Scattering Networks on the Sphere for Scalable and Rotationally Equivariant Spherical CNNs
Authors: Jason McEwen
Christopher Wallis
Augustine N. Mavor-Parker
Venue: ICLR 2022 Poster (2022)

Abstract: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) constructed natively on the sphere have been developed recently and shown to be highly effective for the analysis of spherical data.  While an efficient framework has been formulated, spherical CNNs are nevertheless highly computationally demanding; typically they cannot scale beyond spherical signals of thousands of pixels.  We develop scattering networks constructed natively on the sphere that provide a powerful representational space for spherical data.  Spherical scattering networks are computationally scalable and exhibit rotational equivariance, while their representational space is invariant to isometries and provides efficient and stable signal representations.  By integrating scattering networks as an additional type of layer in the generalized spherical CNN framework, we show how they can be leveraged to scale spherical CNNs to the high-resolution data typical of many practical applications, with spherical signals of many tens of megapixels and beyond.

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
SCATTERING NETWORKS ON THE SPHERE FOR SCALABLE AND ROTATIONALLY EQUIVARIANT SPHERICAL CNNS
Jason D. McEwen, Christopher G. R. Wallis & Augustine N. Mavor-Parker Kagenova Limited, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
ABSTRACT
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) constructed natively on the sphere have been developed recently and shown to be highly effective for the analysis of spherical data. While efficient framework has been formulated, spherical CNNs are nevertheless highly computationally demanding; typically they cannot scale beyond spherical signals of thousands of pixels. We develop scattering networks constructed natively on the sphere that provide a powerful representational space for spherical data. Spherical scattering networks exhibit rotational equivariance, while their representational space is invariant to isometries and provides efficient and stable signal representations. By integrating scattering networks as an additional type of layer in the generalized spherical CNN framework, we show how they can be leveraged to scale spherical CNNs the high-resolution data typical of many practical applications, with spherical signals of many tens of megapixels and beyond.
computationally scalable and
INTRODUCTION
The construction of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on the sphere has received considraabee attention recently, opening up their application to fields where standard (Euclidean) CNNs are not effective. Such techniques are finding application in diverse fields; for example, for the analysis of 360" photos and videos in virtual reality and for the analysis of astrophysical observations on the celestial sphere cosmology. both of these fields high-resolution spherical images are typically encountered, with image resolutions often reaching many tens of megapixels. Current spherical CNN approaches that are defined natively on the sphere and satisfy rotational equivariance, however, are limited to low resolutions and often cannot scale beyond thousands of pixels, severely restricting their applicability. In this article we present a strategy to scale spherical CNNs to high resolution, further opening up their applicability to high-resolution spherical images encountered in virtual reality, cosmology, and many other fields beyond.
A number of spherical CNN constructions have been proposed recently, which can be broadly categorized into two approaches: (i) those that are defined natively on the sphere and capture
rotational equivariance (c.g. Cohen et al. 2018a Esteves et al. 2018 2020: Kondor et al. 2018 Cobb et al. 2021): p: and (ii) those that are constructed on discretizations of the sphere and typically
do not fully capture rotational equivariance (e.g. Boomsma Frellsen 2017 Jiang et al. 2018 |Perraudin et al., 2019 Cohen et al. 2019). While constructions on discretized representations of the sphere can often be computed efficiently, and some capture rotational equivariance to a small set of rotations (Cohen et al. 2019), such approaches necessitate an approximate representation of spherical signals, losing the connection to the underlying continuous symmetries of the sphere and thus cannot fully capture rotational equivariance. Approaches constructed natively the sphere that do capture rotational equivariance, on the other hand, are highly computationally demanding. Despite considerable improvements in computational efficiency proposed recently (Cobb al. 2021). such approaches nevertheless remain computationally demanding and are not scalable to high resolution.
We seek framework that captures the underlying continuous symmetries of the sphere and exhibits rotational equivariance, while also being computationally scalable to high resolution. We draw
"Correpooniigg author; jason.mcewen. kagenova.com

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
inspiration from Cobb et al. (022)) which presents a generalized spherieal CNN framework and advocates hybrid networks where different types of spherical CNN layers are leveraged alongside each other. We consider critically, be scalable to high resolution and allow subsequent layers to operate effectively at low resolution, while also exhibiting rotational equivariance. To provide effective representational space it should also provide efficient and stable signal representations, with control of the scale of signal invariances, and be sensitive all signal content. Scattering networks meet all requirements.
additional layer to be integrated into this hybrid approach that must,
Scattering networks were first proposed in the seminal work of Mallat (2012) in an effort to provide some further theoretical basis explaining the observed empirical effectiveness of CNNs (elaborated in Mallat 20166. They are constructed from a cascade of linear transforms (typically convolutions), combined with pointwise non-linear activation functions, with carefully designed filters to ensure certain stability and invariance properties. A scattering network is thus effectively CNN but with designed, rather than learned, filters. Typically wavelets that themselves satisfy certain stability and invariance properties are adopted for the filters and the absolute value function is adopted for the non- linear activation function. Scattering networks were initially constructed on Euclidean domains and have been applied in variety of applications (e.g. [Bruna& & Mallat 2011 2013 Andén et al., 2019).. More recently scattering networks that support non Sonn-uulidenn data have been constructed through graph representations (Gama et al. 2019b a Gao al. 2019 Zou & Lerman 2020; Perlmutter et al., 2019) or on general Riemannian manifolds (Perlmutter et al.) 2020). While these approaches are flexible, this flexibility comes at a cost. Just as there are considerable advantages in constructing CNNs natively on the sphere (rather than, c.g., adopting graph CNNs), so too there are advantages in constructing scattering networks natively on the sphere. For example, spherical scattering networks can be constructed to retain a connection to the underlying continuous symmetries of the sphere and to leverage fast algorithms tailored to the harmonic structure of the sphere.
In this article we construct scattering networks on the sphere, motivated by their use as an initial layer in hybrid spherical CNNs in order to yield rotationally equivariant spherical CNNs that scale to high we review spherical signal representations and describe the invariance and stability properties required to provide an effective representational space. In Section 3 we construct scattering networks on the sphere and discuss their invariance and stability properties. In Section 4 we integrate scattering networks into the existing generalized spherical CNN framework. Experiments studying the properties of spherical scattering networks and demonstrating their effectiveness in hybrid spherical CNNs are shown in Section Concluding remarks are made in Section [
resolution. In Section 2
2 SPHERICAL SIGNAL REPRESENTATIONS
We seek representational space that can be used as an initial layer in hybrid spherical CNNs to scale to high-resolution data. Such a representational space must, critically, be scalable, allow subsequent CNN layers to operate at low resolution, and be rotationally equivariant. Morcover, to provide an effective representation for machine learning problems the space should provide efficient and stable signal representations, with control over the scale of signal invariances, while being sensitive to all signal content. In this section we concisely review common spherical signal representational spaces, including spatial, harmonic and wavelet signal representations, before discussing the desired invariance and stability properties of the representational space that we seek.
2.1 SPATIAL AND HARMONIC REPRESENTATIONS
Consider square integrable signals f.g E (.? on the sphere S2 with inner product (f.g). The inner product induces the norm || = / Vf,f), with metric d12 (f. |f gll2. We consider
spherical signals bandlimited at L., with harmonic coefficients fe.. = (f. Yem) = 0, VŁ 2 L,, where Yim are the spherical harmonic functions of natural degree & and integer order |ml S f. Sampling theories on the sphere (Driscoll& & Healy 1994 McEwen & Wiaux, 201 provide a mechanism to capture all information content of underlying continuous function from a finite set of samples. By providing access to the underlying continuous signal, such a representation perfectly captures all spherical symmetries and geometric properties. We adopt the sampling theorem the sphere of [cEEwen & Wiaux (201 since it provides the most efficient sampled signal representation (reducing the Nyquist rate by factor of two compared to Driscoll & Healy 1994).
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
2.2 WAVELET REPRESENTATIONS
A number of wavelet frameworks on the sphere have been constructed (see Appendix A We focus on spherical ccale-discretized wavelets since they have an underlying continuous representation, exhibit excellent localization and asymptotic correlation properties, are Parseval frame, support directional wavelets, and exhibit fast algorithms for exact and efficient computation (MeEwen et al.,
Wiaux et al., 2008 Leistedt et al. 2013) McEwen et al. 2013 2015c 2018). Furthermore, the wavelet transform is rotationally equivariant in theory (since it is based on spherical convolutions)
and in practice (since its computation leverages underlying spherical sampling theory).
The (axisymmetric) spherical scale-discretized wavelet transform is defined by the convolution of
f (S²) with the wavelet bb (.*) yielding wavelet coefficients Ww(w) = (J * *b))
(f. R. vy)) where w (0. 9) denotes point on the sphere with colatitude 0 E [0, . and longitude 3 E [0, 2 ). and Rw = e.,00 denotes direediimensionll (3D) rotation (we adopt the active zyz Euler convention). The wavelet scale encodes the angular localization of d/.. with increasing corresponding to smaller scale (i.e. higher frequency) signal content. The minimum and maximum wavelet scales considered are denoted Jo and J, i.e. 0 S Jo S J S J. The wavelet coefficients capture high-frequency or bandpass information of the underlying signal; they do not capture low- frequency signal content. A scaling function & E (S" is introduced to capture low- low-frequency signal content, with scaling coefficients given by W( (w) = (f * (w) = (f. R). For notational convenience we introduce the operator notation w f U and w of f Φ.
Further details regarding the spherical scale-diseretized wavelet construction, synthesis and properties contained in Appendix [A] Note that the wavelet construction relies on fixed dilation parameter E RØ, À > 1, that controls the relative scaling of harmonic degrees one wishes each wavelet to probe. A common choice is dyadic scaling with = 2. The minimum wavelet scale Jo may be chosen freely or may be set by specifying desired bandlimit Lo for the scaling coefficients, yielding Jo = log, [ For Jn 0 the wavelets probe the entire frequency content of the signal of interest except for its mean, which is encoded in the scaling coefficients. The wavelet transform of a signal bandlimited at L is therefore specified by the parameters (L, X, Jo), or alternatively (L, X, Lo).
2.3 ISOMETRIES AND DIFFEOMORPHISMS
While we have mentioned the signal representation seek must satisfy invariance and stability properties, we are yet to elaborate on these properties in detail. We define the transformations under which these properties are sought, before describing the properties themselves in the next subsection.
Consider transforms of spherical signals that are an isometry, preserving the distance between signals. More precisely, consider the isometry Ç E Tsom where Isom denotes the isometry group of the sphere. The action of an isometric transformation Ve L L32) + LS²) is defined as Vw) = f(s- w). The distance between signals f.g E L (S?) is then preserved under an isometry, i.e. (se) (Vef. Vçg) (1,2 (f.g). One of the most typical isometries considered for spherical signals is 3D rotation R.p, often parameterized by Euler angles p (a, (,,)) SO(3).
Consider deformations of spherical signals, formally defined by diffeomorphisms. A diffcomorphism is transformation that is differentiable bijection (a one-to-one mapping that is invertible), with an inverse that is also differentiable. Loosely speaking, a diffeomorphism can be considered as a "well-behaved" deformation. Consider diffeomorphism Ç (S² where (S?) denotes the diffeomorphism group of the sphere. The action of a diffeomorphism on a spherical signal is defined similarly an isometric transformation. It is useful quantify the size of diffeomorphism. Let IK supwega dga (w, ((w)) represent the maximum displacement between points w and ((w), where dga (w, w²) is the geodesic distance on the sphere between w and w'. Often we are interested in small diffeomorphisms about an isometry such as rotation, denoted Ç' c'=(6 C1 o C2 for some isometry ÇI E Isom(S?), e.g. P E S0(3), and some diffeomorphism &2 E (S?).
2.4 INVARIANT AND STABLE REPRESENTATIONS
In representational learning, invariances with respect to isometries and stability with respect to diffeomorphisms play crucial roles. As an illustrative example consider the classification of hand- written digits in planar (spherical) images. Translation (rotation) is common isometry to which we
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
often seek to encode various degrees of invariance an inductive bias in machine learning models. In some cases small translations (rotations) may be responsible for intra-class variations (e.g. if the digit is always located close to the center of the image), whereas in others global translations (rotations) may not alter class instances (e.g. if the digit may be located anywhere in the image). Invariance to isometries up some scale is therefore Intra-class variations may also be due to small diffeomorphisms (e.g. deformations in the way a given digit is written), while inter-class variations may be due to larger diffeomorphisms (e.g. deformations mapping one digit to another). Consequently, an effective representation space is one that is stable to diffeomorphisms, i.e. is insensitive small diffeomorphisms and changes by an increasing amount as the size of the diffeomorphism increases. It is well- that scattering networks constructed from cascades of appropriate wavelet representations, combined with non-linear activation functions, satisfy these invariance and stability properties, thus providing an effective representation space (e.g.
important property of effective representation spaces.
Mallat 2012 2016).
SCATTERING NETWORKS ON THE SPHERE
We present the construction of scattering networks the sphere, which follows by direct analogy with the Fuclidean construction of Mallat (2012). Firstly, we describe conceptually how scattering representations satisfy the invariance and stability properties that we seek. Secondly, define the spherical scattering propagator and transform, constructed using the spherical scale-discretized wavelet transform (e.g. McEwen et al. 2018). Thirdly, we use the scattering transform to define scattering networks. Finally, we formalize and prove that scattering networks are invariant to isometries up to given scale and are stable to diffeomorphisms.
3.1 SCATTERING REPRESENTATIONS
Scattering representations leverage stable wavelet representations to create powerful hierarchical representational spaces that satisfy isometric invariance up to a particular scale, are stable to diffeo- morphisms and probe all signal content (both low and high frequencies). The scaling coefficients of the scale-discretized wavelet transform on the sphere are computed by an averaging (smoothing) operation. Scaling coefficients therefore satisfy isometric invariance associated with the scale of the scaling function (i.c. Jo or equivalently La). However, scaling coefficients clearly do not probe all signal content they are restricted to low frequencies. Wavelet coefficients of the disereiiscet wavelet transform on the sphere do not satisfy isometric invariance. However, they are stable to diffeomorphisms by grouping frequencies into packets through the Meyer-like tiling of the spherical harmonic space on which they are constructed. Furthermore, they probe signal content at a range of frequencies, including high frequency signal content. A wavelet signal representation, including scal- ing and wavelet coefficients, does not recover a representational space with the desired invariance and stability properties: scaling coefficients satisfy some desired properties. whereas wavelet coefficients satisfy others. However, by combining cascades of scaling and wavelet coefficient representations. with non-linear activation functions, it is possible to recover representation that exhibits all of the desired properties. Scattering representations do precisely this. Furthermore, all signal content is then probed, with high frequency signal content non-linearly mixed into low frequencies (Mallat 2012).
3.2 SCATTERING PROPAGATOR AND TRANSFORM
Scattering networks are constructed from scattering transform, which itself is constructed using scattering propagator. The spherical scattering propagator for scale j is defined by
Ubi AV,
where a non-linear activation function A (.2( + (.2( is applied the wavelet coefficients at scale j. Following Mallat (2012), we adopt the absolute value (modulus) function, Aʃ = [f], for the activation function since is non-expansive and thus preserves the stability of wavelet representations. Moreover, as it acts on spherical signals pointwise, it is rotationally equivariant. Scattering propagators can then be constructed by applying a cascade of propagators:
J = "'ji.jz.....Ja = Ulja] Ubb)) |Ils 12,, 1/2l... Whyl (2) for the path p = (J1.22..... ja) with depth By adopting carefully designed filters, i.c. wavelets, combined with a non-expansive activation function, scattering propagators inherit stability properties
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
stU
STAL
U'A, Ai
S) Sylf
Alf
1ud 1
Figure 1: Spherical scattering network of the signal f (S")). The signal is propagated through cascades of spherical cealediscrrtizze wavelet transforms, combined with absolute value activation functions, i.e. Upp = IlI * vijh | r ... Walle denoted by red nodes. The outputs of the scattering network are given by projecting these signals onto the spherical wavelet scaling function, resulting in scattering coefficients S'p]f =Ilff 2 2/21 ... 3 Φ. denoted by blue nodes.
from the underlying wavelets, yielding representations that are stable to diffeomorphisms, Scattering propagators, however, do not yield representations that exhibit isometric invariances. In order to recover representation that does, and to control the scale of invariance, the scaltering transform is constructed by projection onto the scaling function, yielding scattering coefficients
S[p] DU [p] = Illf 4/,, 1521.... 13aa * e.
(3)
for path p. We adopt the convention that STp = 0j./ Φʃ. By projecting onto the wavelet scaling function we inherit the isometric invariance of the scaling coefficients, with the scale of invariance controlled by the scale of the scaling function (i.e. by the Jo or Lo parameter). Consequently, the scattering transform yields representational space that satisfies both the desired invariance and stability properties (shown formally in Section 3.4). Furthermore, since scattering representations are constructed from wavelet transforms and pointwise non-linear activation functions, both of which are rotationally equivariant, the resulting scattered representation is also rotationally equivariant. For Jo = 0 the scaling function is constant and we recover a representation that is completely invariant to isometries (in many settings we do not desire full invariance rotations and we set Jo >> 0 in the numerical experiments that follow). Formally, in the case where Jn = and the network fully rotationally invariant, equivariance still holds, it is just that the spherical scattering coefficients for each path are reduced to a single constant value over the sphere. Note also that the computation of the spherical scattering transform scalable since it based on spherical scale-discretized wavelet transforms that are themselves computationally scalable (MeEwen et al. 2007 2013 2015c).
3.3 SCATTERING NETWORKS
scattering network is then simply collection of scattering transforms for number of paths: P}. where the general path set TP denotes the infinite set of all possible paths = {p- = (J1,j2..... :d)= Jo S J: S J, ssis d, d E No) Since a scattering network is a collection of scattering transforms that are rotationally equivariant,
Srf = [S
too are scattering networks. In practice one typically considers a path set defined by paths up to some maximum depth D, i.e. .J).....))))))) .Ja) Ju S J. S J, 1 1 i I d, 0 d d D). A diagram of scattering network is illustrated in Fig. [ A seattering network is effectively a spherical CNN with carefully designed filters (i.e. wavelets) and typically with activation function given by the absolute value function. Since the intended use of spherical scattering networks here is as an initial layer in generalized spherical CNNs, where seek mix information from high to low frequencies that subsequent CNN layers can operate at low resolution, we are often interested in descending paths where the wavelet scale j reduces along the path. The descending path set, up to maximum depth D, is given by Pal ppdescending = {p= (ji, (j1,j2,-.. ....... ........ee ..) Jo J S J, 2 ... 2 ja, S S d, 0 < D). Since scattering networks are simply a collection of scattering transforms, the network inherits the properties of scattering transforms discussed previously and thus satisfies all requirements of the representational space that we seek.
PD {p- = 12..2..... ...
3.4 ISOMETRIC INVARIANCE AND STABILITY TO DIFFEOMORPHISMS
While we have explained conceptually how spherical scattering networks exhibit isometric invariance and are stable to diffeomorphisms, here we formalize these results.
5

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Theorem (Isometric Invariance). Let Isom(("), then there exists constant C' such that for all f e (S?)
|Stbf Spp Velll2 S
(4)
Theorem is analogous Theorem 3.2 of Perlmutter
(020) that considers scattering networks on general Riemannian manifolds. The manifold wavelet construction considered in Perlmutter al. 2020) is analogous the spherical diseeeiieee wavelet construction (e.g. McEwen et al. 2018) since both are based on a Meyer-like tiling of the harmonic frequency line. However, in each approach different wavelet generating functions are considered, with an exponential kernel adopted in Perlmutter et al. (2200) and an infinitely differential Schwartz kernel adopted for spherical scale-discretized wavelets. Consequently, the proof of Theorem | follows directly from the proof presented in Perlmutter et al. (2020) but accounting for different wavelet generating functions and noting that Ee 6Eo Σ L 1 X Theorem shows that the scattering network representation is invariant to isometries up to the scale controlled by Jo. which is directly related to the bandlimit Lo of the spherical wavelet scaling function.
Theorem 2 (Stability to Diffcomorphisms). Let Ç Dif IFC Si So for some isometry
<i Isom (S²) and diffeomorphism (2 E Dif then there exists constant such that for all I (S*).
1 - SEp Vcflla S SCLx (2 2o
+ + =0
(5)
Theorem 2 is analogous to Theorem 4.1 Perlmutter et al. (2020) and the proof again follows similarly. Theorem 22soows that the scattering network representation is stable to small diffeomor- phisms (2 about am isometry. Moreover the change in signal representation depends on the size of the diffeomorphism [|<2| || oc. Consequently, for a classification problem, for example, the scattering network representation is likely to be relatively insensitive to intra-class variations due to small diffeomorphisms but sensitive to inter-class variations due to large diffeomorphisms.
LEVERAGING SCATTERING NETWORKS FOR SCALABLE SPHERICAL CNNS
We describe how spherical scattering networks may be integrated into the generalized spherical CNN framework Cobb al. (02T) to scale to high-resolution data in a rotationally equivariant manner.
4.1 GENERALIZED SPHERICAL CNNS
A variety of spherical CNN constructions have been presented recently in the influential works of Cohen et al. (2018a), Esteves et al. (2018) and Kondor et al. (2018). These were unified in generalized framework by Cobb et al. (2021), who advocate hybrid networks where varying types of spherical layers can be leveraged alongside each other, and where alternative techniques to substantially improve efficiency were also developed.
Following Cobb et al. 22021) consider the generalized spherical CNN framework where the s-th layer of the network takes the form of a triple (a)) = (C,,W, L2), comprised of linear, non-linear, and linear operators, respectively. The output of layer is then given by f(*) (( = (Li o oWo o (2)()()))) where f(e-1) is the signal inputted to the layer. The linear and non- non-linear operators take variety of forms, such as those introduced in Cohen et al. (201 (a): Esteves et al.) (2018): Kondor et al. (2018); Cobb et al. (2021). The linear layers are typically convolutions, either on the sphere, rotation group. or generalized convolutions (Kondor al. 2018 Cobb al. 2021).
while the non-linear layers are pointwise or consor-prddue activations based on
decompositions (Kondor al. 22018) Cobb et al.) [202I). While generalized spherical CNNs have been shown to be highly effective and techniques to compute them efficiently have been developed (Cobb) et al. 2021), they remain highly computationally demanding and cannot scale to high-resolution data.
4.2 SCALABLE GENERALIZED SPHERICAL CNNS
Spherical scattering networks (Section 3 can be leveraged to scale spherical CNNs to high resolution, whilst maintaining rotational equivariance. Adopting the generalized spherical CNN framework of Cobb al. (202T). advocate the use of scattering networks additional type of layer.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Table I: Equivariance error and median relative energy of scattering coefficients of varying path depth d, for (L, X, Lo) (256, 2, 32).
C7 10
-0-1
10"1
0-
10
Path depth
Equivariance Emor
Energy
[
Minimum
Median
Maximum
(a) byy
(b) [f * d5
0
0.00%
9.41%
0.01%
0.05%
0.24%
15.56%
Figure 2: Power spectra of wavelet coefficients,
0.18%
1.01%
5.36%
1.39%
3
0.50%
3.47%
10.68%
0.16%
for (I, X, Jo) = (128, 2, 2), before and after ap-
plication the absolute value activation function (mean solid: standard deviation shaded).
Spherical scattering networks are computationally scalable, rotationally equivariant, exhibit isometric invariance up to some scale, provide efficient and stable representations, and are sensitive to all signal content, including both low and high frequencies. Consequently, scattering networks provide a highly effective representational space for machine learning problems. Each set of scattering coefficients, in the parlance of CNNs, simply provides an additional channel.
Computation of the spherical scattering network scales as ((L)), for bandlimit L, due to the adoption of fast spherical wavelet transforms (MeEwen al. 2007 Leistedt et al. 2013) McEwen et al. 2013)
2015ch. which themselves leverage fast harmonic transforms (MeEwen & Wiaux 2011b Mc ct al. 2015b). In contrast, even the efficient spherical CNNs Cf et al. (2021) typically scale as O J. More critically, however, scattering networks mix signal content from high to low frequencies. Thus, they are an ideal first layer in a hybrid spherical CNN so that subsequent layers may then operate at low resolution, while still capturing high-frequency signal content.
Since scattering networks use designed filters, rather than learned filters, they do not need to be trained. Consequently, a scattering network layer acting the first layer of spherical CNN can be considered as a data preprocessing stage before training. The outputs of the scattering network therefore need only be computed once, rather than repeatedly during training. Furthermore, the size of the output data of a scattering network is modest since all sets of output scattering coefficients (i.e. output channels) are limited the resolution of the scaling function Lp and so need only be stored at low resolution. These features provide considerable computational and memory savings, allowing scattering networks to scale spherical CNNs to high resolutions. For example, the spherical scale-discretized wavelet transform on which the scattering network is based has so far been applied up to resolution L = 8192 (Rogers et al., 20166a] b) and higher resolutions are feasible. While evaluation of scattering network at very high resolution may take some time, this is not concern since the computation trivially parallclizable and need only be computed once outside of training.
5 EXPERIMENTS
We perform numerical experiments to verify the theoretical properties of spherical scattering networks. Using spherical scattering networks as an initial layer in the generalized spherical CNN framework, show how scattering networks can be leveraged to scale spherical CNNs high resolutions. Spherical scattering networks are implemented in the fourpiAI software package. We use the s2let code to perform spherical wavelet transforms.
5.1 POWER OF SCATTERED SIGNALS
The absolute value function adopted as the activation function within scattering networks acts to spread signal content, predominantly from high to low frequencies. To demonstrate this we generate 100 simulations of random spherical signals, with spherical harmonic coefficients drawn from standard Gaussian distribution. In Fig. 2 we plot the average power spectra of the wavelet coefficients of these signals before and after taking the absolute value. Notice in Fig. 2(a) that the harmonic support of the wavelet coefficients matches the support of the underlying wavelets, as expected. Notice in Fig. 2(b) that after taking the absolute value the power the signal is spread in harmonic space, predominantly mixed from high to low frequencies, and that variability is reduced, as expected.
wWw. hwtpenovwa.om//rrouuutt///orrrrp
www. www.s2eet.ooo org
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
5.2 EQUIVARIANCE TESTS
To test the equivariance of the scattering transform we consider 100 random test signals and compute the mean relative equivariance error between rotating signals before and after the scattering transform (see Appendix B.I for further details). Results are given in Table [ averaged over all scattering coefficients with the same path depth d. Notice that equivariance errors are small, as expected. In fact, cquivariance errors are considerably smaller than the standard spherical ReLU layer commonly used in spherical CNNs, which has an error on the order of 35% (Cobb et al. 2021). Notice also that the signal energy for each channel is small for path length of three and greater, again as expected.
5.3 DIFFEMMOPPHISM TESTS
To test the stability of spherical scattering networks to diffeomorphisms we consider the following exper- iment. Taking the prototypical example of classifica- tion of hand-writted digits, we compute differences in scattering network representations for both inter- and intra-class instances using MNIST digits projected onto the sphere (Cohen et al., 2018b). See Appendix B.2 for further details. Results are shown in Fig. for for all com-
160%
220%
104%
19219
2069:
1.7%%
2071
2029)
202%
211%
100%
186%
185
1.9%%
1021%
1.77
172%
1911%
1.0%
1.07
200%
185%
182
181%
130.%
16.1%
100%
540%
157%
158%
177%
1089
107
1.11%
178
1669
195%
1655%
binations of digits, normalized relative to intra-class variations of the digit one (which, incidentally, exhibits the smallest intra-class variation, might be expected). As discussed in Section [24] small diffeomorphisms are likely responsible for intra-class variations and large dif- feomorphisms for inter-class variations. Furthermore, by Theorem 2 a larger diffeomorphism leads to larger difference in scattering representation. For MNIST dig- its, we therefore expect the average difference between scattering representations to increase as the size of diffeomorphisms within and between digits increases. This is indeed what we observe. For each digit, intra-class differences are smaller than inter-class differences, i.e. the diagonal elements of Fig. Bare smaller than the other elements on the same row/column. While is difficult to quantify the size of a diffeomorphism mapping one digit to another, the results generally match ones intuition about similarities between digits, e.g. three is more similar to a seven and nine, than to a zero or four. In general, the findings of this experiment support the theoretical result that spherical scattering networks are stable to diffeomorphisms.
200%
134%
197
1641%
110
100%
100
130%
1.00%
1511
200%
170%
185%
1825
2111
162%
100%
1001
107%
170%)
1011
102%
174%
Dig:
Figure 3: Differences in scattering network representations for spherical MNIST digits, demonstrating stability to diffconorphisms.
5.4 SPHERICAL MNIST AT VARYING RESOLUTION
We consider a variant of the standard benchmark of classifying MNIST digits projected onto the sphere (Cohen et al. 2018b), varying the resolution of spherical images and considering digits projected at smaller angular sizes (see Fig. 4. The intention is to evaluate the effectiveness of scattering networks to represent high-resolution signal content in low-resolution scattering coefficients. To this end, we consider two classification models (see Appendix B.3). The first is the hybrid model proposed in Cobbbb ct al. 2021). Since this model is too computationally demanding to run at high resolution, it considers harmonic content of the spherical MNIST images up L = 32 only. The second model prepends scattering network to the first model with output scattering coe coefficients at resolution Lo- = 32. We stress that this experiment is constructed specifically test the effectiveness of the scattering network to spread signal content to low frequencies for subsequent low-frequency spherical CNN layers. The model without scattering network will not perform well since it loses high-frequency signal content. As resolution is increased, the digit size is reduced so that signal content is concentrated at higher frequencies. The problem thus becomes increasingly more difficult for the models considered and we are thus able to observe how effective the scattering network is at mixing information into low frequencies. We consider two scenarios: digits that are centered and not rotated during training and testing (NR/NR); and digits that are not rotated during training but rotated to arbitrary positions on the sphere when testing (NR/R). Effective classification for the latter scenario requires invariance of the model. The results of these experiments are shown in Table 2 Since the problem is constructed to be more difficult as resolution increases, we observe accuracy decreasing as resolution increases. In all scenarios classification accuracy is significantly improved when incorporating a scattering
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Table 2: Spherical MNIST performance.
Digit Size
Model
Accuracy
82.2"
without scattering
98.29
88.66
82.2"
with scallering
98.80
97.22
(a) L = 64
(b) L = 128
(c) L = 256
42.5
without scattering with scallering
51.71
128
42.5"
94,70
76.81
Figure 4: MNIST digits projected onto the sphere at varying resolution.
256
21,4"
without scatiering
75.12
17.23
256
21.4
with scattering 96.02
59.48
network since the scattering network provides an effective representational space that mixes high- frequency signal content to low frequencies, where it may be captured in the following spherical CNN layers. The scattering network evaluation takes approximately five seconds at L 256 (based on an unoptimized, single-threaded implementation). We do not observe any significant differences in speed of convergence between settings with and without the scattering network.
5.5 GAUSSIANITY OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
In the standard inflationary cosmological model the temperature anisotropies of the cosmic mi- crowave background (CMB), the relic radiation of the Big Bang, are predicted to be a realiza- tion of a Gaussian random field on the sphere. However, many alternative cosmological mod- els predict weak deviations from Gaussianity. The statistical properties of the CMB are thus powerful probe for distinguishing cosmologi- cal models and their study in observational data of topical interest (e.g. Planckk Collaboration VII 2020: Planck Collaboration XXII] (2014). We generate Gaussian and non Gaussin simu- lations of the CMB (Rocha et al. (2005) at reso-
(a) Gaussian
(b) Non-Gaussian
300
JuK
Figure 5: CMB simulations to be classified. For the weakly non-Grn non-Gaussian simulations considered the classification problem is difficult; e-g. it is not possible to distinguish the simulations by eye.
lution L, = 1024 (see Fig. 5). We train similar models to those considered for the MNIST experiment above to distinguish between CMB simulations (see Appendix B.4). Since the Gon-Gaassiy considered is weak this is a challenging classification problem. The first model, without scattering network, achieves classification accuracy of 53.1%, demonstrating the challenging nature of the problem. The second model, including a scattering network, achieves a classification accuracy of 95.3%. Since the scattering network provides highly effective representational space, which captures gigh-freeuency signal content in the low-resolution scattering coefficients, the model is able achieve a considerably greater accuracy. The scattering network evaluation takes little under two minutes at L, 1024 (based on an unoptimized, single-threaded implementation): recall that this need only be computed once, outside of training.
CONCLUSIONS
We have developed scattering networks on the sphere that yield powerful and scalable represen- lational space for spherical signals, providing an efficient signal representation that is rotationally equivariant, invariant isometries up to a particular scale, stable diffeomorphisms. and sensitive to all signal content, including high and low frequencies. When incorporated as an additional initial layer in the generalized spherical CNN framework, scattering networks allow spherical CNNs to be scaled to high-resolution data, while preserving rotational equivariance. In future work spherical scattering networks can be straightforwardly extended to spin signals and directional wavelets (by adopting spin caleediscretized spherical wavelets; McEwen et al. 2015c).
While Euclidean scattering networks have been shown to be highly effective and have been used in a number of studies, they nevertheless have not experienced pervasive since Euclidean CNNs are already computational scalable. the spherical setting, on the other hand, existing spherical CNNs not computationally scalable. We therefore anticipate scattering networks, integrated layer in the generalized spherical CNN framework, to be critical use to scale spherical CNNs to the high resolution data typical of many applications.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
REFERENCES
J. Andén, V. Lostanlen, and S. Mallat. Joint time-frequency scattering. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 67(14):37043777 2019. httpt//pp/./......roo/oa////////
08869
J. Antoine and P. Vandergheynst. Wavelets on the n-sphere and related manifolds. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 3988):9877-4088, 1998.
J. Antoine and P. Vandergheynst. Wavelets on the 2-sphere: a group theoretical approach. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 7:1-30, 1999.
Baldi, G. Kerkyacharian, D. Marinucci, and D. Picard. Asymptotics for spherical needlets. Annals of Statistics, 37 1511111-117,,22200
R. B. Barreiro, M. P. Hobson, A. N. Lasenby, A. Banday, K. M. Górski, and G. Hinshaw. Testing the Gaussianity of the COBE-DMR data with spherical wavelets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 318:475-4811 2000.
W. Boomsma and J. Frellsen. Spherical convolutions and their application in molecular modelling. In Advances Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 9433-3443, 2017
J. Bruna and S. Mallat. Classification with scattering operators. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Putter Recognition, pp. 1561-1566 IEFE, 2011. URL https://arxiv arg/abs/1011...
Bruna and S. Mallat. Invariant scattering convolution networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(8):1872-1886 2013. URL https::/arxii..orrt .rg. /br// 1513.1513
O. J. Cobb, C. G. R. Wallis, A. N. Mavor-Parker, A. Marignier, M.A. Price, M. Avezac, and D. McEwen. Efficient generalized spherical CNNs. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
T. Cohen, M. Geiger, J. Köhler, and M. Welling. Spherical CNNs. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018a. 8a. http:/ttsss/arrxi.orr/////// abs/ /1801, 10130
T. Cohen, M. Weiler, B. Kicanaoglu, and M. Welling. Gauge equivariant convolutional networks and the icosahedral CNN. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1321-1330. PMLR, 2019. URL http/hhtts///iiiii www.oo/g///////oee/oo 04615
T. S. Cohen, M. Geiger, J. Kochler, and M. Welling. Convolutional networks for spherical signals. In Principled Approaches to Deep Learning Workshop, International Conference Machine Learning, 2018b.
//////179.04444 048993
J. R. Driscoll and D. M. Jr. Healy. Computing Fourier transforms and convolutions on the sphere. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 15:202-250, 1994.
C. Durastanti, Y. Fantaye, F. Hansen, D. Marinucci, and I. 7. Pesenson. Simple proposal for radial 3D needlets. Physical Review D, 10310),, November 2014. /ttps:/tts////rxivvv..
abs/ 1os//108..1. 1095
C. Esteves, C. Blanchlla,ceete,, A. Makadia, and K. Daniilidis. Learning SO(3) equivariant repre- sentations with spherical CNNs. In Proceedings of the European Conference Computer Vision (ECCV), pp- 52-68, 2018.
C. Esteves, A. Makadia. and K. Daniliidis. Spin-weighted spherical CNNs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 2020. URL/htp:://arvvvorr///sss
16731
Gama, J. Bruna, and A. Ribeiro. Stability of graph scattering transforms In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019a. URL URLLittsss//arxiv.or///a//// 09784
Gama, A. Ribeiro, and J. Bruna. Diffusion scattering transforms on graphs. In International Conference Learning Representations, 2019b. httphttttt:///xxi.oorrre
08829
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
F. Gao, G. Wolf, and M. Hir. Geometric scattering for graph data analysis. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2122-2131. PMLR, 2019. URL https://arxiv wwt.riiww..ooo......o///e//
D. Geller and D. Marinucci. Spin wavelets on the sphere. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, 1666):840-888 November 2010. http:://///ar org a0s/ 2935
D. Geller and Marinucci. Mixed needlets. Jourmal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 375(2):610-a)) 630, June 2011. U httpp::/arxivv.org//aaaa 1006. 3835
D. Geller, F. K. Hansen, D. Marinucei, G. Kerkyacharian, and D. Picard. Spin needlets for cosmic microwave background polarization data analysis. Physical Review D, 78(12)) 2008. URL http://aaxxiv..rgabbbbbs/
2881
D. Geller, X. Lan, and D. Marinucci. Spin Needlets Spectral Estimation. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 3:1497-1530, July 2009. URL hnttps///arxx..or////////// 3369
C. Jiang, J. Huang, K. Kashinath, Marcus, M. Niessner, et al. Spherical CNNs on unstructured grids. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. URL https://arxiv org/abs/1901. 02039
D. P. Kingma and L.. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic gradient descent. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015. httphhtts///axii.rrrg////
6980
R. Kondor, Z. Lin, and S. Trivedi. Clebsch-Gordar nets: a fully Fourier space spherical convolutional neural network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 10117-10126, 2018. URL httphhtps//:/iiiii http://aaxxivoogggr//////// 0100 092331
F. Lanusse, A. Rassat, and J.-L. Starck. Spherical 3D) isotropic wavelets. Astronomy & AAttrophysis, 540:A92, April 2012. URL htttp:://arxiv.org//bbaaa
0561
B. Leistedt and J. D. McEwen. Exact wavelets on the ball. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 60<12):6257-626,, 2012. URL httpss://arxxi.orrg//////// wwt.://r///b/////.///////// 0792
B. Leistedt, J. D. McEwen, P. Vandergheynst, and Y. Wiaux. S2LET: A code to perform fast wavelet analysis the sphere. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558(A128):1-99 2013. URL https
//arxiv.org/aae hhtpg//bb//211... 1680
B. Leistedt, J. D. McEwen, T. D. Kitching, and H. V. Peiris. 3D weak lensing with spin wavelets on the ball. Physical Review D, 92:1 23010, 2015. URL URL httpp::://aaxii.oo//bbbbss/// /50./ 06750
B. Leistedt, J. D. McEwen, M. Büttner, and H. V. Peiris. Wavelet reconstruction of E and B modes for CMB polarisation and cosmic shear analyses. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466(3):3728-3740 2017. URL
attp:///.s//10...00 01414
S. Mallat. Group invariant scattering. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 65(10): 1331-1398, 2012.
2286
S. Mallat. Understanding deep convolutional networks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
Sciemces,,7442065)22011 374(2065):0150203, 2016. URL
https://arxivv http:///wwxxi..oo/abb/////////// 1601 1601. 04920
A. Marignier, D. McEwen, A. M. Ferreira, and T. Kitching. Posterior sampling for inverse imaging problems on the sphere. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107:06500 2021. URL https://arxiv org/abs/211 (00.0060070
D. Marinucci, D. Pietrobon, A. Balbi, P. Baldi, P. Cabella, G. Kerkyacharian, P. Natoli, D. Picard, and N. Vittorio. Spherical needlets for cosmic microwave background data analysis. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 383:539-545, 2008. UtLht::s://aaxi org/abs.////ooooo atrg//bb//707 0844
J. D. McEwen and B. Leistedt. Fourier-Lagueree transform, convolution and wavelets the ball. In 10th International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA), invited contribution, pp. 323-333, 2013. htt./ttts:///axiii http://awwww...or///////////////

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
J. D. McEwen and A. M. M. Scaife. Simulating full-sky interferometric observations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 389(3)11633-1178) 2008. URL URL.httts://arxiv.oom abs/0803. 2165
D. McEwen and Y. Wiaux. A novel sampling theorem on the sphere. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 59(12):5876-8888 2011a. URL https://arxiw..orr/bbs///// 6221
J. D. McEwen and Y. Wiaux. novel sampling theorem on the sphere. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 59(12):587--5887 201 lb. URL. hnttps//arxivv.orr/ab////// 6298
D. McEwen, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. directional continuuus wavelet transform on the sphere. arXiv preprint arXiv:0609158 2006. [oll:/ttss///aki..oo//bbbb/ttoo 0609159
J. D. McEwen, M. P. Hobson, D. Mortlock, and A. N. Lasenby. Fast directional continuous spherical wavelet transform algorithms. JEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, (iacessing,,5(2).33303 53(2):520-529, 2007. URL URRlhhttss//aaxiiv http://wwivv.orrrr/as/sssttrrp/p
J. D. McEwen, Y. Wiaux, and D. M. Hyers. Data compression on the sphere. Astrophysics, 531(A98):1-13, 2011. URL htthhttss//aaniw.or///////1111
Astronomy &
J. D. McEwen, P. Vandergheynst, and Y. Wiaux. On the computation of directional scale-diseretized wavelet transforms on the sphere. In Wavelets and Sparsity XV, SPIE international symposium on optics and photonics, invited contribution, volume 8858, 2013. URL //tps://arxiv org. / 1308.5706
J. D. McEwen, M. Bucttner, B. Leistedt, H. V. Peiris, P. Vandergheynst, and Y. Wiaux. On spin scale-discretised wavelets on the sphere for the analysis cmb polarisation. In Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 306, 2014. URL hwt.:https:/// //axxiv /aaggg//b////aaa abs/1412, 1412. 1340
D. McEwen, M. Büttner, Leistedt, H. V. Peiris, and Y. Wiaux. A novel sampling theorem on the rotation group. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 22(12):2425-244 2015a. URL https //arxiv.org/ab///55 03101
J. D. McEwen, M. Büttner, B. Leistedt, H. V. Peiris, and Y. Wiaux. A novel sampling theorem on the rotation group. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 22(12):2425-2422 2015b. |Rt|https
www.ii.org//bb///1/ 6298
McEwen, B. Leistedt, M. Büttner, H. V. Peiris, and Y. Wiaux. Directional spin wavelets on the sphere. arXiv preprint arXiv: 15XXv:5509006499 2015c. /RL//tttss////axv.ooo////////// 06749
D. McEwen, C. Durastanti, and Y. Wiaux. Localisation of directional scale-discretised wavelets on the sphere. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 44(1):59-88, 88, 2018. https //arxiv. wwwp//////bbs.oe...oeeeeer 0atss/559.06650 06767
F. J. Narcowich, P. Petrushev, and J. D. Ward. Localized tight frames spheres, SIAM Journal of Mathematical Analysis, 3842)5774-594, 2006.
M. Perlmutter, F. Gao, G. Wolf, and M. Him. Understanding graph neural networks with asymmetric geometric scattering transforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.06255 2019. URL /tttps://arxivv
brg/abs/1911. 0911//6211000
M. Perlmutter, Gao, G.
Wolf, and M. Hirn. Geometric wavelet scattering networks on compact Riemannian manifolds. In Mathematical and Scientific Machine Learning, pp. 570-604 PMLR, 2020. URL httph::tt///rree www.oogg//////ooooooo 1985. 10448
N. Perraudin, M. Defferrard, T. Kacprzak, and R. Sgier. DeepSphere: Efficient spherical convolutional neural network with HEALPix sampling for cosmological applications. Astronomy and Computing. 27:130 2019. URL htt./httss///axiiv http:/wwwwwwwppw/////oo/// 12186
Planck Collaboration I. Planck 2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy of Planck. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A1, 2020. URI htt.hhpss///aavvvoorraa////////a 06205
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Planck Collaboration VII. Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and statistics. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641:A7, 2020. URL httptttss///:iii http://www..rg//////////// 02552
Planck Collaboration XXIII. Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB. Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 571(A23), 2014. http:htt////aaxx.oo////a/a 1303. 5083
M. A. Price, D. McEwen, L. Pratley, and T. D. Kitching. Sparse Bayesian mass-mape mapping with uncer- tainties: Full sky observations on the celestial sphere. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500(4):5436 5452, 2020. /tL.
07855
G. Rocha, M. Hobson, S. Smith, Ferreira, and A. Challinor. Simulation of non-Gaussian cosmic microwave background maps. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Sociery, 357(1):1-11, 02 2005. URL /tttps://artiiii org/ //t///b//aa/ astra phtppp//00000 0406136
K. K. Rogers, H. V. Peiris, B. Leistedt, J. D. McEwen, and A. Pontzen. Spin-SILC: CMB polarisation component separation with spin wavelets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462 (3):2310-2322, 2016a. URL htthhttp://// //as:////xxv org/ //s//ab//aa 1605. 1605.01417
K. K. Rogers, H. V. Peiris, B. Leistedt, J. D. McEwen, and A. Pontzen. SILC: new Planck Internal Linear Combination CMB temperature map using directional wavelets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460(3):3014-3023, 2016b. URL httpss//aaxiv.orgg/bb//// 01322
Schröder and W. Sweldens. Spherical wavelets: efficiently representing functions on the sphere. In Computer Graphics Proceedings (SIGGRAPH '95), pp. 161-172, 1995.
J.-L. Starck, Y. Moudden, P. Abrial, and M. Nguyen. Wavelets, ridgelets and curvelets on the sphere. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 146:1191-1204, February 2006. URL https: orgg / sstro-ph/0509883
J.-L. Starck, Moudden, and J. Bobin. Polarized wavelets and curvelets on the sphere. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 497:931 April 2009. URL /
0574
W. Sweldens. The lifting scheme: construction of second generation wavelets. SIAM Journal of Mathematical Analysis, 29(2) 1997.
Y. Wiaux, J. D. McEwen, P. Vandergheynst, and O. Blanc. Exact reconstruction with directional wavelets on the sphere. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388(2):770-788) 2008 URL
3519
D. Zou and G. Lerman. Graph convolutional neural networks via scattering. Applied and Computa- tional Harmonic Analysis, 49666 2020. httll//ps///arx...or//////////// 1804.00099
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
A WAVELETS ON THE SPHERE
A.1 REVIEW OF APPROACHES
Numerous wavelet frameworks on the sphere have been constructed. Early constructions were based either on fully continuous frameworks (c.g. Antoine & Vandergheynst) 1999; 1998 McEwwn et al. 2006) or on fully discrete frameworks (Schröder Sweldens 1995 Barreiro al. 2000; McEwen Scaife 2008 McEwen et al., 201T) based on the lifting scheme (Sweldens) 1997). While the former continuous frameworks lacked the ability to perfectly synthesize a signal from its wavelet coefficients in practice, the latter discrete frameworks lacked stable representations.
More recently, a number of exact discrete wavelet frameworks on the sphere have been developed with underlying continuous representations facilitated through the adoption of sampling theorems
(c.g. McEwen & Wiaux [211aa] McEEwnn et al. 2015a). including needlets (Narcowich et al.. 2006
Baldi al. [209 Marinucci et al.] 2008), directional scale-discretized wavelets (Wiaux al. 2008
Leistedt et al. 2013) McEwen et al. 2015c 2018) and the isotropic undecimated and pyramidal wavelet transforms (Starck et al. 2006). These approaches have been extended spin functions
on the sphere (Geller et al. 20008] Geller & Marinucci 2010 2011: Geller et al.] (2099] McEwen
al. [011cc] 2014] Starck al.] 2209), extended functions defined on the three-dimensional ball
DDrastantii et al. [014 Leistedt & McEwen 2012] McEwen & Leistedi, 2013 Lanusse ct al. 2012)
and in some cases exhibit algorithms for efficient and exact computation (McEwen et al. 2007 2013
2015cb.
Scale-discretized wavelet on the sphere (e.g. McEwen et al. 2018) have found widespread use in a variety of fields, including cosmology (e.g. Price et al. 2020 Rogers et al. 6b16bb] a Leistedt et al. 2017 2015) and geophysics (e.g. Marignier et al., 202 l), and are well-suited for the construction of spherical scattering networks, as we elaborate in Appendix A.6 We therefore provide a concise review of the spherical scale-discretized wavelet framework and its properties.
A.2 WAVELET ANALYSIS
While the discretiidd wavelet transform on the sphere reviewed very concisely in Section 2.2 we provide further details here. Since we provide a more complete review of the forward wavelet transform here, this subsection overlaps with the material of Section 2.2 However, proceeding subsections provide details not discussed in the main body of the article.
The scale-discretized wavelet transform of function f (S*(")) on the sphere S² defined by the convolution of f with the wavelet dy E L??S?). The wavelet coefficients W, E LS? thus read
= / (F
(f+))))
(6)
where du(() sin Ad denotes the rotationally invariant Haar measure the sphere and denotes complex conjugation. The wavelet scale encodes the angular localization of Vúj with increasing j corresponding to smaller scale (i.e. higher frequency) signal content. The minimum and maximum wavelet scales considered are denoted Jo and J respectively, with 0 S Jo Sj
In general directional wavelets are supported by the scale-discretized wavelet framework (i.e. wavelets that are not azimuthally symmetric), resulting in wavelet coefficients that live on the rotation group SO(3): nevertheless, in this article we restrict our attention to axisymmetric wavelets (i.e. wavelets that are azimuthally symmetric). The wavelet coefficients capture high-frequency or bandpass information of the underlying signal; they do not capture www-freuency signal content.
A scaling function is introduced to capture low- low-frequency signal content. Scaling coefficients & E (S2) are given by convolution of with the scaling function & E (.2())):
W(w) = (f x (w) (S. Rw = / (n(aa))(())()))))))))
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
A.3 WAVELET SYNTHESIS
The signal f can be synthesized perfectly from its wavelet and scaling coefficients by
f(w)= {
(1')") + E / (
(8)
==Jo
provided that the following admissibility condition holds:
4T
1000
Kebs))oo? =1, ve,
2 +
J=Jo
where the spherical harmonic coefficients of the wavelet and scaling function are given by, respectively, (15))em (mm) = (W/ Ymm) and mmm = (0, Yem).
A.4 WAVELET CONSTRUCTION
Scale-discretized wavelets constructed to satisfy the admissibility property of Equation 9 in order to ensure perfect signal synthesis and to be infinitely differentiable harmonic space, resulting in excellent spatial localization properties.
Consider the infinitely differentiable Schwartz function with compact support E [A-1, 1], for dilation parameter À R$. X 1:
8x(1) (
2A ((---1)-
(10)
where
(1) exp(-10 (111))
1E (-1,11 t (-1.1)
(11)
Define the smoothly decreasing function ky by
(1) ft de' (t))
(12)
J2 du' $ (t))
which is unity for t X-1, zero for t 1, and is smoothly decreasing from unity zero for I e [A=,,1]. Define the wavelet kernel generating function by
(A( (hx(111)) hi((),, which has compact support t [A-1,X, X] and reaches peak of unity at 1. The ccsce-disr wavelet kernel for scale j is then defined by
(13)
28 + Kx
(5))mm=
(A
(14)
4
which has compact support on f [X-1, and reaches a peak of unity at X3 Scaling functions are required to probe the low-frequency content of the signal of interest not probed by the wavelets and are thus defined by
28 V V 8mo-
dem
(15)
4sT
The scaling function has compact support on E [0, X and is unity up 20-1 decaying smoothly to zero on [X A Jo). An illustration of the harmonic support of the scaling function and wavelets shown in Fig.
While the dilation parameter À can be selected arbitrarily depending on the harmonic scales one wishes each wavelet to probe, provided À 1, common choice is dyadic scaling with X == 2. The maximum wavelet scale J is set to ensure the wavelets reach the bandlimit L of the signal of interest, yielding J [log, L.. where [-] the ceiling function. The minimum wavelet scale Jo may be freely chosen, provided 0 < Jo < J. Alternatively, the minimum scale considered may be set by specifying desired bandlimit Lo for the scaling coefficients, yielding Jn = [logx Lo For Jo = the wavelets probe the entire frequency content of the signal of interest except its mean, which is encoded in the scaling coefficients. The wavelet transform of a signal bandlimited at L is therefore specified by the parameters (I,, Jo), or alternatively (I, X, Top.
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Jo
4j
Jo- 1 Jo
X-1 X X++1
L= X
Figure 6: Harmonic support of scaling function and wavelets dy for scales 0 S Jo S j s J.
A.5 EXACT AND EFFICIENT COMPUTATION
The scale-discretized wavelet transform of signals on the sphere can be computed exactly and efficiently by appealing to sampling theorems on the sphere (e.g. McEwen & Wiaux 201 1b) (and rotation group for directional wavelets; McEwen et al. 2015b) and corresponding fast algorithms (MeEwen et al. 2007 2013 2015c). By exploiting sampling theorems access to the underlying continuous signals afforded and wavelet transforms can be computed in manner that is theoretically exact, up machine precision. We adopt the s2let code implementing this scale-discretized wavelet transform on the sphere. For the axisymmetric wavelet transforms considered herein, the complexity of the wavelet transform scales ( Further computational savings can be achieved by considering a multi-resolution setting where wavelet coefficients for scale j are computed at minimum resolution required to capture all information content, i.e. at et al. (2013). We adopt the multi-resolution setting in experiments since we found this does not markedly impact model equivariance or accuracy, while considerably reducing the computational time of wavelet transforms.
A++1 (Leistedt)
A.6 PROPERTIES
As discussed, the computation of the scale-discretized wavelet transform is scalable. The wavelet transform rotationally equivariant in theory, since is based on spherical convolutions that themselves clearly rotationally equivariance (shown in e.g. Cohen al. 2018aa, and in practice, since its computation leverages underlying sampling theory on the sphere. Moreover, scale-discretized spherical wavelets have excellent localization and stability properties, and constitute Parseval frame (McEwen et al.) 2018 2015c). Finally, they are clearly sensitive to both low and high frequency signal content, with the scaling coefficients capturing low frequency content and wavelet coefficients capturing frequencies associated with the scale of the corresponding wavelet. Scale-discretized wavelets on the sphere thus provide an ideal wavelet framework on which to build spherical scattering networks.
B ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EXPERIMENTS
B.1 EQUIVARIANCE TESTS
To test the equivariance of the scattering transform perform similar experiments those of Cobb
al. 2021 Appendix D), considering N, = 100 random spherical signals ( with harmonic
www. www.t.lrrr.... org
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
coefficients sampled from the standard normal distribution and N₂ 100 random rotations { N,
1= ;=1
sampled uniformly on SO(3). To measure the extent which an operator A I.2 - I. I.? equivariant we evaluate the mean relative error
Ny No ΣΣ ((, (Afi) = N₂ N 1=1
|,A(R, fi) R, (Afi))l
(16)
resulting from pre-rotation of the signal, followed by application of A, opposed to post-rotation is defined using the inner product (., ()))
after application of A, where the operator norm
||
B.2 DIFFEOMORPHISM TESTS
To test the stability of spherical scattering networks to diffcomorphisms we compute differences in scattering network representations for spherical MNIST digits, averaged over 10,00 randomly selected digits. We define the difference between scattering network representations for spherical signals p(()) for class k and instance i, by
J( (ka)
1 N
Σ
(ki) ||Ss 1
Sp Sr, f
(17)
where the norm |||] in this case denotes the inner product (1,g))) applied to each scattering coefficient channel, then summed over all channels. For diffeomorphism tests we consider spherical scattering network with parameters (L. A. Lo) (128, 2, 32), descending paths only, and depth D (matching the settings of Section
B.3 SPHERICAL MNIST AT VARYING RESOLUTION
The first model considered for our MNIST classification experiments is the hybrid model proposed in Cobb et al. (002I). The first layer includes directional convolution on the sphere that lifts the spherical input onto the rotation group. The second layer includes a convolution on the rotation group, followed by three layers comprising constrained generalized convolutions and tensor activations. The final restricted generalized convolution maps down rotationally invariant representation. As is traditional in convolution networks we gradually decrease the resolution, with (Io, L1, L.2, L2g, L,,, [.g) (20, 10, 10, 6, 3, 1), and increase the number of channels, with (Ko, K2, K3, K1, Ks) (1, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28). We proceed these convolutional layers with single dense layer of size 30, sandwiched between two dropout layers (keep probability 0.5), and then fully connect to the output of size 10. This model considers harmonic content of the spherical MNIST images up to L = 32 only (since it is too computationally demanding to run at high resolution). The resulting model has 19,396 learnable parameters.
The second model considered prepends a spherical scattering network to the first model. We consider scattering network with À 2, descending paths only, and depth D 2. The scattering network takes the spherical image at its original resolution and outputs scattering coefficients (channels) at resolution Lo 32. The non-scatteing part of the model thus runs at the same resolution for both settings (L 32). The resulting model has 60,396 learnable parameters for L = 64.
We train the network for 20 epochs on batches of size 32, using the Adam optimizer (Kingma & Ba 2015) with a decaying learning rate starting at 0.001. For the restricted generalized convolutions we follow the approach of Kondor al. (2018) by using L1 regularization (regularization strength 10-5) and applying restricted batch normalization across fragments, where the fragments are only scaled by their average and not translated (to preserve equivariance).
We adopt the same core hybrid model, with the same parameters, for both scenarios with and without the scattering network. The only different is the number of input channels since for the case without scattering we have one greyscale spherical image of digit, whereas for the scattering case we have a channel for each set of scattering coefficients (i.e. each blue node in Fig. []. This difference in number of input channels results in small difference in overall number of learnable parameters for the two models, since a different convolutional filter is applied to each of the input channels. To ensure this does not have significant impact results, also consider hybrid model without
17

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
seattering network with K₁ = 21 (instead of K₁ 20) channels in the first layer. which results in model with 60,507 learnable parameters (more learnable parameters than the model with a scattering network for L 64). We find no significant difference between the models with K 20 and K = 21, suggesting the superiority of the approach with a scattering network in Table due to the effectiveness of the scattering network in mixing high-frequency signal content low frequencies, rather than the very small increase in number of parameters of the models that include a scattering network.
B.4 GAUSSIANITY OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
To simulate CMB observations adopt the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) CMB power spectrum that best fits CMB observations made by the ESA Planck satellite (Planck Collaboration generated following the approach Rocha et al. (2005), where the non-
2020). CMB simulations
Gaussian distribution derived from the wavefunctions of the harmonic oscillator. We set 0g = 0.0
to recover Gaussian simulations and 03 0.2 to recover Gaussan simulationssfollooinngg Rocha
et al. 2005).
We consider simulations resolution 1024, training 1024 simulations and evaluating test set of 128 simulations. We consider similar models and training configuration as the MNIST experiment presented above but with scattering paths such that j2 ji (to avoid generating large number of output channels and to promote mixing from high to low frequencies) and train for 200 epochs.
18


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "dT1QCrxxVp4", "reviewer": "Reviewer_74vz", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "Strengths:\n-\tAs the precomputation step can be done more efficiently than a some spherical CNNs, this step allows such methods to scale to higher-resolution data.\n\nWeaknesses:\n-\tThe authors claim that scattering networks yield rotationally invariant features. It seems natural to me to have a pre-computation step for a spherical CNN generate spherical or SO(3) signals. So how are the scattering network outputs used? Are they added as a constant signal to the sphere as extra channels? If so, why didn’t the authors explore pre-computation steps that result in non-constant signals? Please let me know if I misunderstand this.\n-\tThe authors claim that some methods, like DeepSphere [Perraudin 2019] are not equivariant. Can the authors clarify their claim, as this directly contradicts the claims in that paper? As this graph-based method seem very scalable to high resolutions, I don’t see why DeepSphere doesn’t solve the problem the authors invent a new method for.\n-\tThe experimental section is very weak. The authors cite many other spherical CNN papers, but only compare to a single instance of one other paper. This is insufficient in informing the reader when the proposed method is best used. For example, why didn’t the authors compare to the DeepSphere method, which also experiments on CMB data?\n-\tI find the presentation of the wavelets and scattering transform unclear. For example, it doesn’t say how explicitly the wavelets are constructed. Also, I don’t follow the discussion of the dilation parameter.\n-\tThe method has limited novelty: doing a pre-computation step before applying a neural networks is very widely explored. Also, the theoretical contributions seem incremental changed to previous theoretical results.\n\nMinor points:\n-\tThe usage of $w$ an $\\omega$ together is confusing.\n-\tWhy is the output of the convolution with the wavelet a spherical signal, rather than a SO(3) signal? Does the wavelet contain a SO(2) symmetry?\n-\tIn thm 1, $V_\\zeta$ is undefined.\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "The authors propose to process signals on the sphere via an equivariant CNN where, as a pre-processing step, a scattering network is used. As these scattering networks can be computed efficiently at high resolutions, this allows for spherical CNNs to be used on higher-resolution signals.\nAs experiments, the authors compare a spherical CNN with and without the scattering network pre-computation step on spherical MNIST and a cosmic background radiation dataset and find that the pre-computation step aids performance.\n", "summary_of_the_review": "As far as I can tell, the authors do a pre-computation step which results in a constant signal over the sphere, which I find an odd choice.  The experimental section is severely lacking, and the method has limited novelty. Hence, I cannot recommend acceptance.\n\nUpdated my score to a 5.", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "4: All of the claims and statements are well-supported and correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "1: The contributions are neither significant nor novel."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "NsyZQ74lD2H", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Zc9b", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "##########################################################################\n\nSummary:\nThe paper proposes an approach to scale rotationally equivariant convolutions on spherical domains to work with signals with arbitrary resolutions. This is accomplished by leveraging the properties of the scattering transform, by converting the input signal to the corresponding wavelet-based representation, before feeding it to some arbitrary spherical CNN architecture. This can be considered as a preprocessing step for the data, as the transform does not contain any learnable parameters. The obtained representations are isometry invariant up to a given scale and stable to small diffeomorphisms proved theoretically extending the proof in [Perlmutter et al. (2020)]. The approach is validated experimentally by testing the properties of rotation equivariance, as well as being agnostic to resolution on synthetic datasets, and the frequency coverage of the representation. enabling to scale up to high resolutions for the input signals thanks to the compactness of the representation and showing a significant improvement over using a harmonic representation.\n\n\n##########################################################################\n\nReasons for score:\n\n \n\nOverall, I am leaning toward acceptance of the paper.  I like the simplicity of the idea and its effectiveness. Nevertheless, I find that some conceptual points in the cons section need to be addressed, in order to make the paper clearer in some of its parts. Hopefully, the authors can address my concerns in the rebuttal period.\n\n##########################################################################\nPros:\n\n\n1. The paper improves current approaches to apply convolution on spherical domains to high resolutions by leveraging the compactness of the scattering transform representation.\n\n2. The idea is simple and yet provides several advantages over existing approaches, as shown in the experimental section. \n\n 3. The paper is well written and enough references and context are provided for non-experts in the field.\n\n\n \n\n##########################################################################\n\nCons and questions:\n\n\n1. It is not entirely clear to me how the CNNs can operate in a rotation equivariant way if the representation obtained from the scattering transform is invariant (up to a scale) to isometries since the latter class of transformations contains the former. Wouldn't in this case the CNN be invariant to rotations as well? Please clarify this point.\n\n2. It would be interesting to show statistics about time for processing the scattering transform and training the network on top of this representation: E.g. does the network converge faster applying the scattering transform?\n\n3. Please, to improve the self-containment of the manuscript, report somewhere (could be in the Appendix) the definition of the equivariance error metric as well as the details for the equivariance test.\n\n\n4. Concerning the spherical MNIST experiment:\n\n    (1) It would be interesting to report results also on the test set with no rotated digits, to better evaluate only the amount of invariance to changes in resolutions.\n\n    (2) Does the network applied to harmonic representations have the same number of parameters in the first layer (I.e. the number of input channels is the same) with respect to the one applied to the scattering transform?\n    \n    (3)  It would be interesting as well  to test the robustness to diffeomorphisms experimentally on  this dataset\n\n\n##########################################################################\n\nQuestions during rebuttal period:\n\n \nPlease address and clarify the cons and questions above\n\n \n\n#########################################################################\n\nI spotted some typos:\n\n(1) Page 2 section 1:  are there advantages-> there are advantages\n\n(2) section 2.2: except its mean-> except for its mean\n\n(3) section 2.3: elaborate these -> elaborate on these\n\n(4) section 2.3: a isometric -> an isometric\n\n(5) section 3: which follow by direct -> which follows by a direct\n\n(6) Figure 1, caption: propagated though -> propagated through\n\n(7) section 5.2: after application -> after the application\n\n(8) section 5.3: becomes increasing -> becomes increasingly\n\n(9) section 5.3: in following spherical -> in the following spherical\n\n\n \n", "summary_of_the_paper": "The paper proposes an approach to scale rotationally equivariant convolutions on spherical domains to work with signals with arbitrary resolutions. This is accomplished by leveraging the properties of the scattering transform, by converting the input signal to the corresponding wavelet-based representation, before feeding it to some arbitrary spherical CNN architecture. This can be considered as a preprocessing step for the data, as the transform does not contain any learnable parameters. The obtained representations are isometry invariant up to a given scale and stable to small diffeomorphisms proved theoretically extending the proof in [Perlmutter et al. (2020)]. The approach is validated experimentally by testing the properties of rotation equivariance, as well as being agnostic to resolution on synthetic datasets, and the frequency coverage of the representation. enabling to scale up to high resolutions for the input signals thanks to the compactness of the representation and showing a significant improvement over using a harmonic representation.\n", "summary_of_the_review": "Overall, I am leaning to accept the paper. I like the simplicity of the idea and its effectiveness. Nevertheless, I find that some of the points in the cons section, need to be addressed, in order to make the paper clearer in some of its parts. Hopefully, the authors can address my concern in the rebuttal period.", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "3: Some of the paper’s claims have minor issues. A few statements are not well-supported, or require small changes to be made correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "LNOEy7Bc2H", "reviewer": "Reviewer_FtPm", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "*Strengths*\n    \nThe paper is very well written. The contributions are clearly and concisely explained, the approach is well motivated and the relation with existing work is well described. The paper proposes an elegant solution to the practical problem of scaling spherical CNNs to large resolution inputs. \n\n*Weaknesses*\n\n1) The scattering transform utilized has complexity $\\mathcal{O}(L^3)$ and consists of cascaded convolutions with axisymmetric wavelets and nonlinearities. The spherical convolution as defined by Driscoll and Healy [2] also considers axisymmetric (zonal) filters and can also be computed in $\\mathcal{O}(L^3)$ while faster methods scaling as $\\mathcal{O}(L^2 (\\log L)^{2})$ for the forward transform also exist. The spherical CNNs of Esteves et al [3] is based on such faster spherical convolutions with zonal filters. What would be the effect of using this faster kind of axisymmetric spherical CNNs instead of the scattering transform? It seems to me that the learnable instead of fixed filters might be advantageous, but they might also be more expensive because pre-computing would not possible. In this case, perhaps using cascaded Driscoll-Healy convolutions with random, localized axisymmetric filters might make sense? Please elaborate on such comparisons; it would be even better to provide quantitative results in terms of accuracy and training/inference speed. \n\n2) For the experiments on rotated MNIST (section 5.3), what is the number $n$ of channels after the scattering transform? Since the baseline starts from a single channel at $L=32$, I believe there are two factors that explain the better performance of the scattering pre-processing: 1) the preservation of high-frequency content and 2) the larger number of filters at the first layer. I am assuming that the first non-scattering layer has the same number of channels $c$ for both models, which would translate into $c$ filters for the non-scattering model but $cn$ filters for the scattering. I suggest an extra baseline to disentangle the two effects: use $cn$ channels followed by a nonlinearity and projection to $c$ channels on the first layer for the non-scattering model. It would also be interesting to see the effects of the scattering pre-processing for $L=32$ -- I wonder if it can improve performance even on lower resolutions, which would make it more widely applicable.\n\n3) There is no mention of a code release in the paper. It seems that the generalized spherical CNN of Cobb et al [1] is used in the experiments, for which there is no public codebase available as far as I know. So releasing the code of this submission, besides ensuring reproducibility of the results claimed, would also provide the community with an easy way to build upon [1].\n\n*References*\n\n[1] Cobb et al, \"Efficient Generalized Spherical CNNs\", ICLR'21.\n\n[2] Driscoll and Healy. \"Computing Fourier Transforms and Convolutions on the 2-Sphere\" (1994).\n\n[3] Esteves et al, \"Learning SO(3) Equivariant Representations with Spherical CNNs\", ECCV'18.     \n", "summary_of_the_paper": "The paper proposes a method to scale spherical CNNs to high resolution inputs. This is an important problem since the high computational cost prevents the use of spherical CNNs in many applications. The solution proposed is to define a spherical scattering network to pre-process the high resolution inputs, producing a lower-resolution channels that still carry some of the high frequency information. This is shown to improve performance when compared with a simple downsampling of the high resolution inputs.\n", "summary_of_the_review": "This is a good, well written paper that proposes an elegant and principled way of scaling spherical CNNs to high resolution inputs. My suggestions are mostly in the direction of making the experimental section more convincing and reproducible, and I will be happy to increase my score in case they are addressed. \n", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "4: All of the claims and statements are well-supported and correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "3: The contributions are significant and somewhat new. Aspects of the contributions exist in prior work."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "-mC8TkBWe1U", "reviewer": "Reviewer_hrny", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 5, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "I thank the authors for this submission. It is a nicely written paper with a thorough explanation of the theory behind scattering networks and also some of the fundamentals such as Sec. 2.3. However, there are two fundamental problems:\n\n- The technical contribution is not really high as most results come from previous works and the paper essentially contains a rather simple idea.\n- The experiments miss a good application with a clear evaluation against previous work. I also could not see any quantitative results/comparisons on efficiency/ scalability, which is one of the main points of the paper.\n\nI am thus more on the reject side, unfortunately. \n\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "This paper proposes spherical scattering networks, which are scattering networks defined on the sphere and carry the nice properties of scattering networks such as invariance and stability.", "summary_of_the_review": "This is a nicely written paper that contains an interesting idea. The lack of technical novelty and practical results lead me to rejection.", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "4: All of the claims and statements are well-supported and correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel."}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: The submission develops a rotationally equivariant scattering transform on the sphere.  Many developments in deep learning make use of spherical representations, and the development of a rotationally equivariant scattering transform is an important if not unexpected development.  The reviews are split with half of the reviewers believing it to be slightly above the threshold for acceptance, and half believe it to be slightly below the threshold for acceptance.  In the papers favor, it solves an important case of the scattering transform framework, which has been demonstrated to be important in diverse machine learning applications such as learning with small data sets, differentially private learning, and network initialization.  As such, continued fundamental development in this area is valuable, especially in the context of representation learning, the focus of ICLR.
Decision: Accept (Poster)