Skip to main content
2 of 15
edited title
Learning math
  • 1.5k
  • 1
  • 15
  • 22

Local maxima of the sum of Gaussian functions in *higher dimensions* are always strict local maxima - prove/disprove?

This is a follow up of the question in one dimension, that asked to show that the all the maxima of the sum of Gaussian

$$f_n(x):= \sum_{i=1}^{n}e^{(x-x_i)^2}, x_1 < x_2 < \dots < x_n$$

are strict local maxima, i.e. there's a punctured neighborhood $U*$ around each local maxima $x*$, so that the $\forall x \in U*, f(x)< f(x*),$ (instead of $f(x)\le f(x*).$)**

The accepted answer used the identity theorem for real analytic function $f_n'$ to show that indeed all the critical points of $f_n$ are isolated, which, combined with the fact that the critical points must lie in $[x_1,x_n],$ proved that the critical points were finite in number and thus the answer proved that in one dimension, the local maxima of $f_n$ are strict local maxima.

This question is its generalization to higher dimensions $x_i, x \in \mathbb{R}^p.$ So here we consider:

$$f_n(x):= \sum_{i=1}^{n}e^{||x-x_i||^2}.$$

Note that, here the critical points $x*$ will be given by:

$$\nabla{f_n}=0$$

$$ \implies x*=\frac{ \sum_{i=1}^{n}e^{-||x-x_i||^2} x_i }{ \sum_{i=1}^{n}e^{-||x-x_i||^2} },$$

implying that $x*$ lie in the convex hull of $\{x_1\dots x_n\},$ just like in the one dimensional case, they lied in $[x_1,x_n]$ (see above or the link to the one dimensional case given above).

But this time, unlike one dimensional case, we cannot guarantee using the identity theorem that the zeros of the $\nabla{f_n}$ are isolated, because in higher dimensions, the usual identity theorem for real analytic function doesn't hold. We do know that zeros of the gradient has zero Lebesgue measure, thanks to this post and the references therein; but this doesn't prove that the the zeros are isolated, unlike one dimensional case.

Here's an image that shows a linear combination of three, two dimensional Gaussians:

enter image description here

It seems to me that its local maxima are all strict local maxima. I did an image search but never found any image otherwise.

So is there a proof that the local maxima of $f_n$ are strict?

Thoughts: (1) I'm thinking if we can explore the topology of $y \in \mathbb{R}, f_n^{(y)}$. It seems to me that $\forall y \in (0,n], f_n^{(y)}$ consists of the disjoint union of at most $n$ hyperspheres $S^{p-1}\subset \mathbb{R}^p.$ Not sure if we need Morse theory to prove this?

Learning math
  • 1.5k
  • 1
  • 15
  • 22