Stability of the Cut Locus and a Central Limit Theorem for Fr\'echet Means of Riemannian Manifolds

Benjamin Eltzner; Fernando Galaz-Garcia; Stephan F. Huckemann; Wilderich Tuschmann

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Stability of the Cut Locus and a Central Limit Theorem for Fr\'echet Means of Riemannian Manifolds

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a central limit theorem for Fréchet means on closed Riemannian manifolds, using the topological stability of the cut locus to fill a gap in the Omnibus CLT.

desk verdict Genuinely new cut-locus stability results, but the CLT is only a conditional corollary and the abstract oversells its reach. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00410 v2 pith:UFNMUBXM submitted 2019-09-01 math.DG math.STstat.TH

Benjamin Eltzner , Fernando Galaz-Garcia , Stephan F. Huckemann , Wilderich Tuschmann This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DGmath.STstat.TH MSC 53C2060F0562E20

keywords FréchetmeancutlocuscentrallimittheoremRiemannianmanifoldtopologicalstabilitymetricintrinsicOmnibusCLT

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

On a closed Riemannian manifold—compact and without boundary—the sample Fréchet mean, the point minimizing the empirical expected squared distance, obeys a $\sqrt{n}$ central limit theorem with Gaussian limit $N(0,\Lambda^{-1}C\Lambda^{-1})$. The paper proves this by showing that a purely geometric condition, topological stability of the cut locus, is what turns "the cut locus carries no probability mass" into differentiability of the squared-distance function almost everywhere, the hypothesis the Omnibus CLT needs. Topological stability holds automatically when the manifold is closed, but the paper constructs a flat-cylinder example where it fails and where the weaker zero-mass condition is genuinely insufficient. The upshot is a geometric clarification of when intrinsic Fréchet-means asymptotics are Gaussian, rather than a new analytic estimate: the remaining analytic hypotheses (A4)-(A6) are inherited unchanged, and the paper states that it is not clear which geometric assumptions imply them.

What carries the argument

The cut locus $\mathrm{Cut}(p)$ is the set of points reached from $p$ by more than one shortest geodesic, or by a shortest geodesic through a conjugate point; it is exactly where the squared-distance function loses smoothness. Topological stability requires that for every open neighborhood of $\mathrm{Cut}(p)$, the cut loci of all points sufficiently close to $p$ lie inside that neighborhood. The proof chain is: topological stability plus condition (C) gives condition (C')—$\mu(\mathrm{Cut}(B(q_o,r)))=0$ for some ball—and Lemma 4.2 turns (C') into (A2b), so the Omnibus CLT applies. Corollary 3.8 supplies topological stability on closed manifolds via a continuity theorem for tangent cut loci under $C^\infty$ convergence of Riemannian metrics. The cylinder example for noncompact manifolds supplies the negative foil that isolates why stability is indispensable.

What would settle it

Look for a closed Riemannian manifold and a measure with unique Fréchet mean, $\mu(\mathrm{Cut}(q_o))=0$, and (A4) and (A6) satisfied, but with the Hessian of the squared distance failing the local $L^1$ smoothness condition (A5); if the empirical means are then not asymptotically Gaussian, Theorem A's hypothesis set is exactly right, while if they are still Gaussian, (A5) is stronger than needed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem A: for a complete Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ and a probability measure $\mu$ with unique Fréchet mean $q_o$, if the cut locus of $q_o$ is topologically stable, some neighborhood of it has $\mu$-measure zero, and conditions (A4)-(A6) hold, then every measurable selection $q_o^n$ of empirical Fréchet means satisfies $\sqrt{n}(\varphi(q_o^n)-\varphi(q_o)) \xrightarrow{d} N(0,\Lambda^{-1}C\Lambda^{-1})$, where $\varphi=\exp_{q_o}^{-1}$ is a normal coordinate chart. The paper's contribution is to identify what is needed for condition (A2b), almost-everywhere twice differentiability of $v\mapsto d^2(\varphi^{-1}(v),p)$: topological stability of the cut locus plus the zero-mass neighborhood (C) yields the stronger condition (C'), that the cut locus of a whole ball around $q_o$ has measure zero, and Lemma 4.2 shows (C') implies (A2b). It then proves, as Corollary 3.8, that every closed manifold has a topologically stable cut locus, by showing that the tangent cut locus is closed under limits when metrics converge in $C^\infty$. A counterexample on the flat cylinder shows that condition (C) alone does not imply (A2b) on noncompact manifolds, so the topological-stability hypothesis is doing real work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, at the true mean, the squared-distance function is smooth enough in the sense of conditions (A4)-(A6), especially a locally uniform $L^1$-smoothness of its Hessian; the paper does not say which manifolds and measures guarantee these, only that the cut-locus hypotheses do not cover them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On every closed Riemannian manifold, sample Fréchet means are asymptotically Gaussian whenever the mean is unique, its cut locus has a zero-probability neighborhood, and (A4)-(A6) hold.
For noncompact manifolds, the zero-mass condition alone is not enough; a practitioner must check topological stability of the cut locus, and the flat cylinder shows the failure is not merely technical.
Combining topological stability and condition (C) into condition (C') gives a sufficient route to (A2b), so the Omnibus CLT becomes available exactly when cut-locus stability can be geometrically established.
The continuity theorem for the tangent cut locus stands on its own as a geometric convergence statement for cut loci under perturbation of the Riemannian metric.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: if condition (A5) ever fails on a closed manifold satisfying the measure and cut-locus hypotheses, Theorem A would not apply, so the paper's theorem is best read as a conditional reduction of the statistical problem to a regularity question about squared distance.
Editorial inference: the flat-cylinder construction with power-law mass near the cut locus suggests a boundary regime in which the $n^{1/2}$ Gaussian rate gives way to a slower, smeary limit; the paper's Remark 4.4 points in this direction without developing it.
Editorial inference: because topological stability is a property of the manifold alone, it is checkable a priori, unlike (A4)-(A6), which depend on the unknown mean and measure; identifying curvature or topological conditions that imply it on noncompact manifolds is the natural next step.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: the genuinely new and valuable part here is the geometry — topological stability of the cut locus on closed manifolds, and a counterexample showing that condition (C) from the Omnibus CLT does not imply (A2b) on non-compact manifolds. The CLT itself is a corollary of Bhattacharya–Lin, and its advertised reach is constrained by an uncharacterized analytic hypothesis.

The paper's main geometric results are clean. Definition 3.6, Theorem 3.7, and Corollary 3.8 are standard but carefully argued, and they fill a real gap in the literature. The flat cylinder counterexample is intricate and, as far as I can tell, does what it claims: it exhibits a measure satisfying (C) but not (A2b), so the Omnibus CLT cannot be applied with (C) alone. That is a genuine and useful clarification.

Where the paper finds its limit is in the CLT itself. Theorem A inherits conditions (A4)–(A6) from the Omnibus CLT, and the authors admit in Section 4.2 that it is not clear under which geometric assumptions those hold. I agree with the stress-test note that (A4) and (A5) can be recovered on closed manifolds from topological stability plus the measure-zero condition, but (A6) — non-singularity of the expected Hessian — is the real bottleneck. It can fail for smeary means, as the paper itself hints in Remark 4.4. So the abstract's phrase 'a Central Limit Theorem for closed Riemannian manifolds' is stronger than the theorem actually delivers; what is proven is a conditional CLT under an uncharacterized regularity condition. That should be stated much more clearly.

A smaller issue: in Counterexample 4.3, the text says uniqueness of the Fréchet mean holds for every α ∈ [0,1], but the proof establishes it only for sufficiently small α. The authors should correct that overstatement. It does not damage the counterexample, which only needs small α.

Who should read this: geometric statisticians and anyone working on Fréchet means. The cut-locus stability results are worth citing. The CLT is a useful clarification of the Omnibus CLT, but not a breakthrough. I would send it to peer review, with a request to fix the α-overstatement and soften the abstract. It deserves serious refereeing.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper examines the hypotheses of Bhattacharya and Lin's Omnibus Central Limit Theorem for Fréchet means in the Riemannian setting. The main result, Theorem A, states that if a complete Riemannian manifold has a unique Fréchet mean q_o, the cut locus is topologically stable, a neighborhood of Cut(q_o) carries zero probability, and the analytic conditions (A4)-(A6) hold, then the normalized Fréchet sample means converge in law to a Gaussian with covariance Λ^{-1}CΛ^{-1}. The paper proves that on closed manifolds the cut locus is always topologically stable (Corollary 3.8) and that topological stability plus a measure-zero cut-locus neighborhood implies the differentiability condition (A2b) of the OCLT (Lemma 4.2). It also gives a counterexample on the flat cylinder, intended to show that the measure-zero condition (C) alone does not imply (A2b) on noncompact manifolds.

Significance. If the counterexample is made fully rigorous, the paper provides a clean geometric sufficient condition for the key differentiability hypothesis of the OCLT and correctly identifies compactness as a sufficient condition for cut-locus stability. The proof of Lemma 4.2 is direct, uses no fitted parameters, and there is no circularity: Theorem A is obtained as a corollary of the external OCLT. The geometric material in Section 3, especially Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.8, is standard and appears sound. The main limitation is that the analytic hypotheses (A4)-(A6) are left as unexplained assumptions; the paper itself states in Section 4.2 that it is not clear under which geometric assumptions they hold. This limits the advertised 'CLT for closed Riemannian manifolds' to a conditional statement.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.2 and Theorem A] The theorem is conditional on (A4)-(A6), and Section 4.2 explicitly states: 'It is not clear under which geometric assumptions conditions (A4)–(A6) hold.' The abstract, however, advertises 'a Central Limit Theorem for closed Riemannian manifolds' without mentioning these uncharacterized analytic hypotheses. In particular, (A6), the nonsingularity of the Hessian matrix Λ, is necessary for a √n-normal limit and can fail for smeary means. As written, the paper's new geometric input replaces only (A2b), not the analytic bottleneck (A6). The authors should either prove or characterize (A4)-(A6) under the geometric hypotheses, at least for closed manifolds, or explicitly qualify the abstract and introduction so that the conditional nature of the CLT is not obscured.
[Counterexample 4.3] The counterexample is load-bearing because it is the sole evidence that condition (C) alone does not imply (A2b), hence motivating the need for topological stability. As written, the proof is not rigorous. The text asserts that for every α∈[0,1] the measure µ_α has the unique Fréchet mean iy_ν, but the subsequent argument only establishes this for α below an explicit threshold. More seriously, the displayed inequality chain near the end appears to use the upper bound (4.6) for F̃_νε(w_α) as if it were a lower bound, and it is not shown that F^C_1(w_α) ≥ F^C_1(iy_ν). The counterexample should be rewritten with a complete verification: specify a concrete admissible α, prove uniqueness of the Fréchet mean for that α, and prove that for a positive µ_α-measure set of p the function h(·,p) is not C² on the chosen chart V. Without this, the necessity claim is not established.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Theorem A] The abstract says 'closed Riemannian manifolds' while Theorem A is stated for a complete Riemannian manifold and uses closedness only through Corollary 3.8. Please make the roles of completeness and closedness consistent in the abstract, theorem statement, and introduction.
[Definition 3.6] The notation Cut(B(p,r)) is used in Definition 3.6 before being formally defined as the union of the cut loci of points in B(p,r). Please insert the definition explicitly at the point of first use.
[Section 4.2, (RA2b)] The text 'Let M be a complete Riemannian manifold with Fréchet mean qo for the volume measure' should presumably read 'for the probability measure µ', since the paper is not about the volume measure. Please correct this and similarly clarify that 'Cut(U) has measure zero' refers to µ-measure.
[Lemma 4.2 proof] The concluding sentence says 'we get for every v∈V that v↦h(v,p) = d²(φ^{-1}(v),p) is C² at v', but the quantifier over p is missing. The correct statement is: for µ-a.e. p∈M, the function v↦h(v,p) is C² at every v∈V.
[Example 3.9] The description of the neighborhood U(Cut(iy0)) involves conditions such as 'π − x < 1/|y| < π' and 'π + x < 1/|y| < π', which as written are hard to parse and do not obviously define an open neighborhood of the cut locus. Please rewrite these inequalities with clear absolute values and verify openness.
[References] Reference [11] lists the second author as 'Eltzner, Benjamin; Huckemann, Stephan F. Huckemann', which duplicates the surname. Please correct the author list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem A is a conditional corollary of the external Omnibus CLT; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's only load-bearing inference is Theorem A, obtained by applying Bhattacharya and Lin's Omnibus CLT (Theorem 4.1, an external result) after verifying condition (A2b). The verification is explicit: conditions (B) and (C) imply (C') via Corollary 3.8 and the definition of topological stability, and Lemma 4.2 shows that (C') implies (A2b), because h(v,p)=d^2(phi^{-1}(v),p) is C^2 off Cut(p) and phi^{-1}(v) lies in Cut(p) exactly when p lies in Cut(phi^{-1}(v)). No parameter is fitted to the data whose CLT is asserted, and no conclusion is smuggled into the hypotheses. The remaining hypotheses (A4)-(A6) are inherited from the Omnibus CLT; the paper candidly states in Section 4.2 that 'It is not clear under which geometric assumptions conditions (A4)-(A6) hold.' That is an admitted limitation, but it is not circularity: the theorem is conditional, and the conditional statement is derived rather than assumed. The only self-citations are [11] and [15] in Remark 4.4, a parenthetical comment about smeariness; they are not load-bearing for the main theorem. The abstract's phrase 'CLT for closed Riemannian manifolds' may overstate the unconditional reach because (A6) is left uncharacterized, but this is a scope or overclaim concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external theorems (OCLT, SLLN, cut locus theory) rather than fitted constants. The only free parameter is the normalizing constant γ in the counterexample. No new objects (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (1)

γ = chosen so that ν is a probability measure
Normalization constant in Counterexample 4.3 density f(z) = γ/(4 y^5 |z|^2); it is not fitted to force the counterexample conclusion but to make the measure finite.

assumptions (4)

standard math Omnibus Central Limit Theorem (Bhattacharya-Lin 2017, Theorem 2.2)
Used as the external theorem from which Theorem A is derived; cited as [6, Theorem 2.2] in Section 4.1.
standard math Ziezold's Strong Law of Large Numbers for Fréchet sample means
Invoked to justify condition (A3); cited as [29] in Section 4.2.
standard math Standard cut locus facts (Sakai, do Carmo)
The properties of t(u), Cut(p), Int(p), and Hessian formulas from [26] underpin Section 3.
standard math Measure-zero and codimension results for cut loci (Barden-Le, Hebda, Itoh-Tanaka, Li-Nirenberg)
Used in (RA2b) to assert Cut(qo) has volume zero and, under mild assumptions, µ-measure zero; cited in Section 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability of the Cut Locus and a Central Limit Theorem for Fr\'echet Means of Riemannian Manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UFNMUBXM

@misc{pith2026190900410,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability of the Cut Locus and a Central Limit Theorem for Fr\'echet Means of Riemannian Manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UFNMUBXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00410}
}

read the original abstract

We obtain a Central Limit Theorem for closed Riemannian manifolds, clarifying along the way the geometric meaning of some of the hypotheses in Bhattacharya and Lin's Omnibus Central Limit Theorem for Fr\'echet means. We obtain our CLT assuming certain stability hypothesis for the cut locus, which always holds when the manifold is compact but may not be satisfied in the non-compact case.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Geometrical Smeariness -- A new Phenomenon of Fr\'echet Means
math.ST 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

On spheres of dimension at least two, Fréchet means can converge at rate n^{-1/6} even when data avoid the antipodal point, a 'geometrical smeariness' that is absent on the circle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity

Afsari, Bijan. Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity. Proc . Amer. Math. Soc. 139 (2011), no. 2, 655–673

work page 2011
[2]

Cut and singular loc i up to codimension 3

Ardoy, Pablo Angulo; Guijarro, Luis. Cut and singular loc i up to codimension 3. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 61 (2011), no. 4, 1655–1681 (2012)

work page 2011
[3]

Some consequences of the nat ure of the distance function on the cut locus in a Riemannian manifold

Barden, Dennis; Le, Huiling. Some consequences of the nat ure of the distance function on the cut locus in a Riemannian manifold. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 56 (1997), no. 2, 369–383

work page 1997
[4]

A panoramic view of Riemannian geometry

Berger, Marcel. A panoramic view of Riemannian geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003

work page 2003
[5]

Nonparame tric inference on manifolds

Bhattacharya, Abhishek; Bhattacharya, Rabi. Nonparame tric inference on manifolds. With applications to shape spaces. Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) Monogr aphs, 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012

work page 2012
[6]

Omnibus CLTs for Fr´ echet means and nonparametric inference on non-Euclidean spaces

Bhattacharya, Rabi; Lin, Lizhen. Omnibus CLTs for Fr´ echet means and nonparametric inference on non-Euclidean spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2017), no. 1, 413–428

work page 2017
[7]

Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds

Bhattacharya, Rabi; Patrangenaru, Vic. Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds. I. Ann. Statist. 31 (2003), no. 1, 1–29

work page 2003
[8]

Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds

Bhattacharya, Rabi; Patrangenaru, Vic. Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds. II. Ann. Statist. 33 (2005), no. 3, 1225–1259

work page 2005

Show all 30 references

[9]

A course in metric geometry

Burago, Dmitri; Burago, Yuri; Ivanov, Sergei. A course in metric geometry. Graduate Studies in Mathematics,
[10]

Riemannian geometry

do Carmo, Manfredo Perdig˜ ao. Riemannian geometry. Tra nslated from the second Portuguese edition by Francis Flaherty. Mathematics: Theory & Applications. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1992

1992
[11]

Huckemann

Eltzner, Benjamin; Huckemann, Stephan F. Huckemann. A s meary central limit theorem for manifolds with application to high dimensional spheres. Annals of Statist ics, to appear
[12]

On the convergence of some Procrustean averaging algorithms

Groisser, David. On the convergence of some Procrustean averaging algorithms. Stochastics: Internatl. J. Probab. Stochstic. Processes. 77 (2005), no. 1, 51–60

2005
[13]

How to conjugate C 1-close group actions

Grove, Karsten; Karcher, Hermann. How to conjugate C 1-close group actions. Math. Z. 132 (1973), 11–20

1973
[14]

Parallel translation of curvature along geodesics

Hebda, James J. Parallel translation of curvature along geodesics. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 299 (1987), no. 2, 559–572

1987
[15]

Intrinsic Means on t he Circle: Uniqueness, Locus and Asymptotics

Hotz, Thomas; Huckemann, Stephan F. Intrinsic Means on t he Circle: Uniqueness, Locus and Asymptotics. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics. 67 (201 5), no. 1, 177–193
[16]

Intrinsic inference on the mean ge odesic of planar shapes and tree discrimination by leaf growth

Huckemann, Stephan F. Intrinsic inference on the mean ge odesic of planar shapes and tree discrimination by leaf growth. Ann. Statist. 39 (2011), no. 2, 1098–1124

2011
[17]

The dimension of a cut lo cus on a smooth Riemannian manifold

Itoh, Jin-ichi; Tanaka, Minoru. The dimension of a cut lo cus on a smooth Riemannian manifold. Tohoku Math. J. (2) 50 (1998), no. 4, 571–575

1998
[18]

Riemannian center of mass and molliﬁer smoot hing

Karcher, H. Riemannian center of mass and molliﬁer smoot hing. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 30 (1977), no. 5, 509–541

1977
[19]

Riemannian Center of Mass and so called karch er mean

Karcher, H. Riemannian Center of Mass and so called karch er mean. arXiv:1407.2087 [math.HO] (2014)

2014 arXiv
[20]

Fuchsian groups

Katok, Svetlana. Fuchsian groups. Chicago Lectures in M athematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1992

1992
[21]

Probability, Convexity, and Harmo nic Maps with Small Image I: Uniqueness and Fine Existence

Kendall, Wilfried S. Probability, Convexity, and Harmo nic Maps with Small Image I: Uniqueness and Fine Existence. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society . 61 (1990), 371–406

1990
[22]

On the consistency of Procrustean mean shap es

Le, Huiling. On the consistency of Procrustean mean shap es. Advances of Applied Probability (SGSA). 30 (1998), no. 1, 53–63

1998
[23]

On the measure of the cut loc us of a Fr´ echet mean

Le, Huiling; Barden, Dennis. On the measure of the cut loc us of a Fr´ echet mean. Bulletin of the London Mathe- matical Society. 46 (2014), no. 4, 698–708

2014
[24]

The distance function to t he boundary, Finsler geometry, and the singular set of viscosity solutions of some Hamilton-Jacobi equations

Li, Yanyan; Nirenberg, Louis. The distance function to t he boundary, Finsler geometry, and the singular set of viscosity solutions of some Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Co mm. Pure Appl. Math. 58 (2005), no. 1, 85–146

2005
[25]

Barycenters in Alexandrov spaces of cu rvature bounded below

Ohta, Shin-ichi. Barycenters in Alexandrov spaces of cu rvature bounded below. Adv. Geom. 12 (2012), no. 4, 571–587

2012
[26]

Riemannian geometry

Sakai, Takashi. Riemannian geometry. Translated from t he 1992 Japanese original by the author. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 149. American Mathematical Soci ety, Providence, RI, 1996

1992
[27]

Geometry of surfaces

Stillwell, John. Geometry of surfaces. Universitext. S pringer-Verlag, New York, 1992

1992
[28]

Probability measures on metric sp aces of nonpositive curvature

Sturm, Karl-Theodor. Probability measures on metric sp aces of nonpositive curvature. Contemporary mathemat- ics, 338 (2003), 357–390

2003
[29]

On expected ﬁgures and a strong law of l arge numbers for random elements in quasi-metric spaces

Ziezold, Herbert. On expected ﬁgures and a strong law of l arge numbers for random elements in quasi-metric spaces. Transactions of the Seventh Prague Conference on In formation Theory, Statistical Decision Functions, Random Processes and of the Eighth European Meeting of Stat...

1974
[33]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity

Afsari, Bijan. Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity. Proc . Amer. Math. Soc. 139 (2011), no. 2, 655–673

work page 2011

[2] [2]

Cut and singular loc i up to codimension 3

Ardoy, Pablo Angulo; Guijarro, Luis. Cut and singular loc i up to codimension 3. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 61 (2011), no. 4, 1655–1681 (2012)

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Some consequences of the nat ure of the distance function on the cut locus in a Riemannian manifold

Barden, Dennis; Le, Huiling. Some consequences of the nat ure of the distance function on the cut locus in a Riemannian manifold. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 56 (1997), no. 2, 369–383

work page 1997

[4] [4]

A panoramic view of Riemannian geometry

Berger, Marcel. A panoramic view of Riemannian geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003

work page 2003

[5] [5]

Nonparame tric inference on manifolds

Bhattacharya, Abhishek; Bhattacharya, Rabi. Nonparame tric inference on manifolds. With applications to shape spaces. Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) Monogr aphs, 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Omnibus CLTs for Fr´ echet means and nonparametric inference on non-Euclidean spaces

Bhattacharya, Rabi; Lin, Lizhen. Omnibus CLTs for Fr´ echet means and nonparametric inference on non-Euclidean spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2017), no. 1, 413–428

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds

Bhattacharya, Rabi; Patrangenaru, Vic. Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds. I. Ann. Statist. 31 (2003), no. 1, 1–29

work page 2003

[8] [8]

Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds

Bhattacharya, Rabi; Patrangenaru, Vic. Large sample the ory of intrinsic and extrinsic sample means on manifolds. II. Ann. Statist. 33 (2005), no. 3, 1225–1259

work page 2005