A survey on frame representations and operator orbits (Q6608655)

This paper is a summary of results found in the literature concerning the possibility of representing a frame as an orbit of a bounded operator. Emphasizing an operator \(T\) acting on a separable Hilbert space, necessary or sufficient conditions are presented for an orbit \(\left\{T^n\varphi\right\}_{n=0}^\infty\) to be a frame. It is worth noting that most of the results are negative. For example, if the operator \(T\) is unitary or compact then no orbit can be a frame. A characterization is presented of those diagonal operators \(T\) and vectors \(\varphi\) for which the orbit \(\left\{T^n\varphi\right\}_{n=0}^\infty\) is a frame. Another notable result proves that the frame \(\left\{f_k\right\}_{k=1}^\infty\) is an orbit of a bounded operator if and only if the kernel of the synthesis operator is invariant under the forward shift. As a consequence, it follows that every Riesz basis is an orbit. On the contrary, some necessary conditions for an orbit to be an overcomplete frame exclude many classical frames, such as overcomplete shift-invariant or Gabor frames. This motivates the discussion of several alternative representations, for example, using bi-orbits. More precisely, given a frame indexed as \(\left\{f_k\right\}_{k\in {\mathbb Z}}\) one can ask whether such a frame can be represented in the form \(\left\{T^kf_0\right\}_{k\in {\mathbb Z}}\) for some invertible operator \(T.\) Some similarities and some differences with respect to the representation as an orbit of a bounded operator are discussed. Finally, approximate representations using suborbits are also considered.\N\NFor the entire collection see [Zbl 1531.42001].