Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How good can polynomial interpolation on the sphere be?

  • Published:
Advances in Computational Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the quality of polynomial interpolation approximations over the sphere S r−1⊂R r in the uniform norm, principally for r=3. Reimer [17] has shown there exist fundamental systems for which the norm ‖Λ n ‖ of the interpolation operator Λ n , considered as a map from C(S r−1) to C(S r−1), is bounded by d n , where d n is the dimension of the space of all spherical polynomials of degree at most n. Another bound is d n 1/2(λavg/λmin )1/2, where λavg and λmin  are the average and minimum eigenvalues of a matrix G determined by the fundamental system of interpolation points. For r=3 these bounds are (n+1)2 and (n+1)(λavg/λmin )1/2, respectively. In a different direction, recent work by Sloan and Womersley [24] has shown that for r=3 and under a mild regularity assumption, the norm of the hyperinterpolation operator (which needs more point values than interpolation) is bounded by O(n 1/2), which is optimal among all linear projections. How much can the gap between interpolation and hyperinterpolation be closed?

For interpolation the quality of the polynomial interpolant is critically dependent on the choice of interpolation points. Empirical evidence in this paper suggests that for points obtained by maximizing λmin , the growth in ‖Λ n ‖ is approximately n+1 for n<30. This choice of points also has the effect of reducing the condition number of the linear system to be solved for the interpolation weights. Choosing the points to minimize the norm directly produces fundamental systems for which the norm grows approximately as 0.7n+1.8 for n<30. On the other hand, ‘minimum energy points’, obtained by minimizing the potential energy of a set of (n+1)2 points on S 2, turn out empirically to be very bad as interpolation points.

This paper also presents numerical results on uniform errors for approximating a set of test functions, by both interpolation and hyperinterpolation, as well as by non-polynomial interpolation with certain global basis functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D.L. Berman, On a class of linear operators, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 85 (1952) 13-16 (in Russian); Math. Reviews 14, 57.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I.K. Daugavet, Some applications of the Marcinkiewicz-Berman identity, Vestnik Leningrad Univ. Math. 1 (1974) 321-327.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P.J. Davis, Interpolation and Approximation(Blaisdell, New York, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Fliege and U. Maier, A two-stage approach for computing cubature formulae for the sphere, Ergebnisberichte Angewandte Mathematik 139T, Universität Dortmund, Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Dortmund, Germany (September 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Fliege and U. Maier, The distribution of points on the sphere and corresponding cubature formulae, IMA J. Numer. Anal. 19 (1999) 317-334; http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/ lsx/fliege/nodes.html.

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. Freeden, T. Gervens and M. Schreiner, Constructive Approximation on the Sphere(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Ganesh, I. Graham and J. Sivaloganathan, A pseudospectral three-dimensional boundary integral method applied to a nonlinear model problem from finite elasticity, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 31 (1994) 1378-1414.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Ganesh, I. Graham and J. Sivaloganathan, A new spectral boundary integral collocation method for three-dimensional potential problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 35 (1998) 778-805.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T.H. Gronwall, On the degree of convergence of Laplace's series, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (1914) 1-30.

    Google Scholar 

  10. K. Jetter, J. Stöckler and J.D. Ward, Error estimates for scattered data interpolation on spheres, Math. Comp. 68 (1999) 733-747.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Q.T. Le Gia and I.H. Sloan, The uniform norm of hyperinterpolation on the unit sphere in an arbitrary number of dimensions, Constructive Approximation 17 (2001) 249-265; http://link. springer.de/link/service/journals/00365/contents/00/10025/.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A.S. Lewis and M.L. Overton, Eigenvalue optimization, ACTA Numerica (1996) 149-190.

  13. C. Müller, Spherical Harmonics, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 17 (Springer, Berlin/New York, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  14. M.L. Overton, Large-scale optimization of eigenvalues, SIAM J. Optimization 2 (1992) 88-120.

    Google Scholar 

  15. E. Polak, Optimization: Algorithms and Consistent Approximations(Springer, New York, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Reimer, Interpolation on the sphere and bounds for the Lagrangian square sums, Resultate Math. 11 (1987) 144-166.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Reimer, Constructive Theory of Multivariate Functions(BI Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim/Wien/Zürich, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Reimer, Quadrature rules for the surface integral of the unit sphere based on extremal fundamental systems, Math. Nachr. 169 (1994) 235-241.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Reimer, The average size of certain Gram-determinants and interpolation on non-compact sets, in: Multivariate Approximation and Splines(Mannheim, 1966), International Series on Numerical Mathematics, Vol. 125 (Birkhauser, Basel, 1998) pp. 235-244.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Reimer, Hyperinterpolation on the sphere at the minimal projection order, J. Approx. Theory 104 (2000) 272-286.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Reimer and B. Sündermann, A Remez-type algorithm for the calculation of extremal fundamental systems on the sphere, Computing 37 (1986) 43-58.

    Google Scholar 

  22. I.H. Sloan, Polynomial interpolation and hyperinterpolation over general regions, J. Approx. Theory 83 (1995) 238-254.

    Google Scholar 

  23. I.H. Sloan and R.S. Womersley, The uniform error of hyperinterpolation on the sphere, in: Advances in Multivariate Approximation, eds. W. Haußmann, K. Jetter and M. Reimer, Mathematical Research, Vol. 107 (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 1999) pp. 289-306.

    Google Scholar 

  24. I.H. Sloan and R.S. Womersley, Constructive polynomial approximation on the sphere, J. Approx. Theory 103 (2000) 91-118.

    Google Scholar 

  25. G. Szegö, Orthogonal Polynomials, 4th ed., American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 23 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  26. D.L. Williamson, J.B. Brake, J.J. Hack, R. Jakob and P.N. Swarztrauber, A standard test set for numerical approximations to the shallow water equations in spherical geometry, J. Comput. Phys. 102 (1992) 211-224.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R.S. Womersley, A continuous minimax problem for calculating minimum norm polynomial interpolation points on the sphere, ANZIAM J. 42 (E) (2000) C1536-C1557; http://jamsb.austms. org.au/V42contents.html.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia

    Robert S. Womersley & Ian H. Sloan

Authors
  1. Robert S. Womersley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian H. Sloan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Womersley, R.S., Sloan, I.H. How good can polynomial interpolation on the sphere be?. Advances in Computational Mathematics 14, 195–226 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016630227163

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016630227163

Search

Navigation