Geodesic convexity and curvature effects
State convexity on a declared geodesic domain and distinguish intrinsic convexity from ambient coordinate convexity.
On this page
The question for today
What you’ll understand
- Define geodesic convexity where the connecting minimizing geodesic remains in the domain.
- Relate positive-semidefinite Hessians to local geodesic convexity on an open strongly convex domain.
- Compute convexity and gradient steps on positive reals with logarithmic geometry.
Convexity on a manifold follows geodesics rather than arbitrary straight coordinate segments. Its meaning therefore depends on a domain where the relevant connecting curves exist and remain feasible. On such a domain, intrinsic first- and second-order convexity tests resemble their Euclidean counterparts, but curvature and metric choice influence distances, smoothness constants and rate comparisons. A coordinate formula can be nonconvex in ordinary coordinates while becoming strongly geodesically convex in another metric. Global convexity on a compact curved manifold is far more restrictive than convexity in a small normal neighborhood.
Name the domain and its connecting curves
Work on an open strongly geodesically convex domain U: any two points have a unique minimizing geodesic lying entirely in U. A function is geodesically convex when its value along that constant-speed geodesic stays below the linear interpolation of endpoint values. Strong convexity subtracts a positive multiple of the squared endpoint distance times t(1−t). The domain condition avoids an ambiguous choice among multiple shortest routes and avoids a route leaving the region where the objective or assumptions are defined.
For a twice differentiable function on this open domain, nonnegative intrinsic Hessian quadratic forms are equivalent to geodesic convexity by differentiating along geodesics. The first-order inequality uses the logarithm vector from x to y, with its uniqueness ensured by the domain. A critical point is consequently a global minimum within U, and strong convexity gives uniqueness there. These conclusions do not assert optimality outside U. Restricting to an arbitrary coordinate patch without checking the geodesics is insufficient, because straight coordinate segments do not generally represent intrinsic minimizing paths.
Curvature affects global geometry and estimates
On a complete simply connected manifold with nonpositive sectional curvature, the Hadamard theorem makes the exponential at each point globally invertible, providing unique minimizing geodesics. This simplifies the global domain issue, but it does not make every Euclidean rate proof valid without checking curvature-dependent distance comparisons or smoothness constants. On positively curved spaces, cut loci and nonunique geodesics can obstruct the same global constructions. Small strongly convex neighborhoods remain useful, provided iterates are kept inside them.
A smooth geodesically convex function on the whole connected compact manifold without boundary must be constant: a maximum exists, its differential vanishes, and convexity makes that critical maximum a global minimum as well. Thus a nonconstant smooth sphere objective cannot be globally geodesically convex on the entire sphere. Convexity claims for sphere problems must restrict the domain or weaken the conclusion. Curvature assumptions, domain size and injectivity restrictions are therefore part of a theorem’s content rather than optional background about the space.
Logarithmic geometry turns multiplicative paths into lines
On the positive real line, equip each tangent with gₓ(ξ,η)=ξη/x². The coordinate u=log x is an isometry to the ordinary real line, so geodesics interpolate log coordinates linearly and all positive reals form one strongly convex domain. Squared distance to a positive reference a is therefore half the square of log(x/a), a globally strongly geodesically convex objective. Its Euclidean second derivative can change sign, illustrating that ambient coordinate convexity and intrinsic convexity are distinct properties.
The metric gradient is x log(x/a), and the exponential map multiplies x by exp(ξ/x). An exponential gradient step consequently multiplies the log error by one minus the step size. In this particular flat logarithmic coordinate, familiar quadratic convergence calculations apply exactly. A normalization retraction or a different metric would define another algorithm. This solvable model offers a useful benchmark for implementations, while its one-dimensional zero curvature should not be used to infer curvature-free global rates for general matrix manifolds.
Work it through
A geometric midpoint reaches the minimizer
Use the logarithmic metric on positive reals and f(x)=log²(x/4)/2. Compute the geodesic midpoint of 1 and 16 and compare its objective with the endpoints. Explain why ordinary-coordinate second derivatives give a different convexity picture.
The geodesic midpoint is √(1·16)=4, the unique minimizer, with objective zero. Both endpoints have objective (log4)²/2, so the midpoint satisfies the geodesic convexity inequality strictly.
Writing u=log x transforms the objective into (u−log4)²/2, whose second derivative is one everywhere. This establishes geodesic strong convexity directly.
In ordinary x coordinates, the second derivative is [1−log(x/4)]/x². It is negative for x>4e, so Euclidean-coordinate convexity fails on the full positive line even though intrinsic convexity holds.
The same objective is globally strongly convex in logarithmic geometry and nonconvex in ordinary coordinates. The metric and path definition determine the relevant statement.
The living notebook
Explore the model
Interactive lab · optimization
Inspect the quadratic log-coordinate error model
For the log error u=log(x/4), the exact exponential-gradient update is uₙ₊₁=(1−η)uₙ. Pause and Reset, then set step size η=0.50,initial x₀=2 in the instrument; interpret its scalar coordinate as u, and predict u₁=1,u₂=0.5. For a fresh comparison Reset and set η=1,x₀=2; predict u₁=0. One Step is one iteration. The instrument solves only its quadratic scalar model; recovering manifold x requires 4exp(u), and it does not simulate general curved geodesic optimization.
- Position x0
- 2
- Objective x²/2
- 2
- Iteration behavior
- Stable step
Gradient descent on f(x) = x²/2: xₙ = (1 − η)ⁿx₀. Playback advances two discrete iterations per second. Values outside |x| ≤ 4 are explicitly reported. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.
Look forAn isometric coordinate can make one geometric problem exactly quadratic, without making every manifold problem Euclidean.
Pause & reason
Check your understanding
Your turn
Try it yourself
For the same logarithmic objective, start at x=16 and take an exponential gradient step of size 1/2. Compute the new x and the factor by which the log error and objective decrease.
Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.
Give me a hint
Insert the metric gradient into Expₓ(−η grad f), then simplify the exponent using log(x/4).
Compare with the solution
The update is x_new=x exp(−(1/2)log(x/4))=√(4x), so x_new=8. The new log error log(8/4)=log2 is half the old log4. Since the objective is half the squared log error, its value decreases by a factor of one quarter. This is an exact consequence of the selected metric and exponential map, rather than a generic guarantee for arbitrary retractions or curved domains.
Keep the idea
Take it with you
- Geodesic convexity is stated on a domain whose connecting geodesics stay inside.
- A positive-semidefinite intrinsic Hessian gives the smooth local convexity test.
- Metric-dependent convexity and curvature-dependent global geometry must be kept explicit.
Read further
Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.
Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.
Lesson not marked complete.