I am interested in the space of real-valued additive function on $[0,1]^d$:
$\mathcal{F}= \{f:[0,1]^d \rightarrow R : f(x)= f_1(x_1)+...+f_d(x_d), f_i \in C^2, i=1,...,d \} $
Obviously there are mapping $H: [0,1]^d \rightarrow [0,1]^d$ such that $f \circ H \in \mathcal{F}$ for any $f\in \mathcal{F}$.
For example:
$H(x)= (h_1(x_1),...,h_d(x_d))$ preserves additivity:
$(f\circ H) (x)= f_1(h_1(x_1))+...+f_d(h_d(x_d))$
is still additive for any $f$.
We could also consider permutations $\pi$ of $H$:
$(f\circ \tilde H) (x)= f_1(h_{\pi(1)}(x_{\pi(1)}))+...+f_d(h_{\pi(d)}(x_{\pi(d)}))$.
I would like to know if there are other maps that can preserve additivity?
I think I have a proof of the following result:
Proposition
The set of maps from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$ that preserve addidivity is the set $H$ of all $h: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\forall i\in \{1, ..., n\}$, $h_i$ (the $i$-th compenent of $h$) only depends on at most one $x_j$.
It is obvious that any $h \in H$ will preserve additivity, to prove the converse, I will use the following lemma:
Lemma
$f : \mathbb{R^n} \to \mathbb{R}$ is additive if and only if $(x, t) \mapsto f(x + t e_i) - f(x)$ does not depend on $x_j$ for $j \neq i$.
(One implication of this lemma is trivial the other a bit more tedious to show)
Proof of the proposition
Let's consider $h \notin H$, so there is $i_0 \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ such that $h_{i_0}$ depends on a least to components of $x$: $x_i$ and $x_j$ (with $i \neq j$). Without loss of generality we can assume that $i_0 = i = 1$. So $h_1$ depends on $x_1$ (meaning it is not constant with respect to $x_1$) and at least one other component of $x$.
Let's suppose that $h$ preserve additivity and get to a contradiction.
For $h$ to preserve additivity, we need that for all $f$ additive, $f ∘ h$ is additive, so using the lemma, for any $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$ and for any additive $f$ : \begin{equation}\forall (t,x) \in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^n, f ∘ h(x + t.e_i) - f ∘ h(x) \text{ does not depend on } x_1, ..,x_{i-1}, x_{i + 1}, .., x_n \tag{$*$} \end{equation} If we write $(*)$ setting $f(x) = x_1$ (which is additive), we get that $h_1$ must be additive (using the lemma). So it means there exists functions $h_{11}, ..., h_{1n}$ such that $$h_1(x) = h_{11}(x_1) + h_{12}(x_2) + \dots +h_{1n}(x_n) = h_{11}(x_1) + h_{1+}(x_2, \dots, x_n)$$ with $h_{1+}(x_2, .., x_n) = h_{12}(x_2) + ..+h_{1n}(x_n)$. Neither $h_{11}$ nor $h_{1+}$ can be constant, otherwise it will violate the hypothesis that $h_1$ depends on $x_1$ and at least one other variable that $x_1$.
Now chosing in $(*)$ $f(x) = x_1 ^2$ (which is additive) and $e_i = e_1$ we get that
\begin{equation} f_{11}(x_1 + t) ^ 2 - f_{11}(x_1)^2 + 2f_{1+}(x_2, ..., x_n)(f_{11}(x_1 + t) - f_{11}(x_1)) \tag{$**$} \end{equation} does not depend on $x_2, ..., x_n$. But since $h_{11}$ is not constant with respect to $x_1$ (by hypthesis) we can fix one $t$ such that $h_{11}(x_1 + t) - h_{11}(x_1) \neq 0$, let's call that it $t(x_1)$ (I guess I'm using the choice axiom here). Setting $t$ to $t(x_1)$ we can write $(**)$ as $A(x_1) + B(x_1) h_{1+}(x_2, ..., x_n)$ with $B(x_1)\neq 0$ and $h_{1+}(x_2,...,x_n)$ not constant: this expression depends on at least one other variable than $x_1$. This is a contradiction since $(**)$ is supposed to depend only on $x_1$.
Hope it is clear enough (and correct), I tried to be as concise as I could...
So the set of additivity preserving maps is just a little bit bigger of the one you wrote, since for example $h(x) = (x_1, x_1, ..., x_1)$ is part of it but it is not a permutation of a function of the form $(h_1(x_1), ..., h_n(x_n))$.