Radial Basis Fn vs. Wavelets (not Neural Networks)

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I am interested in parameterizing a surface without a mesh. One technique used in the field of optics is to use Radial Basis Functions (e.g. Gaussians).



From a naive point of view, the decomposition of a 2D scalar field into Gaussian functions centered at various spatial locations doesn't sound that much different than wavelet transforms.



Being a novice at both wavelets and RBF's, both appear to be decomposition into a series of functions with finite extent as opposed to Fourier decomposition, Bessel function decomposition, Legendre polynomials, ... which tend to be distributed over the entire area of the 2D field.



  1. For each, don't you need to exercise subjective judgement in choosing the spatial scale (smallest size) of the RBF or wavelets?

  2. Is there a fundamental difference that helps one choose which approach to use? (RBF vs. wavelet)

  3. Is one more computationally efficient than the other?

  4. What would be a metric for determining which is best?

Refs



  • http://math.iit.edu/~fass/#Book

  • https://www.elsevier.com/books/a-wavelet-tour-of-signal-processing/mallat/978-0-12-374370-1



wavelets rbf




share|cite|improve this question























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I am interested in parameterizing a surface without a mesh. One technique used in the field of optics is to use Radial Basis Functions (e.g. Gaussians).



    From a naive point of view, the decomposition of a 2D scalar field into Gaussian functions centered at various spatial locations doesn't sound that much different than wavelet transforms.



    Being a novice at both wavelets and RBF's, both appear to be decomposition into a series of functions with finite extent as opposed to Fourier decomposition, Bessel function decomposition, Legendre polynomials, ... which tend to be distributed over the entire area of the 2D field.



    1. For each, don't you need to exercise subjective judgement in choosing the spatial scale (smallest size) of the RBF or wavelets?

    2. Is there a fundamental difference that helps one choose which approach to use? (RBF vs. wavelet)

    3. Is one more computationally efficient than the other?

    4. What would be a metric for determining which is best?

    Refs



    • http://math.iit.edu/~fass/#Book

    • https://www.elsevier.com/books/a-wavelet-tour-of-signal-processing/mallat/978-0-12-374370-1



    wavelets rbf




    share|cite|improve this question





















      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I am interested in parameterizing a surface without a mesh. One technique used in the field of optics is to use Radial Basis Functions (e.g. Gaussians).



      From a naive point of view, the decomposition of a 2D scalar field into Gaussian functions centered at various spatial locations doesn't sound that much different than wavelet transforms.



      Being a novice at both wavelets and RBF's, both appear to be decomposition into a series of functions with finite extent as opposed to Fourier decomposition, Bessel function decomposition, Legendre polynomials, ... which tend to be distributed over the entire area of the 2D field.



      1. For each, don't you need to exercise subjective judgement in choosing the spatial scale (smallest size) of the RBF or wavelets?

      2. Is there a fundamental difference that helps one choose which approach to use? (RBF vs. wavelet)

      3. Is one more computationally efficient than the other?

      4. What would be a metric for determining which is best?

      Refs



      • http://math.iit.edu/~fass/#Book

      • https://www.elsevier.com/books/a-wavelet-tour-of-signal-processing/mallat/978-0-12-374370-1



      wavelets rbf




      share|cite|improve this question











      I am interested in parameterizing a surface without a mesh. One technique used in the field of optics is to use Radial Basis Functions (e.g. Gaussians).



      From a naive point of view, the decomposition of a 2D scalar field into Gaussian functions centered at various spatial locations doesn't sound that much different than wavelet transforms.



      Being a novice at both wavelets and RBF's, both appear to be decomposition into a series of functions with finite extent as opposed to Fourier decomposition, Bessel function decomposition, Legendre polynomials, ... which tend to be distributed over the entire area of the 2D field.



      1. For each, don't you need to exercise subjective judgement in choosing the spatial scale (smallest size) of the RBF or wavelets?

      2. Is there a fundamental difference that helps one choose which approach to use? (RBF vs. wavelet)

      3. Is one more computationally efficient than the other?

      4. What would be a metric for determining which is best?

      Refs



      • http://math.iit.edu/~fass/#Book

      • https://www.elsevier.com/books/a-wavelet-tour-of-signal-processing/mallat/978-0-12-374370-1




      wavelets rbf





      share|cite|improve this question










      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question









      asked Aug 3 at 1:18









      user3533030

      101




      101

























          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2870646%2fradial-basis-fn-vs-wavelets-not-neural-networks%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






















          active

          oldest

          votes













          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2870646%2fradial-basis-fn-vs-wavelets-not-neural-networks%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest
































































          Comments

          Post a Comment

          Popular posts from this blog

          What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

          Image
          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an...
          Read more

          Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

          Image
          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne...
          Read more

          Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

          Image
          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/…...
          Read more