Uniqueness of Cubic Spline Interpolation: How Can We Prove It?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cubic Uniqueness
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the uniqueness of cubic spline interpolation given certain conditions on the spline and its derivatives. Participants explore the necessary equations and conditions required to establish this uniqueness, focusing on the mathematical formulation and properties of cubic splines.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for a hint on how to show that the cubic spline interpolation has exactly one solution, suggesting a proof by contradiction might be necessary.
  • Another participant notes that a cubic spline for each segment has 4 coefficients, leading to a total of $4m$ coefficients for $m$ segments, and questions what independent equations are available to determine these coefficients.
  • Participants discuss the conditions of continuity for the spline and its derivatives, noting that these conditions contribute to the total number of independent equations needed.
  • There is a suggestion that the notation $s(x)$ may imply a single function rather than multiple segments, leading to confusion about the representation of the spline.
  • A participant clarifies that the spline function is a composite function defined piecewise, and outlines the necessary continuity conditions for both the function and its derivatives.
  • Further discussion includes the need for additional equations to ensure a unique solution, with participants proposing various boundary conditions that could be applied.
  • One participant summarizes the equations derived from continuity and differentiability conditions, questioning if the total number of conditions aligns with the requirements for uniqueness.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the correctness of their interpretations and calculations throughout the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for continuity and differentiability conditions for cubic splines, but there is no consensus on the exact formulation of the problem or the sufficiency of the equations derived. Some participants express uncertainty about the representation of the spline and the implications of the conditions discussed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings regarding the notation and representation of the spline function, as well as the assumptions made about the number of segments and their coefficients. There is also ambiguity about the specific boundary conditions that should be applied.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! 😊

Show that the interpolation exercise for cubic splines with $s(x_0), s(x_1), , \ldots , s(x_m)$ at the points $x_0<x_1<\ldots <x_m$, together with one of $s'(x_0)$ or $s''(x_0)$ and $s'(x_m)$ or $s''(x_m)$ has exactly one solution.

Could you give me a hint how we could show that? Do wwe have to assume that we have two different solutions annd get a contradiction? :unsure:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
A cubic spline for a segment has 4 coefficients. Since we have $m$ segments, we have $4m$ coefficients.
To find them, we need $4m$ independent equations.
Which equations do we have? 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
A cubic spline for a segment has 4 coefficients. Since we have $m$ segments, we have $4m$ coefficients.
To find them, we need $4m$ independent equations.
Which equations do we have? 🤔

We have the equations $s(x_0), s(x_1), \ldots , s(x_m)$, then we have also conditions of continuity, or not? And we have also the conditions $s'(x_0)=s'(x_m)$ or $s''(x_0)=s''(x_m)$.

Is that correct? :unsure:
 
Yes, we have the conditions of continuity.
Each of the $m$ segments must have the given starting and ending points, which gives us $2m$ independent equations, doesn't it? 🤔

Don't we also have the condition that the derivative must be continuous? That is, no angles in the resulting spline? 🤔
 
Last edited:
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Yes, we have the conditions of continuity.
Each of the $m$ segments must have the given starting and ending points, which gives us $2m$ independent equations, doesn't it? 🤔

Don't we also have the condition that the derivative must be continuous? That is, no angles in the resulting spline? 🤔

I got stuck right now. We don't have an index at $s(x)$. Does this mean that at each segment we have the same function? Shouldn't it be $s_i(x)$ ? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
I got stuck right now. We don't have an index at $s(x)$. Does this mean that at each segment we have the same function? Shouldn't it be $s_i(x)$ ?

Hmm... your OP says "the interpolation exercise for cubic splines". Which interpolation exercise is that? 🤔

Note that a "cubic" spline is a third order polynomial, which means that it has 4 coefficients.
Consequently if there are more than 4 points, we cannot find one that has all points on its curve.
So either the spline is actually of $m$-th order, or the spline consists of $m$ segments each with its own coefficients, or the spline is a best-fit function.
Btw, even if it is a best-fit function, a "cubic" spline should still have only at most 4 points given and not $m+1$ points.
And if it were an $m$-th order polynomial, then there is no need to set constraints on the first or second derivative at the end points.
So I assumed we have a set of $m$ cubic splines, which I guess may not be what is intended.

If not, can you tell that kind of spline we are talking about then? 🤔
There are many types after all.
 
mathmari said:
I got stuck right now. We don't have an index at $s(x)$. Does this mean that at each segment we have the same function? Shouldn't it be $s_i(x)$ ?

The spline function $s$ would be a composite function.
That is:
$$s(x)=\begin{cases}s_1(x)&\text{if } 0\le x < 1 \\ s_2(x-1) &\text{if } 1\le x < 2 \\\ldots\\ s_m(x-m+1) &\text{if } m-1\le x \le m\end{cases}$$
where $s_i(u)=a_{i,3} u^3 + a_{i,2} u^2 + a_{i,1} u + a_{i,0}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$.

So we don't simply have $s_i(x)$ since it depends on the value of $x$, which $s_i$ we need. 🤔

Suppose we assume that this is indeed what was intended. Then a solution is a set of coefficients $a_{i,j}$.

To ensure continuity, we need that $s_i(0)=s(i-1)$ and $s_i(1)=s(i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. These are $2m$ independent equations.
To ensure continuity of the derivative, we need $s_i'(1)=s_{i+1}'(0)$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$. These are $2m-2$ independent equations.
So we are 2 equations short to find all coefficients.
If we add equations with the values of $s_1'(0)$ and $s_m'(1)$ we have a complete independent set with a unique solution.
Alternatively we can add equations with the values of $s_1''(0)$ and $s_m''(1)$ and we have again a complete independent set with a unique solution. 🤔

In practice the boundary condition $s_1''(0)=s_m''(1)=0$ is a typical choice.
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
The spline function $s$ would be a composite function.
That is:
$$s(x)=\begin{cases}s_1(x)&\text{if } 0\le x < 1 \\ s_2(x-1) &\text{if } 1\le x < 2 \\\ldots\\ s_m(x-m+1) &\text{if } m-1\le x \le m\end{cases}$$
where $s_i(u)=a_{i,3} u^3 + a_{i,2} u^2 + a_{i,1} u + a_{i,0}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$.

Why is the function defined in that form, I mean the argument is "x-something" and not $$s(x)=\begin{cases}s_1(x)&\text{if } 0\le x < 1 \\ s_2(x) &\text{if } 1\le x < 2 \\\ldots\\ s_m(x) &\text{if } m-1\le x \le m\end{cases}$$
Klaas van Aarsen said:
To ensure continuity, we need that $s_i(0)=s(i-1)$ and $s_i(1)=s(i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. These are $2m$ independent equations.

Do we not get from the continuity the condition $s_i(x_i)=s_{i+1}(x_i)$ ? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Why is the function defined in that form, I mean the argument is "x-something" and not $$s(x)=\begin{cases}s_1(x)&\text{if } 0\le x < 1 \\ s_2(x) &\text{if } 1\le x < 2 \\\ldots\\ s_m(x) &\text{if } m-1\le x \le m\end{cases}$$
My mistake, it should be:
$$s(x)=\begin{cases}s_1(x)&\text{if } x_0\le x < x_1 \\ s_2(x) &\text{if } x_1\le x < x_2 \\\ldots\\ s_m(x) &\text{if } x_{m-1}\le x \le x_m\end{cases}$$
🤔

Do we not get from the continuity the condition $s_i(x_i)=s_{i+1}(x_i)$ ?
Yes, with the new version of the function $s$ that is indeed the continuity condition. 🤔
 
  • #10
Klaas van Aarsen said:
My mistake, it should be:
$$s(x)=\begin{cases}s_1(x)&\text{if } x_0\le x < x_1 \\ s_2(x) &\text{if } x_1\le x < x_2 \\\ldots\\ s_m(x) &\text{if } x_{m-1}\le x \le x_m\end{cases}$$
🤔

Yes, with the new version of the function $s$ that is indeed the continuity condition. 🤔

So we have the following:
\begin{equation*}s(x)=\begin{cases}s_1(x)&\text{wenn } x_0\le x < x_1 \\ s_2(x) &\text{wenn } x_1\le x < x_2 \\\ldots\\ s_m(x) &\text{wenn } x_{m-1}\le x \le x_m\end{cases}\end{equation*}
with $s_i(x)=a_{i,3} x^3 + a_{i,2} x^2 + a_{i,1} x + a_{i,0}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$.

A cibic spline is $C^2$, so the second derivative must be continuous.

So that the function is continuous we need $s_i(x_i)=s_{i+1}(x_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ and $s_i(x_{i-1})=s(x_{i-1})$ for $i=1,\ldots,m+1$.
So we have $(m-1)+(m+1)=2m$ independent equations.

So that the first derivative is continuous we need $s_i'(x_i)=s_{i+1}'(x_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$.
So we have $m-1$ independent equations.

So that the second derivative is continuous we need $s_i''(x_i)=s_{i+1}''(x_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$.
So we have $m-1$ independent equations.

Till now we have $2m+(m-1)+(m-1)=4m-2$ conditions (equations).

The remaining two conditions are the two possible pairs given at the statement. Is everything correct? :unsure:
 
  • #11
Looks good enough to me. (Nod)
 
  • #12
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Looks good enough to me. (Nod)

Great! Thank you very much! (Smile)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K