Source-linked AI summary

Computing Fr\'echet Means on Unknown Submanifolds of Riemannian Manifolds

Ian McPherson, Mauro Maggioni

arXiv:2610.22592v2math.OCmath.DGstat.ML

TL;DR

Computing intrinsic Fréchet means is challenging when data lie on an unknown manifold whose geometry is unavailable, even though ambient averages may miss its structure. The paper uses adaptive graph-based geodesic interpolation and establishes an O(T^-1) expected objective-gap guarantee under assumptions.

  • Problem

    Intrinsic averages are difficult to compute when data lie on an unknown manifold and only a local sampler and ambient distances are available.

    Source: §1 · p. 1
  • Method

    The method adaptively refines local graphs to approximate the geodesic interpolation needed for iterative Fréchet-mean computation.

    Source: §1 · p. 2, §2.2 · p. 5
  • Results

    O(T^-1) expected objective-gap dependence is preserved under the stated geometric and localization assumptions.

    Source: §5 · p. 35
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    For this Fréchet problem, sufficiently accurate local geodesic information where needed can recover a first-order optimization guarantee without first learning a complete geometric model.

    Source: §5 · p. 35

    The convergence analysis uses fresh local graphs around unknown intrinsic geodesics; guarantees for the practical persistent adaptive graph remain open.

    Source: §5 · p. 35

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Empirical averages are fundamental statistical primitives. On nonlinear spaces, their generalization, the Fr\'echet mean, generally lacks a closed-form solution, and its computation requires solving an optimization problem. We study the computation of intrinsic Fr\'echet means for data supported on an unknown compact $d$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $M_{1}$ embedded in an ambient metric space $(X,d_{\operatorname{obs}})$. Such settings arise when observations are better represented in non-Euclidean spaces, like probability distributions in Wasserstein space. We assume access only to a local sampler on $M_{1}$ and the observation metric $d_{\operatorname{obs}}$, without knowledge of its intrinsic geometry. We propose a graph-based iterative algorithm that adaptively samples the manifold and approximates geodesic interpolation. Under mild assumptions, we establish an $O(1/T)$ expected objective gap guarantee using at most $\widetilde{O}(T^{4d+3})$ sampled points. As a byproduct of our analysis we extend the metric equivalence guarantees of ISOMAP from Euclidean to Riemannian ambient spaces, which may be of independent interest. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method for computing intrinsic averages on unknown data manifolds.

1 Introduction

Intrinsic averages can miss the structure of data on an unknown submanifold, while its unavailable geometry prevents direct intrinsic optimization. The paper proposes locally refined graph interpolation and gives convergence, sampling, and metric-recovery guarantees under explicit assumptions.

1 Introduction

  • The problem is to compute intrinsic averages from a local sampler and ambient distances when the submanifold’s intrinsic geometry is unknown.Ambient averages can lie off the submanifold and fail to reflect its intrinsic structure.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • Geodesic interpolation supports the approach because it is a Riemannian stochastic-gradient step and can be approximated with graphs.These properties support convergence analysis and statistical guarantees, respectively.Source: §1 · p. 2

1.1 Contributions and Outline

  • An adaptive graph-interpolation method computes empirical Fréchet means on unknown manifolds by refining local geometry rather than reconstructing the whole manifold.The paper’s outline places this algorithm alongside its implementable numerical version and convergence analysis.Source: §1.1 · pp. 2–3, §1 · p. 2
  • Under geometric and localization assumptions, the final iterate has an O(T^-1) expected objective gap, with cumulative sample sizes scaling as ~O(T^{4d+3}).The bound preserves the rate of geodesic interpolation; d is the dimension of M1.Source: §1.1 · p. 2
  • The paper extends ISOMAP-type metric recovery to submanifolds embedded in a Riemannian ambient manifold.The result uses a curved-ambient chord–arc estimate and includes the Euclidean case as a special case.Source: §1.1 · p. 2
  • A separate result establishes O(t^-1) convergence for Riemannian SGD with biased gradient estimators whose bias is controlled.The paper presents this as a Riemannian analogue of classical biased-SGD analyses in Euclidean optimization.Source: §1.1 · p. 3

2 Problem Formulation and Our Algorithmic Approach

The section develops graph-based geodesic interpolation for computing empirical Fréchet means when the submanifold is unknown. Its analysis gives an O(T^-1) expected objective-gap rate under suitable assumptions, while later subsections describe a practical sampler and situate the approach among related work.

2.1 Empirical Fréchet Means and Geodesic Interpolation

  • Geodesic interpolation generalizes recursive averaging by moving a chosen fraction along the intrinsic geodesic from the current iterate to a sampled reference point.With exact geodesics, the update is Riemannian stochastic gradient descent with an unbiased gradient estimator.Source: §2.2 · p. 4, §2.1 · p. 4

2.2 Unknown Submanifolds and Graph-Based Geodesic Interpolation

  • Local graph fidelity is increased as optimization progresses, avoiding the expense of finely representing untraversed regions while matching resolution to the expected objective gap.The idealized sampler draws from a localized tube around the intrinsic geodesic; realizing it becomes more costly as the tube radius shrinks.Source: §2.2 · p. 5
  • The graph-based update samples locally near the current iterate-to-reference path, builds an ambient-distance nearest-neighbor graph, and interpolates along its shortest path.The method uses only a local sampler and ambient distances because the intrinsic geometry is unknown.Source: §2.2 · pp. 5–6
  • O(T^-1) expected objective-gap convergence is retained when local graph representations are accurate enough, matching the iteration dependence of stochastic first-order methods on strongly convex Euclidean objectives.The paper also gives sufficient local sample-size bounds, with costs depending exponentially on intrinsic dimension d.Source: §2.2 · p. 6

2.3 Replacing the Idealized Tube Sampler

  • The practical ball-based refinement samples around a coarse graph path, locally rewires the persistent graph, and reuses prior samples, trading path localization against graph accuracy.The analysis leaves the extra approximation from graph-centered sampling and adaptive sample reuse for future work.Source: §2.3 · pp. 7–8

2.4 Related Work

  • The method differs from prior Fréchet-mean approaches that assume access to intrinsic geodesics, tangent vectors, or a known local chart and metric tensor [CMRS20, BFRT25, RHM25].It approximates only the geodesics needed during interpolation rather than reconstructing a full optimization oracle or global learned metric.Source: §2.4 · pp. 9, 11
  • The paper extends ISOMAP metric-recovery guarantees from Euclidean to Riemannian ambient spaces, with local scales controlled by curvature, the second fundamental form, and injectivity radii.The result is a local, two-sided multiplicative comparison for ambient-distance-weighted graphs; the present analysis assumes graph vertices lie exactly on the submanifold.Source: §2.4 · pp. 9–10

3 Convergence Guarantee

The section analyzes convergence by controlling the bias in the algorithm’s graph-based gradient estimator using local metric equivalence, tube containment, estimator bounds, and localized geometric and data assumptions. It establishes an O(T^-1) objective-gap rate with quantified sampling cost, without requiring direct access to the manifold’s intrinsic maps or tangent structure.

3.1 Assumptions

  • The analysis assumes a connected, compact, finite-dimensional C3 intrinsic manifold and either a Riemannian ambient geometry or local compatibility between observed and intrinsic distances; localization supports the ensuing geometric arguments.The stated localization conditions also keep the data and algorithm-generated samples within a compact, geodesically convex region.Source: §3.1 · pp. 12–13

3.2 Biased Riemannian Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)

  • Under Assumptions 1 and 2, the Fréchet mean functional is strongly convex and smooth on the localized region, while biased SGD analysis requires gradient alignment and a controlled second moment.The convergence analysis also gives rates under these conditions, but the supplied passages do not expose their formulas.Source: §3.2 · pp. 14–15

3.3 ISOMAP for Non-Euclidean Data

  • For graphs built from ambient Riemannian distances, Theorem 5 gives conditions for two-sided comparison of graph and intrinsic distances; a corresponding result holds for compatible observed metrics.The analysis also provides a high-probability statement when the sampling conditions are met.Source: §3.3 · pp. 16–18

3.4 Graph Representation and Interpolation as Biased Riemannian SGD

  • The graph-interpolation analysis uses local metric equivalence to control the discrepancy from exact geodesic interpolation, yielding structured gradient estimators for Riemannian SGD.The subsection also gives sufficient sampling rates to recover these estimators with high probability.Source: §3.4 · p. 19
  • Under tube containment and local metric-equivalence conditions, graph interpolation approximates exact geodesic interpolation, enabling conditional second-moment and gradient-alignment bounds for the graph-based estimator.The moment control depends on P(E_{t+1} | F_t), while the alignment result assumes this probability is positive.Source: §3.4 · pp. 21–22

3.5 Convergence Guarantee

  • The final iterate achieves an O(T^-1) objective-gap rate without direct access to M1’s intrinsic exponential map, logarithmic map, or tangent structure.The stated outer-iteration rate matches the minimax-optimal rate for stochastic first-order methods on strongly convex Euclidean objectives with unbiased gradient estimators.Source: §3.5 · p. 24
  • The schedules separate optimization from geometric approximation: η_t = O((γ + t)^-1), α_(t+1) = O((γ + t)^-2), with graph scales λ_t = O((γ + t)^-4), ϵ_t = O((γ + t)^-2), and δ_t = O((γ + t)^-6).The tube-radius and rounding-error contributions relative to the step size are each O((γ + t)^-1), preserving the conditional alignment needed for the convergence argument.Source: §3.5 · p. 24
  • The guarantee uses sufficient per-iteration and cumulative sampling costs of Õ(t^(4d+2)) and Õ(T^(4d+3)), respectively, for the uniform localized sampler.These costs suppress poly-logarithmic factors and γ.Source: §3.5 · p. 24

4 Numerical Experiments

The numerical experiments evaluate graph-based Fréchet averaging and interpolation on the sphere and in Wasserstein space, and examine adaptive graph refinement and its use in MNIST clustering. On MNIST, Graph Lloyd serves as a primitive for coarse k-means clustering, though digit-label agreement may not capture all meaningful geometric structure.

4.1 Controlled graph interpolation on the sphere

  • On the sphere, target-geodesic distortion was much lower than global worst-case graph distortion, behaved similarly with tube and ball sampling, and decreased during optimization.Refinement samples concentrate in repeatedly traversed regions, increasing their resolution; the representative update shows the refined graph path better approximating the underlying geodesic. The experiment compares exact geodesic interpolation, an oracle tube sampler, and the implementable persistent ball sampler.Source: §4.1 · pp. 26–28, Figure 4 · p. 27

4.2 Graph interpolation on a submanifold of Wasserstein space

  • In Wasserstein space, adaptive sampling concentrated around explored regions, and the graph estimator stayed within the discretized half-moon family while the ambient barycenter left it.The four reference measures lie on the half-moon family, which is not geodesically convex in the ambient geometry; the graph estimator is a graph vertex by construction.Source: §4.2 · p. 30

4.3 Graph-based averaging and clustering on MNIST

  • For MNIST, a cover tree indexes ambient W2 neighborhoods for local sampling, while a persistent W2-weighted graph supports shortest-path interpolation and approximates intrinsic geometry.The sampler uses a finite image reservoir and a cheaper W2 surrogate computed from normalized 14 × 14 images; the displayed representatives use the original 28 × 28 pixels.Source: §4.3 · p. 31
  • For single-digit and mixed-digit collections, graph averages were outside the reference samples; ambient averages blurred images and, for mixed digits, could cease to resemble numerical digits.For single-digit cohorts, graph representatives remained within the digit class even though the sampler could access other digits; ambient representatives left the submanifold and lost image fidelity.Source: §4.3 · p. 32
  • In a representative 4/7 Lloyd example, Graph Lloyd attained 96.875% accuracy (31/32), compared with Ambient Lloyd’s 87.5% (28/32); counts indicate numbers of 4s and 7s in each assigned cluster.Source: Figure 9 · p. 33
  • Figure 10 reports oracle best-of-five final accuracy, selecting each batch’s best run by ground-truth labels after 100 runs on the same 32 observations.For each method and digit pair, the 100 runs are grouped into 20 batches of five; the figure summarizes variability on those fixed observations.Source: §4.3 · p. 34, Figure 10 · p. 34
  • Both methods cluster 3s and 8s less accurately than 4s and 7s, Graph Lloyd varies more across trials, and both outperform random assignment.The authors attribute the greater variability to randomness in graph-based averaging and suggest Wasserstein geometry captures digit likeness.Source: §4.3 · p. 34, Figure 10 · p. 34
  • Digit-label agreement may miss geometry reflected in within-class morphology, including stroke thickness and spatial mass distribution, so imperfect label alignment can still capture meaningful structure.The authors conclude that Graph Lloyd can serve as a useful primitive for coarse downstream k-means clustering.Source: §4.3 · p. 34

5 Conclusion

The paper computes intrinsic Fréchet means on unknown submanifolds by refining local graphs only where geodesic interpolation is needed. Its analysis gives an O(T^-1) expected objective-gap rate with stated sampling costs, while experiments illustrate several uses and the conclusion identifies open guarantees for the persistent practical sampler.

5 Conclusion

  • The method approximates only the intrinsic geodesic interpolation needed at each iteration, using shortest paths in locally sampled graphs rather than reconstructing the full manifold.The analysis interprets the update as an implicit biased Riemannian stochastic gradient step and propagates geometric approximation error into an optimization guarantee.Source: §5 · pp. 34–35
  • Under the stated geometric and localization assumptions, locally refined graphs preserve the O(T^-1) expected objective-gap dependence of the exact-geodesic stochastic method.Sufficient per-iteration and cumulative sampling costs are eO(t^(4d+2)) and eO(T^(4d+3)), respectively.Source: §5 · p. 35
  • Experiments illustrate local refinement on the sphere, compare structured-family averaging with an ambient barycenter on the Wasserstein half-moon, and use graph-based means for MNIST averaging and clustering.On the sphere, refinement improves metric accuracy along optimization paths without uniformly refining the entire sampled region.Source: §5 · p. 35
  • The practical algorithm reuses sampled points, but the convergence analysis instead uses fresh local graphs around the unknown intrinsic geodesic.Guarantees for the persistent construction remain open because they require controlling graph-centered coverage and dependence from reusing the evolving graph; verifying Assumption 1(b) for the numerically considered Wasserstein families is also outstanding.Source: §5 · p. 35
  • For this Fréchet problem, sufficiently accurate local geodesic information where needed recovers a first-order optimization guarantee without learning a complete geometric model.How far this principle extends beyond Fréchet averaging remains future work.Source: §5 · p. 35

Declaration of Generative AI Use

The declaration describes the authors’ use of ChatGPT for proof checking and exposition and Codex for generalizing the numerical codebase, with the authors retaining responsibility. The appendix notation tables organize symbols by geometry, optimization, graphs, sampling, and comparison functions.

Declaration of Generative AI Use

  • ChatGPT assisted with checking proofs, identifying unnecessary assumptions, and improving grammar and exposition during manuscript revisions.The preliminary manuscript already contained the principal mathematical ideas, results, proofs, and preliminary Wasserstein-space experiments.Source: Declaration of Generative AI Use · p. 35
  • Codex was used to generalize an earlier numerical codebase to accommodate arbitrary ambient spaces, and the authors reviewed the AI-assisted changes and take responsibility for the results.The declaration also assigns the authors responsibility for mathematical arguments and numerical implementations.Source: Declaration of Generative AI Use · pp. 35–36

A Full Tables of Notation

  • The appendix notation tables group symbols for manifolds and localization, Fréchet objectives and optimization, graphs and interpolation, sampling and probability, and comparison functions.The listed notation includes intrinsic balls, geodesic tubes, second fundamental forms, and curvature bounds.Source: A Full Tables of Notation · p. 40, Table 4 · p. 41, Table 5 · p. 41

B Functional Properties Proof: Lemma 1

The proof bounds the Hessian of the squared-distance function using curvature comparison and then applies uniform Hessian bounds to establish geodesic convexity and smoothness under locality assumptions.

B Functional Properties Proof: Lemma 1

  • The proof begins with the squared-distance function’s gradient and Hessian expressions in terms of distance and its radial Hessian.It applies within a normal neighborhood, where the squared-distance function is twice continuously differentiable.Source: B Functional Properties Proof: Lemma 1 · p. 43
  • Curvature comparison bounds the transverse Hessian eigenvalues, while the radial eigenvalue is 1.The transverse eigenvalues lie between r ctKmax(r) and r ctKmin(r).Source: B Functional Properties Proof: Lemma 1 · p. 43
  • Under the stated locality and curvature conditions, the Hessian eigenvalues lie in [my, Ly], including at the center by continuity of the normal-coordinate result.The proof uses monotonicity of the curvature comparison functions and the bound on the region’s distance from the center.Source: B Functional Properties Proof: Lemma 1 · pp. 43–44
  • Uniform Hessian bounds on the geodesically convex set yield the claimed strong geodesic convexity and geodesic smoothness.The lemma assumes the set lies in a normal neighborhood; when Kmax is positive, it imposes an additional upper bound on Dy.Source: B Functional Properties Proof: Lemma 1 · pp. 42, 44

C Biased SGD Convergence Proof: Theorem 3

The appendix derives the biased-SGD convergence result and the graph metric comparison through local geometric estimates. Its metric-equivalence argument uses Cartan development to connect ambient distances to intrinsic geodesic lengths.

C Biased SGD Convergence Proof: Theorem 3

  • The convergence proof iterates the expected-gap recursion for the two step-size schedules and establishes the resulting bound and recursion limit.The proof uses the step-size restrictions and the corresponding recurrence inequalities.Source: C Biased SGD Convergence Proof:… · p. 44

D.1 Deterministic Metric Equivalence Proof: Theorem 5

  • The metric-equivalence proof combines the usual ISOMAP discretization upper bound with a lower-bound argument for graph shortest paths under covering and short-edge conditions.The lower-bound proof follows a shortest graph path and applies a local chord–arc estimate.Source: §D.1 · pp. 45–46

D.1.1 Proof of Lemma 12

  • The proof of the local chord–arc estimate first bounds the Cartan development of an intrinsic geodesic and then compares its endpoint with the ambient logarithm.The argument assumes the curve lies in a normal neighborhood and imposes length restrictions when ambient curvature is positive.Source: §D.1.1 · pp. 46–47

D.1.2 Chord–Arc on Cartan Development: Proof of Lemma 13

  • The Cartan-development argument controls the curve using the curvature bound on the second fundamental form and the fact that its developed velocity lies on the unit sphere.These estimates yield the chord–arc bound used in the preceding comparison.Source: §D.1.2 · p. 48

D.1.3 Discrepancy from Cartan Development: Proof of Lemma 14

This section develops bounds and geometric estimates for Cartan-development and graph-interpolation discrepancies, including a probabilistic covering condition and tools for comparing the graph algorithm with Riemannian SGD. It also establishes a strong-geodesic-convexity consequence used in proving (51) and derives inequality (54) by controlling the conditioning shift and applying Cauchy–Schwarz.

D.1.3 Discrepancy from Cartan Development: Proof of Lemma 14

  • 5 eK C_J(L) bounds the discrepancy between logM2_x(y) and the radially transported surrogate at L.The proof obtains this bound by combining two identities for the transported surrogate and applying the triangle inequality.Source: §D.1.3 · p. 51

D.2 Probabilistic ISOMAP Proof: Corollary 1

  • A δ-cover of S occurs with probability at least 1−ζ when qS(δ/2)>0 and the sample size satisfies the stated condition; this lets Corollary 1 apply its deterministic bound.On the covering event, the proof invokes Theorem 5 under Assumption 1(a) or Proposition 1 under Assumption 1(b).Source: §D.2 · p. 52

E Graph Algorithm Discrepancy from Riemannian SGD

  • Nearest-vertex rounding on a graph shortest path with edge weights at most ε incurs at most ε/2 error in graph distance traveled relative to the desired interpolation position.The next comparison combines this rounding estimate with metric equivalence to bound the difference between graph and intrinsic interpolation.Source: E Graph Algorithm Discrepancy from… · pp. 52–53

E.1 Proof of Lemma 4

  • Under the stated assumptions, no graph geodesic from x to y can leave the tube around the minimizing intrinsic geodesic joining them.The proof uses metric equivalence and curvature comparison, with localization conditions ensuring the comparison triangles are admissible.Source: §E.1 · pp. 54–55

E.2 Proof of Lemma 5

  • With U<π/4, the proof bounds a partial derivative and integrates it over α to obtain upper and lower estimates.It also uses α∈(0,1] and the identity eΨ(ℓ,0)=1.Source: §E.2 · p. 56

E.3 Proof of Lemma 6

  • Tube containment places the selected graph iterate within the tube around the minimizing geodesic, and Lemma 19’s upper and lower estimates bound its discrepancy from exact intrinsic interpolation.The proof compares distances through a point on the geodesic and uses the tighter of two upper bounds.Source: §E.3 · pp. 56–57

E.4 Proof of Lemma 7

  • On event Et+1, the proof uses Lemma 19’s upper estimate and Young’s inequality to control the square of a sum.For a,b≥0 and ϑ>0, it applies (a+b)^2≤(1+ϑ)a^2+(1+ϑ^-1)b^2.Source: §E.4 · p. 57
  • Strong geodesic convexity yields a Polyak–Łojasiewicz consequence that proves (51).Source: §E.4 · p. 57

E.5 Proof of Lemma 8

  • The change in the ideal estimator under conditioning on E_{t+1} is controlled, and Cauchy–Schwarz then gives inequality (54).Source: §E.5 · p. 58

E.6 Proof of Lemma 9

The proof combines geodesic-tube covering bounds and lower-mass regularity to show that a sampling cover yields the endpoint-rooted graph comparisons required by E_t.

E.6 Proof of Lemma 9

  • On the cover event, edgewise lower bounds and subdivided minimizing paths provide the endpoint-rooted graph comparisons.For the upper bound, the minimizing segment is subdivided and interior points are approximated by cover vertices.Source: §E.6 · p. 60
  • A δ_t-cover of the relevant tube yields E_t, and conditional sampling attains that cover with probability at least 1−ζ_t.Trivial steps satisfy E_t without sampling.Source: §E.6 · pp. 60–61

E.6.1 Proof of Lemma 20

  • The tube covering-number bound parameterizes its central portion with a Fermi map and its endpoint portions with exponential maps.The tube is decomposed into a central region and endpoint regions.Source: §E.6.1 · pp. 61, 63
  • Forward Lipschitz estimates transfer parameter-domain nets through these maps to obtain nets covering the tube.The proof establishes Lipschitz estimates for the exponential maps and Fermi map, then applies them to the nets.Source: §E.6.1 · pp. 61, 62, 64

E.6.2 Proof of Lemma 21

The proof establishes lower-mass regularity for normalized volume on geodesic-tube intersections by combining tube-volume bounds with thickness of the regular set.

E.6.2 Proof of Lemma 21

  • The full tube-volume upper bound uses a tube decomposition and differential bounds for the Fermi and endpoint exponential maps.The proof bounds the Jacobian of the Fermi map and uses the exponential-map estimate for endpoint regions.Source: §E.6.2 · pp. 65–66
  • The tube intersection has positive finite volume because it contains an intrinsic ball intersected with Sreg and is contained in Sreg.This ensures the normalized-volume measure on the intersection is well-defined.Source: §E.6.2 · p. 66
  • A uniform lower-mass bound on geodesic-tube intersections follows from the tube-volume and thickness bounds.The bounds apply uniformly over points in the tube intersection.Source: §E.6.2 · pp. 65–66

F Proof of Theorem 6

The proof gives fully parameterized convergence guarantees and specializes them to Theorem 6. Its rate argument combines estimates on good events with control of the failure-event probability.

F Proof of Theorem 6

  • Under Assumptions 1 and 2, Theorem 7 states fully parameterized convergence guarantees for the algorithm.The proof presents this as the full convergence theorem before specializing it to Theorem 6.Source: F Proof of Theorem 6 · p. 67

F.2 SGD-Like Rate Under Metric Equivalence: Proof of Lemma 27

  • On successive good events, local metric equivalence supplies conditional estimator bounds for an SGD-type objective-gap argument.An indicator-weighted objective-gap bound is established for these events.Source: F Proof of Theorem 6 · p. 68

F Proof of Theorem 6

  • The proof separately bounds the failure-event contribution by using bounded iterates and making the failure probability small enough.The objective is bounded because the iterates remain in a bounded neighborhood of the minimizer.Source: F Proof of Theorem 6 · p. 68

F.1 Specialization to Theorem 6

  • Theorem 6 is obtained by choosing optimization parameters that satisfy its hypotheses and a sampling condition verified by Lemma 9.The specialization proof checks parameter admissibility and the required conditional success probability.Source: §F.1 · p. 69

F.2 SGD-Like Rate Under Metric Equivalence: Proof of Lemma 27

  • Far from the minimizer, one-step estimates support objective-gap decrease; near it, metric equivalence controls the gap when it is small enough.The proof divides the analysis into these two cases.Source: §F.2 · p. 70

F.2.1 Expected One-Step Improvement: Proof of Lemma 29

The proof combines conditional moment and alignment estimates with the Polyak–Łojasiewicz bound to establish one-step descent on the event A. It also uses localization and stepsize conditions to control the graph-based update.

F.2.1 Expected One-Step Improvement: Proof of Lemma 29

  • The metric-equivalence event supplies conditions for the conditional estimates, while graph-path vertices remain near the connecting geodesic and λ_{t+1} ≤ 1/2.The proof also invokes the stepsize schedules in conjunction with this bound.Source: §F.2.1 · pp. 71–72
  • On A, conditional moment and alignment estimates are used with the Polyak–Łojasiewicz bound to derive the one-step improvement.The proof checks alignment using the failure budget and bounds on the localization and step parameters.Source: §F.2.1 · p. 71
  • The descent argument uses a decomposition and separate bounds, then applies the induction hypothesis and the prescribed stepsize schedule.The proof identifies the tower property, conditional probability, and the bound on p_t as steps in combining those estimates.Source: §F.2.1 · pp. 72–73

F.2.2 Stability Bound: Proof of Lemma 30

The stability proof bounds two terms in a decomposition using the unbiased gradient estimator and regularity assumptions. A separate bound controls the contribution from metric-equivalence failure.

F.2.2 Stability Bound: Proof of Lemma 30

  • The stability argument decomposes the bound into terms and uses the unbiased estimator, local smoothness, and bounded iterates to control them.Its estimates invoke the tower property, conditional bounds, and the prescribed step parameters.Source: §F.2.2 · pp. 73–74
  • The proof treats the second decomposition term separately and uses the stability estimates to complete the bound.It applies Lemma 7 and λ_{t+1} ≤ 1/2 in bounding that term.Source: §F.2.2 · pp. 74–75

F.3 Bounding Under Metric Equivalence Failure: Proof of Lemma 28

  • The metric-equivalence-failure contribution is bounded using the iterates’ regular-region bound and E[q_t] ≤ Tζ.The proof obtains the expected failure-probability bound from the almost-sure bound on q_t.Source: §F.3 · p. 75

G Additional Experimental Results

The additional experiments compare graph-based means with ambient Wasserstein barycenters on single- and two-digit MNIST cohorts. They also compare graph and ambient Lloyd clustering on balanced two-digit cohorts.

Single-digit averaging

  • Figures compare computed graph-based means with ambient Wasserstein barycenters for single-digit cohorts of 3, 8, and 4.Each cohort uses N = 32 reference images and displays the results on a 28 × 28 pixel grid.Source: Figure 11 · p. 76, Figure 12 · p. 76, Figure 13 · p. 77

Two-digit averaging

Additional clustering results

  • 26/32 versus 25/32 correct assignments for graph and ambient Lloyd on the 3/8 cohort, and 31/32 versus 28/32 on the 4/7 cohort.The captions align clusters post hoc with true digit labels and mark incorrect assignments in red.Source: Figure 17 · p. 79, Figure 18 · p. 80
Loading 2610.22592v2…