Dynamical Frames and Hyperinvariant Subspaces

David Larson; Deguang Han; Keri Kornelson; Rui Liu; Victor Bailey

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dynamical Frames and Hyperinvariant Subspaces

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that for any commuting k-tuple of bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space, all orbit frames are equivalent: there is an invertible operator commuting with each operator that maps one frame generator to another.

desk verdict A promising new characterization of central frame representations that is not yet fully proven: Lemma 2.6 contains an unjustified implication that the main theorem depends on. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19303 v1 pith:SRQ5366V submitted 2025-05-25 math.FA

Victor Bailey , Deguang Han , Keri Kornelson , David Larson , Rui Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.FA MSC 46B1547D0342C1546N9920M15

keywords dynamicalframessemigrouprepresentationscentralframehyperinvariantsubspacesleftregularrepresentationmaximalabelianalgebraHardyspaceoverpolydiscgeneratorequivalence

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

This paper asks whether frames generated by orbits of a family of operators are unique up to equivalence: when exactly does every frame vector whose orbit forms a frame have to be linked to any other such vector by an invertible operator that commutes with the whole family? The authors answer this for arbitrary countable semigroups by characterizing 'central' frame representations: a representation is central if and only if the range space of the analysis operator of every frame vector is a co-hyperinvariant subspace of the weak-operator-closed algebra generated by the left regular representation (Theorem 2.7). From this characterization they prove that every frame representation of $Z_+^k$ is central (Theorem 3.4), meaning that for any commuting $k$-tuple of bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space, all frames of the form $A_1^{n_1}\cdots A_k^{n_k}\xi$ are equivalent. This settles the multi-operator uniqueness problem even though the submodule structure of $H^2(D^k)$ is not completely classified, showing that the earlier single-operator and group results are instances of one hyperinvariant-subspace condition.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two load-bearing pieces. First, the left regular representation $\lambda$ of $S$ on $\ell^2(S)$ and its wot-closed algebra $\mathcal{A}_S$: because $S$ is left-cancellative, each $\lambda(s)$ is an isometry, and any frame representation is equivalent to a compression $\lambda_P$ of $\lambda$ to a co-invariant subspace (a model space representation), with the frame vectors matched by the range of the analysis operator. Second, the co-hyperinvariance condition: a subspace whose perpendicular is invariant under the commutant of $\mathcal{A}_S$, which makes the range space of the analysis operator of every frame vector exactly the right object for extracting intertwiners between frame vectors. For the main application, the maximal-abelianness of the shift algebra $M(D^k)$ on the Hardy space over the polydisc --- proved from the known commutant identity $M(D^k)' = H^\infty(D^k)$ and a Fejer kernel argument --- supplies the co-hyperinvariance for $Z_+^k$.

What would settle it

Look for a commuting pair $(A,B)$ of bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space with two vectors $\xi$ and $\eta$ such that $\{A^n B^m \xi : n,m \geq 0\}$ and $\{A^n B^m \eta : n,m \geq 0\}$ are both frames but no invertible operator commuting with both $A$ and $B$ maps $\xi$ to $\eta$; Theorem 3.4 asserts no such pair exists. Alternatively, test the characterization directly by locating a left-cancellative semigroup with a frame representation whose frame vectors are all equivalent but whose analysis-operator range is not co-hyperinvariant --- that would break Theorem 2.7.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a necessary and sufficient condition for a semigroup frame representation to have unique frame generators. For a unital, countable, left-cancellative semigroup $S$, a frame representation $\pi$ is central if and only if for every frame vector $\xi$, the range $\Theta_\xi(H)$ of the analysis operator is co-hyperinvariant under the left regular representation $\lambda$, meaning its orthogonal complement is invariant under every operator commuting with the wot-closed algebra $\mathcal{A}_S$ generated by $\lambda$. The proof reduces any frame representation to a 'model space representation' --- the compression of $\lambda$ to a co-invariant subspace --- and then shows that co-hyperinvariance of all such ranges lets any two frame vectors be connected by an invertible operator in the commutant of $\pi(S)$. As a corollary, because the algebra generated by the shifts on $H^2(D^k)$ is maximal abelian, every frame representation of $Z_+^k$ is central, so for any commuting $k$-tuple $(A_1,\ldots,A_k)$, any two frames of the form $A_1^{n_1}\cdots A_k^{n_k}\xi$ and $A_1^{n_1}\cdots A_k^{n_k}\eta$ are equivalent via an invertible operator $T$ commuting with each $A_j$ and satisfying $\eta = T\xi$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the semigroup $S$ has the left-cancellation property, since this makes each $\lambda(s)$ an isometry and is what permits the reduction of any frame representation to a compression of $\lambda$; for the polydisk theorem, the equally load-bearing external input is that the commutant of the shift algebra on $H^2(D^k)$ is exactly the multiplier algebra $H^\infty(D^k)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any commuting $k$-tuple $(A_1,\ldots,A_k)$ of bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space, all frames of the form $A_1^{n_1}\cdots A_k^{n_k}\xi$ are equivalent: there is an invertible operator commuting with every $A_j$ that maps one generating vector to the other.
The uniqueness problem for semigroup frames is reduced to a subspace condition: checking centrality of a frame representation of any left-cancellative semigroup is equivalent to checking that all analysis-operator ranges are co-hyperinvariant under the left regular representation.
Every frame representation of a finite-dimensional commutative semigroup is central, with no need for unitality or cancellation.
For semigroups of the form $G \times Z_+^m$ where $G$ is a finite abelian group and representations of generators are unique, all frame representations are central.
The known group-representation characterization and the single-operator result for $Z_+$ are recovered as special cases of the same co-hyperinvariance condition.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the maximal-abelianness route used for $Z_+^k$ suggests a program for other semigroups: whenever the commutant of the left regular algebra is known and equals the algebra itself, centrality follows immediately, bypassing any classification of invariant subspaces.
Editorial inference: the co-hyperinvariance condition gives a concrete way to look for non-central frame representations --- find a left-cancellative semigroup whose left regular algebra has a co-invariant subspace that is not hyperinvariant and is realizable as an analysis-operator range; if such a subspace exists, it should yield non-equivalent frame vectors.
Editorial inference: if the conjecture that the wot-closed algebra generated by any frame representation of a commutative semigroup is maximal abelian is true, then centrality would hold for all commutative semigroups; the finite-dimensional and polydisk cases proved here are consistent evidence, but the conjecture remains open.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Colleague—

The paper has a genuinely new idea: characterizing central frame representations of arbitrary left-cancellative semigroups via co-hyperinvariant subspaces of the left regular representation. Theorem 2.7 is a real generalization of Han-Larson's group theorem, and Theorem 3.4—that every frame representation of Z_+^k is central—is an elegant consequence that sidesteps the unsolved submodule classification on the polydisk. The maximal abelianness of M(D^k) (Lemma 3.3) and the tensor-product argument for hybrid semigroups (Theorem 3.5) are clean. The citation practice is fair: [24] and [15] are the correct benchmarks, and the self-citation is legitimate.

But there is a load-bearing gap in the proof of Lemma 2.6. The line "φ is a Bessel vector of λP and consequently of λ as well" is not justified. For S=Z_+, a vector in a model space K_θ can be Bessel for the compressed shift without being a Bessel vector for the full shift; the compressed condition controls only the M-components of λ(s)φ, and the perpendicular components (I-P)λ(s)φ are not controlled by the λP bound. Co-hyperinvariance doesn't obviously fix this, because λ(s) sits in A_S, not necessarily in A_S'. The boundedness of U depends on exactly this assertion, and U is what produces the commutant operator A. So the (ii)⇒(i) direction of Theorem 2.7 rests on an unproven—and in general false—implication.

This is a genuine soft spot, not a manufactured one. The rest of the proof structure (Proposition 2.3, the (i)⇒(ii) direction, and the Z_+^k application) looks sound. For the known Z_+ case the claimed result is true, so I expect the gap is patchable—one needs a better argument that frame vectors (not all Bessel vectors) give φ with the full Bessel property, or a different construction of U. But as written, the main theorem is not fully proven.

Who should read it: anyone working on dynamical sampling or frame representations. The conjecture in Section 3 is worth attention. If you send it to a serious referee, the referee will flag Lemma 2.6; I'd want the authors to address that before publication. I would not cite Theorem 2.7 in its current form, but the paper deserves peer review and likely a revised acceptance.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies dynamical frames of the form {π(s)ξ}_{s∈S} for a unital, countable, left-cancellative semigroup S, and introduces the notion of a central frame representation, meaning that all frame vectors are equivalent. The main claim is Theorem 2.7: a frame representation π is central if and only if, for every frame vector ξ, the range space Θξ(H) of the analysis operator is a co-hyperinvariant subspace of the wot-closed left regular algebra A_S. The paper then proves that A_{Z_+^k} is maximal abelian by using the known commutant theorem M(D^k)' = H^∞(D^k), and consequently obtains that every frame representation of Z_+^k is central, which gives the frame-generator equivalence for commuting k-tuples. It also treats finite-dimensional commutative semigroups and hybrid products G × Z_+^m, and states a conjecture on maximal abelianness for general commutative semigroups.

Significance. If the main characterization were fully established, it would be a significant unifying result: it extends the Han-Larson group-frame theorem to arbitrary left-cancellative semigroups and generalizes the single-operator result of Christensen-Hasannasab-Philipp to commuting tuples without requiring a classification of submodules of H^2(D^k). The paper is clearly organized, credits prior work explicitly, uses external commutant theorems transparently, and makes concrete falsifiable statements. There are no fitted parameters or circular arguments. However, the proof of the reverse direction of the central characterization contains a load-bearing gap that I detail below, so the main claims are not presently supported by the arguments given.

major comments (1)

In the proof of Lemma 2.6, the line “Thus, φ is a Bessel vector of λP and consequently of λ as well” is not justified and is false in general. The Bessel inequality for {λP(s)φ} = {Pλ(s)φ} controls only the projected components Pλ(s)φ; it gives no control over the perpendicular components (I-P)λ(s)φ. The boundedness of U(δ_s) = λ(s)φ, and hence the existence of A = T^{-1}PUPT ∈ π(S)', depends exactly on this missing control. Concrete counterexample: let S = Z_+, θ(z) = z exp(-(1+z)/(1-z)), and M = K_θ. Then M is co-hyperinvariant for A_S = H^∞ because M⊥ = θH^2 is invariant under H^∞. For w ∈ D close to 1, the reproducing kernel k_w belongs to K_θ and equals P_{K_θ} m_w with m_w(z) = (1 - w̄z)^{-1} ∈ H^∞; hence k_w is a Bessel vector for the compressed shift S_θ on K_θ, since S_θ^n P_{K_θ} m_w = P_{K_θ} S^n m_w and {S^n m_w} is Bessel for S. But k_w is unbounded near z = 1, so it is not a Bessel vector for the unilateral shift S, whose Bessel vectors are exactly the H^∞ functions. Thus the asserted implication fails under the hypotheses of the lemma. Since Theorem 2.7(ii)⇒(i) and Corollary 2.9 rely on Lemma 2.6, and Theorem 3.4 relies on Theorem 2.7 via Proposition 3.1, the central characterization and its polydisk application are not established by the proof as written.

minor comments (4)

In the definition of equivalent frame vectors, the second frame should be {π(s)η}; the text currently repeats {π(s)ξ}.
The phrase “complete wondering vector” appears twice; it should be “complete wandering vector.”
In the display after defining U, “λp(st)ψ” should be “λP(st)ψ” with an uppercase P.
The title has a typographical spacing issue: “HYPERINV ARIANT” should be “HYPERINVARIANT.”

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central theorem is derived from independent lemmas and external commutant results; the only self-citation ([24]) is motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Theorem 2.7 is proved from Proposition 2.3, which derives co-invariance and equivalence to the model-space compression from the defining identities of the analysis operator, and from Lemma 2.6, which constructs a commutant operator; neither assumes the conclusion of the theorem. Theorem 3.4 uses Lemma 3.3 and the external commutant theorem M(D^k)' = H^∞(D^k) (refs [9,19]), together with the Fejér argument of [11]; these are independent published results. The only self-citation, Han-Larson [24], appears as a statement of the known group case and as motivation for the term 'central', and it is not used to prove Theorem 2.7 or Theorem 3.4. The skeptical concern about Lemma 2.6 is a proof gap, not circularity: the line 'Thus, φ is a Bessel vector of λP and consequently of λ as well' asserts an implication that controls only the range-space components Pλ(s)φ, leaving the perpendicular components (I-P)λ(s)φ uncontrolled; this is a correctness risk for the (ii)⇒(i) direction, but it is not an equation reducing to its own input. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, and no known result is merely relabeled as an organizational device.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants and no invented entities. The proofs import several external structural facts: the Han-Larson group classification [24], the commutant formula M(D^k)'=H∞(D^k) [9,19], and the Fejer mean approximation argument [11]. The semigroup assumptions are explicit in Section 2.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The semigroup S is at most countable, unital, and left cancellative.
Stated at the start of Section 2 and used throughout; it makes each λ(s) an isometry and gives the simple form of λ(s)^* needed in Prop 2.3 and Lemma 2.6.
standard math Two frames are equivalent if and only if their analysis operators have the same range, and equivalent frames have invertible intertwiners.
Used in Prop 2.3, Lemma 2.6, and Theorem 2.7; attributed to Han-Larson [24].
standard math The Han-Larson theorem classifying central group frame representations by central range projections (Theorem 2.4) is correct.
Invoked as the group-case benchmark and to motivate the central notion; [24] is an external published Memoir.
standard math For the polydisk, the commutant of the algebra generated by the shifts is the multiplier algebra: M(D^k)' = H∞(D^k).
Key external input in Lemma 3.3; cited to [9,19]. Theorem 3.4 depends on this equality.
standard math The Cesaro-Fejer means of a bounded analytic function on D^k have multiplier norm no larger than the original and converge to it in the strong operator topology on H^2(D^k).
Used in Lemma 3.3 to show every multiplier lies in the SOT closure of the polynomial shift algebra; argued via [11].
standard math For a finite abelian group, the left regular representation generates a maximal abelian algebra unitarily equivalent to a diagonal algebra.
Used in Theorem 3.5 to identify AG with the diagonal algebra D_n.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical Frames and Hyperinvariant Subspaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRQ5366V

@misc{pith2026250519303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical Frames and Hyperinvariant Subspaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRQ5366V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19303}
}

abstract

The theory of dynamical frames evolved from practical problems in dynamical sampling where the initial state of a vector needs to be recovered from the space-time samples of evolutions of the vector. This leads to the investigation of structured frames obtained from the orbits of evolution operators. One of the basic problems in dynamical frame theory is to determine the semigroup representations, which we will call central frame representations, whose frame generators are unique (up to equivalence). Recently, Christensen, Hasannasab, and Philipp proved that all frame representations of the semigroup $\Bbb{Z}_{+}$ have this property. Their proof of this result relies on the characterization of the structure of shift-invariant subspaces in $H^2(\mathbb{D})$ due to Beurling. In this paper we settle the general uniqueness problem by presenting a characterization of central frame representations for any semigroup in terms of the co-hyperinvariant subspaces of the left regular representation of the semigroup. This result is not only consistent with the known result of Han-Larson in 2000 for group representation frames, but also proves that all the frame generators of a semigroup generated by any $k$-tuple $(A_1, ... A_k)$ of commuting bounded linear operators on a separable Hilbert space $H$ are equivalent, a case where the structure of shift-invariant subspaces, or submodules, of the Hardy Space on polydisks $H^{2}(\Bbb{D}^k)$ is still not completely characterized.

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

Submodules of $H^2(\mathbb{T}^2)$ and Frames by Pairs of Bounded Commuting Operators
math.FA 2025-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A pair of commuting operators on a separable Hilbert space generates an overcomplete frame by unilateral iterations if and only if it is similar to the two-variable Jordan block on an infinite-dimensional quotient mod...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[24]

Han, and D

D. Han, and D. Larson, Frames, bases, and group represent ations, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc., Vol 697 (2000)

work page 2000
[15]

Christensen, M

O. Christensen, M. Hasannasab and F. Philipp, Frame propertie s of operator orbits, Math. Nachr., 293 (2020), 52-66. 14 V. BAILEY, D. HAN, K. KORNELSON, D. LARSON, AND R. LIU

work page 2020
[1]

Aguilera, C

A. Aguilera, C. Cabrelli, D Carbajal and V. Paternostro, Frames by orbits of two operators that commute, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 66 (2023), 46-61

work page 2023
[2]

Aguilera, C

A. Aguilera, C. Cabrelli, D Carbajal and V. Paternostro, Reducin g and invariant subspaces under two commuting shift operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 528 (2023), 127481

work page 2023
[3]

Aldroubi, J

A. Aldroubi, J. Davis and I. Krishtal, Dynamical sampling: time spac e trade-oﬀ, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 34 (2013), 495–503

work page 2013
[4]

Aldroubi, J

A. Aldroubi, J. Davis and I. Krishtal, Exact reconstruction of sig nals in evolutionary systems via spatiotemporal trade-oﬀ, J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 21, (2015) 11-31

work page 2015
[5]

Aldroubi, C

A. Aldroubi, C. Cabrelli, U. Molter, and S. Tang, Dynamical sampling , Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 42 (2017), 378-401

work page 2017
[6]

Aldroubi, C

A. Aldroubi, C. Cabrelli, U. Molter, A. Petrosyan and A. Cakmak, I terative actions of normal operators, J. Funct. Anal., 272 (2017), 121-1146

work page 2017

Show all 25 references

[7]

Aldroubi, I

A. Aldroubi, I. Krishtal and S. Tang, Phaseless reconstruction from space-time samples, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 48 (2020), 395–414

2020
[8]

Ashbrock and A

J. Ashbrock and A. Powell, Dynamical dual frames with an applicat ion to quantization, Lin. Alg. Appl., 658(2023), 151-185

2023
[9]

J. A. Ball, W. S. Li, D. Timotin and T. T. Trent, A commutant lifting th eorem on the polydisc, I Indiana University Mathematics Journal, 48 (1999), 653-675

1999
[10]

Beurling, On two problems concerning linear transformations in Hilbert space, Acta Math

A. Beurling, On two problems concerning linear transformations in Hilbert space, Acta Math. , 81 (1948), 239–255

1948
[11]

Bickel, M

K. Bickel, M. Hartz and J. Mcathy, A multiplier algebra functional calculus, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 370 (2018), 8467-8482

2018
[12]

Cabrelli, U Molter, V

C. Cabrelli, U Molter, V. Paternostro and F. Philipp, Dynamical sa mpling on ﬁnite index sets, Journal d’analyse math´ ematique140 (2020), 637-667

2020
[13]

Christensen, and M

O. Christensen, and M. Hasannasab, Frame properties of sys tems arising via iterative actions of operators, Appl. Comp. Harm. Anal. , 46, 664-673, (2019)

2019
[14]

Christensen and M

O. Christensen and M. Hasannasab, Operator representatio ns of frames: boundedness, duality, and stability, Integral Equations Operator Theory 88 (2017), 483–499

2017
[16]

Christensen, M

O. Christensen, M. Hasannasab, F.Philipp and D. Stoeva, The my stery of Carleson frames, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 72 (2024), 101659

2024
[17]

Christensen, and M

O. Christensen, and M. Hasannasab and E. Rashidi, Dynamical s ampling and frame represen- tations with bounded operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 463 (2018), 634-644

2018
[18]

Deddens, R

J. Deddens, R. Gellar, D. Herrero, Commutants and cyclic vect ors, Proc. Amer. Math. Soci., 43 (1974), 169-170

1974
[19]

D., and Jaydeb Sarkar, Commutant lifting, interpolat ion, and perturbations on the polydisc, preprint, 2023 (arXiv:2301.10020)

Deepak K. D., and Jaydeb Sarkar, Commutant lifting, interpolat ion, and perturbations on the polydisc, preprint, 2023 (arXiv:2301.10020)

2023 arXiv
[20]

Douglas, On the hyperinvariant subspaces for isometries, Math

R. Douglas, On the hyperinvariant subspaces for isometries, Math. Z., 107 (1968), 297-300

1968
[21]

Foias and C

C. Foias and C. Pearcy, On the hyperinvariant subspace proble m, J. Funct. Anal., 219 (2005), 134-142

2005
[22]

Hamid, C

S. Hamid, C. Onica and C. Pearcy, On the hyperinvariant subspa ce problem II, Indiana Uni- versity Mathematics Journal, 54 (2005),743-754

2005
[23]

Foias, S

C. Foias, S. Hamid, C. Onica and C. Pearcy, On the hyperinvarian t subspace problem III, J. Funct. Anal., 222 (2005), 129-142

2005
[25]

Kadison and J

R. Kadison and J. Ringrose, Fundamentals of the theory of ope rator algebras, Volume II, Advanced Theory, Academic Press, 1986. Department of Mathematics, University of Oklahoma, Norman , OK 73019 Email address : victor.bailey@ou.edu Department of Mathematics, University of Ce...

1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

Han, and D

D. Han, and D. Larson, Frames, bases, and group represent ations, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc., Vol 697 (2000)

work page 2000

[2] [15]

Christensen, M

O. Christensen, M. Hasannasab and F. Philipp, Frame propertie s of operator orbits, Math. Nachr., 293 (2020), 52-66. 14 V. BAILEY, D. HAN, K. KORNELSON, D. LARSON, AND R. LIU

work page 2020

[3] [1]

Aguilera, C

A. Aguilera, C. Cabrelli, D Carbajal and V. Paternostro, Frames by orbits of two operators that commute, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 66 (2023), 46-61

work page 2023

[4] [2]

Aguilera, C

A. Aguilera, C. Cabrelli, D Carbajal and V. Paternostro, Reducin g and invariant subspaces under two commuting shift operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 528 (2023), 127481

work page 2023

[5] [3]

Aldroubi, J

A. Aldroubi, J. Davis and I. Krishtal, Dynamical sampling: time spac e trade-oﬀ, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 34 (2013), 495–503

work page 2013

[6] [4]

Aldroubi, J

A. Aldroubi, J. Davis and I. Krishtal, Exact reconstruction of sig nals in evolutionary systems via spatiotemporal trade-oﬀ, J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 21, (2015) 11-31

work page 2015

[7] [5]

Aldroubi, C

A. Aldroubi, C. Cabrelli, U. Molter, and S. Tang, Dynamical sampling , Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 42 (2017), 378-401

work page 2017

[8] [6]

Aldroubi, C

A. Aldroubi, C. Cabrelli, U. Molter, A. Petrosyan and A. Cakmak, I terative actions of normal operators, J. Funct. Anal., 272 (2017), 121-1146

work page 2017