence in $\clspan(\Gc(g,\Lambda))$,

1142: but it is important to note that while $g_\lambda$ is a time-frequency

1143: shift of $g$, it need not be the case that the functions $\tg_\lambda$

1144: are time-frequency shifts of a single function.

1145: We address the question of the structure of the dual frame in more detail

1146: in Section~\ref{gabordualsec}.

1147: 

1148: Our reference systems will be lattice Gabor systems indexed by the group

1149: $$G \EQ \alpha\Z^d \times \beta \Z^d,$$

1150: where $\alpha$, $\beta > 0$ are fixed scalars.

1151: For compactness of notation, we usually let $G$ implicitly denote the group

1152: above, only writing out $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ when

1153: we wish to explicitly emphasize the values of $\alpha$, $\beta$.

1154: Thus our reference systems have the form

1155: $$\Gc(\phi, G)

1156: \EQ \Gc(\phi, \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)

1157: \EQ \set{M_{\eta} T_{u} \phi}_{(\eta,u) \in G}

1158: \EQ \set{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} \phi}_{k,n \in \Z^d}.$$

1159: The canonical dual frame of a lattice Gabor frame sequence

1160: is another lattice Gabor frame sequence $\Gc(\tilde\phi, G)$,

1161: generated by some dual window $\tilde\phi \in L^2(\R^d)$.

1162: Usually the reference system makes an appearance only during the course of

1163: a proof, and does not appear in the statement of most of the theorems.

1164: 

1165: 

1166: 

1167: \subsubsection{Cubes and the $a$ mapping}

1168: For simplicity of notation, we introduce the following abbreviations.

1169: 

1170: Given $x = (x_1,\dots,x_d) \in \R^d$, we define

1171: $\Int(x) = (\lfloor x_1 \rfloor, \dots, \lfloor x_d \rfloor)$

1172: and $\Frac(x) = x - \Int(x)$.

1173: 

1174: Let $\alpha$, $\beta$ be fixed.

1175: Then given a point $x = (x_1,\dots,x_d) \in \R^d$, we set

1176: \begin{equation} \label{abbreviation}

1177: \bx     \EQ \alpha \, \Int\bigparen{\tfrac{x}{\alpha}}, \quad

1178: \tx     \EQ \alpha \, \Frac\bigparen{\tfrac{x}{\alpha}}, \quad

1179: \bomega \EQ \beta \, \Int\bigparen{\tfrac{\omega}{\beta}}, \quad

1180: \tomega \EQ \beta \, \Frac\bigparen{\tfrac{\omega}{\beta}}.

1181: \end{equation}

1182: Note the implicit dependence on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in this notation.

1183: 

1184: We define the map $a \colon \Lambda \to G$ as in

1185: Example~\ref{gaborexample} by rounding off to a near element

1186: of $G$, i.e.,

1187: $$a(x,\omega)

1188: \EQ \bigparen{\alpha\Int\bigparen{\tfrac{x}{\alpha}},

1189:               \beta\Int\bigparen{\tfrac{\omega}{\beta}}}

1190: \EQ \bigparen{\bx, \bomega},

1191: \qquad (x,\omega) \in \Lambda.$$

1192: 

1193: Given $z = (x,y) \in \R^{2d}$, let $Q_r(z) = Q_r(x,y)$ denote the closed

1194: cube in $\R^{2d}$ centered at $z$ with side length $r$.

1195: Then given $j \in G = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$, we have

1196: $$S_N(j) \EQ G \cap Q_N(j)

1197: \qquad\text{and}\qquad

1198: I_N(j) \EQ a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(j)).$$

1199: Note that $I_N(j)$ is very nearly

1200: $\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)$,

1201: except for the effect of rounding off points via the~$a$ map.

1202: Thus

1203: \begin{align}

1204: |S_N(j)|

1205: & \EQ |G \cap Q_N(j)| \; \approx \; (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, N^{2d},

1206:       \label{approxnum} \\

1207: |I_N(j)|

1208: & \EQ |a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(j))| \; \approx \; |\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)|. \notag

1209: \end{align}

1210: 

1211: 

1212: \subsubsection{Density and Measure} \label{beurlingsection}

1213: Recall from \eqref{beurlingdef} the definitions of the lower

1214: and upper Beurling densities of the index set~$\Lambda$:

1215: $$\BD^-(\Lambda)

1216: \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \inf_{j \in \R^{2d}}

1217:     \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)|}{N^{2d}}

1218: \quad\text{and}\quad

1219: \BD^+(\Lambda)

1220: \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{j \in \R^{2d}}

1221:     \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)|}{N^{2d}}.$$

1222: Note that taking the inf and sup over $j \in G$ instead of $j \in \R^{2d}$

1223: does not affect the value of these densities.

1224: Example~\ref{gabordensityrel} derived the relationship between

1225: the Beurling densities $\BD^\pm(\Lambda)$ and the densities

1226: $D^\pm(\Lambda,a)$ defined in this paper.

1227: Specifically,

1228: $$\BD^+(\Lambda)

1229: \EQ (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, D^+(\Lambda,a)

1230: \EQ (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \,

1231:     \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{j \in \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d}

1232:     \frac{|a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(j))|}{|G \cap Q_N(j)|},$$ 

1233: and similarly $\BD^-(\Lambda) = (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, D^-(\Lambda,a)$.

1234: In light of this equation, we define the Beurling density of $\Lambda$

1235: with respect to a free ultrafilter~$p$ and a sequence of centers

1236: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $\R^{2d}$ to be

1237: $$\BD(\Lambda;p,c)

1238: \EQ (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, D(\Lambda,a;p,c)

1239: \EQ (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, \plim_{N \in \N}

1240:     \frac{|a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))|} {|G \cap Q_N(c_N)|}.$$

1241: Our results for Gabor systems will all be stated in terms of these

1242: Beurling densities.

1243: 

1244: The measure of a Gabor frame sequence $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$

1245: with respect to a free ultrafilter $p$ and a sequence

1246: of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $\R^{2d}$ is

1247: $$\cM(\Gc(g,\Lambda); p, c)

1248: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))|}

1249:     \sum_{a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))} \ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda}.$$

1250: 

1251: In particular, note that if $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Riesz sequence then

1252: $\ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda} = 1$ for all $\lambda$, so the measure is

1253: $\cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) = 1$.  

1254: Also recall that the measure of a lattice Gabor system was computed in

1255: Example~\ref{latticegabor}.

1256: 

1257: By making the approximations in \eqref{approxnum} precise, the next

1258: lemma reformulates the density and measure in such a way that it becomes

1259: clear that they do not depend on the choice of $\alpha$, $\beta$.

1260: That is, the density of $I$ and the measure of $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$

1261: are independent of the choice of reference group.

1262: Analogous reformulations of the upper and lower density and measures also

1263: hold under the same hypotheses.

1264: 

1265: \begin{lemma} \label{reformulation}

1266: Let $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$ be given.

1267: 

1268: \begin{enumerate}

1269: \item[(a)]

1270: If $\BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$, then for any ultrafilter $p$ and any

1271: sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in~$\R^{2d}$,

1272: $$\BD(\Lambda;p,c)

1273: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|} {N^{2d}}.$$

1274: 

1275: \item[(b)]

1276: Let $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ be given.

1277: If $0 < \BD^-(\Lambda) \le \BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$,

1278: then for any ultrafilter $p$ and any

1279: sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in~$\R^{2d}$,

1280: $$\cM(\Gc(g,\Lambda);p,c)

1281: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N}

1282:     \frac1{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|} \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)} \,

1283:     \ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda}.$$

1284: \end{enumerate}

1285: \end{lemma}

1286: 

1287: 

1288: \begin{proof}

1289: (a) The map $a$ is a bounded perturbation of the identity map.

1290: In particular, if $\delta = \max\set{\alpha,\beta}$, then we have

1291: \begin{equation} \label{inclusions}

1292: \Lambda \cap Q_{N-\delta}(c_N)

1293: \SUBSET a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))

1294: \SUBSET \Lambda \cap Q_{N+\delta}(c_N).

1295: \end{equation}

1296: Since the upper density is finite, there is a constant $C$ such that

1297: $|\Lambda \cap Q_{N+\delta}(c_N) \setminus Q_N(c_n)| \le C \, N^{2d-1}$.

1298: Using the second inclusion in \eqref{inclusions}, we therefore have

1299: \begin{align*}

1300: \BD(\Lambda;p,c)

1301: & \EQ (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, \plim_{N \in \N}

1302:       \frac{|a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))|} {|G \cap Q_N(c_N)|} \\[1 \jot]

1303: & \LE (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, \plim_{N \in \N}

1304:       \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_{N+\delta}(c_N)|} {|G \cap Q_N(c_N)|}

1305:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

1306: & \EQ (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, \plim_{N \in \N}

1307:       \biggparen{\frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|} {|G \cap Q_N(c_N)|} \plus

1308:       \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_{N+\delta}(c_N) \setminus Q_N(c_N)|}

1309:            {|G \cap Q_N(c_N)|}} \\[1 \jot]

1310: & \EQ \plim_{N \in \N}

1311:       \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|} {N^{2d}},

1312: \end{align*} 

1313: and a similar computation making use of the first inclusion

1314: in \eqref{inclusions} yields the opposite inequality.

1315: 

1316: \medskip

1317: (b) The fact that $0 < \BD^-(\Lambda)$ and $\BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$

1318: implies that there exist $C_1$, $C_2 > 0$ such that for all $N$ large

1319: enough and all $j \in G$ we have

1320: $C_1 N^{2d} \le |\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)| \le C_2 N^{2d}$.

1321: Combining this with \eqref{inclusions} then implies that

1322: $$\plim_{N \in \N} \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|}{|a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))|}

1323: \EQ 1.$$

1324: Since $0 \le \ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda} \le 1$, we therefore have

1325: \begin{align*}

1326: \cM(\Gc(g,\Lambda);p,c)

1327: & \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))|}

1328:       \sum_{\lambda \in a^{-1}(G \cap Q_N(c_N))} \,

1329:       \ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda} \\[1 \jot]

1330: & \LE \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|}

1331:       \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda \cap Q_{N+\delta}(c_N)} \,

1332:       \ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda}

1333:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

1334: & \LE \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|}

1335:       \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)} \,

1336:       \ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda} \plus \\

1337: & \qquad\quad \plim_{N \in \N}

1338:       \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_{N+\delta}(c_N) \setminus Q_N(c_N)|}

1339:            {|\Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)|},

1340: \end{align*}

1341: and the final term in this computation is zero.

1342: Combining this with a similar computation for the opposite inequality then

1343: yields the result.  

1344: \end{proof}

1345: 

1346: 

1347: \smallskip

1348: \subsection{Localization with respect to the Box Function} \label{boxlocalsec}

1349: 

1350: We now show that any Gabor system $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$

1351: has $\ell^2$-row decay with respect to

1352: the Gabor orthonormal basis $\Gc(\CHI,\Z^{2d})$ generated by the

1353: ``box function'' $\CHI = \CHI_{[-\frac12,\frac12)^d}$,

1354: and that we recover as a consequence the fact first proved in \cite{CDH99}

1355: that any Gabor system that forms a Bessel sequence

1356: must have finite density.

1357: 

1358: The Gabor system generated by the box function is convenient both because

1359: it is an orthonormal basis and because

1360: the index set is $G = \Z^{2d}$ (so, in particular, $\alpha = \beta = 1$).

1361: However, in general this is not a useful basis in applications because

1362: the generating function~$\CHI$ is poorly concentrated in the

1363: time-frequency plane (in fact, by the Balian--Low Theorem, no Gabor Riesz

1364: basis of the form $\Gc(\phi,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$

1365: can have a generator $\phi$ that is simultaneously well-concentrated in both

1366: time and frequency).

1367: In the next section we show in more detail how time-frequency concentration

1368: is related to localization.

1369: 

1370: 

1371: \begin{proposition} \label{boxlocal}

1372: If $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ and $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$, then

1373: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\CHI,\Z^{2d}))$

1374: has $\ell^2$-row decay.

1375: \end{proposition}

1376: \begin{proof}

1377: Choose $\eps > 0$, and let $R>0$ be large enough that

1378: $\int_{\R^d \setminus [-R,R]^d} |g(t)|^2 \, dt < \eps$.

1379: Fix an even integer $N_\eps > R+3$.

1380: 

1381: Consider now any $(x,\omega) \in \Lambda$.

1382: Since $\alpha = \beta = 1$, we have

1383: $\tx = \Frac(x) \in [0,1)^d$ and

1384: $\tomega = \Frac(\omega) \in [0,1)^d$.

1385: Note that for each $k \in \Z^d$,

1386: $\set{M_n T_k \CHI}_{n \in \Z^d}$ is an orthonormal basis for

1387: the subspace of $L^2(\R^d)$ consisting of functions supported in the

1388: unit cube $B_k$ in $\R^d$ centered at~$k$.

1389: Therefore,

1390: \begin{align*}

1391: \sum_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d} \setminus S_{N_\eps}(a(x,\omega))}

1392: |\ip{M_\omega T_x g} {M_n T_k \CHI}|^2

1393: & \EQ \sum_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d} \setminus S_{N_\eps}(\bx, \bomega)}

1394:       |\ip{M_\tomega T_\tx g} {M_{n-\bomega} T_{k-\bx} \CHI}|^2

1395:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

1396: & \EQ \sum_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d} \setminus S_{N_\eps}(0,0)}

1397:       |\ip{M_\tomega T_\tx g} {M_n T_k \CHI}|^2

1398:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

1399: & \LE \sum_{k \in \Z^d \setminus [-\frac{N_\eps}2,\frac{N_\eps}2)^d} \,

1400:       \sum_{n \in \Z^d} |\ip{M_\tomega T_\tx g} {M_n T_k \CHI}|^2

1401:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

1402: & \EQ \sum_{k \in \Z^d \setminus [-\frac{N_\eps}2,\frac{N_\eps}2)^d} \,

1403:       \int_{B_k} |M_\tomega T_\tx g(t)|^2 \, dt

1404:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

1405: & \LE \int_{\R^d \setminus [\frac{-N_\eps+1}2,\frac{N_\eps-1}2]^d}

1406:       |g(t-\tx)|^2 \, dt

1407:       \\[1 \jot]

1408: & \LE \int_{\R^d \setminus [-\frac{R}2,\frac{R}2]^d} |g(t)|^2 \, dt

1409: \LT \eps. \qedhere

1410: \end{align*}

1411: \end{proof}

1412: 

1413: 

1414: Note that the preceeding result does not require that $\Lambda$ have

1415: finite density.

1416: However, we next observe that it follows as a consequence of Part~I

1417: results that the density must be finite if the Gabor system

1418: is a Bessel sequence.

1419: 

1420: \begin{corollary} \label{gaborfinite}

1421: If $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ and $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$

1422: are such that $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$

1423: is a Bessel sequence, then $\BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$.

1424: \end{corollary}

1425: \begin{proof}

1426: Since $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\CHI,\Z^{2d}))$

1427: has $\ell^2$-row decay and $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is norm-bounded below,

1428: all the hypotheses of \cite[Thm.~3.3]{BCHL05a} are fulfilled,

1429: and consequently the upper density must be finite.

1430: \end{proof}

1431: 

1432: 

1433: \smallskip

1434: \subsection{Localization with respect to $M^1$ Functions} \label{M1localsec}

1435: 

1436: For most applications in time-fre\-quency analysis, the generator of a Gabor

1437: system must possess some amount of joint concentration in both time

1438: and frequency.

1439: Concentration is quantified by the norms of the modulation spaces, which

1440: are the Banach function spaces naturally associated to time-frequency

1441: analysis.

1442: The modulation spaces were invented and extensively investigated by

1443: Feichtinger, with some of the main references being

1444: \cite{Fei81}, \cite{Fei89}, \cite{FG89a}, \cite{FG89b}, \cite{FG97},

1445: \cite{Fei03}.

1446: For a detailed development of the theory of modulation spaces and their

1447: weighted counterparts, we refer to the original literature mentioned above and

1448: to \cite[Ch.~11--13]{Gro01}.

1449: 

1450: For our purposes, the following special case of unweighted modulation

1451: spaces will be sufficient.

1452: 

1453: \begin{definition}\label{gaussian} \

1454: \begin{enumerate}

1455: \item[(a)]

1456: The \emph{Short-Time Fourier Transform} (STFT)

1457: of a tempered distribution $g \in \Sc'(\R^d)$ with

1458: respect to a window function $\phi \in \Sc(\R^d)$ is

1459: $$V_\phi g(x,\omega) \EQ \ip{g}{M_\omega T_x \phi},

1460: \qquad (x,\omega) \in \R^{2d}.$$

1461: 

1462: \medskip

1463: \item[(b)]

1464: Let $\gamma(x) = 2^{d/4} e^{-\pi x \cdot x}$ be the Gaussian

1465: function, which has been normalized so that $\norm{\gamma}_2 = 1$.

1466: Then for $1 \le p \le \infty$, the modulation space $M^p(\R^d)$ consists of

1467: all tempered distributions $f \in \Sc'(\R^d)$ such that

1468: \begin{equation} \label{mpnorm}

1469: \norm{f}_{M^p}

1470: \EQ \norm{V_\gamma f}_{L^p}

1471: \EQ \biggparen{\iint_{\R^{2d}} |\ip{f}{M_\omega T_x \gamma}|^p \,

1472:     dx \, d\omega}^{1/p}

1473: \LT \infty,

1474: \end{equation}

1475: with the usual adjustment if $p=\infty$.

1476: ~\qed

1477: \end{enumerate}

1478: \end{definition}

1479: 

1480: $M^p$ is a Banach space for each $1 \le p \le \infty$,

1481: and any nonzero function $g \in M^1$

1482: can be substituted for~$\gamma$ in \eqref{mpnorm} to define an

1483: equivalent norm for $M^p$.

1484: We have $M^2 = L^2$, and

1485: $\Sc \subsetneq M^p \subsetneq M^q \subsetneq \Sc'$

1486: for $1 \le p < q \le \infty$,

1487: where $\Sc$ is the Schwartz class.

1488: The box function $\CHI$ lies in $M^p$ for $p>1$, but is not in $M^1$.

1489: 

1490: 

1491: \begin{remark}

1492: There is a complete characterization of the frame properties of lattice

1493: Gabor systems generated by the Gaussian:

1494: 

1495: \smallskip

1496: \begin{enumerate}

1497: \item[(a)] $\Gc(\gamma,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$

1498: is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$ if $0<\alpha\beta<1$,

1499: 

1500: \item[(b)] $\Gc(\gamma,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$

1501: is a Riesz sequence in $L^2(\R^d)$ if $\alpha\beta>1$

1502: (but not a Riesz basis),

1503: 

1504: \item[(c)] $\Gc(\gamma,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$

1505: is complete but not a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$ if $\alpha\beta=1$.

1506: \end{enumerate}

1507: 

1508: \smallskip\noindent

1509: Part~(a) was proved in \cite{Lyu92}, \cite{Sei92}, \cite{SW92};

1510: see also the simple proof given in \cite{Jan94}.

1511: Part~(b) is a consequence of part~(a) and the Wexler--Raz relations, and

1512: part~(c) is easy to show using Zak transform techniques, see \cite{Gro01}.

1513: Such a complete characterization of frame properties is known for only a

1514: few specific functions \cite{Jan94}, \cite{Jan03}, \cite{JS02},

1515: cf.\ also \cite{CK02}.

1516: In particular such a characterization is not

1517: available for general $M^1$ functions.

1518: On the other hand, given any particular choice of $\alpha$, $\beta$ with

1519: $0<\alpha\beta<1$, it is easy to construct a function

1520: $g \in C_c^\infty(\R^d)$ such that $\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$

1521: is a Parseval frame for $L^2(\R^d)$, cf.\ \cite{DGM86}.

1522: It is known that if $\Gc(\phi, \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$

1523: is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$ generated by a function $\phi \in M^1$,

1524: then the canonical dual frame

1525: $\Gc(\tilde\phi, \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$

1526: has a generator $\tilde\phi$ that also lies in $M^1$ \cite{GL04}.

1527: In Section~\ref{gabordualsec} we will extend that result to the more

1528: general setting of irregular Gabor frames.

1529: ~\qed

1530: \end{remark}

1531: 

1532: In addition to the modulation spaces, we will also need a special

1533: case of the Wiener amalgam spaces on $\R^{2d}$.

1534: Feichtinger has developed a general notion of amalgam spaces, e.g.,

1535: \cite{Fei80}, \cite{FG85}, \cite{Fei87}, \cite{Fei90}, \cite{Fei92}.

1536: For an introduction, with extensive references to the original literature,

1537: to the particular Wiener amalgams appearing in the

1538: following definition, we refer to \cite{Hei03}.

1539: 

1540: \begin{definition} \label{amalgamdef}

1541: Given $1 \le p \le \infty$, the Wiener amalgam $W(\Cc,\ell^p)$ consists

1542: of all continuous functions $F$ on $\R^{2d}$ for which

1543: $$\norm{F}_{W(\Cc,\ell^p)}

1544: \EQ \biggparen{\sum_{(k,n) \in \Z^{2d}} \,

1545:     \sup_{(u,\eta) \in \Q_{\alpha,\beta}(\alpha k, \beta n)} \,

1546:     |F(u,\eta)|^p}^{1/p}

1547: \LT \infty,$$

1548: with the usual adjustment if $p=\infty$, and where

1549: $\Q_{\alpha,\beta}(x,y) = [0,\alpha)^d \times [0,\beta)^d + (x,y)$.

1550: ~\qed

1551: \end{definition}

1552: 

1553: $W(\Cc,\ell^p)$ is a Banach space, and its definition is independent of

1554: the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the sense that each choice of

1555: $\alpha$, $\beta$ yields an equivalent norm for $W(\Cc,\ell^p)$.

1556: 

1557: We will require the following lemma on the basic properties of the STFT.

1558: Part~(a) is proved in \cite[Thm.~12.2.1]{Gro01},

1559: and part~(b) in \cite[Lem12.1.1]{Gro01}.

1560: 

1561: \begin{lemma} \label{pointest} \

1562: 

1563: \begin{enumerate}

1564: \item[(a)]

1565: Let $1 \le p \le \infty$ be given.

1566: If $g \in M^p$ and $\phi \in M^1$, then $V_\phi g \in W(\Cc,\ell^p)$, and

1567: $$\norm{V_\phi g}_{W(\Cc,\ell^p)}

1568: \LE C \, \norm{g}_{M^p} \, \norm{\phi}_{M^1},$$

1569: where $C$ is a constant independent of $g$ and $\phi$.

1570: 

1571: \medskip

1572: \item[(b)]

1573: Let $f$, $g\in L^2(\R^d)$ be given.

1574: If $V_g f \in L^1(\R^{2d})$, then $f$, $g \in M^1(\R^d)$.

1575: \end{enumerate}

1576: \end{lemma}

1577: 

1578: Next we will show that if the generator of our reference system is an

1579: $M^1$ function $\phi$, then

1580: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, G))$

1581: is $\ell^p$-localized whenever $g \in M^p$.

1582: We also show that the converse is true if we assume that $\phi$

1583: generates a frame.

1584: Thus the degree of localization is tied to the time-frequency concentration

1585: of the generator $g$.

1586: This is a stronger statement than previously known results, which only

1587: demonstrated that Gabor frames satisfy the weak HAP with respect to

1588: reference systems generated by the Gaussian.

1589: We will also show that if $g \in M^1$ then $(\Gc(g,\Lambda),a)$ is

1590: $\ell^1$-self-localized (this statement does not require a reference system).

1591: However, the converse of this is false.

1592: For example, if we set $g = \CHI$

1593: and $\Lambda = \Z^{2d}$, then $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is an orthonormal basis for

1594: $L^2(\R^d)$ and hence is $\ell^1$-self-localized, but $g \notin M^1$.

1595: 

1596: \begin{theorem} \label{M1local}

1597: Let $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ and $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$ be given.

1598: Let $\phi \in L^2(\R^d)$ and $\alpha$, $\beta > 0$ be given, and

1599: fix $1 \le p \le 2$.

1600: Then the following statements hold.

1601: 

1602: \smallskip

1603: \begin{enumerate}

1604: \item[(a)] If $g \in M^p$ and $\phi \in M^1$ then

1605: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, G))$

1606: is $\ell^p$-localized.

1607: 

1608: \medskip

1609: \item[(b)]

1610: Suppose $\phi \in M^1$ and $\alpha$, $\beta > 0$ are such that

1611: $\Gc(\phi,G)$ is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

1612: If $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, G))$

1613: is $\ell^p$-localized, then $g \in M^p$.

1614: 

1615: \medskip

1616: \item[(c)] If $g \in M^1$ and $\phi \in M^p$ then

1617: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, G))$

1618: is $\ell^p$-localized.

1619: 

1620: \medskip

1621: \item[(d)]

1622: If $g \in M^1$ then

1623: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda),a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.

1624: \end{enumerate}

1625: \end{theorem}

1626: \begin{proof}

1627: (a) Set

1628: $$r_{(\alpha k,\beta n)}

1629: \EQ \sup_{(u,\eta) \in \Q_{\alpha,\beta}(\alpha k, \beta n)} \,

1630:     |V_\phi g(-u,-\eta)|.$$

1631: By Lemma~\ref{pointest} we have $V_\phi g \in W(\Cc,\ell^p)$, so

1632: $r = (r_{(\alpha k,\beta n)})_{(\alpha k,\beta n) \in G} \in \ell^p(G)$.

1633: Let $(x,\omega) \in \Lambda$ and $(u,v) \in G$ be given.

1634: Then, recalling the notations~$\tx$, $\tomega$ introduced

1635: in \eqref{abbreviation},

1636: since $\tx \in [0,\alpha)^d$ and $\tomega \in [0,\beta)^d$, we have

1637: \begin{align*}

1638: |\ip{M_\omega T_x g}{M_{v} T_{u} \phi}|

1639: & \EQ |\ip{g} {M_{v - \bomega - \tomega} T_{u - \bx - \tx} \phi}| \\[1 \jot]

1640: & \EQ |V_\phi g(u - \bx - \tx, v - \bomega - \tomega)|

1641: \LE r_{a(x,\omega) - (u,v)},

1642: \end{align*}

1643: so $\ell^p$-localization holds.

1644: 

1645: 

1646: \medskip

1647: (b) By \cite{GL04} or Theorem~\ref{dualgaborlocalization}, the dual frame

1648: of $\Gc(\phi,G)$ is a lattice Gabor frame $\Gc(\tilde\phi,G)$

1649: with a dual window $\tilde\phi \in M^1$.

1650: Fix any $(x,\omega) \in \Lambda$.

1651: Expanding $M_\omega T_x g$ with respect to this frame, we have

1652: \begin{equation} \label{gexpand}

1653: M_\omega T_x g

1654: \EQ \sum_{k,n \in \Z^d} \ip{M_\omega T_x g}{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} \phi} \,

1655:     M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} \tilde\phi,

1656: \end{equation}

1657: with convergence in $L^2(\R^d)$.

1658: Now, by definition of $\ell^p$-localization, there exists $r \in \ell^p(G)$

1659: such that

1660: $$|\ip{M_\omega T_x g}{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} \phi}|

1661: \LE r_{a(x,\omega) - (\alpha k, \beta n)},

1662: \qquad (\alpha k, \beta n) \in G.$$

1663: Consequently,

1664: $\set{\ip{M_\omega T_x g}{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} \phi}}_{k,n \in \Z^d}

1665: \in \ell^p$,

1666: and so by \cite[Thm.~12.2.4]{Gro01} the series on the right-hand side

1667: of \eqref{gexpand} converges in $M^p$-norm.

1668: Since it also converges in $L^2$-norm, the series must converge in $M^p$-norm

1669: to $M_\omega T_x g$, so $M_\omega T_x g \in M^p$.

1670: Since $M^p$ is closed under time-frequency shifts, we conclude $g \in M^p$.

1671: 

1672: \medskip

1673: (c) Since $|V_\phi g(x,\omega)| = |V_g \phi(-x,-\omega)|$,

1674: this follows from part~(a).

1675: 

1676: \medskip

1677: (d) This can be shown directly, similarly to part~(a), or by applying

1678: \cite[Lem.~2.15]{BCHL05a} to part~(a), using as a reference system any

1679: lattice Gabor frame $\Gc(\phi, G)$ whose generator $\phi$ lies in $M^1$.

1680: \end{proof}

1681: 

1682: 

1683: 

1684: \smallskip

1685: \section{New Implications for Gabor Frames} \label{newresults}

1686: 

1687: \smallskip

1688: \subsection{Density and Overcompleteness for Gabor Systems}

1689: \label{gabordensitysec}

1690: Parts~(b) and~(c) of the following theorem are new results for Gabor frames; the equalities given are much stronger than the single inequality obtained in \cite{BCHL03b}.

1691: Parts~(a) and~(d)  recover the known density facts for

1692: irregular Gabor frames, and part~(e) is the special case of lattice systems.

1693: These results are stated in terms of Beurling density, which was discussed

1694: in Section~\ref{beurlingsection}.

1695: 

1696: \begin{theorem} \label{gabordensity}

1697: Let $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ and $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$ be such that

1698: $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Gabor frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

1699: Then the following statements hold.

1700: 

1701: \smallskip

1702: \begin{enumerate}

1703: \item[(a)]

1704: $1 \le \BD^-(\Lambda) \le \BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$.

1705: 

1706: \medskip

1707: \item[(b)]

1708: For any free ultrafilter $p$ and any

1709: sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $\R^d$, we have

1710: \begin{equation} \label{reciprocal}

1711: \cM(\Gc(g,\Lambda); p, c) \EQ \frac{1}{\BD(\Lambda; p, c)},

1712: \end{equation}

1713: and consequently

1714: \begin{equation} \label{averaging}

1715: \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{N^{2d}}

1716: \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda \cap Q_N(c_N)} \ip{g_\lambda}{\tg_\lambda}

1717: \EQ 1.

1718: \end{equation}

1719: 

1720: \medskip

1721: \item[(c)]

1722: $\cM^-(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) \EQ \dfrac1{\BD^+(\Lambda)}$

1723: and

1724: $\cM^+(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) \EQ \dfrac1{\BD^-(\Lambda)}$.

1725: 

1726: \medskip

1727: \item[(d)]

1728: If $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Riesz basis, then

1729: $\BD^-(\Lambda) = \BD^+(\Lambda) = 1$.

1730: 

1731: \bigskip

1732: \item[(e)]

1733: If $\Lambda = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ then

1734: $0 < \alpha\beta \le 1$ and

1735: $\ip{g}{\tg} = (\alpha\beta)^d$.

1736: \end{enumerate}

1737: \end{theorem}

1738: 

1739: \begin{proof}

1740: (a) In this part we use a reference system

1741: $\Gc(\gamma, G)$ generated by the Gaussian $\gamma$.

1742: If we take any $\alpha$, $\beta > 0$ so that $\alpha\beta > 1$,

1743: then $\Gc(\gamma, G)$ is a Riesz sequence in $L^2(\R^d)$, and

1744: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\gamma, G))$

1745: is $\ell^2$-localized by Theorem~\ref{M1local}.

1746: Therefore, we have by \cite[Thm.~3.2]{BCHL05a} that

1747: $(\alpha\beta)^d \, \BD^-(\Lambda) = D^-(\Lambda,a) \ge 1$.

1748: Since this is true for any $\alpha\beta > 1$,

1749: we conclude that $\BD^-(\Lambda) \ge 1$.

1750: The fact that $\BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$ follows from

1751: Corollary~\ref{gaborfinite}.

1752: 

1753: \medskip

1754: (b) In this part our reference system will be generated by the function

1755: $$\phi(x)

1756: \EQ \prod_{k=1}^d \frac{e^{2\pi i x_k} + 1}2 \,

1757:     \CHI_{[-\frac12,\frac12]}(x_k),

1758: \qquad x = (x_1,\ldots,x_d) \in \R^d.$$

1759: Since $\phi$ is compactly supported,

1760: $\phi \in L^1(\R^d)$, and

1761: $\hat\phi(\omega)

1762: = \prod_{k=1}^d \frac{\sin \pi\omega_k}{2\pi(\omega_k - \omega_k^2)}

1763: \in L^1(\R^d)$,

1764: it follows from \cite[Thm.~3.2.17]{FZ98} that $\phi \in M^1$.

1765: If we set $\alpha = 1/2$ and $\beta = 1$, then since

1766: $\sum |\phi(x - \frac12 k)|^2 = 1$, we have by

1767: \cite[Thm.~6.4.1]{Gro01} that

1768: $\Gc(\phi, G)$ is a Parseval frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

1769: By direct computation,

1770: the measure of this frame is

1771: $\cM(\Gc(\phi, G); p, c)

1772: = \norm{\phi}_2^2 = 2^{-d}$.

1773: 

1774: Since $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, G))$

1775: is $\ell^2$-localized, we have by \cite[Thm.~3.5(a)]{BCHL05a} that

1776: $$\cM(\Gc(g,\Lambda); p, c)

1777: \EQ \frac{\cM(\Gc(\phi, G);p,c)} {D(p,c)}

1778: \EQ \frac{2^{-d}}{2^{-d} \, \BD(\Lambda; p, c)}

1779: \EQ \frac1{\BD(\Lambda; p, c)}.$$

1780: 

1781: Finally, the reformulation in \eqref{averaging} follows by applying

1782: Lemma~\ref{reformulation} to \eqref{reciprocal}.

1783: 

1784: \medskip

1785: (c) Using the same reference system as in part~(b), we have

1786: by \cite[Thm.~3.5(a)]{BCHL05a} that

1787: $$2^{-d}

1788: \EQ \cM^-(\Gc(\phi, G))

1789: \LE D^+(\Lambda,a) \cdot \cM^-(\Gc(g,\Lambda))

1790: \LE \cM^+(\Gc(\phi, G))

1791: \EQ 2^{-d},$$

1792: so

1793: $\cM^-(\Gc(g,\Lambda))

1794: = \frac{2^{-d}}{D^+(\Lambda,a)}

1795: = \frac1{\BD^+(\Lambda)}$,

1796: and similarly $\cM^+(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) = \frac1{\BD^-(\Lambda)}$.

1797: 

1798: \medskip

1799: (d) If $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Riesz basis then

1800: $\cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) = 1$, so the result follows from part~(c).

1801: 

1802: \medskip

1803: (e) In the lattice case $\Lambda = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ we have

1804: $\BD^\pm(\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d) = (\alpha\beta)^{-d}$

1805: and $\cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) = \ip{g}{\tg}$,

1806: so the result follows from parts~(a) and~(c).

1807: \end{proof}

1808: 

1809: Next we prove results on the relationship between the density, frame

1810: bounds, and norm of the generator of a Gabor frame.

1811: The special case of lattice systems was first proved by Daubechies

1812: \cite[Eq.~2.2.9]{Dau90}.

1813: 

1814: \begin{theorem} \label{gaborbounds}

1815: Let $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ and $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$ be such that

1816: $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Gabor frame for $L^2(\R^d)$, with frame bounds $A$, $B$.

1817: Then the following statements hold.

1818: 

1819: \smallskip

1820: \begin{enumerate}

1821: \item[(a)]

1822: $A \LE \BD^-(\Lambda) \, \norm{g}_2^2

1823: \LE \BD^+(\Lambda) \, \norm{g}_2^2

1824: \LE B$.

1825: 

1826: \medskip

1827: \item[(b)]

1828: If $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a tight frame, then $\Lambda$ has uniform

1829: Beurling density, that is,

1830: $\BD^-(\Lambda) = \BD^+(\Lambda)$,

1831: and furthermore $A = \BD^\pm(\Lambda) \, \norm{g}_2^2$.

1832: 

1833: \medskip

1834: \item[(c)]

1835: If $\Lambda = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$, then

1836: $A \LE \dfrac{\norm{g}_2^2}{(\alpha\beta)^d} \LE B$.

1837: \end{enumerate}

1838: \end{theorem}

1839: 

1840: \begin{proof}

1841: For a reference system,

1842: fix any $\phi \in M^1$ and any $\alpha$, $\beta > 0$

1843: such that $\Gc(\phi,G)$ is a Parseval frame

1844: for $L^2(\R^d)$.

1845: By Theorem~\ref{gabordensity}(e)

1846: we have $\norm{\phi}_2^2 = (\alpha\beta)^d$.

1847: Further,

1848: $(\Gc(g,\Lambda), \, a, \, \Gc(\phi, G))$

1849: is $\ell^2$-localized by Theorem~\ref{M1local},

1850: so \cite[Thm.~3.6(c)]{BCHL05a} implies that

1851: \begin{align*}

1852: \frac{A \, (\alpha\beta)^d}{\norm{g}_2^2}

1853: \EQ \frac{A \, \norm{\phi}_2^2}{\norm{g}_2^2}

1854: & \LE D^-(\Lambda,a) \\

1855: & \EQ (\alpha\beta)^d \, \BD^-(\Lambda) \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

1856: & \LE (\alpha\beta)^d \, \BD^+(\Lambda) \\

1857: & \EQ D^+(\Lambda,a)

1858: \EQ \frac{B \, \norm{\phi}_2^2}{\norm{g}_2^2}

1859: \LE \frac{B \, (\alpha\beta)^d}{\norm{g}_2^2},

1860: \end{align*}

1861: so part~(a) follows.

1862: Parts~(b) and~(c) are immediate consequences of part~(a).

1863: \end{proof} 

1864: 

1865: 

1866: \smallskip

1867: \subsection{Excess of Gabor Frames} \label{gaborremovalsec}

1868: 

1869: In this section we consider the excess of Gabor frames, and

1870: show that subsets with positive density may be removed from an overcomplete

1871: Gabor frame yet still leave a frame.

1872: 

1873: \begin{theorem} \label{gaborremoval}

1874: Let $g \in L^2(\R^d)$ and $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$ be such that

1875: $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Gabor frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

1876: Then the following statements hold.

1877: 

1878: \smallskip

1879: \begin{enumerate}

1880: \item[(a)]

1881: If $\BD^+(\Lambda) > 1$ then $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ has infinite excess, and

1882: there exists an infinite subset $J \subset \Lambda$ such that

1883: $\Gc(g,\Lambda \setminus J)$ is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

1884: 

1885: \medskip

1886: \item[(b)]

1887: If $g \in M^1$ and $\BD^-(\Lambda) > 1$, then there exists

1888: $J \subset \Lambda$ with $\BD^+(J) = \BD^-(J) > 0$ such that

1889: $\Gc(g,\Lambda \setminus J)$ is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

1890: \end{enumerate}

1891: \end{theorem}

1892: 

1893: 

1894: \begin{proof}

1895: (a) By Theorem~\ref{gabordensity}(c) we have $\cM^-(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) < 1$.

1896: The result therefore follows from \cite[Prop.~2.21]{BCHL05a}.

1897: 

1898: \medskip

1899: (b) By Theorem~\ref{gabordensity}(c) we have $\cM^+(\Gc(g,\Lambda)) < 1$.

1900: Since $g \in M^1$, we have that $(\Gc(g,\Lambda),a)$

1901: is $\ell^1$-self-localized by Theorem~\ref{M1local}.

1902: Hence the result follows from \cite[Thm.~3.8]{BCHL05a}.

1903: \end{proof}

1904: 

1905: 

1906: 

1907: \smallskip

1908: \subsection{Localization and Structure of the Canonical Dual Frame}

1909: \label{gabordualsec}

1910: 

1911: In this section we study the structure of the canonical dual frame of an

1912: irregular Gabor frame.

1913: 

1914: First we introduce the notion of Gabor molecules.

1915: The term ``molecule'' arises from the convention that the generator $g$ of a

1916: Gabor system $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is often referred to as an ``atom.''

1917: 

1918: \begin{definition}

1919: Let $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$ and

1920: $f_\lambda \in L^2(\R^d)$ for $\lambda \in \Lambda$ be given.

1921: Then $\Fc = \set{f_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$

1922: is a \emph{set of Gabor molecules} if

1923: there exists an envelope function $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^2)$ such that

1924: $$\forall\, \lambda \in \Lambda, \quad

1925: \forall\, z \in \R^{2d}, \quad

1926: |V_\gamma f_\lambda(z)| \LE \Gamma(z - \lambda). \qeddeff$$

1927: \end{definition}

1928: 

1929: Thus, if $\Gamma$ is concentrated around the origin in $\R^{2d}$, then

1930: the STFT of $f_\lambda$ is concentrated around the point~$\lambda$.

1931: Every Gabor system $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a set of Gabor molecules, as

1932: $|V_\gamma g_\lambda(z)| = |V_\gamma g(z-\lambda)|$ for every $z$, $\lambda$.

1933: Sometimes the following equivalent definition is more convenient:

1934: $\Fc = \set{M_\omega T_x f_{x\omega}}_{(x,\omega) \in \Lambda}$

1935: is a set of Gabor molecules if

1936: there exists $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^2)$ such that

1937: $|V_\gamma f_{x\omega}(z)| \LE \Gamma(z)$

1938: for all $(x,\omega) \in \Lambda$ and

1939: $z \in \R^{2d}$.

1940: 

1941: The following lemma shows that the definition of Gabor molecules is unchanged

1942: if we replace the Gaussian window by any window function $\phi \in M^1$.

1943: 

1944: \begin{lemma}

1945: Suppose $\Fc = \set{f_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$

1946: is a set of Gabor molecules with envelope $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^2)$.

1947: If $\phi \in M^1$, then

1948: $\Gamma_\phi = \Gamma * V_\phi \gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^2)$, and

1949: $|V_\phi f_\lambda(z)| \le \Gamma_\phi(z-\lambda)$

1950: for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$ and $z \in \R^{2d}$.

1951: \end{lemma}

1952: \begin{proof}

1953: Since $\gamma$, $\phi \in M^1$ we have $V_\gamma \gamma \in L^1(\R^{2d})$.

1954: Therefore

1955: $\Gamma_\phi \in W(\Cc,\ell^2) * L^1 \subset W(\Cc,\ell^2)$

1956: by \cite[Thm.~11.1.5]{Gro01}.

1957: Further,

1958: \begin{align*}

1959: |V_\phi f_\lambda(z)|

1960: \LE (|V_\gamma f_\lambda| * |V_\phi \gamma|)(z)

1961: & \EQ \int_{\R^{2d}} |V_\phi f_\lambda(z-w)| \, |V_\phi \gamma(w)| \, dw

1962:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\

1963: & \LE \int_{\R^{2d}} \Gamma(z-w-\lambda) \, |V_\phi \gamma(w)| \, dw

1964:       \\[1 \jot]

1965: & \EQ (\Gamma * |V_\phi \gamma|)(z-\lambda)

1966: \EQ \Gamma_\phi(z-\lambda),

1967: \end{align*}

1968: the first inequality following from \cite[Lem.~11.3.3]{Gro01}.

1969: \end{proof}

1970: 

1971: Gr\"{o}chenig and Leinert \cite{GL04} proved that if $\Lambda$ is a lattice

1972: then the canonical dual frame of a lattice Gabor frame generated by a function

1973: $g \in M^1$ is generated by a dual window that also lies in $M^1$

1974: (they also obtained weighted versions of this result).

1975: Their proof relied on deep results about symmetric Banach algebras.

1976: Here we extend this result to the more general setting of

1977: irregular Gabor frame sequences,

1978: and furthermore determine the structure of the dual frame (which in the

1979: lattice setting is simply another lattice Gabor frame).

1980: Note in particular that this result also applies to Gabor Riesz sequences.

1981: 

1982: \begin{theorem} \label{dualgaborlocalization}

1983: Let $g \in M^1$ and $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$ be such that

1984: $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Gabor frame sequence in $L^2(\R^d)$,

1985: with canonical dual frame sequence

1986: $\tGc = \set{\tg_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$.

1987: Then the following statements hold:

1988: 

1989: \begin{enumerate}

1990: \item[(a)]

1991: $\tg_\lambda \in M^1$ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$,

1992: 

1993: \medskip

1994: \item[(b)] $\sup_\lambda \norm{\tg_\lambda}_{M^1} < \infty$, and

1995: 

1996: \medskip

1997: \item[(c)]

1998: $\tGc$ is a set of Gabor molecules with respect to an envelope

1999: $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^1)$.

2000: \end{enumerate} 

2001: 

2002: \smallskip\noindent

2003: Furthermore, the same conclusions hold when $\tGc$ is replaced by

2004: the canonical Parseval frame $S^{-1/2}(\Gc(g,\Lambda))$.

2005: \end{theorem}

2006: 

2007: \begin{proof}

2008: (a) Since $g \in M^1$, we have by Theorem~\ref{M1local}

2009: that $(\Gc(g,\Lambda),a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.

2010: Theorem~\ref{selflocthm} therefore implies that $(\tGc,a)$ is

2011: $\ell^1$-self-localized as well.

2012: Hence, by definition, there exists $r \in \ell^1(G)$ such that

2013: $$|\ip{\tg_\lambda}{\tg_\mu}|

2014: \LT r_{a(\lambda) - a(\mu)}.$$

2015: Since $\Gc(g,\Lambda)$ is a Bessel sequence, $\Lambda$ has finite

2016: density by Theorem~\ref{gaborfinite}.

2017: Thus $K = \sup_\lambda |a^{-1}(\lambda)| < \infty$.

2018: 

2019: For each $\lambda \in \Lambda$, the frame expansion of $\tg_\lambda$ is

2020: \begin{equation} \label{glambdaexpand}

2021: \tg_\lambda

2022: \EQ \sum_{\mu \in \Lambda} \ip{\tg_\lambda}{\tg_\mu} \, g_\mu,

2023: \end{equation}

2024: with convergence in $L^2(\R^d)$.

2025: However,

2026: $\set{\ip{\tg_\lambda}{\tg_\mu}}_{\mu \in \Lambda} \in \ell^1(\Lambda)$,

2027: so by \cite[Thm.~12.1.8]{Gro01} the series on the right-hand side

2028: of \eqref{glambdaexpand} converges in $M^1$-norm,

2029: and therefore $\tg_\lambda \in M^1$.

2030: 

2031: \medskip

2032: (b) Since translation and modulation are isometries in $M^1$-norm,

2033: we have

2034: \begin{align*}

2035: \norm{\tg_\lambda}_{M^1}

2036: & \LE \sum_{\mu \in \Lambda} |\ip{\tg_\lambda}{\tg_\mu}| \, \norm{g_\mu}_{M^1}

2037:       \\

2038: & \EQ \sum_{j \in G} \sum_{\mu \in a^{-1}(j)}

2039:       |\ip{\tg_\lambda}{\tg_\mu}| \, \norm{g}_{M^1}

2040: \LE K \, \norm{r}_{\ell^1} \, \norm{g}_{M^1}.

2041: \end{align*}

2042: 

2043: \medskip

2044: (c) Set

2045: \begin{align*}

2046: \Q_{\alpha,\beta}(x,y)

2047: & \EQ [0,\alpha)^d \times [0,\beta)^d + (x,y), \\[1 \jot]

2048: \R_{\alpha,\beta}(x,y)

2049: & \EQ [-\alpha,\alpha)^d \times [-\beta,\beta)^d + (x,y),

2050: \end{align*}

2051: and define

2052: $$\Gamma(z)\

2053: \EQ K \sum_{j \in G} \, r_j \sup_{w \in \R_{\alpha,\beta}(j)}

2054:     |V_\gamma g(z-w)|,

2055: \qquad z \in \R^{2d}.$$

2056: Because $r \in \ell^1$ and $V_\gamma g \in W(\Cc,\ell^1)$, we have

2057: $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^1)$ as well.

2058: 

2059: Given $\mu \in \Lambda$, recall that $a(\mu) = \bar\mu$, so

2060: $\mu = a(\mu) + \tilde\mu \in \Q_{\alpha\beta}(a(\mu))$.

2061: Also,

2062: $$\Q_{\alpha\beta}(j + a(\lambda))

2063: \EQ [0,\alpha)^d \times [0,\beta)^d + j + \lambda - \tilde\lambda

2064: \SUBSET \R_{\alpha\beta}(j + \lambda).$$

2065: Therefore, taking the STFT of both sides of \eqref{glambdaexpand}, we have

2066: \begin{align*}

2067: |V_\gamma \tg_\lambda(z)|

2068: & \LE \sum_{\mu \in \Lambda} |\ip{\tg_\lambda}{\tg_\mu}| \, |V_\gamma g_\mu(z)|

2069:       \\[1 \jot]

2070: & \LE \sum_{j \in G} \sum_{\mu \in a^{-1}(j)} r_{a(\mu) - a(\lambda)} \,

2071:       |V_\gamma g(z-\mu)|

2072:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

2073: & \LE K \, \sum_{j \in G} r_{j - a(\lambda)} \,

2074:       \sup_{w \in \Q_{\alpha\beta}(j)} |V_\gamma g(z-w)|

2075:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

2076: & \EQ K \, \sum_{j \in G} r_j \,

2077:       \sup_{w \in \Q_{\alpha\beta}(j + a(\lambda))} |V_\gamma g(z-w)|

2078:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

2079: & \LE K \, \sum_{j \in G} r_j \,

2080:       \sup_{w \in \R_{\alpha\beta}(j + \lambda)} |V_\gamma g(z-w)|

2081: \EQ \Gamma(z-\lambda).

2082: \end{align*}

2083: Thus $\tGc$ is a set of Gabor molecules.

2084: 

2085: Finally, by Theorem~\ref{selflocthm}, the canonical Parseval frame

2086: $S^{-1/2}(\Gc(g,\Lambda))$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized,

2087: and computations similar to the ones above extend the results to

2088: the Parseval frame.

2089: \end{proof}

2090: 

2091: 

2092: \smallskip

2093: \subsection{Gabor Molecules} \label{molecules}

2094: 

2095: We close by noting that many of the results of the preceding sections

2096: proved for Gabor frames carry over to frames of Gabor molecules with

2097: only minor changes in proof.

2098: 

2099: \begin{theorem}

2100: Let $\Fc = \set{f_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ be a set of Gabor molecules

2101: with respect to an envelope $\Gamma \in W(\C,\ell^2)$.

2102: Let $\phi \in M^1$ and $\alpha$, $\beta > 0$ be given.

2103: Then the following statements hold.

2104: 

2105: \smallskip

2106: \begin{enumerate}

2107: \item[(a)]

2108: If $1 \le p \le 2$ and $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^p)$,

2109: then $(\Fc, a, \Gc(\phi, G))$ is $\ell^p$-localized.

2110: Further, $f_\lambda \in M^p$ for every $\lambda \in \Lambda$.

2111: 

2112: \medskip

2113: \item[(b)]

2114: If $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^1)$, then

2115: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.

2116: \end{enumerate}

2117: \end{theorem}

2118: 

2119: \begin{theorem}

2120: Let $\Fc = \set{f_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$

2121: be a set of Gabor molecules with respect to an envelope

2122: $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^2)$.

2123: If $\Fc$ is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$ then the following statements hold.

2124: 

2125: \smallskip

2126: \begin{enumerate}

2127: \item[(a)]

2128: $1 \le \BD^-(\Lambda) \le \BD^+(\Lambda) < \infty$.

2129: 

2130: \medskip

2131: \item[(b)]

2132: $\cM^-(\Fc) = \frac1{\BD^+(\Lambda)}$

2133: and

2134: $\cM^+(\Fc) = \frac1{\BD^-(\Lambda)}$.

2135: 

2136: 

2137: \medskip

2138: \item[(c)]

2139: If $\BD^+(\Lambda) > 1$ then $\Fc$ has infinite excess, and

2140: there exists an infinite subset $J \subset \Lambda$ such that

2141: $\set{f_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda \setminus J}$

2142: is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

2143: 

2144: \medskip

2145: \item[(d)]

2146: If $\Gamma \in W(\Cc,\ell^1)$ and $\BD^-(\Lambda) > 1$, then there exists

2147: $J \subset \Lambda$ with $\BD^+(J) = \BD^-(J) > 0$ such that

2148: $\set{f_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda \setminus J}$

2149: is a frame for $L^2(\R^d)$.

2150: 

2151: 

2152: \medskip

2153: \item[(e)] 

2154: If $\Gamma\in W(\Cc,\ell^1)$ then the canonical dual frame

2155: $\tilde{\Fc}= \set{\tf_\lambda}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$

2156: is a set of Gabor molecules with respect to an envelope function

2157: $\tilde{\Gamma} \in W(\Cc,\ell^1)$.

2158: \end{enumerate}

2159: \end{theorem}

2160: 

2161: 

2162: \smallskip

2163: \section{Relations Among the Localization and Approximation Properties}

2164: \label{relationsec}

2165: 

2166: We conclude this work by determining the relationships that hold among the

2167: localization and approximation properties described in section \ref{section2}.

2168: For the case that $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ are both frames for $H$ and 

2169: the upper density $D^+(I,a)$ is finite,

2170: these relations can be summarized in the diagram in Figure~\ref{fig1}.

2171: 

2172: \begin{figure}[ht]

2173: \scalebox{.6}{\includegraphics{inclusions.eps}}

2174: \caption{Relations among the localization and approximation properties

2175: for $p=2$, under the assumptions that $\Fc$, $\Ec$ are frames and

2176: $D^+(I,a)<\infty$. \label{fig1}}

2177: \end{figure}

2178: 

2179: 

2180: \smallskip

2181: \subsection{Implications Among the Localization and Approximation Properties}

2182: 

2183: \begin{theorem} \label{relations}

2184: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and

2185: $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be sequences in $H$, and

2186: let $a : I \to G$ be an associated map.

2187: Then the following statements hold.

2188: 

2189: \smallskip

2190: \begin{enumerate}

2191: \item[(a)] If $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$, then

2192: $\ell^2$-column decay implies the strong HAP.

2193: 

2194: \medskip

2195: \item[(b)] If $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$ and

2196: $\sup_j \norm{e_j} < \infty$, then

2197: the strong HAP implies $\ell^2$-column decay.

2198: 

2199: \medskip

2200: \item[(c)] If $\Ec$ is a frame for $H$, then

2201: $\ell^2$-row decay implies the strong dual HAP.

2202: 

2203: \medskip

2204: \item[(d)] If $\Ec$ is a frame for $H$ and

2205: $\sup_i \norm{f_i} < \infty$, then

2206: the strong dual HAP implies $\ell^2$-row decay.

2207: 

2208: \medskip

2209: \item[(e)] If $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$, then

2210: the strong HAP implies the weak HAP.

2211: If $\Fc$ is a Riesz basis for $H$, then

2212: the weak HAP implies the strong HAP.

2213: 

2214: \medskip

2215: \item[(f)] If $\Ec$ is a frame for $H$, then

2216: the strong dual HAP implies the weak dual HAP.

2217: If $\Ec$ is a Riesz basis for $H$, then

2218: the weak dual HAP implies the strong dual HAP.

2219: 

2220: \medskip

2221: \item[(g)] If $D^+(I,a) < \infty$ and $1 \le p < \infty$, then

2222: $\ell^p$-localization implies both $\ell^p$-column and $\ell^p$-row decay.

2223: \end{enumerate}

2224: \end{theorem}

2225: 

2226: Before giving the proof of Theorem~\ref{relations}, we note that

2227: in Section~\ref{relationappend} we construct counterexamples to most of

2228: the converse implications of Theorem~\ref{relations}, including the following.

2229: 

2230: \begin{enumerate}

2231: \item[(a)]

2232: There exist orthonormal bases $\Ec$, $\Fc$ such that

2233: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ does not have $\ell^2$-column decay, and hence does

2234: not satisfy the strong HAP.

2235: 

2236: \medskip

2237: \item[(b)]

2238: There exists a frame $\Fc$ and orthonormal basis $\Ec$ such that

2239: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ satisfies the weak HAP but not the strong HAP.

2240: 

2241: \medskip

2242: \item[(c)]

2243: There exists a frame $\Fc$ and orthonormal basis $\Ec$ such that

2244: $D^+(I,a) < \infty$, $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column decay and

2245: $\ell^2$-row decay, but fails to have $\ell^2$-localization.

2246: 

2247: \medskip

2248: \item[(d)]

2249: There exists a Riesz basis $\Fc$ and orthonormal basis $\Ec$ such that

2250: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-column decay but not $\ell^2$-row decay.

2251: \end{enumerate}

2252: 

2253: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{relations}]

2254: (a) Assume $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$, with frame bounds $A$, $B$, and

2255: suppose that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-column decay.

2256: For each $j \in G$ we have $e_j = \sum_{i \in I} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i$, so

2257: $$\biggnorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in I_{N_\eps(j)}} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}^2

2258: \EQ \biggnorm{\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps(j)}} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}^2

2259: \LE \frac1A \, \sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps(j)}} |\ip{e_j}{f_i}|^2

2260: \LT \frac{\eps}A.$$

2261: Consequently, $\ell^2$-column decay implies the strong HAP.

2262: 

2263: \medskip

2264: (b) Assume that $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$,

2265: that $\Ec$ is uniformly bounded above in norm,

2266: and that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the strong HAP.

2267: Let $S$ be the frame operator for $\Fc$.

2268: Since $S$ is bounded, $C = \sup_j \norm{Se_j} < \infty$.

2269: Let $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ be the canonical dual frame to $\Fc$.

2270: Since $\tf_i = S^{-1} f_i$ and $S$ is self-adjoint, we have

2271: \begin{align*}

2272: \sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps(j)}} |\ip{e_j}{f_i}|^2

2273: & \EQ \Bigip{e_j}

2274:       {\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps(j)}} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, f_i}

2275:       \\

2276: & \EQ \Bigip{Se_j}

2277:             {\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps(j)}} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}

2278:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\

2279: & \LE \norm{Se_j} \,

2280:       \biggnorm{\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps(j)}} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}

2281:       \\

2282: & \LE C \, \biggnorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in I_{N_\eps(j)}} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}

2283: \LT C \eps.

2284: \end{align*}

2285: Consequently, $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-column decay.

2286: 

2287: \medskip

2288: (c), (d) These arguments are entirely symmetrical to the ones for (a), (b).

2289: 

2290: \medskip

2291: (e) Clearly the strong HAP trivially implies the weak HAP.

2292: 

2293: Suppose that $\Fc$ is a Riesz basis for $H$, and that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$

2294: satisfies the weak HAP.

2295: Since $\tFc$ is also a Riesz basis for $H$,

2296: there exist constants $A'$, $B'$ such that

2297: $$A' \, \sum_{i \in I} |a_i|^2

2298: \LE \biggnorm{\sum_{i \in I} a_i \tf_i}^2

2299: \LE B' \, \sum_{i \in I} |a_i|^2$$

2300: for any square-summable sequence of scalars $(a_i)$.

2301: Fix any $\eps > 0$, and let $c_{i,j}$ be the

2302: numbers from \eqref{weakHAPdef}.

2303: Then for any $j \in G$,

2304: \begin{align*}

2305: \eps

2306: \GT \biggnorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in N_\eps(j)} c_{i,j} \tf_i}^2

2307: & \EQ \biggnorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in N_\eps(j)} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i +

2308:       \sum_{i \in N_\eps(j)} \bigparen{\ip{e_j}{f_i} - c_{i,j}} \, \tf_i}^2

2309:       \\[1 \jot]

2310: & \EQ \biggnorm{\sum_{i \in I \setminus N_\eps(j)} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i +

2311:                 \sum_{i \in N_\eps(j)} (\ip{e_j}{f_i} - c_{i,j}) \, \tf_i}^2

2312:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

2313: & \GE A' \,

2314:       \biggparen{\sum_{i \in I \setminus N_\eps(j)} |\ip{e_j}{f_i}|^2 +

2315:       \sum_{i \in N_\eps(j)} |\ip{e_j}{f_i} - c_{i,j}|^2}

2316:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

2317: & \GE A' \, \sum_{i \in I \setminus N_\eps(j)} |\ip{e_j}{f_i}|^2

2318:       \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]

2319: & \GE \frac{A'}{B'} \,

2320:       \biggnorm{\sum_{i \in I \setminus N_\eps(j)} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}^2

2321:       \\[1 \jot]

2322: & \EQ \frac{A'}{B'} \,

2323:       \biggnorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in N_\eps(j)} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}^2.

2324: \end{align*}

2325: Hence $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ satisfies the strong HAP.

2326: 

2327: \medskip

2328: (f) This argument is symmetrical to the one for (e).

2329: 

2330: \medskip

2331: (g) Assume that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is $\ell^p$-localized and that

2332: $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.

2333: Then we have $K = \sup_{n \in G} |a^{-1}(n)| < \infty$.

2334: By definition of $\ell^p$-localization, there exists an

2335: $r \in \ell^p(G)$ such that $|\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \le r_{a(i) - j}$

2336: for all $i \in I$ and $j \in G$.

2337: Given $\eps>0$,

2338: let $N_\eps$ be such that

2339: $$\sum_{\ell \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(0)} r_\ell^p \LT \eps.$$

2340: Then

2341: $$\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps}(j)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^p

2342: \LE \sum_{n \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(j)} \,

2343:     \sum_{i \in a^{-1}(n)} r_{a(i) - j}^p

2344: \LE K \sum_{n \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(j)} r_{n - j}^p

2345: \LE K \eps.$$

2346: Thus $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^p$-column decay.

2347: Additionally,

2348: $$\sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(a(i))} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^p

2349: \LE \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(a(i))} r_{a(i)-j}^p

2350: \LE \sum_{\ell \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(0)} r_\ell^p

2351: \LE \eps,$$

2352: so $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^p$-row decay as well.

2353: \end{proof}

2354: 

2355: 

2356: \smallskip

2357: \subsection{Counterexamples}

2358: \label{relationappend}

2359: 

2360: In this section, we provide examples showing that most of the

2361: implications of Theorem~\ref{relations} are sharp, along with

2362: several other useful examples.

2363: 

2364: The following example constructs orthonormal bases $\Fc$ and $\Ec$

2365: such that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ does not satisfy the strong HAP.

2366: 

2367: \begin{example} \label{noHAP}

2368: For each $n \in \N$, let $H_n$ be an $n$-dimensional Hilbert space with

2369: orthonormal basis $\set{e_j^n}_{j=1}^n$.

2370: Let $H = \ell^2 \oplus \sum_{n=1}^\infty H_n$, the orthogonal direct

2371: sum of $\ell^2$ and the $H_n$.

2372: Let $\set{e_j}_{j \le 0}$ be an orthonormal basis for $\ell^2$, and

2373: let $\set{e_j}_{j > 0}$ be the orthonormal bases for the $H_n$ put into

2374: their natural order, i.e., $e_{\frac{(n-1)n}2+j} = e_j^n$ for

2375: $j = 1, \dots, n$.

2376: Then $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in \Z}$ is an orthonormal basis for~$H$.

2377: 

2378: Let $\omega_n = e^{2\pi i/n}$ be a primitive $n$th root of unity, and

2379: let $\set{f_k^n}_{k=1}^n$ be the harmonic orthonormal basis for $H_n$ given by

2380: $$f_k^n \EQ \frac1{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^n \omega_n^{jk} e_j^n,

2381: \qquad k = 1, \dots, n.$$

2382: Let $\set{f_k}_{k > 0}$ be the $f_k^n$ put in their natural order,

2383: and for $k \le 0$ set $f_k=e_k$.

2384: Then $\Fc = \set{f_k}_{k \in \Z}$ is an orthonormal basis for $H$.

2385: 

2386: Let $a \colon \Z \to \Z$ be the identity map.

2387: Fix any $N > 0$.

2388: If $j = \frac{(n-1)n}2 + 1$, then

2389: $\ip{f_k}{e_j} = 0$ for all $k < j$ or $k \ge j+n$.

2390: Since $I_{2N}(j) = S_{2N}(j) = [j-N,j+N) \cap \Z$,

2391: we therefore have for $n>N$ that

2392: \begin{align*}

2393: \sum_{k \in \Z \setminus I_{2N}(j)} |\ip{f_k}{e_j}|^2

2394: & \EQ \sum_{k=j+N}^{j+n-1} |\ip{f_k}{e_j}|^2 \\

2395: & \EQ \sum_{k=N+1}^n |\ip{f_k^n}{e_1^n}|^2

2396: \EQ \sum_{k=N+1}^n \frac1n

2397: \EQ \frac{n-N-1}n.

2398: \end{align*}

2399: This quantity approaches $1$ as $n \to \infty$, so

2400: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ fails to have $\ell^2$-column decay, and

2401: hence by Theorem~\ref{relations} also fails the strong HAP.

2402: ~\qed

2403: \end{example}

2404: 

2405: The following example shows that the weak HAP need not imply the strong HAP

2406: if $\Fc$ is not a Riesz basis

2407: (compare to part~(e) of Theorem~\ref{relations}).

2408: Note that in this example, $\Ec$ is actually an orthonormal basis for $H$.

2409: 

2410: \begin{example}

2411: Let $\Ec$ and $\Fc$ be as in Example~\ref{noHAP}.

2412: Define

2413: $$g_{2i}^n \EQ \frac1{\sqrt{2}} e_i^n, \qquad

2414: g_{2i-1}^n \EQ \frac1{\sqrt{2}} f_i^n, \qquad

2415: i = 1, \dots, n.$$

2416: Let $\set{g_i}_{i > 0}$ be the $g_i^n$ put in their natural order,

2417: and for $i \le 0$ set $g_i = e_i$.

2418: Then $\Gc = \set{g_i}_{i \in \Z}$ is a Parseval frame for $H$,

2419: i.e., the frame bounds are $A=B=1$.

2420: In particular, $\Gc$ is its own dual frame.

2421: 

2422: Define $a \colon \Z \to \Z$ by

2423: $a(i) = i$ for $i \le 0$ and

2424: $$a\bigparen{\tfrac{(2n-1)2n}2 + 2i-1}

2425: \EQ a\bigparen{\tfrac{(2n-1)2n}2 + 2i}

2426: \EQ \tfrac{(n-1)n}2 + i,

2427: \qquad i = 1, \dots, 2n,$$

2428: i.e., $a$ associates the elements $g_{2i-1}^n$ and $g_{2i}^n$ of $\Gc$

2429: with the element $e_i^n$ in $\Ec$.

2430: 

2431: Given any $j \in \Z$, we have

2432: $g_j = e_j$ for $j \le 0$, and

2433: $\sqrt2 g_{2j}^n = e_j^n$ for $j > 0$,

2434: so clearly $(\Gc,a,\Ec)$ satisfies the weak HAP.

2435: However, given any $N>0$ we have

2436: $$\sum_{i \in \Z \setminus I_{2N}(j)} |\ip{g_i}{e_j}|^2

2437: \GE \frac12 \sum_{k \in \Z \setminus S_{2N}(j)} |\ip{f_k}{e_j}|^2,$$

2438: and as we saw in Example~\ref{noHAP}, we cannot make this quantity

2439: arbitrarily small independently of $j$.

2440: Thus $(\Gc,a,\Ec)$ fails the strong HAP.

2441: ~\qed

2442: \end{example}

2443: 

2444: The following example shows that the assumption of $\ell^2$-localization

2445: alone does not guarantee that the upper density is finite.

2446: In particular, this shows that the hypothesis in \cite[Thm.~3.3]{BCHL05a}

2447: that $\inf_i \norm{f_i} > 0$ is necessary.

2448: 

2449: \begin{example}

2450: Let $\Ec = \set{e_n}_{n \in \Z}$ be an orthonormal basis for $H$

2451: and let

2452: $\Fc = \set{e_n}_{n > 0} \cup \set{2^n e_0}_{n \le 0}$.

2453: Note that $\Fc$ is a frame sequence in $H$.

2454: If we let $a(i) = i$ for $i > 0$ and $a(i) = 0$ for $i \le 0$,

2455: then $|a^{-1}(0)| = \infty$,

2456: so $D^+(I,a) = \infty$.

2457: On the other hand,

2458: $\sup_{i \in \Z} |\ip{f_i}{e_{j+a(i)}}| = 1$ if $j = 0$

2459: and $0$ otherwise, so $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is $\ell^2$-localized.

2460: ~\qed

2461: \end{example}

2462: 

2463: The following example shows that the converse of part~(g) of

2464: Theorem~\ref{relations} fails in general, i.e.,

2465: $\ell^2$-column decay combined with $\ell^2$-row decay does not imply

2466: $\ell^2$-localization, even if $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.

2467: 

2468: \begin{example}

2469: Let $\Ec =\set{e_j}_{j \in \Z}$ be an orthonormal basis for $H$,

2470: and define $\Fc = \set{f_j}_{j \in \Z}$ by

2471: $$f_j \EQ e_j + \biggparen{\frac{1}{4+|j|}}^{1/2} e_{-j},

2472: \qquad j \in \Z$$

2473: Let $a \colon \Z \to \Z$ be the identity map.

2474: Then $D^+(a,\Z) = 1$, and $I_N(j) = S_N(j)$ for all $j$ and $N$.

2475: For $j \ne 0$, we have

2476: $$\sup_{i \in \Z} |\ip{f_i}{e_{2j+i}}|^2

2477: \EQ |\ip{f_{-j}}{e_j}|^2 

2478: \EQ \frac{1}{4+|j|},$$

2479: so $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is not $\ell^2$-localized.

2480: On the other hand, since $\ip{f_i}{e_j} \ne 0$ only when $i = \pm j$, we have

2481: \begin{equation} \label{calculation}

2482: \sum_{i \in \Z \setminus S_{N_\eps}(j)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2

2483: \EQ \begin{cases}

2484:        0, & -\frac{N}4 < j \le \frac{N}4, \\

2485:        \frac1{4+|j|}, & \text{otherwise}.

2486:     \end{cases}

2487: \end{equation}

2488: By taking $N_\eps$ large enough, we can make this quantity arbitrarily

2489: small, independently of~$j$.

2490: Thus $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-column decay,

2491: and a similar argument shows it has $\ell^2$-row decay.

2492: 

2493: Note that no other choice for the map $a$ would help in this example,

2494: for if $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-column decay, then

2495: $\sup_j |a(j)-j| < \infty$.

2496: Thus $a$ can only be a bounded perturbation of the identity.

2497: For such an $a$, there always exists an $N$ sufficiently large so that

2498: for $|j| > N$ an inequality similar to \eqref{calculation} will hold.

2499: 

2500: Note also in this example that $\Fc$ is a frame.

2501: For, given $f \in H$ we have

2502: $$\sum_{j \in \Z} |\ip{f}{f_j-e_j}|^2

2503: \EQ \sum_{j \in \Z} \biggparen{\frac1{4+|j|}} |\ip{f}{e_{-j}}|^2

2504: \LE \frac14 \sum_{j \in \Z} |\ip{f}{e_j}|^2

2505: \EQ \frac14 \, \norm{f}^2,$$

2506: and therefore, by the triangle inequality,

2507: \begin{align*}

2508: \biggparen{\sum_{j \in \Z} |\ip{f}{f_j}|^2}^{1/2}

2509: & \GE \biggparen{\sum_{j \in \Z} |\ip{f}{e_j}|^2}^{1/2} \minus

2510:       \biggparen{\sum_{j \in \Z} |\ip{f}{f_j-e_j}|^2}^{1/2}

2511:       \\[1 \jot]

2512: & \GE \norm{f} - \frac12 \, \norm{f}

2513: \EQ \frac12 \, \norm{f}.

2514: \end{align*}

2515: Thus $\Fc$ has a lower frame bound of $1/4$, and a similar

2516: calculation shows it has an upper frame bound of $9/4$.

2517: ~\qed

2518: \end{example}

2519: 

2520: The following example shows that $\ell^2$-column decay does not imply

2521: $\ell^2$-row decay.

2522: By interchanging the roles of $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ in this example, we also see

2523: that $\ell^2$-row decay does not imply $\ell^2$-column decay.

2524: 

2525: \begin{example}

2526: Index an orthonormal basis for $H$ as

2527: $\Ec = \Span\set{e_j^n}_{n \in \N, j=1,\dots,n}$, and set

2528: $H_n = \Span\set{e_j^n}_{j=1,\dots,n}$.

2529: Define

2530: $$f_i^n

2531: \EQ \begin{cases}

2532:     e_1^n, & i=1, \\

2533:     \frac1{2\sqrt{n}} e_1^n + e_i^n, & i = 2, \dots, n,

2534:     \end{cases}$$

2535: and

2536: $$\tf_i^n

2537: \EQ \begin{cases}

2538:     e_1^n - \frac1{2\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=2}^n e_j^n, & i=1, \\

2539:     e_i^n, & i = 2, \dots, n.

2540:     \end{cases}$$

2541: Clearly $f_i^n$, $\tf_i^n \in H_n$, and a straightforward calculation

2542: shows that $\set{f_i^n}_{i=1}^n$ and $\set{\tf_i^n}_{i=1}^n$

2543: are biorthogonal sequences in $H_n$.

2544: Since $H_n$ is $n$-dimensional, this shows that these are dual Riesz

2545: bases for $H_n$.

2546: Given any scalars $\set{a_i}_{i=1}^n$, we have

2547: \begin{align*}

2548: \biggnorm{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i f_i^n}

2549: & \LE \biggnorm{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i}{2\sqrt{n}} \, e_1^n} +

2550:       \biggnorm{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i e_i^n}

2551:       \\[1 \jot]

2552: & \LE \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n |a_i|}{2\sqrt{n}} +

2553:       \biggparen{\sum_{i=1}^n |a_i|^2}^{1/2}

2554: \LE \frac32 \biggparen{\sum_{i=1}^n |a_i|^2}^{1/2},

2555: \end{align*}

2556: and similarly

2557: $\bignorm{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i f_i^n}

2558: \ge \frac12 \bigparen{\sum_{i=1}^n |a_i|^2}^{1/2}$.

2559: Thus $\set{f_i^n}_{i=1}^n$ has Riesz bounds $\frac12$, $\frac32$.

2560: Since $H$ is the orthogonal direct sum of the $H_n$ and the Riesz bounds are

2561: independent of $n$, we conclude that

2562: $\Fc = \set{f_i^n}_{n \in \N, i=1,\dots,n}$ and

2563: $\tFc = \set{\tf_i^n}_{n \in \N, i=1,\dots,n}$

2564: are dual Riesz bases for $H$.

2565: 

2566: Another direct calculation shows that

2567: $$|\ip{f_i^m}{e_j^n}|

2568: \EQ \begin{cases}

2569:     1, & i=j, m=n, \\

2570:     \frac1{2\sqrt{n}}, & m=n, j=1, i=2,\dots,n, \\

2571:     0, & \text{otherwise}.

2572:     \end{cases}$$

2573: Consequently, given any $N$, we have for each $n > N$ and $j=1,\dots,n$ that

2574: $$\sum_{m>N} \sum_{i=1}^m |\ip{f_i^m}{e_j^n}|^2

2575: \EQ \sum_{i=1}^n \ip{f_i^n}{e_j^n}|^2

2576: \EQ \frac1{4n},$$

2577: while for $n \le N$ this sum is zero.

2578: Hence, by taking $N$ large enough this sum is less than $\eps$ independently

2579: of $n \in \N$ and $j=1, \dots, n$.

2580: Thus, with $a$ as the identity map, $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-row decay.

2581: On the other hand, if $m>N$ then we have for each $i=1,\dots,n$ that

2582: $$\sum_{n>N} \sum_{j=1}^n |\ip{f_i^m}{e_j^n}|^2

2583: \EQ \sum_{j=1}^n |\ip{f_i^n}{e_j^n}|^2

2584: \EQ \sum_{j=2}^n \frac1{4n}

2585: \EQ \frac{n-1}{4n}.$$

2586: After mapping the index set of $\Ec$ and $\Fc$ onto $\Z$,

2587: similarly to Example~\ref{noHAP},

2588: we conclude that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ does not have $\ell^2$-row decay.

2589: ~\qed

2590: \end{example}

2591: 

2592: The following example illustrates the importance of the map $a$ in

2593: determining localization properties.

2594: 

2595: \begin{example} \label{selflocexample}

2596: Let $\Fc = \set{f_n}_{n \in \Z}$ be an orthonormal basis for $H$,

2597: and define $a \colon \Z \to \Z$ by $a(2n) = a(2n+1) = n$.

2598: Then $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized, and by Example~\ref{specialcases}

2599: we have $\cM^\pm(\Fc) = 1$.

2600: However, $D^\pm(I,a) = 2$.

2601: Hence, by \cite[Thm.~3.5(c)]{BCHL05a}, there cannot be any Riesz basis $\Ec$

2602: such that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column decay and $\ell^2$-row decay.

2603: In particular $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ cannot be $\ell^2$-localized for any Riesz

2604: basis $\Ec$, and $(\Fc,a,\Fc)$ is not $\ell^2$-localized.

2605: 

2606: However, if we let $\Ec = \set{f_{2n}}_{n \in \Z}$, then $\Ec$ is a

2607: Riesz sequence (but not a Riesz basis), and

2608: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is $\ell^1$-localized.

2609: Since $\Ec$ is a Riesz sequence and $\clspan(\Fc) = H$, we have

2610: $\cM^\pm(\Ec) = \cM(\Ec;p,c) = 1$ by Example~\ref{specialcases}(b).

2611: On the other hand, since

2612: $P_\Ec(f_{2n}) = 1$ and $P_\Ec(f_{2n+1}) = 0$,

2613: it follows directly that $\cM_\Ec(\Fc;p,c) = \frac12$.

2614: Thus $\cM_\Ec(\Fc;p,c) \, D(p,c) = 1$,

2615: in accordance with \cite[Thm.~3.4]{BCHL05a}.

2616: ~\qed

2617: \end{example}

2618: 

2619: The following example shows that $\ell^1$-localization with respect to

2620: the canonical dual frame does not imply $\ell^1$-self-localization.

2621: 

2622: \begin{example} \label{selfexample}

2623: Let $\Ec = \set{e_i}_{i \in \Z}$ be an orthonormal basis for $H$,

2624: and let $a \colon \Z \to \Z$ be the identity map.

2625: Fix $\frac12 < c_0 < 1$, and for $i \ne 0$ choose $c_i > 0$ in such a

2626: way that

2627: $$\sum_{i \in \Z} c_i^2 \EQ 1

2628: \qquad\text{and}\qquad

2629: \sum_{i \in \Z} c_i \EQ \infty.$$

2630: Define

2631: $$f_0 \EQ \sum_{i \in \Z} c_i e_i

2632: \qquad\text{and}\qquad

2633: f_i = e_i \text{ for } i \ne 0.$$

2634: If we set $T(e_i) = f_i$, then $T$ extends to a bounded mapping on $H$.

2635: Further, if $f = \sum_i \ip{f}{e_i} \, e_i \in H$, then

2636: $$\norm{(\one - T)f}^2

2637: \EQ \bignorm{\ip{f}{e_0} \, (e_0 - f_0)}^2

2638: \EQ |\ip{f}{e_0}|^2 \, \Bigparen{|1 - c_0|^2 + \sum_{i \ne 0} c_i^2}

2639: \LE (2 - 2c_0) \, \norm{f}^2,$$

2640: so

2641: $\norm{\one - T} \le 2 - 2c_0 < 1$.

2642: Hence $T$ is a continuous bijection of $H$ onto itself, so

2643: $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in \Z}$ is a Riesz basis for $H$.

2644: Therefore $\ip{f_i}{\tf_j} = \delta_{ij}$, so $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized

2645: with respect to its dual frame.

2646: However, $\ip{f_0}{f_j} = c_j$, so $(\Fc,a)$ is not $\ell^1$-self-localized.

2647: ~\qed

2648: \end{example}

2649: 

2650: 

2651: \smallskip

2652: \appendix

2653: \section{Ultrafilters} \label{ultraappend}

2654: 

2655: In this appendix we provide a brief review of ultrafilters and their

2656: basic properties.

2657: For additional information, we refer to \cite[Chap.~3]{HS98}.

2658: Filters were introduced by H.~Cartan \cite{Car37a}, \cite{Car37b}

2659: in order to characterize continuous functions on general topological spaces.

2660: Soon after, it was realized that the set of ultrafilters endowed with the

2661: proper topology is the Stone-\v{C}ech compactification of a discrete

2662: (or more generally, a completely regular) topological space.

2663: In the following we will restrict our attention to ultrafilters over

2664: the natural numbers $\N$.

2665: 

2666: \begin{definition}

2667: A collection $p$ of subsets of $\N$ is a \emph{filter} if:

2668: 

2669: \smallskip

2670: \begin{enumerate}

2671: \item[(a)] $\emptyset \notin p$,

2672: 

2673: \smallskip

2674: \item[(b)] if $A$, $B \in p$ then $A \cap B \in p$,

2675: 

2676: \smallskip

2677: \item[(c)] if $A \in p$ and $A \subset B \subset \N$, then $B \in p$.

2678: \end{enumerate}

2679: A filter $p$ is an \emph{ultrafilter} if it is maximal in the sense that:

2680: 

2681: \smallskip

2682: \begin{enumerate}

2683: \item[(d)] if $p'$ is a filter on $\N$ such that $p \subset p'$, then $p'=p$,

2684: \end{enumerate}

2685: or, equivalently, if

2686: 

2687: \smallskip

2688: \begin{enumerate}

2689: \item[(d')] for any $A \subset \N$, either $A \in p$ or

2690: $\N \setminus A \in p$

2691: (but not both, because of properties~a and~b).

2692: \end{enumerate}

2693: The set of ultrafilters is denoted by $\beta\N$.

2694: ~\qed

2695: \end{definition}

2696: 

2697: \begin{definition}

2698: Given any $n \in \N$,

2699: $e_n =\set{A \subset \N : n \in A}$

2700: is an ultrafilter, called a \emph{principal ultrafilter}.

2701: It is straightforward to show that any ultrafilter $p$ that contains a finite

2702: set must be one of these principal ultrafilters.

2703: An ultrafilter which contains no finite sets is called \emph{free}.

2704: The set of free ultrafilters is denoted by $\N^*$.

2705: ~\qed

2706: \end{definition}

2707: 

2708: 

2709: Our main use for ultrafilters is that they provide

2710: a notion of convergence for arbitrary sequences.

2711: 

2712: \begin{definition}

2713: Let $p \in \beta\N$ be an ultrafilter.

2714: Then we say that a sequence $\set{c_k}_{k \in \N}$ of complex numbers

2715: \emph{converges to $c \in \C$ with respect to $p$} if

2716: for every $\eps > 0$ there exists a set $A \in p$ such that 

2717: $|c_k - c| < \eps$ for all $k \in A$.

2718: In this case we write $c = \plim_{k \in \N} c_k$ or simply $c = \plim c_k$.

2719: ~\qed

2720: \end{definition}

2721: 

2722: The following proposition summarizes the basic properties of convergence

2723: with respect to an ultrafilter.

2724: 

2725: \begin{proposition}

2726: Let $p \in \beta\N$ be an ultrafilter.

2727: Then the following statements hold.

2728: 

2729: \smallskip

2730: \begin{enumerate}

2731: \item[(a)] Every bounded sequence of complex scalars $\set{c_k}_{k \in \N}$

2732: converges with respect to $p$ to some $c \in \C$.

2733: 

2734: \medskip

2735: \item[(b)] $p$-limits are unique.

2736: 

2737: \medskip

2738: \item[(c)] If $p = e_n$ is a principal ultrafilter, then

2739: $\plim c_k = c_n$.

2740: 

2741: \medskip

2742: \item[(d)] If $\set{c_k}_{k \in \N}$ is a convergent sequence in the

2743: usual sense, $p$ is a free ultrafilter, and

2744: $\lim_{k \to \infty} c_k = c$, then $\plim c_k = c$.

2745: 

2746: \medskip

2747: \item[(e)]

2748: If $\set{c_k}_{k \in \N}$ is a bounded sequence and $p$ is a free ultrafilter,

2749: then $\plim_{k \in \N} c_k$ is an accumulation point of

2750: $\set{c_k}_{k \in \N}$.

2751: 

2752: \medskip

2753: \item[(f)]

2754: If $c$ is an accumulation point of a bounded sequence $\set{c_k}_{k \in \N}$,

2755: then there exists a free ultrafilter $p$ such that

2756: $\plim c_k = c$.

2757: In particular, there exists an ultrafilter $p$ such that

2758: $\plim c_k = \limsup c_k$,

2759: and there exists an ultrafilter $q$ such that

2760: $\qlim c_k = \liminf c_k$.

2761: 

2762: \medskip

2763: \item[(g)]

2764: $p$-limits are linear, i.e.,

2765: $\plim (a c_k + b d_k) = a \plim c_k + b \plim d_k$.

2766: 

2767: \medskip

2768: \item[(h)]

2769: $p$-limits respect products, i.e.,

2770: $\plim (c_k d_k) = \bigparen{\plim c_k} \, \bigparen{\plim d_k}$.

2771: \end{enumerate}

2772: \end{proposition}

2773: 

2774: 

2775: \smallskip

2776: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2777: We gratefully acknowledge conversations with Karlheinz Gr\"ochenig and

2778: Massimo Fornasier on localization of frames, and thank them for providing

2779: us with preprints of their articles.

2780: We thank

2781: Hans Feichtinger,

2782: Norbert Kaiblinger,

2783: Gitta Kutyniok,

2784: and

2785: Henry Landau

2786: for conversations regarding the details of our arguments,

2787: and also acknowledge helpful conversations with

2788: Akram Aldroubi,

2789: Carlos Cabrelli,

2790: Mark Lammers,

2791: Ursula Molter,

2792: and

2793: Kasso Okoudjou.

2794: 

2795: 

2796: \begin{thebibliography}{BCHL03b}

2797: 

2798: \bibitem[Bag90]{Bag90}

2799: L.~Baggett,

2800: Processing a radar signal and representations of the discrete Heisenberg group,

2801: \textsl{Colloq.\ Math.}, \textbf{60/61} (1990), 195--203.

2802: 

2803: 

2804: 

2805: 

2806: \bibitem[BCHL03a]{BCHL03a}

2807: R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau,

2808: Deficits and excesses of frames,

2809: \textsl{Adv.\ Comput.\ Math.}, \textbf{18} (2003), 93--116.

2810: 

2811: \bibitem[BCHL03b]{BCHL03b}

2812: R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau,

2813: Excesses of Gabor frames,

2814: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{14} (2003), 87--106.

2815: 

2816: \bibitem[BCHL05a]{BCHL05a}

2817: R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau,

2818: Density, overcompleteness, and localization of frames, I. Theory,

2819: preprint (2005).

2820: 

2821: \bibitem[BCHL05b]{BCHL05b}

2822: R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau,

2823: Density, overcompleteness, and localization of frames,

2824: research announcement (2005).

2825: 

2826: 

2827: 

2828: 

2829: \bibitem[BCGP02]{BCGP02}

2830: J.~J.~Benedetto, W.~Czaja, and A.~Ya.~Maltsev,

2831: The Balian--Low theorem for the symplectic form on $\R^{2d}$,

2832: \textsl{J. Geom.\ Anal.}, \textbf{13} (2003), 2, 217--232.

2833: 

2834: \bibitem[BHW95]{BHW95}

2835: J.~J.~Benedetto, C.~Heil, and D.~F.~Walnut,

2836: Differentiation and the Balian--Low theorem,

2837: \textsl{J. Fourier Anal.\ Appl.}, \textbf{1} (1995), 355--402.

2838: 

2839: \bibitem[BR03]{BR03}

2840: M.~Bownik and Z.~Rzeszotnik,

2841: The spectral function of shift-invariant spaces,

2842: \textsl{Michigan Math.\ J.}, \textbf{51} (2003), 387--414.

2843: 

2844: 

2845: \bibitem[Car37a]{Car37a}

2846: H.~Cartan,

2847: Th\'{e}orie des filtres,

2848: \textsl{C. R. Acad.\ Sci.\ Paris}, \textbf{205} (1937), 595--598.

2849: 

2850: \bibitem[Car37b]{Car37b}

2851: H.~Cartan,

2852: Filtres et ultrafiltres,

2853: \textsl{C. R. Acad.\ Sci.\ Paris}, \textbf{205} (1937), 777--779.

2854: 

2855: \bibitem[Cas00]{Cas00}

2856: P.~G.~Casazza,

2857: The art of frame theory,

2858: \textsl{Taiwanese J. Math.}, \textbf{4} (2000), 129--201.

2859: 

2860: 

2861: \bibitem[CK02]{CK02}

2862: P.~G.~Casazza and N.~J.~Kalton,

2863: Roots of complex polynomials and Weyl--Heisenberg frame sets,

2864: \textsl{Proc.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.}, \textbf{130} (2002), 2313--2318.

2865: 

2866: 

2867: \bibitem[Chr03]{Chr03}

2868: O.~Christensen,

2869: ``An Introduction to Frames and Riesz Bases,''

2870: Birkh\"auser, Boston, 2003.

2871: 

2872: \bibitem[CDH99]{CDH99}

2873: O.~Christensen, B.~Deng, and C.~Heil,

2874: Density of Gabor frames,

2875: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{7} (1999), 292--304.

2876: 

2877: \bibitem[CFZ01]{CFZ01}

2878: O.~Christensen, S.~Favier, and Z.~Felipe,

2879: Irregular wavelet frames and Gabor frames,

2880: \textsl{Approx.\ Theory Appl.\ (N.S.)}, \textbf{17} (2001), 90--101.

2881: 

2882: 

2883: \bibitem[Dau90]{Dau90}

2884: I.~Daubechies,

2885: The wavelet transform, time-frequency localization and signal analysis,

2886: \textsl{IEEE Trans.\ Inform.\ Theory}, \textbf{39} (1990), 961--1005.

2887: 

2888: \bibitem[Dau92]{Dau92}

2889: I. Daubechies,

2890: ``Ten Lectures on Wavelets,'' SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992.

2891: 

2892: \bibitem[DGM86]{DGM86}

2893: I.~Daubechies, A.~Grossmann, and Y.~Meyer,

2894: Painless nonorthogonal expansions,

2895: \textsl{J. Math.\ Phys.}, \textbf{27} (1986), 1271--1283.

2896: 

2897: \bibitem[DLL95]{DLL95}

2898: I.~Daubechies, H.~Landau, and Z.~Landau,

2899: Gabor time-frequency lattices and the Wexler-Raz identity,

2900: \textsl{J. Fourier Anal.\ Appl.}, \textbf{1} (1995), 437--478.

2901: 

2902: \bibitem[DH00]{DH00}

2903: B.~Deng and C.~Heil,

2904: Density of Gabor Schauder bases,

2905: in: ``Wavelet Applications in Signal and Image Processing VIII''

2906: (San Diego, CA, 2000), A.~Aldroubi at al., eds.,

2907: Proc.\ SPIE Vol.\ 4119, SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2000, 153--164.

2908: 

2909: \bibitem[Fei80]{Fei80}

2910: H.~G.~Feichtinger,

2911: \emph{Banach convolution algebras of {W}iener type},

2912: in: Functions, Series, Operators, Proc.\ Conf.\ Budapest \textbf{38},

2913: Colloq.\ Math.\ Soc.\ J\'anos Bolyai, 1980, 509--524.

2914: 

2915: \bibitem[Fei81]{Fei81}

2916: H.~G.~Feichtinger,

2917: On a new {S}egal algebra,

2918: \textsl{Monatsh.\ Math.}, \textbf{92} (1981), 269--289.

2919: 

2920: \bibitem[Fei87]{Fei87}

2921: H.~G.~Feichtinger,

2922: \emph{Banach spaces of distributions defined by decomposition methods,

2923: \textup{II}}, Math.\ Nachr., \textbf{132} (1987), 207--237.

2924: 

2925: \bibitem[Fei89]{Fei89}

2926: H.~G.~Feichtinger,

2927: Atomic characterizations of modulation spaces through

2928: {G}abor-type representations,

2929: \textsl{Rocky Mountain J. Math.}, \textbf{19} (1989), 113--125.

2930: 

2931: \bibitem[Fei90]{Fei90}

2932: H.~G.~Feichtinger,

2933: \emph{Generalized amalgams, with applications to {F}ourier transform},

2934: Canad.\ J. Math, \textbf{42} (1990), pp.~395--409.

2935: 

2936: \bibitem[Fei03]{Fei03}

2937: H.~G.~Feichtinger,

2938: Modulation spaces of locally compact Abelian groups,

2939: in: ``Wavelets and their Applications'' (Chennai, January 2002),

2940: M.~Krishna, R.~Radha and S.~Thangavelu, eds.,

2941: Allied Publishers, New Delhi (2003), 1--56.

2942: 

2943: \bibitem[Fei92]{Fei92}

2944: H.~G.~Feichtinger,

2945: \emph{Wiener amalgams over {E}uclidean spaces and some of their applications},

2946: in: Function spaces (Edwardsville, IL, 1990),

2947: Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl.\ Math.\ \textbf{136},

2948: Dekker, New York, 1992, 123--137.

2949: 

2950: \bibitem[FG85]{FG85}

2951: H.~G.~Feichtinger and P.~Gr\"obner,

2952: \emph{Banach spaces of distributions defined by decomposition methods,

2953: \textup{I}}, Math.\ Nachr., \textbf{123} (1985), 97--120.

2954: 

2955: \bibitem[FG89a]{FG89a}

2956: H.~G.~Feichtinger and K.~Gr\"ochenig,

2957: Banach spaces related to integrable group representations and their

2958: atomic decompositions,~I,

2959: \textsl{J. Funct.\ Anal.}, \textbf{86} (1989), 307--340.

2960: 

2961: \bibitem[FG89b]{FG89b}

2962: H.~G.~Feichtinger and K.~Gr\"ochenig,

2963: Banach spaces related to integrable group representations and their atomic

2964: decompositions,~II, \textsl{Monatsh.\ Math.}, \textbf{108} (1989), 129--148.

2965: 

2966: \bibitem[FG97]{FG97}

2967: H.~G.~Feichtinger and K.~Gr\"ochenig,

2968: Gabor frames and time-frequency analysis of distributions,

2969: \textsl{J. Funct.\ Anal.}, \textbf{146} (1997), 464--495.

2970: 

2971: \bibitem[FZ98]{FZ98}

2972: H.~G.~Feichtinger and G.~Zimmermann,

2973: A Banach space of test functions for Gabor analysis,

2974: in: ``Gabor Analysis and Algorithms: Theory and Applications,''

2975: H.~G.~Feichtinger and T.~Strohmer, eds., Birkh\"auser (1998), 123--170.

2976: 

2977: \bibitem[For03]{For03}

2978: M.~Fornasier,

2979: Constructive methods for numerical applications in signal processing

2980: and homogenization problems, Ph.D.\ Thesis, U.~Padua, 2003.

2981: 

2982: \bibitem[Gr\"o93]{Gro93}

2983: K.~Gr\"ochenig,

2984: Irregular sampling of wavelet and short-time Fourier transforms,

2985: \textsl{Constr.\ Approx.}, \textbf{9} (1993), 283--297.

2986: 

2987: \bibitem[Gr\"o01]{Gro01}

2988: K.~Gr\"ochenig,

2989: ``Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis,'' Birkh\"auser, Boston, 2001.

2990: 

2991: \bibitem[Gr\"o03]{Gro03}

2992: K.~Gr\"ochenig,

2993: Localized frames are finite unions of Riesz sequences,

2994: \textsl{Adv.\ Comput.\ Math.}, \textbf{18} (2003), 149--157.

2995: 

2996: \bibitem[Gr\"o04]{Gro04}

2997: K.~Gr\"ochenig,

2998: Localization of frames, Banach frames, and the invertibility of the frame

2999: operator, \textsl{J. Fourier Anal.\ Appl.}, \textbf{10} (2004), 105--132.

3000: 

3001: \bibitem[GF04]{GF04}

3002: K.~Gr\"ochenig and M.~Fornasier,

3003: Intrinsic localization of frames,

3004: Constructive Approx., to appear (preprint 2004).

3005: 

3006: \bibitem[GHHK02]{GHHK02}

3007: K.~Gr\"ochenig, D.~Han, C.~Heil, and G.~Kutyniok,

3008: The Balian--Low Theorem for symplectic lattices in higher dimensions,

3009: Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal., 13 (2002), 169--176.

3010: 

3011: \bibitem[GL04]{GL04}

3012: K.~Gr\"ochenig and M.~Leinert,

3013: Wiener's lemma for twisted convolution and Gabor frames,

3014: \textsl{J. Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.}, \textbf{17} (2004), 1--18.

3015: 

3016: \bibitem[GR96]{GR96}

3017: K.~Gr\"ochenig and H.~Razafinjatovo,

3018: On Landau's necessary density conditions for sampling and

3019: interpolation of band-limited functions,

3020: \textsl{J. London Math.\ Soc.\ (2)}, \textbf{54} (1996), 557--565.

3021: 

3022: 

3023: \bibitem[HW01]{HW01}

3024: D.~Han and Y.~Wang,

3025: Lattice tiling and the Weyl--Heisenberg frames,

3026: \textsl{Geom.\ Funct.\ Anal.}, \textbf{11} (2001), 742--758.

3027: 

3028: \bibitem[Hei03]{Hei03}

3029: C.~Heil,

3030: An introduction to weighted Wiener amalgams,

3031: in: ``Wavelets and their Applications'' (Chennai, January 2002),

3032: M.~Krishna, R.~Radha and S.~Thangavelu, eds.,

3033: Allied Publishers, New Delhi (2003), 183--216.

3034: 

3035: \bibitem[HW89]{HW89}

3036: C.~E.~Heil and D.~F.~Walnut,

3037: Continuous and discrete wavelet transforms,

3038: \textsl{SIAM Review}, \textbf{31} (1989), 628--666.

3039: 

3040: 

3041: \bibitem[HS98]{HS98}

3042: N.~Hindman and D.~Strauss,

3043: Algebra in the Stone-\v{C}ech Compactification,

3044: de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics Vol.~27,

3045: Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, 1998.

3046: 

3047: 

3048: \bibitem[Jan94]{Jan94}

3049: A.~J.~E.~M.~Janssen,

3050: Signal analytic proofs of two basic results on lattice expansions,

3051: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{1} (1994), 350--354.

3052: 

3053: \bibitem[Jan98]{Jan98}

3054: A.~J.~E.~M.~Janssen,

3055: A density theorem for time-continuous filter banks,

3056: in: Signal and image representation in combined spaces,

3057: Y.~Y.~Zeevi and R.~R.~Coifman, eds., Wavelet Anal. Appl., Vol.~7,

3058: Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1998, 513--523.

3059: 

3060: \bibitem[Jan03]{Jan03}

3061: A.~J.~E.~M.~Janssen,

3062: On generating tight Gabor frames at critical density,

3063: \textsl{J. Fourier Anal.\ Appl.}, \textbf{9} (2003), 175--214.

3064: 

3065: \bibitem[JS02]{JS02}

3066: A.~J.~E.~M.~Janssen and T.~Strohmer,

3067: Hyperbolic secants yield Gabor frames,

3068: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{12} (2002), 259--267.

3069: 

3070: 

3071: 

3072: \bibitem[Lan93]{Lan93}

3073: H.~Landau,

3074: On the density of phase-space expansions,

3075: \textsl{IEEE Trans.\ Inform.\ Theory}, \textbf{39} (1993), 1152--1156.

3076: 

3077: 

3078: \bibitem[LW03]{LW03}

3079: Y.~Liu and Y.~Wang,

3080: The uniformity of non-uniform Gabor bases,

3081: \textsl{Adv.\ Comput.\ Math.}, \textbf{18} (2003), 345--355.

3082: 

3083: \bibitem[Lyu92]{Lyu92}

3084: Yu.~I.~Lyubarski\u{i},

3085:  Frames in the Bargmann space of entire functions,

3086: in: ``Entire and subharmonic functions,''

3087: Amer.\ Math.\ Soc., Providence, RI, 1992, 167--180.

3088: 

3089: \bibitem[RS95]{RS95}

3090: J. Ramanathan and T. Steger,

3091: Incompleteness of sparse coherent states,

3092: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{2} (1995), 148--153.

3093: 

3094: \bibitem[Rie81]{Rie81}

3095: M. Rieffel,

3096: Von Neumann algebras associated with pairs of lattices in Lie groups,

3097: \textsl{Math.\ Ann.}, \textbf{257} (1981), 403--418.

3098: 

3099: 

3100: \bibitem[Sei92]{Sei92}

3101: K.~Seip,

3102: Density theorems for sampling and interpolation in the

3103: Bargmann--Fock space I,

3104: \textsl{J. Reine Angew.\ Math.}, \textbf{429} (1992), 91--106.

3105: 

3106: \bibitem[SW92]{SW92}

3107: K.~Seip and R.~Wallst\'en,

3108: Sampling and interpolation in the Bargmann--Fock space II,

3109: \textsl{J. Reine Angew.\ Math.}, \textbf{429} (1992), 107--113.

3110: 

3111: 

3112: \bibitem[SZ02]{SZ02}

3113: W.~Sun and X.~Zhou,

3114: Irregular wavelet/Gabor frames,

3115: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{13} (2002), 63--76.

3116: 

3117: \bibitem[SZ03]{SZ03}

3118: W.~Sun and X.~Zhou,

3119: Irregular Gabor frames and their stability,

3120: \textsl{Proc.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.}, \textbf{131} (2003), 2883--2893.

3121: 

3122: 

3123: \bibitem[You01]{You01}

3124: R.~Young,

3125: ``An Introduction to Nonharmonic Fourier Series,'' Revised First Edition,

3126: Academic Press, San Diego, 2001.

3127: 

3128: \end{thebibliography}

3129: 

3130: \end{document}

3131: