Harmonic Analysis on Graphs via Isometric Group Embedding: A Canonical Fourier Transform, Shift, and Convolution for Network Signals

Laurent Bitjoka; Rigobert Fokam Souop

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Harmonic Analysis on Graphs via Isometric Group Embedding: A Canonical Fourier Transform, Shift, and Convolution for Network Signals

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graph Fourier transform built from abelian-group characters is canonical, unitary, and makes convolution a theorem rather than a definition.

desk verdict Sound finite-group Fourier theory applied via isometric embeddings, with an honest cost model; the main overreach is calling the result a canonical basis for network signals when for ε<1 it is a frame that depends on the chosen host. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13338 v1 pith:MEYRT2UE submitted 2026-07-14 eess.SP

Rigobert Fokam Souop , Laurent Bitjoka This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP MSC 05C1205C2543A7594A12

keywords graphsignalprocessingFouriertransformCayleygraphsisometricembeddingabeliangroupstranslationoperatorgroupconvolutionexcursionratio

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 tries to establish that graph signal processing can have the same exact structural guarantees as classical Fourier analysis if the graph is first embedded isometrically into a Cayley graph of a finite abelian group. On that host, the group characters provide a canonical orthonormal Fourier basis, translations are genuine unitary permutation operators obeying an exact group law, and filtering is true group convolution with an identity element. The Plancherel identity, convolution theorem, translation covariance, uncertainty, and sampling identities then hold exactly for any embedded graph, with the excursion ratio epsilon=|V|/N controlling only the computational cost, not the correctness. A sympathetic reader would care because standard graph spectral methods must accept a non-canonical basis, a non-isometric shift, and a convolution defined spectrally rather than derived from a translation structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the group-embedding graph Fourier transform (GE-GFT), defined by lifting a graph signal to a Cayley graph of a finite abelian group through an isometric embedding and expanding it in the host characters. The translation family {T_h} acts as unitary permutation matrices, and filtering is group convolution, which is a superposition of all translations. The excursion ratio epsilon=|V|/N measures the cost of the method: for near-Cayley graphs the host is comparable in size to the graph, while for generic graphs the host can be exponentially larger.

What would settle it

Find a finite connected graph that provably has no isometric embedding into any Cayley graph of a finite abelian group; or, for a fixed proper embedding, exhibit two different host-complement fills that yield different filter outputs on the original graph, demonstrating that the transform is not intrinsic to the graph alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that defining the graph Fourier transform from the characters of a Cayley host, rather than from eigenvectors of a graph operator, removes three structural compromises at once: the basis is canonical (no rotation ambiguity within degenerate eigenspaces), the shift is a family of unitary translations satisfying T_g T_h = T_{g+h}, and convolution is genuine group convolution for which the convolution theorem is a theorem, not a definition. The authors prove these identities on the lifted subspace and verify them numerically to machine precision; under a same-filter protocol, the group-character basis denoises equivalently to the standard eigenbasis once the host complement is

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that processing a graph signal on a larger host group is a faithful way to process it on the graph itself; for a proper embedding (epsilon<1), the lifted signal's values on the host complement are not determined by the graph signal, so the result on the graph depends on the chosen extension.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, any finite connected graph admits a graph Fourier transform with a canonical basis, a unitary translation group, and an exact convolution theorem, at least on the host.
On abelian Cayley graphs and their products (cycles, tori, grids, Hamming graphs), GE-GSP becomes classical multidimensional signal processing, with epsilon=1 and no host overhead.
The degeneracy problem of Laplacian eigenbases is resolved by the characters, making individual Fourier coefficients meaningful even in highly symmetric graphs with massive eigenspaces.
The host complement is a design degree of freedom: zero-padding degrades performance, while symmetric or harmonic extensions recover parity with standard spectral denoising, with the penalty growing as epsilon falls.
The excursion ratio gives an advance diagnostic: compact hosts make the exact framework tractable, while graphs with epsilon near zero are better served by matrix-based graph signal processing.

Reading between the lines

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

I infer that the framework invites a new notion of graph windowing and localized transforms built from genuine translations, which the companion wavelet construction already begins to explore.
I infer that the dependence on host-complement extension means GE-GSP does not yet define an intrinsic operation on graph signals proper; fixing an application-independent canonical extension, such as the harmonic extension that minimizes host Dirichlet energy, would close that gap.
I infer that the observed zero-padding penalty as epsilon decreases is a testable quantitative prediction: the denoising gap between zero-padding and smooth extension should scale with the fraction (1-epsilon) of host vertices outside the graph image.
I infer that the unital convolution algebra of GE-GSP could enable exact perfect-reconstruction filter-bank designs on graphs, a property that polynomial matrix filtering lacks because it has no identity kernel in the signal domain.

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

Quick read of 2607.13338. The honest headline: the algebraic package in Sections 3–5 is correct and clean — standard finite abelian Fourier theory done carefully on the Cayley host, with Plancherel, the convolution theorem, translation covariance, and sampling all holding as advertised. The numerical checks are consistent with that, and the same-filter denoising protocol is a model of how to compare bases fairly: the two bases tie, and the authors say so instead of overclaiming performance. The genuinely new framing is to embed any connected graph isometrically into a finite abelian Cayley graph, lift signals, and use the host characters as a Fourier system; the excursion ratio ε is a useful, honest cost diagnostic.

Where I would push back: the word "canonical" does more work than the construction supports. For ε<1, the analysis functions on G are not an orthonormal basis; they are a Parseval frame of N functions on n vertices, with redundancy 1/ε. Plancherel holds, but the representation is overcomplete, and the frame depends on the chosen embedding and host. Different isometric embeddings give different frames, so "canonical" is canonical only relative to a chosen host. The abstract's "canonical orthonormal Fourier basis" is true on the host, not on G itself. The paper is transparent about the host being the signal domain and about ε, but it never flags the frame-versus-basis distinction, and readers will overread "basis."

Second soft spot: the universal compact-embedding theorem and the Product Rule are imported from the authors' companion papers. Theorem 1 is self-contained, but the compactness results that make the method practical — and the genomic example — rest on [12,13,14]. There is also no code or data artifact for the claimed frozen reference implementation.

On the stress-test concern: it is real but partial. With the zero-padded lift as defined, R T_h L and R((Ls)*k) are well-defined operators on C^V, so the stronger claim that they are not well-defined does not hold. What holds is that they are not unitary permutations or group operations on C^V; the exact group law and unitarity live on the host. The analogy to zero-padding for linear convolution is therefore not exact: in classical DSP, zero-padding is a device for computing a convolution that is defined independently on the finite signal. Here the only extension-independent convolution on G is the zero-padded one; once you choose harmonic or symmetric extension to improve denoising, you are choosing a different operator.

Verdict: worth refereeing. The issues are conceptual tightening, not fatal flaws. A referee should ask for (a) an explicit statement that ε<1 gives a frame, not a basis, (b) a clearer account of which embedding theorems are proved here versus imported, and (c) release of the frozen code. I would bring it to the reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a graph signal processing framework (GE-GSP) built on isometric embeddings of an arbitrary connected graph G into a Cayley graph of a finite abelian group Γ. The graph Fourier transform is defined from the characters of the host group after zero-padding the graph signal to the host; the group translations and group convolution are inherited from the host. The authors prove the Plancherel identity, the group law and unitarity of translations, the convolution theorem, a translation-covariance property, a Donoho–Stark uncertainty bound, and a bandlimited sampling statement. Numerical experiments verify the host-level identities to machine precision, compare denoising with a fixed filter against Laplacian-GSP, and report that the group-character basis offers no SNR advantage once the host complement is filled by a smoothness-respecting extension. The stated contribution is exact, canonical structural properties, not denoising performance, with the excursion ratio ε=|V|/|Γ| governing the computational cost.

Significance. If the paper is read as a host-based harmonic analysis, the algebraic identities in Sections 3–5 are correct and are verified to machine precision; the authors are also transparent that there is no denoising advantage and that ε controls cost. The embedding viewpoint is a clean way to bring finite abelian group Fourier analysis to bear on graph signals, and the numerical experiments are reproducible and honestly reported. However, the advertised transfer to the graph itself is not established for ε<1: the transform, translation, and convolution are defined on the host, and their pullback to the graph depends on the non-canonical choice of host complement extension. The title and abstract claim a canonical Fourier transform and genuine convolution for network signals; this claim is only valid after fixing an embedding and an extension, which the framework does not canonically provide. The structural facts on the host are worth publishing, but the manuscript needs substantial reframing or additional results to support the graph-signal interpretation.

major comments (3)

[Definition 2; Section 6.3; Table 3] Definition 2 fixes the lift L as zero-padding, and all identities in Sections 3–5 (Plancherel, convolution theorem, sampling) are proved for this L. Yet Section 6.3 states that for ε<1 the complement 'must be assigned values when a graph signal is lifted', and Table 3 reports the group column for the proper embeddings using symmetric extension. Thus the transform actually evaluated numerically is not the transform analyzed in Sections 3–5. If the extension is a free design degree of freedom, then the GE-GFT of a graph signal is not a single well-defined object, and the 'canonical' Fourier basis for G is obtained only after an arbitrary choice of complement filling. This directly undermines the central claim of a canonical transform for network signals.
[Definitions 4–5; Remark 2] T_h and group convolution are defined on the host C^Γ, not on C^V. For ε<1 the induced operators R T_h L and R H_k L on C^V are not unitary permutations and do not satisfy the group law T_{g+h}=T_g T_h; the exact group structure holds only for the host operators. Remark 2's classical-DSP analogy is mathematically inaccurate: exact linear convolution of length-n signals by circular convolution requires a period L≥2n−1, whereas the paper's path embedding P_n↪C_{2n−2} has period 2n−2 and introduces circular wrap-around for length-n signals. There is therefore no extension-independent 'genuine translation' or 'genuine convolution' on the original graph for ε<1. The authors should either define the induced graph-domain operators and prove their exact properties, or explicitly restrict the structural claims to the host.
[Abstract; Section 3; Remark 1] The claim that 'the characters supply a canonical orthonormal Fourier basis' is relative to a chosen host. A graph generally admits many isometric Cayley hosts (e.g., a 3-vertex path embeds both into C_4 and into Cay(Z_2^2,{01,10})), and Remark 1 explicitly constructs an infinite family of hosts by enlarging the modulus. The character bases of different hosts restrict to different orthonormal bases of C^V, so the GE-GFT is not determined by the graph G alone. At most, the basis is canonical relative to a fixed embedding and a fixed extension. This ambiguity is not acknowledged in the paper and is load-bearing for the title's 'canonical Fourier transform' claim.

minor comments (3)

[Theorem 2] Theorem 2 (existence and compact embedding) is quoted from the companion works [13,14,12] with only a proof sketch. Since Theorem 1 already proves that every connected graph embeds isometrically into a binary Cayley graph, Theorem 2 is used for compactness/cost rather than for existence. The paper should clarify this distinction so readers know which claims depend on the companion results.
[Equation (1), Section 3] The notation \hat{s}(k) for the GE-GFT obscures the fact that the transform is applied to \tilde{s}=Ls. When Section 6.3 allows extensions other than zero-padding, this notation becomes ambiguous. I suggest writing \widehat{Ls} or making the dependence on the lift explicit.
[Section 6.4] The exactness comparison with Chebyshev filtering is informative, but the statement that the GE-GFT is exact should be qualified: it is exact for circular convolution on the torus host. The conversion of the finite image's linear convolution into this exact circular form is a separate step and is not discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GE-GSP identities are standard finite-group Fourier facts proved on the host, and the embedding substrate is either proved in-paper or independently verified.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from an isometric embedding φ: G → Cay(Γ, S), whose existence is proved in the paper as Theorem 1 (spanning-tree embedding) and whose star dimension bound is given with a self-contained proof sketch (Theorem 3). The compactness results cited from [13,14,12] affect host size (cost) rather than the correctness of the harmonic identities, and are accompanied by exhaustive small-graph verification and standard metric-geometry references. Definition 3 defines the GE-GFT from host characters; Proposition 1 (Plancherel), Proposition 2 (group law/unitarity/modulation), Theorem 4 (convolution theorem), Proposition 3 (translation covariance), Theorem 5 (Donoho–Stark uncertainty), and Proposition 4 (sampling) are all proven in-text by direct character computations, with no fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The word 'canonical' is explicitly relative to the chosen host ('on the host Γ the characters furnish a canonical orthonormal Fourier basis'), and Remark 1 acknowledges the freedom in choosing among valid hosts, so the claim does not reduce to a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The host-extension choice in §6.3 is openly treated as a design degree of freedom, not as a prediction, and the paper explicitly disclaims a denoising advantage (Remark 4). No load-bearing step is equivalent by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems in Sections 3–5 are parameter-free: no constants are fitted to data. The framework uses standard finite-abelian Fourier analysis (characters, unitarity) and the existence of an isometric embedding, which is Theorem 1 (with proof sketch) and Theorem 2 (deferred to same-author companions). The experiments tune noise level, filter, and extension method, but these do not enter the structural claims. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the host complement is a degree of freedom, not an entity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Every finite connected graph admits an isometric embedding into a Cayley graph of a finite abelian group (Theorem 2).
Stated as Theorem 2 with proof sketch; full proof and algorithmic certification are deferred to same-author companions [12,13,14]. Section 2 also gives a self-contained proof sketch for the universal binary spanning-tree embedding (Theorem 1), which alone guarantees existence.
standard math Characters of a finite abelian group form an orthonormal basis; the character matrix F is unitary.
Invoked in Definition 3 and Proposition 1; classical finite-group harmonic analysis [17,18,21].
domain assumption The lift L is a zero-extension isometry and R L = Id (Definition 2).
Definitional; central to Plancherel on the lifted subspace.
domain assumption Host metric equals graph metric on the image φ(V).
Definition 2 (isometric embedding); required for characters of small magnitude to be slowly varying along G (Section 3).
domain assumption Product Rule (Proposition 6 of [13]) and harmonic-extension minimum (companion [12]).
Used in Sections 6.3 and 6.6; not proved in this manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Harmonic Analysis on Graphs via Isometric Group Embedding: A Canonical Fourier Transform, Shift, and Convolution for Network Signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEYRT2UE

@misc{pith2026260713338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Harmonic Analysis on Graphs via Isometric Group Embedding: A Canonical Fourier Transform, Shift, and Convolution for Network Signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEYRT2UE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13338}
}

read the original abstract

Graph signal processing built on the eigenvectors of a Laplacian or adjacency shift inherits three structural compromises: the eigenbasis is fixed only up to rotation within degenerate eigenspaces, the shift is not an isometry, and there is no genuine translation under which filtering is a true convolution. We develop an alternative harmonic analysis that removes all three at once. Given an isometric embedding of a connected graph into a Cayley graph of a finite abelian group, a host on which classical Fourier analysis applies exactly, we define a group-embedding graph Fourier transform from the host characters, lift graph signals to the host, and process them there. The characters supply a canonical orthonormal Fourier basis; the group translations form a family of unitary permutation operators obeying an exact group law; and filtering is genuine group convolution, for which the convolution theorem holds as a theorem rather than a definition and which possesses an identity element. We prove the Plancherel, convolution, translation-covariance, and sampling identities in the embedded setting, and compare the shift and convolution operators of the two frameworks side by side. Numerically, the structural identities hold to machine precision; under a same-filter protocol the groupcharacter basis denoises equivalently to the Laplacian eigenbasis once the host complement is filled by a smoothness-respecting extension. The contribution is exact, canonical structure, not a denoising advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13338 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Shift and translation in the two frameworks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Head-to-head on the star K1,4. Left: the graph, whose adjacency eigenvalue 0 has multiplicity 3, making the eigenvector GFT non-canonical. Center: structural properties; both frameworks have an exact convolution theorem (the Shi–Moura one holds by spectral construction), so the distinction is elsewhere—the Shi–Moura spectral shift M [15] is non-unitary, carries no group law, and rests on a non-canonical basis, where… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Same-filter denoising: only the basis differs. On circulant hosts (rings, torus; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The host-extension method is a design degree of freedom on proper embed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The 128 × 128 cameraman image embedded into the 254 × 254 torus (ε = 0.254). Left: the benchmark image. Center: low-pass filter time—Chebyshev on the sparse grid is faster than the GE-GFT, which pays a 1/ε ≈ 4 host-size overhead. Right: reconstruction error—the GE-GFT …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Genomic mutation space K□ℓ 4 = Cay(Z ℓ 4 , S), ε = 1 at every scale via the Product Rule. Left: the Laplacian of H(8, 4) has enormous eigenvalue degeneracy—a single 20,412- dimensional eigenspace, and the entire spectrum degenerate—so the eigenvector GFT is non-canonic…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

[1]

The emerging field of signal processing on graphs,

D. I. Shuman, S. K. Narang, P. Frossard, A. Ortega, and P. Van- dergheynst, “The emerging field of signal processing on graphs,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 83–98, 2013

2013
[2]

Discrete signal processing on graphs,

A. Sandryhaila and J. M. F. Moura, “Discrete signal processing on graphs,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 1644–1656, 2013

2013
[3]

Graph signal processing: overview, challenges, and appli- cations,

A. Ortega, P. Frossard, J. Kovačević, J. M. F. Moura, and P. Van- dergheynst, “Graph signal processing: overview, challenges, and appli- cations,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 808–828, 2018

2018
[4]

Discrete signal processing on graphs: frequencyanalysis,

A. Sandryhaila and J. M. F. Moura, “Discrete signal processing on graphs: frequencyanalysis,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol.62, no.12, pp. 3042–3054, 2014

2014
[5]

Stationary signal processing on graphs,

N. Perraudin and P. Vandergheynst, “Stationary signal processing on graphs,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 13, pp. 3462–3477, 2017

2017
[6]

Wavelets on graphs via spectral graph theory,

D. K. Hammond, P. Vandergheynst, and R. Gribonval, “Wavelets on graphs via spectral graph theory,”Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 129–150, 2011

2011
[7]

Translation on graphs: an isometric shift operator,

B. Girault, P. Gonçalves, and É. Fleury, “Translation on graphs: an isometric shift operator,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2416–2420, 2015

2015
[8]

On the shift operator, graph frequency, and optimal filtering in graph signal processing,

A. Gavili and X.-P. Zhang, “On the shift operator, graph frequency, and optimal filtering in graph signal processing,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 23, pp. 6303–6318, 2017

2017

Show all 44 references

[9]

Neighborhood- preserving translations on graphs,

N. Grelier, B. Pasdeloup, J.-C. Vialatte, and V. Gripon, “Neighborhood- preserving translations on graphs,” inProc. IEEE Global Conf. Signal Inf. Process. (GlobalSIP), 2016, pp. 410–414

2016
[10]

Algebraic signal processing theory: foundation and 1-D time,

M. Püschel and J. M. F. Moura, “Algebraic signal processing theory: foundation and 1-D time,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3572–3585, 2008. 26

2008
[11]

Algebraic signal processing theory: 1-D space,

M. Püschel and J. M. F. Moura, “Algebraic signal processing theory: 1-D space,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3586–3599, 2008

2008
[12]

Fokam Souop and L

R. Fokam Souop and L. Bitjoka,Minimal Isometric Embeddings of Graphs into Abelian Groups: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications to Signal Processing over Networks, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Ngaoundéré,
[13]

Minimal isometric embeddings of graphs into Cayley graphs of finite abelian groups,

R. Fokam Souop and L. Bitjoka, “Minimal isometric embeddings of graphs into Cayley graphs of finite abelian groups,” arXiv:2607.07939 [math.CO]

arXiv
[14]

Dimension and order bounds for iso- metric embeddings of graphs into abelian Cayley graphs, and the abelian dividend,

R. Fokam Souop and L. Bitjoka, “Dimension and order bounds for iso- metric embeddings of graphs into abelian Cayley graphs, and the abelian dividend,” arXiv:2607.07920 [math.CO]

arXiv
[15]

Graph signal processing: modulation, con- volution, and sampling,

X. Shi and J. M. F. Moura, “Graph signal processing: modulation, con- volution, and sampling,” arXiv:1912.06762, 2019

1912 arXiv
[16]

Uncertainty principles and signal recov- ery,

D. L. Donoho and P. B. Stark, “Uncertainty principles and signal recov- ery,”SIAM J. Appl. Math., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 906–931, 1989

1989
[17]

Terras,Fourier Analysis on Finite Groups and Applications

A. Terras,Fourier Analysis on Finite Groups and Applications. Cam- bridge Univ. Press, 1999

1999
[18]

Rudin,Fourier Analysis on Groups

W. Rudin,Fourier Analysis on Groups. Interscience, 1962

1962
[19]

R. S. Stanković, C. Moraga, and J. T. Astola,Fourier Analysis on Fi- nite Groups with Applications in Signal Processing and System Design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/IEEE Press, 2005

2005
[20]

Tolimieri, M

R. Tolimieri, M. An, and C. Lu,Algorithms for Discrete Fourier Trans- form and Convolution. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989

1989
[21]

Ceccherini-Silberstein, F

T. Ceccherini-Silberstein, F. Scarabotti, and F. Tolli,Discrete Harmonic Analysis: Representations, Number Theory, Expanders, and the Fourier Transform, ser. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 172. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018

2018
[22]

Godsil and G

C. Godsil and G. Royle,Algebraic Graph Theory. Springer, 2001. 27

2001
[23]

Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering,

M. Defferrard, X. Bresson, and P. Vandergheynst, “Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering,” inAdv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), 2016, pp. 3844–3852

2016
[24]

Gabor-type frames for signal processing on graphs,

M. Ghandehari, D. Guillot, and K. Hollingsworth, “Gabor-type frames for signal processing on graphs,”J. Fourier Anal. Appl., vol. 27, no. 2, art. 25, 2021

2021
[25]

Frames for signal processing on Cayley graphs,

K. Beck, M. Ghandehari, S. Hudson, and J. Paltenstein, “Frames for signal processing on Cayley graphs,”J. Fourier Anal. Appl., vol. 30, art. 66, 2024

2024
[26]

Sampling in Paley–Wiener spaces on combinatorial graphs,

I. Pesenson, “Sampling in Paley–Wiener spaces on combinatorial graphs,”Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 360, no. 10, pp. 5603–5627, 2008

2008
[27]

Discrete signal processing on graphs: sampling theory,

S. Chen, R. Varma, A. Sandryhaila, and J. Kovačević, “Discrete signal processing on graphs: sampling theory,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 24, pp. 6510–6523, 2015

2015
[28]

Efficient sampling set selection for bandlimited graph signals using graph spectral proxies,

A. Anis, A. Gadde, and A. Ortega, “Efficient sampling set selection for bandlimited graph signals using graph spectral proxies,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 14, pp. 3775–3789, 2016

2016
[29]

Global and local uncertainty principles for signals on graphs,

N. Perraudin, B. Ricaud, D. I. Shuman, and P. Vandergheynst, “Global and local uncertainty principles for signals on graphs,”APSIPA Trans. Signal Inf. Process., vol. 7, art. e3, 2018

2018
[30]

G. B. Folland,A Course in Abstract Harmonic Analysis, 2nd ed. CRC Press, 2016

2016
[31]

Diffusion wavelets,

R. R. Coifman and M. Maggioni, “Diffusion wavelets,”Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 53–94, 2006

2006
[32]

Multiscale wavelets on trees, graphs and high-dimensional data: theory and applications to semi- supervised learning,

M. Gavish, B. Nadler, and R. R. Coifman, “Multiscale wavelets on trees, graphs and high-dimensional data: theory and applications to semi- supervised learning,” inProc. 27th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), 2010, pp. 367–374

2010
[33]

Perfectreconstructiontwo-channelwavelet filter banks for graph structured data,

S.K.NarangandA.Ortega, “Perfectreconstructiontwo-channelwavelet filter banks for graph structured data,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2786–2799, 2012. 28

2012
[34]

Graph wavelets for multiscale community mining,

N. Tremblay and P. Borgnat, “Graph wavelets for multiscale community mining,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 20, pp. 5227–5239, 2014

2014
[35]

Vertex-frequency anal- ysis on graphs,

D. I. Shuman, B. Ricaud, and P. Vandergheynst, “Vertex-frequency anal- ysis on graphs,”Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 260– 291, 2016

2016
[36]

F. R. K. Chung,Spectral Graph Theory, ser. CBMS Reg. Conf. Ser. Math., vol. 92. Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc., 1997

1997
[37]

Functional maps: a flexible representation of maps between shapes,

M. Ovsjanikov, M. Ben-Chen, J. Solomon, A. Butscher, and L. Guibas, “Functional maps: a flexible representation of maps between shapes,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 31, no. 4, art. 30, 2012

2012
[38]

Distance-preserving subgraphs of hypercubes,

D. Ž. Djoković, “Distance-preserving subgraphs of hypercubes,”J. Com- bin. Theory Ser. B, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 263–267, 1973

1973
[39]

Isometric embedding in products of complete graphs,

P. M. Winkler, “Isometric embedding in products of complete graphs,” Discrete Appl. Math., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 221–225, 1984

1984
[40]

M. M. Deza and M. Laurent,Geometry of Cuts and Metrics, ser. Algo- rithms and Combinatorics, vol. 15. Berlin: Springer, 1997

1997
[41]

Imrich and S

W. Imrich and S. Klavžar,Product Graphs: Structure and Recognition. New York: Wiley, 2000

2000
[42]

Generalized FFTs—a survey of some recent results,

D. K. Maslen and D. N. Rockmore, “Generalized FFTs—a survey of some recent results,” inGroups and Computation II, ser. DIMACS Ser. Discrete Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci., vol. 28. Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc., 1997, pp. 183–237

1997
[43]

Van Loan,Computational Frameworks for the Fast Fourier Trans- form, ser

C. Van Loan,Computational Frameworks for the Fast Fourier Trans- form, ser. Frontiers in Appl. Math. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 1992. 29

1992
[2026]

Available: arXiv:2606.29391 [math.CO]

[Online]. Available: arXiv:2606.29391 [math.CO]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The emerging field of signal processing on graphs,

D. I. Shuman, S. K. Narang, P. Frossard, A. Ortega, and P. Van- dergheynst, “The emerging field of signal processing on graphs,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 83–98, 2013

2013

[2] [2]

Discrete signal processing on graphs,

A. Sandryhaila and J. M. F. Moura, “Discrete signal processing on graphs,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 1644–1656, 2013

2013

[3] [3]

Graph signal processing: overview, challenges, and appli- cations,

A. Ortega, P. Frossard, J. Kovačević, J. M. F. Moura, and P. Van- dergheynst, “Graph signal processing: overview, challenges, and appli- cations,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 808–828, 2018

2018

[4] [4]

Discrete signal processing on graphs: frequencyanalysis,

A. Sandryhaila and J. M. F. Moura, “Discrete signal processing on graphs: frequencyanalysis,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol.62, no.12, pp. 3042–3054, 2014

2014

[5] [5]

Stationary signal processing on graphs,

N. Perraudin and P. Vandergheynst, “Stationary signal processing on graphs,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 13, pp. 3462–3477, 2017

2017

[6] [6]

Wavelets on graphs via spectral graph theory,

D. K. Hammond, P. Vandergheynst, and R. Gribonval, “Wavelets on graphs via spectral graph theory,”Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 129–150, 2011

2011

[7] [7]

Translation on graphs: an isometric shift operator,

B. Girault, P. Gonçalves, and É. Fleury, “Translation on graphs: an isometric shift operator,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2416–2420, 2015

2015

[8] [8]

On the shift operator, graph frequency, and optimal filtering in graph signal processing,

A. Gavili and X.-P. Zhang, “On the shift operator, graph frequency, and optimal filtering in graph signal processing,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 23, pp. 6303–6318, 2017

2017